WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.520
 Good afternoon and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session for March 6, 2019.

00:00:07.520 --> 00:00:11.600
 We'll call the meeting to order at 3.05.

00:00:11.600 --> 00:00:18.720
 First items up for discussion and talk is the Item 1A,

00:00:18.720 --> 00:00:25.200
 by pre-tim to hold a discussion and receive information regarding roundabouts and special study areas.

00:00:26.480 --> 00:00:33.120
 Good afternoon, members of the Commission, pre-tim Daeshmuk, City Traffic Engineer,

00:00:33.120 --> 00:00:43.120
 and I will be talking about some of our special projects as well as get an introduction into the roundabouts.

00:00:43.120 --> 00:00:48.480
 What are they and a really a quick brief overview on those.

00:00:48.480 --> 00:00:54.720
 So these are our special projects. I did start with the name of the project and I'll get into what the status is.

00:00:54.720 --> 00:01:00.720
 But as you can see, there are a couple projects in the south side of the city where they're much needed.

00:01:00.720 --> 00:01:08.000
 And the north side, there is one project that's also needed. And how do we come up with these?

00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:17.360
 So these were basically looked at as two areas that are pretty much really growing faster than the rest of the city.

00:01:17.360 --> 00:01:22.400
 Area 1, as you can see, is ahead of area 2 as far as growth is concerned.

00:01:22.400 --> 00:01:29.680
 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.

00:01:29.680 --> 00:01:43.760
 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.

00:01:43.760 --> 00:01:53.200
 So these are the two focus areas pretty much addressing infrastructure needs and deficiencies for existing as well as future.

00:01:53.200 --> 00:01:58.240
 Where are we at with the studies? Area 1, we're currently underway.

00:01:58.240 --> 00:02:06.320
 It's a larger area, Hobson on the north side, 377 on the west side.

00:02:06.320 --> 00:02:14.880
 And then you have Teasley 2181 on the east and going all the way south to Hickory Creek and further south.

00:02:14.880 --> 00:02:27.040
 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,

00:02:27.040 --> 00:02:40.080
 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.

00:02:40.080 --> 00:02:45.120
 So that being said, that'll be our basis of what the traffic growth will be.

00:02:45.120 --> 00:02:52.640
 We'll start projecting that and then laid on the transportation network and see how it actually works.

00:02:52.640 --> 00:02:59.360
 We've already completed the study for FM 428 and here are the results.

00:02:59.360 --> 00:03:05.440
 We looked at a bigger area is almost the city limits on the north side.

00:03:05.440 --> 00:03:12.240
 We have Locust on the west, Loop 288 or a little bit south Loop 288 on the south.

00:03:12.240 --> 00:03:15.640
 And then this side, it's city limits as well.

00:03:15.640 --> 00:03:30.680
 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.

00:03:30.680 --> 00:03:40.040
 So what we did is work with planning to project what is the long term need in this area?

00:03:40.040 --> 00:03:57.520
 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.

00:03:57.520 --> 00:04:12.240
 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.

00:04:12.240 --> 00:04:19.320
 And the ultimate right of way needs to be acquired for six, which at some point it will be a six lane divided facility.

00:04:19.320 --> 00:04:40.200
 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.

00:04:40.200 --> 00:04:46.920
 So if we're meeting them, if we can see, get some funding and get that project going.

00:04:46.920 --> 00:04:55.760
 The others are noted here. There's several four lane divided highways needed in the future and we're talking future being 2040.

00:04:55.760 --> 00:05:03.680
 We projected our volumes all the way to 2040 based on the type of development and interest shown in this area.

00:05:03.680 --> 00:05:07.120
 So these are the recommendations that came out of the study. The study is available.

00:05:07.120 --> 00:05:22.120
 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.

00:05:22.120 --> 00:05:27.840
 The reason we're breaking down into different smaller areas and studying it is because of the need.

00:05:27.840 --> 00:05:45.440
 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.

00:05:45.440 --> 00:05:59.880
 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.

00:05:59.880 --> 00:06:07.640
 It starts at $24.99. The yellow piece we're currently under design between $24.99 and $21.81.

00:06:07.640 --> 00:06:17.680
 We're designing this currently going to construction later this year with a signal at $24.99. So that's currently being worked at.

00:06:17.680 --> 00:06:24.760
 The second portion, which is green, this is under construction. We're starting the utility work right now.

00:06:24.760 --> 00:06:33.520
 They're digging ground. We hired a contractor recently. It was last month that we hired a contractor and we're starting construction.

00:06:33.520 --> 00:06:42.080
 So this will go on for the next 12 months. And then there is a smaller piece here, which is in blue.

00:06:42.080 --> 00:06:55.680
 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.

00:06:55.680 --> 00:07:05.000
 And this section blue will primarily be bridges. It's a large floodplain area that currently the road literally isn't the floodway.

00:07:05.000 --> 00:07:16.560
 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.

00:07:16.560 --> 00:07:26.320
 So long term solution, we need to make sure that it just goes over this floodplain and then connects to FM 1830.

00:07:26.320 --> 00:07:33.640
 The larger project, which is the phase two, goes all the way to 35W.

00:07:33.640 --> 00:07:43.040
 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.

00:07:43.040 --> 00:07:55.120
 So all red will be realigned slightly in this portion and go through at 377, go all the way to 1830.

00:07:55.120 --> 00:08:08.560
 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,

00:08:08.560 --> 00:08:22.840
 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.

00:08:22.840 --> 00:08:34.800
 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.

00:08:34.800 --> 00:08:44.440
 Next project is Ryan Road, much needed widening project between Teasley 2181 and Country Club Drive.

00:08:44.440 --> 00:08:50.680
 It's currently a two lane undivided roadway. There is a school here.

00:08:50.680 --> 00:08:59.480
 This area between Country Club and just past the school is congested during the peak hours in the morning.

00:08:59.480 --> 00:09:06.320
 There is a need in this area. So we have identified this as a critical project.

00:09:06.320 --> 00:09:14.120
 Currently, we do not have funding for this project, but we are looking for ways to fund this project,

00:09:14.120 --> 00:09:21.120
 working with our finance group to see if we can use some impact fees, how we can channel some money.

00:09:21.120 --> 00:09:22.240
 Commissioner Ellis.

00:09:22.240 --> 00:09:28.280
 Thank you, Chair. Every time you called it a critical project, what does that mean within the workings of the city?

00:09:28.280 --> 00:09:34.960
 So critical meaning there is a there is traffic congestion today. It is required.

00:09:34.960 --> 00:09:45.800
 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,

00:09:45.800 --> 00:09:54.440
 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.

00:09:54.440 --> 00:09:59.680
 Yes. Tagging it critical allows possible a different route to funding.

00:09:59.680 --> 00:10:09.680
 Tagging it critical allows it to get on the priority list where, okay, we need funding for these projects that that are needed.

00:10:09.680 --> 00:10:18.560
 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.

00:10:18.560 --> 00:10:28.360
 It's about a two mile project. Excuse me. And currently, it's a two lane without any turning turning lanes in the middle.

00:10:28.360 --> 00:10:34.120
 So we want to get to a point where we get to a six lane divided highway.

00:10:34.120 --> 00:10:38.840
 And we're as I mentioned, we're working with text out to get funding for this particular segment.

00:10:38.840 --> 00:10:40.760
 It is a text off facility, not a city.

00:10:40.760 --> 00:10:41.680
 Commissioner Beck.

00:10:41.680 --> 00:10:47.760
 Thank you, Chair. When you say six line divided, so we'll have a medium in the middle and they'll have left turn.

00:10:47.760 --> 00:10:53.040
 Correct. So it's not going to be three lanes on each side with a center turn line.

00:10:53.040 --> 00:10:55.200
 No, it would be a median.

00:10:55.200 --> 00:10:57.400
 The area would be approximately twenty four feet.

00:10:57.400 --> 00:11:02.160
 I don't know if you can see there. So there will be a median area, continuous median.

00:11:02.160 --> 00:11:09.320
 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.

00:11:09.320 --> 00:11:12.800
 So that's that's the whole this is how it will lay out.

00:11:12.800 --> 00:11:14.920
 This is our federal cross section.

00:11:14.920 --> 00:11:20.440
 Is that a bike lane I see there, too? Correct. So there will be some sort of bike accommodation.

00:11:20.440 --> 00:11:24.440
 It could be a multi use path on the side or it could be a bike lane.

00:11:24.440 --> 00:11:29.520
 So it'll be a combination depending on what kind of speed limits, how what section it is.

00:11:29.520 --> 00:11:38.480
 So we have not decided we've not gotten that far with this particular project.

00:11:38.480 --> 00:11:43.840
 Circular intersections. Now we're moving on to the roundabout portion of it.

00:11:43.840 --> 00:11:49.520
 And there are several types of circular intersections.

00:11:49.520 --> 00:11:54.000
 And I just wanted to start with talking about the difference.

00:11:54.000 --> 00:11:55.760
 What is it? How is it?

00:11:55.760 --> 00:12:02.840
 And get to the modern roundabouts and discuss those a little bit in detail later on.

00:12:02.840 --> 00:12:09.080
 So the types of circular intersections are rotaries, signalized traffic circles.

00:12:09.080 --> 00:12:13.680
 I haven't seen one around here, but there are signalized traffic circles.

00:12:13.680 --> 00:12:18.920
 Neighborhood traffic circles and then modern roundabouts.

00:12:18.920 --> 00:12:22.160
 If if you recall, these are all within the city of Denton,

00:12:22.160 --> 00:12:26.600
 and none of them are consistent with modern roundabout definition.

00:12:26.600 --> 00:12:30.760
 So just wanted to point out that's Teasley at Shady Oaks.

00:12:30.760 --> 00:12:34.880
 I'm sorry. Yeah, Shady Shady Oaks.

00:12:34.880 --> 00:12:41.960
 And then this is these are these two are in Unicorn Lake on the shoreline shoreline drive.

00:12:41.960 --> 00:12:46.520
 So what happened here?

00:12:46.520 --> 00:12:55.000
 OK, so rotary this this type of it is a circle looks like a circular section.

00:12:55.000 --> 00:12:57.080
 Everyone thinks that that's a roundabout.

00:12:57.080 --> 00:13:02.680
 But the way traffic works and functions is slightly different within the rotary.

00:13:02.680 --> 00:13:04.280
 This is how they look.

00:13:04.280 --> 00:13:10.040
 The vehicles coming in, it's much larger area, much larger islands,

00:13:10.040 --> 00:13:18.200
 splitter islands, vehicles have larger distances to cover within the actual circle itself.

00:13:18.200 --> 00:13:20.960
 So it is it is very different.

00:13:20.960 --> 00:13:24.120
 I can get into the circle versus roundabout in the next slide.

00:13:24.120 --> 00:13:27.840
 But I want to show the different types that are not a roundabout.

00:13:27.840 --> 00:13:32.200
 So this is a traffic circle and this is a neighborhood circle.

00:13:32.200 --> 00:13:35.520
 These are all circles. These are not roundabouts.

00:13:35.520 --> 00:13:38.720
 So what is the difference?

00:13:38.720 --> 00:13:41.920
 The difference is for a roundabout, when you're entering,

00:13:41.920 --> 00:13:45.920
 you're yielding to the vehicles that are already in the roundabout.

00:13:45.920 --> 00:13:49.360
 So someone's traveling, someone's already here and traveling here.

00:13:49.360 --> 00:13:55.520
 The vehicle entering has to yield for them to pass and then they can enter in circular

00:13:55.520 --> 00:13:57.640
 in other circles or traffic circles.

00:13:57.640 --> 00:14:05.080
 You can actually vehicles that are entering circulating stop for vehicles that are entering.

00:14:05.080 --> 00:14:12.440
 So these people that are moving around the circle literally stop so that these people can enter.

00:14:12.440 --> 00:14:14.840
 Then you can park around the circle.

00:14:14.840 --> 00:14:17.600
 If you have a park in the middle, you can actually park around the circle.

00:14:17.600 --> 00:14:21.760
 So that is this is slightly different than what we have here.

00:14:21.760 --> 00:14:26.480
 I think that this one's from Fort Worth, this picture.

00:14:26.480 --> 00:14:32.560
 So this is the primary difference between the roundabouts and circle.

00:14:32.560 --> 00:14:34.360
 What is a modern roundabout?

00:14:34.360 --> 00:14:40.800
 So it is a circular intersection, but within the circular intersection,

00:14:40.800 --> 00:14:44.440
 traffic flows counterclockwise along these arrows.

00:14:44.440 --> 00:14:48.920
 So you enter in, go around, and then turn left.

00:14:48.920 --> 00:14:52.080
 This is the left turn movement that you'll be doing.

00:14:52.080 --> 00:14:56.800
 So as I mentioned earlier, traffic that is entering yields to the traffic

00:14:56.800 --> 00:14:59.400
 that is actually within the circle.

00:14:59.400 --> 00:15:05.040
 These approaches are really channelized, so anyone that is flying in at 40,

00:15:05.040 --> 00:15:08.960
 45 miles an hour has to slow down because of this angle.

00:15:08.960 --> 00:15:13.360
 Because you see this island in the middle, you have to literally hit your brakes

00:15:13.360 --> 00:15:18.520
 and this curve makes sure that that vehicle goes down to almost 15 miles an hour.

00:15:18.520 --> 00:15:21.400
 So that's the yield approach.

00:15:21.400 --> 00:15:22.880
 >> Mr. Beck.

00:15:22.880 --> 00:15:25.680
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:15:25.680 --> 00:15:30.320
 Is this-- they've got that one roundabout over there off of Unicorn Lake,

00:15:30.320 --> 00:15:31.280
 that's the only one I've seen.

00:15:31.280 --> 00:15:34.880
 But, you know, you go online and you see, like, over in Indy

00:15:34.880 --> 00:15:37.760
 and these other things look maddening when you get on there.

00:15:37.760 --> 00:15:44.280
 But in something like this, when you get in, is that inside lane the one you stay in

00:15:44.280 --> 00:15:49.440
 until you're going to exit, say if you're going to come all the way around there,

00:15:49.440 --> 00:15:55.160
 you can actually get on without slowing down because--

00:15:55.160 --> 00:16:00.280
 >> Can you-- is there a lane when you're coming into it, the others?

00:16:00.280 --> 00:16:00.560
 >> Yes.

00:16:00.560 --> 00:16:02.600
 >> It's an open lane where you can get in and not have to--

00:16:02.600 --> 00:16:04.160
 >> So I'll talk about it.

00:16:04.160 --> 00:16:07.640
 This is a two-lane roundabout.

00:16:07.640 --> 00:16:13.680
 So as the markings tell you, both these lanes actually have lane assignment.

00:16:13.680 --> 00:16:19.480
 So the inner lane is the lane that you can either go straight, that's what it says,

00:16:19.480 --> 00:16:23.640
 or you can go all the way and make this left going to this intersection.

00:16:23.640 --> 00:16:28.600
 The outer lane is only for going straight through traffic.

00:16:28.600 --> 00:16:31.040
 So that's the way this roundabout is set up.

00:16:31.040 --> 00:16:37.760
 So there are lane markings that actually channelize it and there's a lot

00:16:37.760 --> 00:16:39.560
 of signage before you get to a roundabout.

00:16:39.560 --> 00:16:43.760
 And it's more of a-- on the learning side that a lot of these roundabouts need

00:16:43.760 --> 00:16:46.680
 to be signed appropriately so that people understand.

00:16:46.680 --> 00:16:52.680
 Some of them are not and the ones on Unicorn Lake are absolutely not signed appropriately.

00:16:52.680 --> 00:16:59.480
 But that's the lane assignment and then hopefully that addresses your question.

00:16:59.480 --> 00:17:04.440
 And then the approaches that are channelized as I mentioned and the main reason is

00:17:04.440 --> 00:17:08.520
 to just slow vehicles down when they reach the intersection.

00:17:08.520 --> 00:17:15.520
 So deflected entry, that's one of the main focuses of a roundabout is this island.

00:17:15.520 --> 00:17:20.840
 Anyone that's traveling on this particular street or arterial,

00:17:20.840 --> 00:17:24.240
 they can be flying through an intersection if there's a--

00:17:24.240 --> 00:17:28.000
 say for example, this is a signalized intersection and you see green.

00:17:28.000 --> 00:17:33.280
 You are literally flying through the intersection of 30, 40, 50 miles an hour and not stopping.

00:17:33.280 --> 00:17:40.600
 But if you have a roundabout that creates a traffic calming within a street so that you have

00:17:40.600 --> 00:17:44.840
 to reduce your speed, you have to slow and you can see the deflection angle.

00:17:44.840 --> 00:17:49.480
 If you don't slow down, you're literally going to hit the islands and go straight.

00:17:49.480 --> 00:17:52.400
 But you have to slow down, go with the flow.

00:17:52.400 --> 00:17:59.880
 So that is the main idea behind this island to deflect traffic and control the speed.

00:17:59.880 --> 00:18:02.360
 There we go.

00:18:02.360 --> 00:18:07.000
 A little bit of animation going there.

00:18:07.000 --> 00:18:12.160
 The second thing is yield control which means you come at that intersection,

00:18:12.160 --> 00:18:14.600
 you don't have to necessarily stop.

00:18:14.600 --> 00:18:18.960
 If you are at a signalized intersection, you could be waiting there

00:18:18.960 --> 00:18:23.320
 on a red light for 20, 30, 40 seconds, easy.

00:18:23.320 --> 00:18:29.160
 And in case of roundabout, you come at this intersection, it could be a large intersection,

00:18:29.160 --> 00:18:35.000
 you still have almost zero to a few second wait, just you have to wait only

00:18:35.000 --> 00:18:36.280
 to see if your path is clear.

00:18:36.280 --> 00:18:38.960
 If a vehicle passes, you can get behind them.

00:18:38.960 --> 00:18:44.400
 Everyone is driving slowly, so everyone's 15, 20 miles an hour, no higher speeds.

00:18:44.400 --> 00:18:47.120
 It's a very quick in and out.

00:18:47.120 --> 00:18:51.300
 You're only looking at one direction, you're not looking at different direction,

00:18:51.300 --> 00:18:55.440
 left turns, any other conflict, and I'll get to that advantages.

00:18:55.440 --> 00:19:02.160
 But that's why this helps continuous flow of traffic through the intersection.

00:19:02.160 --> 00:19:06.000
 And then the splitter islands definitely slow traffic down, that's another.

00:19:06.000 --> 00:19:09.640
 The other thing for splitter islands, and this roundabout doesn't show it,

00:19:09.640 --> 00:19:13.000
 is it provides a refuge for pedestrian.

00:19:13.000 --> 00:19:17.680
 So anyone that wants to cross only looks at one lane, crosses, waits,

00:19:17.680 --> 00:19:19.400
 look for the other, and then cross.

00:19:19.400 --> 00:19:23.640
 So it creates a much safer, you're not looking at four different directions,

00:19:23.640 --> 00:19:26.640
 you're not looking at vehicles that are turning left,

00:19:26.640 --> 00:19:28.440
 turning right from different directions.

00:19:28.440 --> 00:19:33.520
 So that's why roundabouts are much safer for pedestrians.

00:19:33.520 --> 00:19:35.520
 And then the last component is the truck apron.

00:19:35.520 --> 00:19:40.520
 So those large vehicles can actually make that turn.

00:19:40.520 --> 00:19:45.160
 Smaller vehicles are required to stay within this lane, but this apron is

00:19:45.160 --> 00:19:49.720
 for large vehicles that they can actually, the rear wheels can actually drive over it.

00:19:49.720 --> 00:19:54.440
 So this is a surmountable curb, which is approximately, it starts at one inch

00:19:54.440 --> 00:19:57.600
 and goes all the way to three inches, and this is a full six inch depth.

00:19:57.600 --> 00:20:03.240
 So that's the way they design these aprons, is if there is a large truck making a U-turn,

00:20:03.240 --> 00:20:07.800
 making a left turn is not an issue through the intersection.

00:20:07.800 --> 00:20:09.880
 And this is probably my last slide.

00:20:09.880 --> 00:20:11.800
 It's advantages of roundabout.

00:20:11.800 --> 00:20:17.080
 So I really want to point out to this picture, if you look at this intersection,

00:20:17.080 --> 00:20:20.880
 look at the number of conflict points that you can have

00:20:20.880 --> 00:20:24.400
 with different vehicles making turns, going through the intersection.

00:20:24.400 --> 00:20:29.040
 There are 32 conflict points between vehicles themselves,

00:20:29.040 --> 00:20:32.440
 and then 24 pedestrian conflict zones.

00:20:32.440 --> 00:20:34.560
 This is just a regular intersection.

00:20:34.560 --> 00:20:38.760
 It could be stopped control, it could be uncontrolled, it could be signalized,

00:20:38.760 --> 00:20:41.240
 but there are that many conflict points.

00:20:41.240 --> 00:20:45.960
 In a roundabout, you're talking about eight conflict points on both counts

00:20:45.960 --> 00:20:50.200
 between the vehicles and between pedestrians and vehicles.

00:20:50.200 --> 00:20:53.920
 And the other thing I want to point out is most

00:20:53.920 --> 00:21:00.520
 of these conflicts are side swipe at 15 to 20 miles an hour, which is really low speed.

00:21:00.520 --> 00:21:04.560
 These conflicts, you could be talking about right angle crashes at high speeds

00:21:04.560 --> 00:21:09.400
 because other folks are going faster through the intersection, probably get a green light

00:21:09.400 --> 00:21:16.760
 or running the yellow light, and then, so this is how much of a conflict reduction there is,

00:21:16.760 --> 00:21:19.240
 just to begin on the geometry basis.

00:21:19.240 --> 00:21:23.000
 And then, as I mentioned, I think I touched on everything,

00:21:23.000 --> 00:21:26.800
 pedestrian and vehicular safety is higher.

00:21:26.800 --> 00:21:31.200
 It eliminates left turn or head on or T-bone collisions.

00:21:31.200 --> 00:21:37.680
 This is what I talked about a little bit, but there's a little bit of data behind this.

00:21:37.680 --> 00:21:40.080
 This is from the FHW website.

00:21:40.080 --> 00:21:44.360
 There is a crash reduction, 90% reduction in fatal crashes.

00:21:44.360 --> 00:21:48.680
 Since everyone is slowing down, they're not traveling at high speeds,

00:21:48.680 --> 00:21:52.600
 and then 51% reduction in injury and 37 overall.

00:21:52.600 --> 00:21:56.080
 So there are a lot of benefits to a roundabout,

00:21:56.080 --> 00:22:02.400
 and the last one actually is interesting.

00:22:02.400 --> 00:22:05.200
 It's, you can actually have a landmark.

00:22:05.200 --> 00:22:11.640
 You can point or make it an entrance to a community, entrance to an area and mark it.

00:22:11.640 --> 00:22:20.240
 And I think that's it, but I do want to say one last thing is we are going out to bid

00:22:20.240 --> 00:22:29.520
 for construction for a roundabout for Bonnebray and Scripter so that it'll go out to bid this week

00:22:29.520 --> 00:22:32.720
 or early next week, which means the construction should begin in the next two

00:22:32.720 --> 00:22:36.080
 to three months for Scripter and Bonnebray.

00:22:36.080 --> 00:22:36.880
 >> Chris, you're back.

00:22:36.880 --> 00:22:37.920
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:22:37.920 --> 00:22:43.920
 So are you presenting this to us because this is something that the city has got a direction

00:22:43.920 --> 00:22:47.560
 in and future roads will probably see a lot more of these?

00:22:47.560 --> 00:22:48.440
 >> Correct.

00:22:48.440 --> 00:22:49.360
 I'm presenting it.

00:22:49.360 --> 00:22:56.480
 This is our, I would say I want to say it's a start on RN, on the public outreach effort,

00:22:56.480 --> 00:23:02.120
 on the education effort campaign to introduce this particular concept

00:23:02.120 --> 00:23:06.400
 around about two different forums, get feedback.

00:23:06.400 --> 00:23:09.160
 It's more of a learning and educating process.

00:23:09.160 --> 00:23:14.400
 So we have started, we started with our internal departments.

00:23:14.400 --> 00:23:19.960
 We have already met with fire and police department, gone over their concerns.

00:23:19.960 --> 00:23:24.120
 We've also installed a temporary roundabout within our service center.

00:23:24.120 --> 00:23:30.920
 If you guys want to come in and check it out, that would be fantastic, but we had fire department

00:23:30.920 --> 00:23:35.320
 with their fire engine out there checking out a roundabout, driving through it.

00:23:35.320 --> 00:23:36.440
 So--

00:23:36.440 --> 00:23:40.240
 >> Is this something that we're going to focus maybe on the busy intersections?

00:23:40.240 --> 00:23:43.880
 We're not-- this isn't going to be an every corner thing, obviously.

00:23:43.880 --> 00:23:44.760
 >> No, no.

00:23:44.760 --> 00:23:49.680
 We are going through-- we're going to go through a intersection evaluation process

00:23:49.680 --> 00:23:56.320
 and if it really requires it, then we'll use this as one of our toolbox, not just signal.

00:23:56.320 --> 00:23:57.840
 Let's just drop a signal everywhere.

00:23:57.840 --> 00:24:02.240
 That's-- that won't be our-- moving forward, that won't be the way we'll work.

00:24:02.240 --> 00:24:04.000
 We'll look at different options.

00:24:04.000 --> 00:24:09.600
 And if roundabout fits in which really fit in well for the Bonnie Bray and scripture location,

00:24:09.600 --> 00:24:13.280
 then we will recommend some of these going forward with our capital projects.

00:24:13.280 --> 00:24:17.640
 >> And did I hear you right that we're not dealing with traffic signals on roundabouts?

00:24:17.640 --> 00:24:18.080
 >> No.

00:24:18.080 --> 00:24:18.320
 >> Okay.

00:24:18.320 --> 00:24:19.680
 >> There are no signals.

00:24:19.680 --> 00:24:20.800
 >> Okay. Thanks.

00:24:20.800 --> 00:24:23.040
 >> Commissioner Sanchez.

00:24:23.040 --> 00:24:23.880
 >> Yes, sir.

00:24:23.880 --> 00:24:31.720
 >> As far as roundabouts, I mean, one of the big issues we get every two weeks from people is traffic.

00:24:31.720 --> 00:24:34.800
 I mean, and that's-- you know, it's not going to get any better.

00:24:34.800 --> 00:24:39.120
 As it then grows, traffic is going to continue to increase.

00:24:39.120 --> 00:24:45.840
 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.

00:24:45.840 --> 00:24:48.120
 You know, and so that's really frustrating.

00:24:48.120 --> 00:24:53.480
 But as far as roundabouts, I mean, some other cities have already looked at them.

00:24:53.480 --> 00:25:00.840
 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.

00:25:00.840 --> 00:25:09.080
 You know, once people get educated from, you know, what they are, how to approach them, how to use them, people start liking them.

00:25:09.080 --> 00:25:18.080
 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--

00:25:18.080 --> 00:25:26.880
 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.

00:25:26.880 --> 00:25:32.840
 Why do we continue to wait when other places have already decided, hey, it's working?

00:25:32.840 --> 00:25:37.600
 You know, why do we have to continue doing studies when those things have already been proven that they work?

00:25:37.600 --> 00:25:47.320
 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.

00:25:47.320 --> 00:25:56.360
 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.

00:25:56.360 --> 00:26:06.120
 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.

00:26:06.120 --> 00:26:09.120
 And this-- we're not-- traffic's not going to get any better.

00:26:09.120 --> 00:26:13.000
 We need to look at which is the best avenue.

00:26:13.000 --> 00:26:21.640
 The cost may be high at the beginning, but when you look at the statistics, I mean, it's well worth it.

00:26:21.640 --> 00:26:23.480
 >> Yeah, I totally agree.

00:26:23.480 --> 00:26:33.760
 And to your point of starting at the bottom, we-- so Fort Worth started the program about 10 or 12 years ago.

00:26:33.760 --> 00:26:44.840
 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.

00:26:44.840 --> 00:26:59.960
 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,

00:26:59.960 --> 00:27:15.800
 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.

00:27:15.800 --> 00:27:18.920
 And they've really faced a lot of backlash.

00:27:18.920 --> 00:27:25.160
 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,

00:27:25.160 --> 00:27:32.240
 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.

00:27:32.240 --> 00:27:35.600
 We're also deploying some of them in neighborhoods as well.

00:27:35.600 --> 00:27:39.480
 Right now, we're designing one at Hinkle and Mimosa.

00:27:39.480 --> 00:27:49.480
 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.

00:27:49.480 --> 00:28:01.360
 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.

00:28:01.360 --> 00:28:07.360
 So that will be implemented as part of our Hinkle project, which is starting construction pretty soon.

00:28:07.360 --> 00:28:17.080
 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.

00:28:17.080 --> 00:28:23.320
 >> Yeah, I just want to say is, you know, anything change like this, people are afraid, but it doesn't take that long.

00:28:23.320 --> 00:28:28.520
 Once they realize the benefits, it's like, hey, why weren't we doing it 20 years ago?

00:28:28.520 --> 00:28:32.080
 I mean, these aren't nothing new, you know.

00:28:32.080 --> 00:28:40.680
 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.

00:28:40.680 --> 00:28:43.080
 It's just a matter of people just being afraid to use them.

00:28:43.080 --> 00:28:45.960
 The cost would probably be the most prohibited thing at first.

00:28:45.960 --> 00:28:55.800
 >> 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.

00:28:55.800 --> 00:28:56.480
 Any other questions?

00:28:56.480 --> 00:28:57.640
 >> Mr. Beck.

00:28:57.640 --> 00:28:58.120
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:28:58.120 --> 00:29:01.760
 One quick question, going back to Hickory Creek.

00:29:01.760 --> 00:29:11.880
 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?

00:29:11.880 --> 00:29:13.240
 >> We are still working on that.

00:29:13.240 --> 00:29:13.960
 We have not.

00:29:13.960 --> 00:29:20.560
 So one of the first steps to get there is our schematic phase, 30% design.

00:29:20.560 --> 00:29:28.760
 Once we have a final alignment, at that point, we can then start approaching all these property owners with, hey, here's our alignment.

00:29:28.760 --> 00:29:34.360
 And then go with partial maps and the surveying associated with it to create some legal documents.

00:29:34.360 --> 00:29:38.880
 And we can go and acquire these properties, but we're still in the preliminary phases.

00:29:38.880 --> 00:29:42.200
 >> Okay, good, thanks.

00:29:42.200 --> 00:29:48.920
 >> President, the only question I have is, can you clarify why the three roundabouts you showed in our city currently are not roundabouts?

00:29:48.920 --> 00:29:59.680
 >> Yes, so this definitely is not, because the treatment on this particular end doesn't exist.

00:29:59.680 --> 00:30:02.240
 They attempted in putting a splitter island.

00:30:02.240 --> 00:30:03.560
 There is no island.

00:30:03.560 --> 00:30:05.840
 The lane assignment does not work.

00:30:07.000 --> 00:30:12.760
 One of the issues with these two is there is no deflection associated with these splitter islands.

00:30:12.760 --> 00:30:17.040
 So they are not actually reducing speed for any of these oncoming traffic.

00:30:17.040 --> 00:30:18.800
 It just goes straight.

00:30:18.800 --> 00:30:23.280
 A lot of people just breeze through the intersection without even noticing.

00:30:23.280 --> 00:30:28.160
 And Richard is laughing because he's probably done that, that he just.

00:30:28.160 --> 00:30:30.800
 >> [LAUGH]

00:30:30.800 --> 00:30:34.440
 >> Yeah, you just breeze through this like a regular intersection.

00:30:34.440 --> 00:30:38.920
 So it doesn't force, these islands don't force you to come in at an angle.

00:30:38.920 --> 00:30:43.680
 So typically when a roundabout is designed, this approach or

00:30:43.680 --> 00:30:48.240
 any approach has to be off centered, so the center of the island.

00:30:48.240 --> 00:30:52.920
 So this approach has to be directed this way, away from the center.

00:30:52.920 --> 00:30:55.600
 But in this case, the approach goes straight through the intersection.

00:30:55.600 --> 00:31:01.160
 So these were not designed to reduce speeds, and they were probably designed by,

00:31:01.160 --> 00:31:05.880
 so I think the developer designed them, so it's not.

00:31:05.880 --> 00:31:07.200
 >> Gotcha.

00:31:07.200 --> 00:31:10.800
 >> This is probably just an attempt to fix a location.

00:31:10.800 --> 00:31:14.000
 It's not necessarily a full roundabout design here.

00:31:14.000 --> 00:31:14.500
 >> Yeah.

00:31:14.500 --> 00:31:18.240
 Any other questions for this presentation?

00:31:18.240 --> 00:31:21.320
 Great.

00:31:21.320 --> 00:31:26.000
 The next item for business is 1B, which is also pre-timmed,

00:31:26.000 --> 00:31:29.960
 to receive an update on the master thoroughfare mobility plan.

00:31:29.960 --> 00:31:31.520
 Is that similar, or is that different?

00:31:31.520 --> 00:31:35.800
 >> I have- >> It was just where we are in the process.

00:31:35.800 --> 00:31:37.600
 >> Okay, so a quick update.

00:31:37.600 --> 00:31:38.920
 I don't have a presentation on that one.

00:31:38.920 --> 00:31:39.480
 >> Perfect.

00:31:39.480 --> 00:31:40.680
 >> [LAUGH]

00:31:40.680 --> 00:31:41.600
 >> Even better.

00:31:41.600 --> 00:31:42.720
 >> Quicker the better.

00:31:42.720 --> 00:31:47.960
 So for the mobility plan, there are three elements that we're focusing on.

00:31:47.960 --> 00:31:51.240
 It is the master thoroughfare plan for all the street network.

00:31:51.240 --> 00:31:57.320
 Then the second is bicycle plan, and third is pedestrian plan.

00:31:57.320 --> 00:32:01.520
 Those three combined will form our mobility plan.

00:32:01.520 --> 00:32:04.920
 It will be a single document, and

00:32:04.920 --> 00:32:11.160
 the last missing piece that goes with the plan itself will be our roadway impact fees.

00:32:11.160 --> 00:32:15.120
 We currently have a mobility plan and the roadway impact fee, but

00:32:15.120 --> 00:32:18.000
 we are changing so much around in the city.

00:32:18.000 --> 00:32:21.480
 Land use is changing, the traffic demand is changing, and

00:32:21.480 --> 00:32:24.080
 then some of the layout for street network will change.

00:32:24.080 --> 00:32:28.960
 So we have to update the mobility plan and then in conjunction to that,

00:32:28.960 --> 00:32:31.840
 we'll be updating the roadway impact fee as well.

00:32:31.840 --> 00:32:34.720
 Currently, the RFQ is out in the street, so

00:32:34.720 --> 00:32:39.440
 I think it closes towards the end of the month.

00:32:39.440 --> 00:32:43.680
 We will then select a consultant to get them on board, and

00:32:43.680 --> 00:32:48.600
 then they'll work through all these different plans pretty much hand in hand

00:32:48.600 --> 00:32:53.120
 with the planning group to understand what is the land use that is really driving

00:32:53.120 --> 00:32:55.680
 the need for all of this transportation infrastructure.

00:32:55.680 --> 00:33:00.600
 So once we have the land use information that will be used as a backup to create

00:33:00.600 --> 00:33:05.120
 the traffic numbers to see what kind of infrastructure we need as far as

00:33:05.120 --> 00:33:06.400
 transportation is concerned.

00:33:06.400 --> 00:33:09.880
 So I think it's a 12-month process.

00:33:09.880 --> 00:33:14.280
 Once we hire someone, by next March we should definitely add something, but

00:33:14.280 --> 00:33:17.920
 the first draft should be out end of this year by December.

00:33:17.920 --> 00:33:19.880
 >> Great, any questions on update?

00:33:21.520 --> 00:33:23.720
 Preetan, thanks for being here, super helpful, thank you.

00:33:23.720 --> 00:33:30.640
 The next item of business is item 1C, which is to receive a report and

00:33:30.640 --> 00:33:35.560
 discussion on the development code update and zoning map.

00:33:35.560 --> 00:33:38.680
 And Ron Maguita is here to present.

00:33:38.680 --> 00:33:42.620
 >> Thank you, Chair, if you can give us a couple minutes to set up real quick.

00:33:42.620 --> 00:33:43.120
 >> Absolutely.

00:33:51.520 --> 00:34:01.520
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

00:34:21.520 --> 00:34:31.520
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

00:34:51.520 --> 00:35:10.840
 >> All right, it's gonna be me, Solo, this afternoon.

00:35:10.840 --> 00:35:18.760
 But we have another opportunity to discuss the DEN code update.

00:35:20.040 --> 00:35:22.120
 The chapters that we will be discussing.

00:35:22.120 --> 00:35:35.640
 This afternoon will be more or less a continuation of sub-chapter three.

00:35:35.640 --> 00:35:40.520
 I know we spoke about the districts.

00:35:40.520 --> 00:35:45.160
 This also gives the committee an opportunity to ask additional question on

00:35:45.160 --> 00:35:48.000
 the zoning map as it relates to sub-chapter three.

00:35:49.280 --> 00:35:55.320
 But primarily we are going to get into the land uses,

00:35:55.320 --> 00:36:04.040
 the allowed land uses, and following that we'll go into sub-chapter four if we have time.

00:36:04.040 --> 00:36:12.880
 So, do you all have any questions on the zoning districts?

00:36:12.880 --> 00:36:17.400
 I know we talked about it last P&Z work session last week.

00:36:17.400 --> 00:36:20.440
 I was trying to think when we met.

00:36:20.440 --> 00:36:23.320
 We went through it very methodically, and

00:36:23.320 --> 00:36:28.000
 then I think we got into some discussion on some of the lane uses.

00:36:28.000 --> 00:36:32.680
 This is probably one of the most important part of the development code in my opinion.

00:36:32.680 --> 00:36:37.080
 So, we want to spend time with this section.

00:36:37.080 --> 00:36:41.760
 And if you're looking at your draft, it is sub-chapter five.

00:36:41.760 --> 00:36:44.880
 If there's nothing that we want to discuss about the zoning map,

00:36:45.920 --> 00:36:48.480
 we can go into sub-chapter five.

00:36:48.480 --> 00:36:55.160
 I do want to mention that we will be meeting with the Development Code Review Committee

00:36:55.160 --> 00:36:57.720
 on certain aspects of the draft zoning map.

00:36:57.720 --> 00:37:03.520
 I know we had a long discussion about it last Plying Zoning Commission.

00:37:03.520 --> 00:37:07.280
 We've put together a list of items that we will be discussing.

00:37:07.280 --> 00:37:12.680
 So again, there will be another series of discussions with the committee.

00:37:12.680 --> 00:37:18.920
 But we certainly would like to hear from you all, and get your input on the zoning districts,

00:37:18.920 --> 00:37:21.400
 the zoning map, and of course, the allowed uses.

00:37:21.400 --> 00:37:23.560
 So that's what we're here for.

00:37:23.560 --> 00:37:29.160
 I don't plan on going, I'm sorry, that was our map.

00:37:29.160 --> 00:37:34.160
 That was our earlier slide that we discussed last week, but this is the actual discussion.

00:37:34.160 --> 00:37:41.280
 Again, sub-chapter four, we will discuss, but I really want to focus on sub-chapter five

00:37:41.280 --> 00:37:43.160
 this afternoon in the beginning.

00:37:43.160 --> 00:37:43.920
 >> Commissioner Beck.

00:37:43.920 --> 00:37:49.840
 >> As far as the map goes, Ron, thank you, Chair, and I wasn't here last week, obviously.

00:37:49.840 --> 00:37:59.080
 But I know a couple of the commissioners raised the point about how we had rezoned some of the RD5X,

00:37:59.080 --> 00:38:05.720
 just as a generic, are we going to look a little bit closer at being more specific on that zoning?

00:38:05.720 --> 00:38:07.120
 >> Yes, that is the-

00:38:07.120 --> 00:38:08.800
 >> Do we need to discuss that today, or is that going to be-

00:38:08.800 --> 00:38:15.840
 >> No, no, that's a good, I mean, as I mentioned earlier, we will be discussing that with the committee.

00:38:15.840 --> 00:38:19.560
 However, we are here with the Planning Zoning Commission, so we want to hear from you as well.

00:38:19.560 --> 00:38:28.360
 So not to, you know, take it to the committee, but we plan on sharing with the committee.

00:38:28.360 --> 00:38:34.960
 And we are prepared to share that with you as well, that the identified parcels,

00:38:34.960 --> 00:38:43.360
 Cody can help me with this one, that we've identified that are going to be non-conforming based on the zoning of RR.

00:38:43.360 --> 00:38:49.400
 That will be below the minimum lot area of five acres.

00:38:49.400 --> 00:38:55.800
 We show about 867 of those parcels.

00:38:55.800 --> 00:38:57.720
 >> That are going to be zoned RR?

00:38:57.720 --> 00:39:04.920
 >> That are currently shown on our draft map that are zoned RR and are less than five acres.

00:39:04.920 --> 00:39:06.160
 >> Okay.

00:39:06.160 --> 00:39:15.440
 >> And so the question to the commission and also to the committee is that, how do we want to handle this?

00:39:15.440 --> 00:39:23.000
 Do we want to look at those properties that are less than five acres and

00:39:23.000 --> 00:39:29.280
 assign them the zoning district where they will be conforming as far as the lot coverage?

00:39:29.280 --> 00:39:40.080
 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.

00:39:40.080 --> 00:39:47.040
 There's other zoning districts that have resulted in the same similar situation.

00:39:47.040 --> 00:39:50.640
 Let's use R2 or R1 for example.

00:39:50.640 --> 00:39:54.920
 The minimum lot area there is 32,000 square feet.

00:39:54.920 --> 00:40:03.040
 There may be some zoning districts that will result in a non-conforming status as far as minimum lot area.

00:40:03.040 --> 00:40:07.240
 So right now, what I believe Cody has up are those zoning, I'm sorry,

00:40:07.240 --> 00:40:15.640
 are those parcels that are below five acres that are shown on our draft zoning map as RR?

00:40:19.840 --> 00:40:29.840
 >> 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?

00:40:29.840 --> 00:40:30.360
 No.

00:40:30.360 --> 00:40:38.080
 >> There has not been direction from PNZ of specific areas to look at more directly,

00:40:38.080 --> 00:40:47.000
 apart from those 851 that have been identified as RR that are below the required lot size.

00:40:48.640 --> 00:40:52.760
 >> Okay. >> If that makes sense.

00:40:52.760 --> 00:40:57.040
 >> Those are areas we can't look at and zone them specifically?

00:40:57.040 --> 00:40:59.800
 >> No, that's as specific as PNZ got last week.

00:40:59.800 --> 00:41:10.440
 >> Okay. >> Was to bring up the fact that 851 or 78% of all RR areas will be under the new codes requirement.

00:41:10.440 --> 00:41:14.200
 >> Okay. >> For new development, right.

00:41:14.200 --> 00:41:20.800
 >> Okay, but they're currently, as it stands with the draft zoning map, RR right now, right?

00:41:20.800 --> 00:41:25.280
 >> Correct. >> And there's clearly some areas in there that I think we feel or

00:41:25.280 --> 00:41:28.840
 some of us feel that we should be more specific going in.

00:41:28.840 --> 00:41:33.480
 And the one that just comes to mind to me is the development that didn't go through or

00:41:33.480 --> 00:41:43.560
 maybe did go through off of Hickory Creek where there's already, I believe, an R2 and an R in one area.

00:41:43.560 --> 00:41:48.280
 And then you've got this empty area, we've made RR, and I believe there's R3 to the south of it.

00:41:48.280 --> 00:41:53.240
 >> Larry, if you can kind of help Cody get there, and I've got a pointer if we need to.

00:41:53.240 --> 00:41:57.800
 >> Yeah, what was the- >> It's right, I think it's right by 2499 in Robinson.

00:41:57.800 --> 00:42:01.080
 >> Yeah, it's off Hickory Creek.

00:42:01.080 --> 00:42:02.280
 >> Right there, yep, right there.

00:42:02.280 --> 00:42:04.120
 Ron's on it.

00:42:04.120 --> 00:42:07.040
 >> Is that the one you're talking about?

00:42:07.040 --> 00:42:09.400
 >> It was just lit up RR.

00:42:09.400 --> 00:42:11.320
 >> Okay, all that green is RR, right?

00:42:11.320 --> 00:42:18.040
 >> Right, and so currently it is zone RR because it was recently, or

00:42:18.040 --> 00:42:21.880
 annexed as part of the 2010 zoning annexation.

00:42:21.880 --> 00:42:28.680
 It does not have a zoning district, it defaults to an RD5X.

00:42:28.680 --> 00:42:37.560
 The staff initially had that proposed to be zoned in close to what the zoning districts are in the area.

00:42:37.560 --> 00:42:42.440
 I believe it was in R4 because you see R4, I'm sorry, R4 in the area.

00:42:42.440 --> 00:42:47.600
 >> Now actually, go on Hickory Creek, go west on Hickory Creek.

00:42:47.600 --> 00:42:53.100
 Okay, before you get to, yeah, right in there.

00:42:53.100 --> 00:42:56.600
 Look what you, now the, what is that light green, is that?

00:42:56.600 --> 00:42:58.080
 >> That would be RR.

00:42:58.080 --> 00:43:03.440
 >> Okay, and if you look to the north, we have R3, is that correct?

00:43:03.440 --> 00:43:06.880
 And to the east is R4.

00:43:06.880 --> 00:43:13.680
 So it seems obvious that we need something along R3, R4 there.

00:43:13.680 --> 00:43:21.440
 It's rather than leaving RR, just simply because the people that are already living there need to know what to expect.

00:43:21.440 --> 00:43:27.800
 That's usually the arguments we get, something's left open and somebody comes in and wants to do something more intense.

00:43:27.800 --> 00:43:30.000
 Starts considering R6 or something like that.

00:43:30.000 --> 00:43:35.360
 So this would be an area we'd want to protect and get zoned specifically.

00:43:35.360 --> 00:43:40.480
 And I'd like to hear any arguments opposed to that, but if we don't have a consensus,

00:43:40.480 --> 00:43:46.160
 we don't have direction to move that thought forward.

00:43:46.160 --> 00:43:48.560
 Maybe that's something we need to do here.

00:43:48.560 --> 00:43:55.000
 >> I know I can give you one, and that is when you bring an area in under annexation and

00:43:55.000 --> 00:43:59.760
 there's no particular proposal for development, you don't know what's going to go in there.

00:43:59.760 --> 00:44:08.720
 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.

00:44:08.720 --> 00:44:17.440
 And so you set forth where you think it's going to go in that future land use map,

00:44:17.440 --> 00:44:26.200
 but you don't bias the development higher than by shooting wrong or guessing wrong.

00:44:26.200 --> 00:44:34.040
 Because if you zone it too high, then nobody's going to want to come in and use it for a lesser use.

00:44:34.040 --> 00:44:40.600
 >> 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,

00:44:40.600 --> 00:44:45.320
 there's still that opportunity for a developer to come in and ask for a zone change request on that, right?

00:44:45.320 --> 00:44:50.840
 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.

00:44:50.840 --> 00:44:55.680
 >> But are they going to do that, let's say that we shoot too high.

00:44:55.680 --> 00:44:59.840
 And we give it some kind of a mixed use development,

00:44:59.840 --> 00:45:06.120
 the price per square foot is probably not going to pencil out for a residential development.

00:45:06.120 --> 00:45:13.560
 And it's going to bias this property in that direction before you even have the planning staff look at it that closely.

00:45:13.560 --> 00:45:19.760
 >> Well, and if I can just interject real quick, as we've been working on the zoning map for a while.

00:45:19.760 --> 00:45:23.400
 And we did look at the surrounding, we understand what Jerry's saying.

00:45:23.400 --> 00:45:27.280
 And I think if Cody can help me for that particular area.

00:45:27.280 --> 00:45:33.880
 Remind me again, Cody, what we propose that to be zoned looking at the context of the area.

00:45:33.880 --> 00:45:36.760
 >> Let me pull it up here real quick.

00:45:36.760 --> 00:45:47.840
 I believe that area was actually pending because of the zoning.

00:45:47.840 --> 00:45:48.840
 >> Okay.

00:45:48.840 --> 00:45:51.840
 >> So there was, we had the application that was ultimately denied.

00:45:51.840 --> 00:45:56.760
 We're in the process of resubmitting a new application.

00:45:56.760 --> 00:46:02.640
 And so this might ultimately get blacked out, once again, as part of a revised proposal.

00:46:02.640 --> 00:46:07.680
 >> And I believe that was they were looking for R3 or something like that, weren't they?

00:46:07.680 --> 00:46:09.080
 >> Okay. >> And see, that makes sense there.

00:46:09.080 --> 00:46:12.080
 I mean, you mentioned we'd come in with mixed use.

00:46:12.080 --> 00:46:16.560
 I don't see us even contemplating that, not in that area.

00:46:16.560 --> 00:46:23.760
 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.

00:46:23.760 --> 00:46:30.320
 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.

00:46:30.320 --> 00:46:32.520
 >> Well, if I could add two things.

00:46:32.520 --> 00:46:37.600
 One, with all due respect to Jerry, I don't want to speculate on what other owners would do with their property or not.

00:46:37.600 --> 00:46:38.560
 >> That's the point.

00:46:38.560 --> 00:46:43.080
 >> Well, you said you would speculate that if we zoned it higher, no one would come in at a lower density.

00:46:43.080 --> 00:46:46.240
 That would be speculation that I wouldn't be comfortable doing.

00:46:46.240 --> 00:46:49.640
 >> And second of all, is how old is the future land use map?

00:46:49.640 --> 00:46:53.480
 >> It was approved in 2015, February of 2015.

00:46:53.480 --> 00:46:58.960
 >> Okay, and currently, is the city scene development completely 100% in line with the future land use map?

00:46:58.960 --> 00:47:01.320
 >> In some respects, but in others, not so much.

00:47:01.320 --> 00:47:06.840
 Specifically, north of the loop, that's actually changing its character.

00:47:06.840 --> 00:47:14.000
 We obviously, and you hear my soap box, as a future land use planner, we plan on that being rural.

00:47:14.000 --> 00:47:16.760
 And my hope is that we keep with the plan.

00:47:16.760 --> 00:47:22.960
 But obviously, there's change in markets, there's change in development activity, and we have to adjust.

00:47:22.960 --> 00:47:30.120
 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.

00:47:30.120 --> 00:47:36.440
 >> Yeah, and I think to the extent where there's ETJ on the outside of the city,

00:47:36.440 --> 00:47:41.640
 where we absolutely have no idea what will become of that, whether it's mixed use,

00:47:41.640 --> 00:47:46.880
 grocery store to support houses out there or not, I 100% understand that.

00:47:46.880 --> 00:47:52.920
 To Commissioner Beck's point, we have property that's gridlocked into other neighborhoods.

00:47:52.920 --> 00:47:57.720
 Those seem, if there's some way to specify those type of areas,

00:47:57.720 --> 00:48:03.520
 we potentially could help direct an easier path to development.

00:48:03.520 --> 00:48:10.400
 If we can say, hey developers, this is what the city sees fitting for this area, is in R3, for instance.

00:48:10.400 --> 00:48:18.240
 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.

00:48:18.240 --> 00:48:24.960
 Where we're in control of that conversation as a city, more proactively looking at it the other way.

00:48:24.960 --> 00:48:33.120
 >> 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.

00:48:33.120 --> 00:48:36.560
 So we're still in line with the future land use map.

00:48:40.400 --> 00:48:50.400
 [INAUDIBLE]

00:48:50.400 --> 00:49:01.440
 >> No, you're right, and so that was one of, we had 16 total factors in when we looked at the zoning map.

00:49:01.440 --> 00:49:07.240
 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.

00:49:07.240 --> 00:49:13.680
 So we used aerial, we visited the site, and we wanted to make sure that we got it right.

00:49:13.680 --> 00:49:20.840
 So to your point, if the future land use does guide what that zoning will be or should be,

00:49:20.840 --> 00:49:28.880
 the idea here is, do we do it now, or do we address it at a later time through a different process?

00:49:28.880 --> 00:49:32.480
 And that's the direction we got from the DCRC.

00:49:32.480 --> 00:49:41.480
 We are certainly welcome to see what the commission wants to provide as far as input.

00:49:41.480 --> 00:49:50.600
 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.

00:49:50.600 --> 00:49:59.040
 So for example, the RR, there are about 850, I guess one, parcels that are less than the minimum lot area.

00:49:59.040 --> 00:50:09.800
 What is the commission's desire or direction on how we should address those technically non-conforming if they were to be zoned RR?

00:50:09.800 --> 00:50:12.680
 >> Mr. Sanchez.

00:50:12.680 --> 00:50:19.480
 >> My question is, why can't you create, can you create another zone?

00:50:19.480 --> 00:50:26.320
 Like I said last, the last meeting is an R1, and that would kind of help you out and just keep those in place.

00:50:26.320 --> 00:50:32.800
 And as you start zoning those particular units or areas,

00:50:32.800 --> 00:50:36.960
 you have less of them over time, you quit using it.

00:50:36.960 --> 00:50:40.360
 But it seems, does it make sense what I'm trying to say?

00:50:40.360 --> 00:50:45.240
 >> I know we had talked about this, Mr. Sanchez, but we do have an R1 now.

00:50:45.240 --> 00:50:47.080
 I don't mean, I don't think that-

00:50:47.080 --> 00:50:51.960
 >> No, no, no, well, okay, we'll give it an RRX or whatever.

00:50:51.960 --> 00:50:57.320
 Something where you be kind of a holding for all these that don't conform.

00:50:57.320 --> 00:51:04.320
 You have 800, and so you put them in that other classification.

00:51:04.320 --> 00:51:09.200
 And I'm just, I said R1, but I mean, RX or whatever.

00:51:09.200 --> 00:51:12.840
 And it's just something, they're non-conforming to any of the rest of them.

00:51:12.840 --> 00:51:17.600
 And as you start zoning them, you're moving them out over time.

00:51:17.600 --> 00:51:28.040
 But I kind of agree that if you give them an R, if you start applying a zone classification to them, long term.

00:51:28.040 --> 00:51:32.640
 I mean, there's areas there that are two, threes in the whole area.

00:51:32.640 --> 00:51:38.880
 And you don't know what, if you give it too high of a classification, as it was mentioned,

00:51:38.880 --> 00:51:43.480
 people are going to come back and they say, this is what we moved into, we don't want it.

00:51:43.480 --> 00:51:48.320
 And we don't know who's going to be the next zoning council.

00:51:48.320 --> 00:51:51.420
 And they're going to look at it totally different than what we're looking at it.

00:51:51.420 --> 00:52:01.520
 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.

00:52:01.520 --> 00:52:10.120
 >> So to me, that would be giving it the lowest intense zoning district, which would be RR.

00:52:10.120 --> 00:52:18.400
 So they can develop with the lowest intents or they can zone it to a higher intense zoning district at that point.

00:52:18.400 --> 00:52:24.320
 >> Well, yeah, if you want to leave it in RR, but then we've talked about being non-conforming.

00:52:24.320 --> 00:52:27.840
 >> And if that's not an issue, then that's.

00:52:27.840 --> 00:52:33.800
 >> That's a question, because we currently have zoning, I'm sorry, we currently have parcels that are non-conforming now.

00:52:33.800 --> 00:52:39.680
 There are zoning that are zoned RD5 that are less than five acres.

00:52:39.680 --> 00:52:42.440
 And that was done in 2002.

00:52:42.440 --> 00:52:48.760
 So it's a question is creating this RR and

00:52:48.760 --> 00:52:55.280
 having 800 and 50 or so, is that okay?

00:52:55.280 --> 00:52:59.280
 Or should we look at it and maybe address certain areas?

00:52:59.280 --> 00:53:03.520
 And I think that's the direction, I think, what we're asking for.

00:53:03.520 --> 00:53:08.680
 And then we will share that with the committee and get their input.

00:53:08.680 --> 00:53:09.960
 >> [INAUDIBLE]

00:53:09.960 --> 00:53:10.640
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:53:10.640 --> 00:53:16.880
 Well, I think what we have to decide is, do we want to do any planning as it relates to the draft zoning map?

00:53:16.880 --> 00:53:19.040
 Because that's what it comes down to is planning.

00:53:19.040 --> 00:53:23.960
 And if we leave it RR, it can't be developed, 851 of them anyway,

00:53:23.960 --> 00:53:29.160
 can't be developed at the lowest intensity, because it doesn't fit into the parameters of an RR anyway.

00:53:29.160 --> 00:53:35.520
 So to me, having 78% of the,

00:53:35.520 --> 00:53:39.280
 and that's an incredibly high percentage that don't conform.

00:53:39.280 --> 00:53:49.360
 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.

00:53:49.360 --> 00:53:51.200
 >> Right, right. >> To me, that doesn't make any sense.

00:53:51.200 --> 00:53:57.640
 >> And going back to your first comment, I think the direction that we received is that,

00:53:57.640 --> 00:54:02.000
 again, is it, do we do it with this code update in the zoning map?

00:54:02.000 --> 00:54:07.720
 Or do we continue that process through a public hearing process,

00:54:07.720 --> 00:54:12.280
 where notices are sent out to properties within 200 foot layer.

00:54:12.280 --> 00:54:18.840
 Eventually, we will get there as just that, is it going to be in April, or is it going to be in the future?

00:54:18.840 --> 00:54:25.240
 >> I think therein lies the crux of the whole issue, and that's what has to be determined.

00:54:25.240 --> 00:54:29.840
 And I don't know who's going to make that determination, but that's what has to be determined.

00:54:29.840 --> 00:54:35.680
 Because right now, we've basically removed the planning element, in my opinion, from the draft zoning map,

00:54:35.680 --> 00:54:40.920
 which is not the path that we were on prior to February 23rd.

00:54:40.920 --> 00:54:50.160
 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.

00:54:50.160 --> 00:54:59.800
 >> 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.

00:54:59.800 --> 00:55:05.360
 It would be later through a different process, is how I'm taking it.

00:55:05.360 --> 00:55:09.720
 So the question, I guess, going back to the RR,

00:55:09.720 --> 00:55:17.760
 is are we okay with keeping them non-conforming, or should we look at specific areas?

00:55:17.760 --> 00:55:21.560
 And that is a question or direction that we would like to hear.

00:55:21.560 --> 00:55:28.040
 Or if not, we can have the committee, three members of the planning zoning commission are part of that committee.

00:55:28.040 --> 00:55:31.080
 So we can discuss that at the next meeting.

00:55:31.080 --> 00:55:37.600
 >> So I think I understand the question.

00:55:37.600 --> 00:55:43.880
 To Commissioner Ellis' point, I'm not sure how to best answer it.

00:55:43.880 --> 00:55:49.120
 So my take as a singular commissioner is that 78% is too high.

00:55:49.120 --> 00:55:56.920
 But I don't think it's feasible to get it to zero.

00:55:56.920 --> 00:56:00.040
 I don't know if that's a realistic goal.

00:56:00.040 --> 00:56:02.880
 So one, what is that number?

00:56:02.880 --> 00:56:05.760
 All the other ones are 10, 20%, whatever.

00:56:05.760 --> 00:56:09.080
 Whatever that number is, is a great target.

00:56:09.080 --> 00:56:14.000
 What I would struggle with is how to efficiently identify those properties.

00:56:14.000 --> 00:56:16.800
 What conditions, how do we systematically go about that?

00:56:16.800 --> 00:56:23.960
 Do we look at, if the RR is adjacent on three sides to R1, I don't know how to define that.

00:56:23.960 --> 00:56:26.600
 So I'm not trying to provide you a vague answer to your question.

00:56:26.600 --> 00:56:27.840
 >> No, I understand what you're saying.

00:56:27.840 --> 00:56:30.440
 >> But I think I would like to see that number decrease.

00:56:30.440 --> 00:56:35.480
 But I don't know how to provide you a specific study area or specific properties, because they are, I mean, scattered.

00:56:35.480 --> 00:56:36.000
 >> Right.

00:56:36.000 --> 00:56:42.760
 >> One point I wanted to make on even this last example that we looked at.

00:56:42.760 --> 00:56:47.640
 I think it's important to note that a lot of these came in as part of a voluntary annexation.

00:56:47.640 --> 00:56:52.440
 So even though they're getting an RD5 or RD5X,

00:56:52.440 --> 00:56:58.280
 it isn't like we kind of pulled a wool over their eyes or sold them a false bill of goods.

00:56:58.280 --> 00:57:03.360
 They know exactly what they were getting when they voluntarily annexed into the city.

00:57:03.360 --> 00:57:07.920
 Even though that they've annexed whatever their use currently is under the annexation laws,

00:57:07.920 --> 00:57:12.440
 they can continue to have that use as long as they want.

00:57:12.440 --> 00:57:17.360
 We can't come in and stop them and say, you can't do this now that you're in the city.

00:57:17.360 --> 00:57:23.360
 But on a lot of these, particularly these larger parcels, they were voluntary annexations.

00:57:23.360 --> 00:57:29.840
 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.

00:57:29.840 --> 00:57:36.480
 So I just wanted to sort of frame that as part of this conversation too, because I think it's important.

00:57:36.480 --> 00:57:41.560
 >> To clarify, are you saying that in the defense of not proactively rezoning them?

00:57:41.560 --> 00:57:47.640
 >> As we look at some of these, I think as we continue to do that analysis,

00:57:47.640 --> 00:57:51.360
 we have to look at what voluntarily came in.

00:57:51.360 --> 00:57:57.360
 The last example, they were actually requesting, I believe it was the NR4,

00:57:57.360 --> 00:58:06.200
 the last project, Lakeview, but their actual density was closer to three and a half units an acre or an NR3.

00:58:06.200 --> 00:58:10.420
 And so even though that zoning failed to go to an NR3,

00:58:10.420 --> 00:58:13.440
 it was essentially where they were.

00:58:13.440 --> 00:58:21.840
 And so I think that's the caution that I would throw out as we look at these.

00:58:21.840 --> 00:58:29.200
 >> 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?

00:58:29.200 --> 00:58:35.480
 I mean, regardless of someone voluntarily annexing and not wanting to zone at that time,

00:58:35.480 --> 00:58:40.240
 there's been countless amount in the past two years that have come in and say,

00:58:40.240 --> 00:58:44.840
 we want this other zone and we are practically saying we're changing that zone.

00:58:44.840 --> 00:58:50.320
 So I think I can understand the idea that someone voluntarily came to the city with the idea of a zone.

00:58:50.320 --> 00:58:56.600
 But we had people last week that just voluntarily asked for a new zone that we're going to proactively change the same way.

00:58:56.600 --> 00:59:02.560
 So I think the difference between a voluntarily annexed property

00:59:02.560 --> 00:59:10.800
 being zoned to an R4 versus an MRMU being zoned to an MN is marginal.

00:59:10.800 --> 00:59:12.840
 The difference is between those two cases in my opinion.

00:59:12.840 --> 00:59:17.160
 >> Commissioner Beck.

00:59:17.160 --> 00:59:23.920
 >> On this voluntary annexation, I mean, these property owners are aware of the future land use map too.

00:59:23.920 --> 00:59:30.960
 In other words, if it's looking like it's going to be a single family residential with a three or four density,

00:59:30.960 --> 00:59:34.800
 hopefully they realize that's the direction they need to go.

00:59:34.800 --> 00:59:40.120
 Is that part of the conversation that the city has with them?

00:59:40.120 --> 00:59:45.920
 >> Yes and no, but sometimes they, Stark Farms is a perfect example of,

00:59:45.920 --> 00:59:52.160
 it has a rural land use of five units an acre, but they requested it was an NR6 with an overlay.

00:59:52.160 --> 00:59:59.240
 But again, they went through, it wasn't an automatic assignment, they went through that process of notification and public hearing.

01:00:01.640 --> 01:00:09.480
 >> 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?

01:00:09.480 --> 01:00:10.440
 >> Sure. >> To help me out.

01:00:10.440 --> 01:00:11.640
 >> No, that's, we're open.

01:00:11.640 --> 01:00:14.880
 >> I'm currently looking at these two before and afters.

01:00:14.880 --> 01:00:22.560
 I don't know if everyone has these, but on the one dated draft zoning before February 22nd, 2019.

01:00:24.360 --> 01:00:34.800
 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.

01:00:34.800 --> 01:00:36.920
 My color blind's not messing me up.

01:00:36.920 --> 01:00:38.720
 >> We'll pull it up, we'll try to pull it up for you.

01:00:38.720 --> 01:00:39.220
 >> Okay.

01:00:39.220 --> 01:00:45.880
 I get a pointer.

01:00:45.880 --> 01:00:48.720
 It's dangerous now.

01:00:48.720 --> 01:00:53.680
 It's all fun and games, he gave me a pointer.

01:00:53.680 --> 01:00:55.440
 >> I feel like my glasses are open.

01:00:55.440 --> 01:00:57.640
 >> So right here, right there.

01:00:57.640 --> 01:01:03.000
 So that, what is that, this is the after map, right?

01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:05.520
 >> Yeah, this is today's.

01:01:05.520 --> 01:01:06.440
 >> Right, that's an R4.

01:01:06.440 --> 01:01:08.920
 >> Correct.

01:01:08.920 --> 01:01:11.000
 >> Before it was an R1.

01:01:11.000 --> 01:01:15.160
 >> Correct.

01:01:15.160 --> 01:01:23.660
 >> So when, from what I understand, the DCRC provided feedback to the city to look at split zoning cases.

01:01:24.660 --> 01:01:27.920
 Rural areas, those were the specific things to be looked at.

01:01:27.920 --> 01:01:30.640
 Why did the city move an R1 to an R4?

01:01:30.640 --> 01:01:34.720
 >> We shared this with the committee.

01:01:34.720 --> 01:01:39.440
 We had several study areas that we wanted direction from the committee.

01:01:39.440 --> 01:01:45.080
 And because this area is, if you look at what's on there right now,

01:01:45.080 --> 01:01:50.480
 Lakeview Ranch is two to three acre lots.

01:01:50.480 --> 01:01:55.760
 And the zoning, or the area, along with the future land use map,

01:01:55.760 --> 01:02:01.480
 lend itself to be more of an R1, or yes, an R1 zoning district.

01:02:01.480 --> 01:02:04.720
 And so that's what we were provided as far as direction.

01:02:04.720 --> 01:02:08.480
 So we proposed that to be R1, specifically that area.

01:02:08.480 --> 01:02:14.200
 And I don't know if Cody has an earlier version map of what was shown for this area.

01:02:14.200 --> 01:02:16.680
 >> Yeah, I think the actual existing zoning is R4.

01:02:20.000 --> 01:02:24.040
 >> Okay, so that's how we were proposing it to be R1.

01:02:24.040 --> 01:02:31.640
 I believe your question is, how do we get to R1?

01:02:31.640 --> 01:02:36.160
 >> No, no, I just, yeah, well, we're talking about this,

01:02:36.160 --> 01:02:42.040
 it sounds to me, a fear of changing a rural area and making it more dense.

01:02:42.040 --> 01:02:43.200
 >> Right. >> Right?

01:02:43.200 --> 01:02:47.200
 It's been said by several people that once you make it dense, you can't go back, or whatever.

01:02:47.200 --> 01:02:49.520
 So we're just leaving RRs as they are.

01:02:49.520 --> 01:02:52.280
 >> Right. >> In some cases, we're upzoning.

01:02:52.280 --> 01:02:57.560
 I don't want to use the word falsely, but we're providing proactively a denser area.

01:02:57.560 --> 01:03:01.280
 So I'm trying to understand the rationale on RRs, we don't want to provide more density.

01:03:01.280 --> 01:03:03.440
 >> Right. >> But in other areas, the city's fine with it.

01:03:03.440 --> 01:03:07.000
 It seems like those are different philosophies.

01:03:07.000 --> 01:03:11.480
 >> I think for this example, it actually went from, it was NR4.

01:03:11.480 --> 01:03:15.600
 What we initially proposed with the NR1 was actually a down zone.

01:03:15.600 --> 01:03:20.080
 I think that's where we had the caution to down zoning a property.

01:03:20.080 --> 01:03:24.120
 And so when it went back up to R4, it's what it is today.

01:03:24.120 --> 01:03:25.240
 >> Okay. >> Current zoning.

01:03:25.240 --> 01:03:25.960
 >> Current zoning.

01:03:25.960 --> 01:03:30.000
 >> Is that the case for all the other examples on this map in which upzoning took place?

01:03:30.000 --> 01:03:35.320
 For instance, just to the northeast, you all had RR, and

01:03:35.320 --> 01:03:39.680
 then after the change, it moved to an R2, that lot.

01:03:43.240 --> 01:03:46.320
 >> Would that be the similar rationale for upzoning that area?

01:03:46.320 --> 01:03:56.600
 >> So again, those were, the existing zoning district is NR2 and

01:03:56.600 --> 01:04:01.280
 that's how it transitioned to an R2.

01:04:01.280 --> 01:04:06.880
 >> Okay, and I know I missed that meeting, right?

01:04:06.880 --> 01:04:09.960
 I've asked, I hopefully can get the meeting, the minutes.

01:04:09.960 --> 01:04:16.560
 But it seems like the direction from the committee was to address RR territories,

01:04:16.560 --> 01:04:18.800
 or RR districts, and split zoning.

01:04:18.800 --> 01:04:29.680
 >> That was the original discussion, and it moved forward to a greater discussion

01:04:29.680 --> 01:04:37.200
 on how the zoning map should be drafted through a process that we're doing today,

01:04:37.200 --> 01:04:41.360
 or should it be a different process, and essentially, that's the question or

01:04:41.360 --> 01:04:42.520
 the direction that we were given.

01:04:42.520 --> 01:04:50.200
 >> So if I understand it correctly, and I'm sure Commissioner Ellis can add clarity, hopefully.

01:04:50.200 --> 01:04:55.360
 If I understand this correctly, a discussion started with rural areas and split zoning.

01:04:55.360 --> 01:04:58.280
 Based on that, the city looked at all zoning areas.

01:04:58.280 --> 01:05:04.680
 >> No, it was, I think there was a discussion that we had with outside council that was

01:05:04.680 --> 01:05:07.640
 really, you need to zone, whatever their zone now,

01:05:07.640 --> 01:05:11.240
 it needs to be as close to what they currently have today.

01:05:11.240 --> 01:05:14.480
 >> And when was outside council, I mean, this has been worked on for a year.

01:05:14.480 --> 01:05:18.240
 Why did outside council two weeks ago say we needed a line zoning?

01:05:18.240 --> 01:05:21.440
 >> I don't know.

01:05:21.440 --> 01:05:23.120
 >> Okay. >> I mean, that was part of that discussion

01:05:23.120 --> 01:05:26.840
 of, because I think they were under the impression, or I can't speak for her, but

01:05:26.840 --> 01:05:31.160
 whether she was under the impression that we were kind of holding the line on all of it.

01:05:31.160 --> 01:05:37.360
 So that's why you had that, it was consistent, it went down, and then it went back up on some of these.

01:05:37.360 --> 01:05:39.280
 >> Gotcha, Commissioner Ellis.

01:05:39.280 --> 01:05:41.880
 >> Thank you, Chair, I was just going to clarify a little bit more.

01:05:41.880 --> 01:05:46.360
 Yeah, so the discussion started in committee on an RR property,

01:05:46.360 --> 01:05:53.120
 actually on the corner of Robinson and 2499, that is where, that is ground zero where we started.

01:05:53.120 --> 01:05:55.240
 We started with that discussion.

01:05:55.240 --> 01:06:01.280
 It ended up becoming, you're going to take the map and

01:06:01.280 --> 01:06:06.800
 it's going to be aligned as closely as it looks today with the current zoning.

01:06:06.800 --> 01:06:14.840
 That is how the meeting ended and that is what staff has up there now and presented to us.

01:06:14.840 --> 01:06:20.720
 So it really wasn't formal, in my opinion, as far as how it went down.

01:06:20.720 --> 01:06:28.920
 It was a discussion and seemed then a direction that was taken with and run.

01:06:28.920 --> 01:06:37.160
 And so that's why, more than just RR changed, it was not just RR focused, it just started that way.

01:06:37.160 --> 01:06:41.960
 But it became, the entire map was being redone, basically.

01:06:41.960 --> 01:06:46.240
 To align with the way it looks today.

01:06:46.240 --> 01:06:48.600
 >> Mr. Chair, if I might.

01:06:48.600 --> 01:06:52.400
 >> Absolutely. >> Yes, and Commissioner Ellis is accurate in that.

01:06:52.400 --> 01:06:57.360
 And I think that our intent was two and threefold.

01:06:57.360 --> 01:07:02.120
 So the RR was that larger conversation that we didn't address the RD5X.

01:07:02.120 --> 01:07:07.880
 And Ron probably has already spoken to this, and I'll just maybe reiterate some of that, and I apologize if I do.

01:07:07.880 --> 01:07:11.880
 As we did that, it was quite a broad stroke.

01:07:11.880 --> 01:07:15.920
 So we took every RD5X and said, make it RR.

01:07:15.920 --> 01:07:20.560
 We recognize, I think that's about the time that I came in, that you were looking at that table.

01:07:20.560 --> 01:07:21.640
 >> Right.

01:07:21.640 --> 01:07:31.640
 >> 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.

01:07:31.640 --> 01:07:37.480
 We're going to bring those back to the committee and have that very conversation to say what makes the most sense.

01:07:37.480 --> 01:07:45.200
 The third part to the conversation was that we need to not up zone, down zone,

01:07:45.200 --> 01:07:50.280
 but truly try to mirror as closely as possible what exists today.

01:07:50.280 --> 01:07:55.800
 But there's also some of that, that what is the environment around that.

01:07:55.800 --> 01:08:00.840
 And I don't know that you had an opportunity to speak to the downtown as of yet.

01:08:00.840 --> 01:08:03.520
 And so this is fluid.

01:08:03.520 --> 01:08:11.960
 Very much appreciate the comments that have been received from several members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

01:08:11.960 --> 01:08:17.160
 I've had those conversations with staff, and I think this Friday we'll be addressing

01:08:17.160 --> 01:08:21.880
 some of those comments with really some ideas or options.

01:08:21.880 --> 01:08:26.720
 I want to stress that this is a draft zoning map.

01:08:26.720 --> 01:08:33.520
 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.

01:08:33.520 --> 01:08:41.880
 Another component to that is that as staff, we recognize that the committee doesn't have the comfort level to say,

01:08:42.440 --> 01:08:47.480
 we're going to take some more broader sweeps towards the future land use map.

01:08:47.480 --> 01:08:55.760
 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.

01:08:55.760 --> 01:09:00.040
 So we're heeding that legal advice, and we're trying to do that.

01:09:00.040 --> 01:09:06.080
 And we also understand that we're going to come back with some city initiated rezoning.

01:09:06.080 --> 01:09:13.520
 So we can then target, in the example that you were referencing earlier, where it is that some properties around that may be

01:09:13.520 --> 01:09:18.600
 just questionable as to whether it would be an up zone or a down zone or what somebody's anticipating.

01:09:18.600 --> 01:09:26.040
 But we as the city can bring forth a recommendation, whether it's a parcel or parcels, to say this makes the most sense.

01:09:26.040 --> 01:09:33.360
 We can provide the notification to the affected properties that we're required to do and the courtesy notices.

01:09:33.360 --> 01:09:42.640
 And bring that forward in a more pragmatic way that we're addressing really what PNZ I think is expressing.

01:09:42.640 --> 01:09:50.480
 What I understand, Commissioner's desire, which is to align it more closely with the future land use map.

01:09:50.480 --> 01:09:59.560
 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.

01:09:59.560 --> 01:10:08.200
 So what somebody has for a current entitlement and perhaps what might be around that because we have consolidated some of those zoning districts.

01:10:08.200 --> 01:10:11.520
 There is no ill intent, I think, by anybody.

01:10:11.520 --> 01:10:17.720
 I think it was a fairly organic discussion and there was a couple of broad strokes in that.

01:10:17.720 --> 01:10:22.040
 And I think that we do have somewhat of a plan to rectify some of that,

01:10:22.040 --> 01:10:27.000
 which puts it probably more closely aligned with what was prior to that.

01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:33.120
 But I will also say that that map will constantly change as we have these types of discussions and

01:10:33.120 --> 01:10:40.360
 we receive the feedback and the input to whatever it is that's going to be the draft map for adoption.

01:10:40.360 --> 01:10:43.840
 So just keep in mind living, breathing, and the feedback.

01:10:43.840 --> 01:10:46.840
 We're listening and I think it's important.

01:10:46.840 --> 01:10:49.640
 I don't want that to be understressed.

01:10:49.640 --> 01:10:51.320
 >> Well, I appreciate that.

01:10:51.320 --> 01:10:54.840
 Just the adoption target is April-ish.

01:10:54.840 --> 01:10:58.120
 >> Right, so the next six weeks, it will continually evolve.

01:10:58.120 --> 01:10:58.800
 >> Correct.

01:10:58.800 --> 01:11:03.360
 And I think it should be fairly minor in nature.

01:11:03.360 --> 01:11:05.960
 I think there have been changes.

01:11:05.960 --> 01:11:11.080
 There were changes to the zoning map after we went to the public, and

01:11:11.080 --> 01:11:18.840
 that was really highlighted by one of the members of this commission as to some of the steps that staff took.

01:11:18.840 --> 01:11:23.800
 Anticipating some future development, saying it should go that way.

01:11:23.800 --> 01:11:30.840
 And we were corrected in that, and so what the public saw last summer was changed last summer.

01:11:30.840 --> 01:11:36.040
 So it was a subtle change, but it went back to really what the zoning was on the ground,

01:11:36.040 --> 01:11:43.160
 regardless of kind of what the context around that was based on the feedback and the comments.

01:11:43.160 --> 01:11:49.400
 So I don't want anyone to have a preconceived notion that this is going a particular direction.

01:11:50.560 --> 01:11:56.400
 It is just something we're trying to listen and do our best to try to accommodate.

01:11:56.400 --> 01:11:59.280
 >> Great, Commissioner Beck.

01:11:59.280 --> 01:12:01.360
 >> Thank you, Chair.

01:12:01.360 --> 01:12:02.000
 >> Thanks, Scott.

01:12:02.000 --> 01:12:07.880
 And we're all aware that it is a draft map, it's just the point was made.

01:12:07.880 --> 01:12:14.920
 There's a little bit of urgency here because we're shooting for an April-ish date to wrap this thing up.

01:12:14.920 --> 01:12:21.360
 So what I was, I think what we're trying to put forth here is,

01:12:21.360 --> 01:12:25.760
 because we are so close, there's some moves we need to make now.

01:12:25.760 --> 01:12:33.920
 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.

01:12:33.920 --> 01:12:40.960
 They may be fewer than I'm imagining right now, but the fact that it is open,

01:12:40.960 --> 01:12:48.840
 we're narrowing down to an approval date here, just kind of puts a little bit of urgency in making those changes.

01:12:48.840 --> 01:12:52.840
 >> And I don't disagree with that.

01:12:52.840 --> 01:12:58.040
 I think that it's just important to note, and I think that the,

01:12:58.040 --> 01:13:10.000
 some of that final say as it has been with the draft is with the review committee.

01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:15.600
 That the review committee is the one that is driving the input.

01:13:15.600 --> 01:13:22.040
 And I think if you have specific input, that's related to maybe the how.

01:13:22.040 --> 01:13:26.520
 And not so much on each parcel would be very beneficial.

01:13:26.520 --> 01:13:34.160
 Understanding our charge, and again, I think focused on legal counsel.

01:13:34.160 --> 01:13:42.560
 So if our outside legal counsel is telling us to maintain as close as possible to the current zoning,

01:13:42.560 --> 01:13:49.240
 we just certainly have to try to separate the future land use map from the current zoning map and the draft map.

01:13:49.240 --> 01:13:56.720
 Unless we can definitively prove everything around it or why that should be different.

01:13:56.720 --> 01:14:03.040
 And those specifics, we certainly want to hear, that's the work that staff is doing today.

01:14:03.040 --> 01:14:08.600
 So staff is looking at each of the parcels that were affected by this.

01:14:08.600 --> 01:14:13.600
 We have heard from commission members, we've heard from council,

01:14:13.600 --> 01:14:18.440
 we have heard from individual property owners on some specific rationale for

01:14:18.440 --> 01:14:24.520
 some particular properties, and we're going to bring all of that forward to the review committee.

01:14:24.520 --> 01:14:28.560
 So if we can generalize kind of some of, I think some of the concepts,

01:14:28.560 --> 01:14:33.600
 I don't know that there's any possible way to do parcel by parcel.

01:14:33.600 --> 01:14:38.640
 I will also add that it is the intent that we have this,

01:14:38.640 --> 01:14:43.240
 whatever the adoption date and an effective date is going to be later in time.

01:14:43.240 --> 01:14:49.360
 So this six month, we'll just use as an example, if we have six months.

01:14:49.360 --> 01:14:57.240
 We can still anticipate that we will be providing city initiated

01:14:57.240 --> 01:15:01.840
 rezoning for some areas, so we recognize some areas.

01:15:01.840 --> 01:15:06.360
 It's just what we heard from the council committee is important for the due process piece for

01:15:06.360 --> 01:15:12.160
 people to be notified that changes that may have a more dramatic effect.

01:15:12.160 --> 01:15:17.400
 Something, we're trying to lessen whatever that might be in any area possible, if that helps.

01:15:17.400 --> 01:15:22.320
 >> Just real quick, just want to add to that.

01:15:23.840 --> 01:15:28.440
 The meeting that we were talking about, referring to, we brought up,

01:15:28.440 --> 01:15:32.760
 or I brought up, the notion about the MD zoning district.

01:15:32.760 --> 01:15:39.120
 And if you all recall, the MD zoning district is purpose for the downtown.

01:15:39.120 --> 01:15:43.000
 And so we have a number of zoning, I'm sorry,

01:15:43.000 --> 01:15:47.920
 a number of MD zoning districts along the highway corridor throughout,

01:15:47.920 --> 01:15:51.920
 you know, close to the University of North Texas, as well as TW.

01:15:51.920 --> 01:15:58.320
 And we asked the question, we said, well, this can't be MD along the highway or

01:15:58.320 --> 01:16:02.120
 in these particular areas, it should be focused on downtown.

01:16:02.120 --> 01:16:08.840
 And what we received, and I think it was good, and it still keeps in line of what we were trying to do.

01:16:08.840 --> 01:16:17.080
 In those particular areas, let's give that area the zoning that is closely to what it should be.

01:16:17.080 --> 01:16:22.240
 And so, I don't know if Cody has it, in front of, or behind me that is,

01:16:22.240 --> 01:16:28.800
 we looked at those areas and gave it the zoning based on the context of what's there, what it should be.

01:16:28.800 --> 01:16:33.000
 And those areas around the University of North Texas, TW, and downtown,

01:16:33.000 --> 01:16:39.880
 in the transition chart that you'll have, if it was DCG, it would have gotten to MD.

01:16:39.880 --> 01:16:40.960
 That's not the case.

01:16:40.960 --> 01:16:43.960
 Our proposed zoning map reflects what is there.

01:16:43.960 --> 01:16:49.680
 So that's a small piece of what we're doing, and the committee recognize that.

01:16:49.680 --> 01:16:53.400
 We're trying to get it as close as we can, but it's not going to be MD.

01:16:53.400 --> 01:16:56.360
 Because again, MD is meant to be for the downtown area.

01:16:56.360 --> 01:16:58.160
 >> Chris Charles.

01:16:58.160 --> 01:17:03.000
 >> Thank you, Chair, and I do appreciate that, Ron, because that makes sense to me.

01:17:03.000 --> 01:17:09.680
 What I don't understand is why we're not using that same logic throughout the map is all.

01:17:09.680 --> 01:17:13.600
 I mean, it makes sense around those areas that you just said, that's great.

01:17:13.600 --> 01:17:19.320
 But you know, why that has more priority over other things.

01:17:19.320 --> 01:17:26.040
 That, you know, I feel that we, you as staff, we as a committee, that is what we are doing.

01:17:26.040 --> 01:17:29.880
 So, anyway, again, I appreciate that.

01:17:29.880 --> 01:17:32.040
 It makes sense, but.

01:17:32.040 --> 01:17:33.880
 >> I think that- >> We just did it there, and-

01:17:33.880 --> 01:17:39.600
 >> Yeah, I think the answer to that question, Commissioner Ellis, is that we were,

01:17:39.600 --> 01:17:45.480
 when Scott and I were talking about this earlier, is that we are trying to understand what was happening.

01:17:45.480 --> 01:17:51.280
 So that was one example that I was passionate about, because I knew that that was something that we needed to keep.

01:17:51.280 --> 01:17:56.800
 And of course, throughout the coming weeks after, there will be those examples.

01:17:56.800 --> 01:18:00.640
 And we hope to present that to the committee and to the planning zoning commission.

01:18:00.640 --> 01:18:04.600
 And maybe there will be opportunity, as we discussed earlier, it's still a draft.

01:18:04.600 --> 01:18:11.360
 But maybe there are certain, such as the RR, there may be where we can address those.

01:18:11.360 --> 01:18:16.560
 And again, through discussion with the planning zoning commission and city council and

01:18:16.560 --> 01:18:25.280
 this committee, we may find that there are other areas that we should be focusing on before the April 23rd deadline.

01:18:25.280 --> 01:18:30.280
 But again, the general direction is try to get as close to the existing zoning district.

01:18:30.280 --> 01:18:38.200
 So that the process of rezoning will occur with what is already established as far as rezoning,

01:18:38.200 --> 01:18:42.920
 where we send out notifications to folks within 200 foot, and as well as 500 foot.

01:18:42.920 --> 01:18:46.800
 So a little bit of, it's continuing, right?

01:18:46.800 --> 01:18:52.560
 We're continuing to work through this, and so we're hoping through more discussion that we'll have an opportunity

01:18:52.560 --> 01:18:58.120
 to follow the same methodology as what we've done with the university in downtown.

01:18:58.120 --> 01:19:04.080
 And we're hoping for feedback from the commission, from the council, and from the committee.

01:19:04.080 --> 01:19:11.080
 >> Ron, is it safe to say that the reason to go to city-initiated zoning is to provide

01:19:11.080 --> 01:19:15.680
 an additional step for neighbors to weigh in on their neighbor's property?

01:19:15.680 --> 01:19:18.320
 Is that the reason do city-initiated rezoning?

01:19:18.320 --> 01:19:24.880
 >> Yes, the concerns that we've heard for

01:19:24.880 --> 01:19:32.640
 some months from the committee, and in particular, the mayor was very passionate about that if we rezone a property.

01:19:32.640 --> 01:19:41.600
 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.

01:19:41.600 --> 01:19:45.560
 Where it is that it might be more aligned with the future land use map,

01:19:45.560 --> 01:19:51.840
 we're providing notice to the entire city that we're changing the zoning map or updating the zoning map.

01:19:51.840 --> 01:19:56.840
 It doesn't necessarily give the specificity of what is occurring next door to someone.

01:19:56.840 --> 01:20:03.060
 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.

01:20:03.060 --> 01:20:09.000
 And even if it's multiple tracks of land, we'll encompass all of that so we can have the conversation and the dialogue.

01:20:09.000 --> 01:20:18.160
 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.

01:20:20.840 --> 01:20:26.720
 >> 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.

01:20:26.720 --> 01:20:34.000
 I'm wondering the city's role in making sure neighbors are more aware of their neighbor's property than the property owner itself.

01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:42.840
 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,

01:20:42.840 --> 01:20:51.720
 we're doing the city, PNC, and council a ton of extra work so that neighbors can speak about property they don't own.

01:20:51.720 --> 01:20:56.720
 And I understand there might be a change in property value.

01:20:56.720 --> 01:21:02.840
 I guess that's the big fear, or I guess neighbors looking at a two story neighbor looking into a pool.

01:21:02.840 --> 01:21:12.640
 There's some concern there, but it seems like we're unduly providing neighbors opportunity to speak about property they don't own.

01:21:12.640 --> 01:21:17.440
 So again, I don't know if that's a question or just me thinking out loud, but

01:21:17.440 --> 01:21:27.080
 it causes me a little bit of pause to understand what we're, as a city, needing to do.

01:21:27.080 --> 01:21:34.280
 I think it's protect property, owner's property, not provide, I don't know, we've had a dozen sitting meetings.

01:21:34.280 --> 01:21:40.160
 I mean, how many opportunities are we going to have to give neighbors the opportunity to speak against someone else's property use?

01:21:41.200 --> 01:21:47.000
 >> And we've had some of that dialogue in the committee meetings.

01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:53.400
 I think that that has been the conversation, and that is up to the policy makers.

01:21:53.400 --> 01:22:03.840
 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.

01:22:03.840 --> 01:22:07.680
 They have the ability to do it by providing notice and

01:22:07.680 --> 01:22:11.360
 theoretically could rezone and change zoning and do all of those things.

01:22:11.360 --> 01:22:18.040
 I think it's the policy makers that ultimately make the decision as to how much of that they choose to do.

01:22:18.040 --> 01:22:25.800
 And that's what I'm understanding our guidance from the committee is, is to minimize that impact to adjacent properties.

01:22:25.800 --> 01:22:30.360
 Whether that be traffic, whether that be density, whether it be the character.

01:22:30.360 --> 01:22:36.480
 I think there are a number of factors and they're trying to be as conservative as possible.

01:22:36.480 --> 01:22:40.560
 And yet, it is a step in the right direction.

01:22:40.560 --> 01:22:43.000
 It works towards our comp plan.

01:22:43.000 --> 01:22:45.040
 It's consolidating zoning districts.

01:22:45.040 --> 01:22:47.760
 It's not replicating what we have on the ground.

01:22:47.760 --> 01:22:49.480
 There are changes to that.

01:22:49.480 --> 01:22:53.240
 It's trying to minimize the impacts wherever possible.

01:22:53.240 --> 01:22:57.400
 I'm offering up the fact that staff can further that cause,

01:22:57.400 --> 01:23:02.720
 what it is that we're hearing from various commission members,

01:23:02.720 --> 01:23:08.880
 that we can take some more proactive steps to do those city initiated rezonings.

01:23:08.880 --> 01:23:13.680
 Which I think work towards achieving that, yes, it's more work.

01:23:13.680 --> 01:23:16.160
 I think it provides more notice.

01:23:16.160 --> 01:23:21.760
 I think that we're doing everything possible that we can to provide notice to our citizens.

01:23:21.760 --> 01:23:23.560
 To say, hey, we're doing something major.

01:23:23.560 --> 01:23:26.920
 This is incredibly large.

01:23:26.920 --> 01:23:33.120
 And I think our policy makers are just giving us a little bit different direction to say,

01:23:33.120 --> 01:23:35.640
 we want to be overly cautious.

01:23:35.640 --> 01:23:40.240
 And I don't have a voice in that.

01:23:40.240 --> 01:23:43.760
 I expressed my thoughts early in the process.

01:23:43.760 --> 01:23:46.000
 It's the direction that we've been given.

01:23:46.000 --> 01:23:51.640
 So now it's kind of that, what are the next steps and how can we continue on this path

01:23:51.640 --> 01:23:55.200
 to try to achieve what we're looking for, if that helps.

01:23:55.200 --> 01:23:56.280
 >> Yeah, sure.

01:23:56.280 --> 01:23:58.400
 I mean, I didn't really provide you a question and answer,

01:23:58.400 --> 01:24:01.800
 but I think you provided some good context to my thought process.

01:24:01.800 --> 01:24:02.720
 I only have two other questions.

01:24:02.720 --> 01:24:04.160
 I don't want to get too bogged down here.

01:24:04.160 --> 01:24:06.600
 The new map has a new zoning, conditional zoning.

01:24:06.600 --> 01:24:10.080
 Is that defined in the-

01:24:10.080 --> 01:24:16.920
 >> Yes, and really what that means are the zoning change requests

01:24:16.920 --> 01:24:19.640
 that the planning zoning commission made recommendation,

01:24:19.640 --> 01:24:25.280
 ultimately city council considered and approved with conditions.

01:24:25.280 --> 01:24:31.280
 So those parcels are, it's not easy to give them a zoning district or

01:24:31.280 --> 01:24:34.600
 transition them into a zoning district because they have those conditions.

01:24:34.600 --> 01:24:40.160
 For example, a zoning district that came in from an NR2 to NR6

01:24:40.160 --> 01:24:45.160
 with a limitation that it only be four units per acre, whatever it is.

01:24:45.160 --> 01:24:46.960
 Well, you can't really give that a zoning district.

01:24:46.960 --> 01:24:51.560
 And we went through the process of the conditions in the public hearing.

01:24:51.560 --> 01:24:56.360
 And we are saying that we need to keep those and we're going to identify those.

01:24:56.360 --> 01:25:02.160
 Currently, they are on the zoning map as we speak with a gray, with a number.

01:25:02.160 --> 01:25:06.160
 So when someone looks at a zoning map, they know that it's not any zoning district.

01:25:06.160 --> 01:25:13.840
 They have to look at an ordinance to really understand what that developability of that parcel can be.

01:25:13.840 --> 01:25:18.560
 That being said, we're going to carry forward that in the new draft zoning map and

01:25:18.560 --> 01:25:26.040
 any future zoning, hopefully we don't have any more condition zoning as we move forward.

01:25:26.040 --> 01:25:28.080
 Because we have other options.

01:25:28.080 --> 01:25:32.800
 We have the PDs, we have the minor modifications and

01:25:32.800 --> 01:25:39.480
 other planning tools that can address any need for a rezoning.

01:25:39.480 --> 01:25:43.640
 Maybe rather than do a rezoning, let's do this first or let's try this.

01:25:43.640 --> 01:25:45.680
 I think that's probably what will happen.

01:25:45.680 --> 01:25:51.800
 But to answer your question, those are parcels that have conditions on them.

01:25:51.800 --> 01:25:52.760
 >> Thank you for clarifying that.

01:25:52.760 --> 01:26:00.160
 Last thing I have is we talked about last week, remind me, DR1 is going to MN.

01:26:00.160 --> 01:26:06.120
 >> DR1, DR2, RCR1, and RCR4, I'm sorry.

01:26:06.120 --> 01:26:12.840
 DR1, DR2, RCR1, and RCR2 are going to R7.

01:26:12.840 --> 01:26:13.400
 >> Going to R7.

01:26:13.400 --> 01:26:16.240
 >> Those four zoning districts will go into one.

01:26:16.240 --> 01:26:24.040
 And the reason we did that is we recognize that those zoning districts closely match each other.

01:26:24.040 --> 01:26:32.040
 And that those zoning districts in some instances were very little as far as the number of parcels.

01:26:32.040 --> 01:26:36.600
 And so rather than have, again, we're trying to consolidate, we're trying to make it more user friendly,

01:26:36.600 --> 01:26:39.520
 we're trying to identify where we can clean up things.

01:26:39.520 --> 01:26:44.240
 And the R7 was the answer, and that's what we're going forward with.

01:26:44.240 --> 01:26:50.920
 And so to answer your question, DR1, all those that are currently zoned DR1, will be transitioned into R7.

01:26:50.920 --> 01:26:57.640
 >> And then we talked about last week, DR1 does not allow multifamily, but R7 does.

01:26:57.640 --> 01:27:01.000
 >> R7 with a specific use permit.

01:27:01.000 --> 01:27:04.480
 >> With specific use permit, but DR1 does not.

01:27:04.480 --> 01:27:12.560
 I guess the point to maybe reiterate is we've talked extensively about your neighbor being able to provide,

01:27:12.560 --> 01:27:15.040
 being able to do something you didn't know was able to be done before.

01:27:15.040 --> 01:27:19.280
 So you moved into a field, now it's an R6.

01:27:19.280 --> 01:27:25.000
 It seems like there are some cases in which someone's neighbor who last week couldn't build an apartment,

01:27:25.000 --> 01:27:28.040
 fast forward six months, can come and build an apartment.

01:27:28.040 --> 01:27:29.600
 >> With a specific use permit.

01:27:29.600 --> 01:27:31.520
 >> Well, all apartments right now have a specific use permit.

01:27:31.520 --> 01:27:37.760
 But either way, they, by right, can come in and apply, where on a DR1, they had no ability to build an apartment.

01:27:37.760 --> 01:27:39.120
 >> Correct, they would have to rezone, right.

01:27:39.120 --> 01:27:41.400
 >> Is there any concern about that?

01:27:41.400 --> 01:27:47.040
 >> I think with the specific use permit, there's the ability to further review that.

01:27:47.040 --> 01:27:50.760
 And if you look at the zoning map, and again, that's part of the discussion.

01:27:50.760 --> 01:27:53.160
 If you look at the zoning map, where are those DR1s?

01:27:53.160 --> 01:27:54.920
 And I don't know if Cody has them in front of us.

01:27:54.920 --> 01:28:00.360
 The areas that are currently shown there are DR1.

01:28:01.520 --> 01:28:10.680
 >> Yeah, so that area right at Congress and Carroll.

01:28:10.680 --> 01:28:12.880
 >> Right, it's DR1 now.

01:28:12.880 --> 01:28:16.120
 >> And then six months, if it's the same, I know it's a draft.

01:28:16.120 --> 01:28:19.760
 >> Remember, this is the year around the downtown, so we have to look at the context of the area.

01:28:19.760 --> 01:28:25.160
 So if Cody can show the draft zoning map, I believe it's R4, if I'm not mistaken.

01:28:25.160 --> 01:28:31.440
 So that did not follow the transition, because we looked at those particular areas.

01:28:31.440 --> 01:28:32.960
 >> So some DR1s didn't go to R7.

01:28:32.960 --> 01:28:38.520
 >> Correct, but again, because we were looking at the downtown and the university areas.

01:28:38.520 --> 01:28:42.360
 And so in the context of that area, we know that that's the Stroud neighborhood.

01:28:42.360 --> 01:28:45.800
 And so we wanted to protect the existing neighborhoods.

01:28:45.800 --> 01:28:49.680
 And that was one example of where it didn't follow that transition,

01:28:49.680 --> 01:28:53.720
 because we were looking at that particular area.

01:28:53.720 --> 01:28:59.680
 >> If I may add though, early, early on, I mean months ago, when we first started the process.

01:28:59.680 --> 01:29:06.280
 If you recall, we had, I don't remember now how many residential zoning districts we had, where we were trying to consolidate them.

01:29:06.280 --> 01:29:10.520
 And so the R7 was really created to kind of capture these

01:29:10.520 --> 01:29:19.680
 residential neighborhoods in and around downtown that really didn't fit within those minimum lot sizes of NR4.

01:29:19.680 --> 01:29:21.560
 And so as a result, a couple things happened.

01:29:21.560 --> 01:29:28.600
 One, we went back and applied the sort of carry forward the existing districts that we currently have today.

01:29:28.600 --> 01:29:36.760
 We also included the language about not having a property being non-conforming, but then really looked at where should R7 apply.

01:29:36.760 --> 01:29:41.560
 And it really was those, what we'll call sort of the more urban neighborhoods.

01:29:41.560 --> 01:29:49.600
 And so there was a lot more that went into that than just sort of this quick and dirty change.

01:29:49.600 --> 01:29:50.800
 >> And I fully appreciate that.

01:29:50.800 --> 01:29:55.480
 To Commissioner Ellis's point, I think we can do that everywhere.

01:29:55.480 --> 01:30:03.560
 I thought that that was the effort being put forth by the DCRC is to pace such contextual sensitivities across the map.

01:30:03.560 --> 01:30:09.840
 And if I understand this correctly, the legal direction was it's okay to

01:30:09.840 --> 01:30:14.400
 change the zoning as long as it's done fairly across everyone to be, did I hear that correctly?

01:30:14.400 --> 01:30:19.040
 The legal advice was to make sure it's done uniformly and as fairly as possible.

01:30:19.040 --> 01:30:23.760
 I don't know how, when you think of the context, well in downtown we can do this, but

01:30:23.760 --> 01:30:27.440
 this DR1 needs to go to R4, this DR1 goes to R7.

01:30:27.440 --> 01:30:37.960
 Are we going against legal direction to say, okay, we can think about the sensitivities of the different areas when it comes to this.

01:30:37.960 --> 01:30:41.400
 But in this area, we're going to just leave it as an alignment.

01:30:41.400 --> 01:30:51.160
 >> 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.

01:30:52.440 --> 01:31:02.960
 And if there was no easy transition that you can adjust it as long as it's close to that existing zoning district.

01:31:02.960 --> 01:31:07.160
 So looking at it, looking at that example, that was a unique example.

01:31:07.160 --> 01:31:12.520
 But if you look at north of the downtown, most of those are R7 and

01:31:12.520 --> 01:31:18.240
 Cody's already actually shown where there's currently DR1, if you look at the surrounding context,

01:31:18.240 --> 01:31:26.800
 those are already with multi-family developments, specifically south of Eagle in that area.

01:31:26.800 --> 01:31:31.560
 >> But to the northeast of McKinney and, what was that, Bell?

01:31:31.560 --> 01:31:32.080
 >> That would be Bell.

01:31:32.080 --> 01:31:38.520
 >> That was DR1, that's now R7 next to an NR4, to an R4.

01:31:38.520 --> 01:31:41.320
 >> Use them in there.

01:31:41.320 --> 01:31:47.880
 >> So those properties right there on Frame Street, they can be redeveloped into an apartment.

01:31:49.200 --> 01:31:52.160
 >> Not currently, but under the new zoning map, they could.

01:31:52.160 --> 01:31:53.960
 >> With a specific use permit?

01:31:53.960 --> 01:31:54.960
 >> All the same.

01:31:54.960 --> 01:31:58.160
 I don't know what the new P&Z commissioners are going to determine later on.

01:31:58.160 --> 01:32:03.320
 But my point is not specific to this.

01:32:03.320 --> 01:32:09.400
 It's more broadly, it seems as though there's been inconsistencies being applied to this draft zoning map.

01:32:09.400 --> 01:32:14.320
 >> And there may be inconsistencies.

01:32:14.320 --> 01:32:18.840
 I mean, this is a huge undertaking, and every time we touch it, I think it gets a little more complicated.

01:32:18.840 --> 01:32:27.000
 I would just ask that you speak at the committee meeting.

01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:33.240
 And when we have legal there in a format to address some of these issues.

01:32:33.240 --> 01:32:33.740
 >> Sure.

01:32:33.740 --> 01:32:40.600
 >> We can certainly entertain any of the discussion.

01:32:40.600 --> 01:32:43.960
 I don't know that we're the appropriate forum to answer that.

01:32:43.960 --> 01:32:49.080
 And so I just urge us to kind of stay on task of what it is we'd like for

01:32:49.080 --> 01:32:52.920
 the committee to move forward with in some of those recommendations.

01:32:52.920 --> 01:32:59.080
 We can bring back some recommendations and some further ideas.

01:32:59.080 --> 01:33:04.520
 I think Ron may have some yet today to kind of talk about, at least philosophically, what we want to do.

01:33:04.520 --> 01:33:13.520
 In this, I don't know that you're going to get consistency when you consolidate 28 to 14.

01:33:13.520 --> 01:33:15.720
 And this is a large undertaking.

01:33:15.720 --> 01:33:26.240
 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.

01:33:26.240 --> 01:33:31.840
 And we can pick and choose parcels all over that may or may not be.

01:33:31.840 --> 01:33:36.760
 And to Ron's point on the R7s, where it is that we said SUP.

01:33:36.760 --> 01:33:39.040
 So SUP, so we can address it.

01:33:39.040 --> 01:33:43.680
 We can certainly make sure that we've got notification to the adjacent properties.

01:33:43.680 --> 01:33:52.840
 So where those exist, I don't know how it is you consolidate 28 to 14 and not have inconsistencies.

01:33:52.840 --> 01:33:58.200
 But certainly, we've tried to address the vast majority of those, and

01:33:58.200 --> 01:34:03.480
 I urge you to attend on Friday and at least ask those questions so

01:34:03.480 --> 01:34:12.400
 we get a good consistent legal answer rather than staff presuming what it is that might be said, if that helps.

01:34:12.400 --> 01:34:21.320
 >> Let me make one other point too, is that I was not there when you received the outside legal advice.

01:34:21.320 --> 01:34:24.880
 I was not at that particular meeting, but I heard about it after the fact.

01:34:24.880 --> 01:34:32.920
 And I suspect that to the extent it was to match the existing land uses as they stand right now,

01:34:32.920 --> 01:34:40.160
 that's colored an influence to a large degree by a decision that was made some time back.

01:34:40.160 --> 01:34:46.720
 That we did not want to engage in a wholesale rezoning of the city and

01:34:46.720 --> 01:34:55.440
 reexamination of it on a wholesale basis through the adoption of the zoning map without going through

01:34:55.440 --> 01:35:04.560
 the neighborhood of process of sending out notice and allowing people to come up for a public hearing at P&Z and council.

01:35:04.560 --> 01:35:08.400
 Weigh in on that, because that's what they were used to.

01:35:08.400 --> 01:35:14.480
 And the direction, at least from the committee,

01:35:14.480 --> 01:35:20.280
 was pretty strong that the process needed to be one in which we

01:35:22.080 --> 01:35:27.600
 honored that and did make radical changes to the zoning map

01:35:27.600 --> 01:35:35.040
 without going through that neighborhood hearing and the hearing process that we use for

01:35:35.040 --> 01:35:38.800
 rezoning cases once a code is in place.

01:35:38.800 --> 01:35:49.960
 And so I suspect that there could be a number of different ways to analyze and give advice on that.

01:35:49.960 --> 01:35:57.800
 And I think it was in the context of that direction and those decisions that had already been given.

01:35:57.800 --> 01:35:58.480
 >> That's helpful.

01:35:58.480 --> 01:36:02.720
 And Scott, I know there's a lot of hard work and I'm not trying to undermine any of it.

01:36:02.720 --> 01:36:06.960
 I guess one of the fundamental issues I have is I agree there's going to be inconsistencies.

01:36:06.960 --> 01:36:09.080
 It's a huge project.

01:36:09.080 --> 01:36:14.440
 It seemed as though, and this is me personally,

01:36:14.440 --> 01:36:23.880
 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.

01:36:23.880 --> 01:36:28.600
 When we're going to this granular activity, I think there still will be inconsistencies.

01:36:28.600 --> 01:36:33.720
 But it seems like it's more difficult to consistently apply the alignment.

01:36:33.720 --> 01:36:42.960
 Whereas how are we being consistent where some DR1s go R7 and some DR1s go R4 or however that looks.

01:36:42.960 --> 01:36:53.840
 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.

01:36:53.840 --> 01:36:58.000
 Where there was just more proactivity in some of the things.

01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:07.080
 And so that, I guess, is where I feel like where we're currently at.

01:37:07.080 --> 01:37:13.440
 >> I certainly appreciate Jerry's thoughts on the future land use map and not doing a wholesale rezone.

01:37:13.440 --> 01:37:22.120
 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.

01:37:22.120 --> 01:37:23.520
 >> And I don't disagree with you.

01:37:23.520 --> 01:37:27.200
 And the example that we were just looking at has been there since last year.

01:37:27.200 --> 01:37:31.840
 So that wasn't a change that occurred since the Friday before last?

01:37:31.840 --> 01:37:35.880
 >> No, no, I think the DR1s, R7s, that's been there, that isn't new.

01:37:35.880 --> 01:37:37.440
 >> Yeah, so that's a long time ago.

01:37:37.440 --> 01:37:42.520
 But now we're looking at that, and now we're questioning, and we can do that through the entirety of the map.

01:37:42.520 --> 01:37:55.120
 What occurred a week and a half ago was largely that RD5X.

01:37:55.120 --> 01:37:59.080
 That was largely it, and then there were some other issues.

01:37:59.080 --> 01:38:03.240
 And like I say, I think there will be more changes as we go through the process.

01:38:03.240 --> 01:38:09.640
 So, I think that input and that discussion needs to be had.

01:38:09.640 --> 01:38:15.760
 And I think going forward, I don't know that this is the right place for that.

01:38:15.760 --> 01:38:20.240
 I think there is a statement to be made.

01:38:20.240 --> 01:38:29.000
 And I think that providing that feedback as to the direction that you prefer that we continue on is important to note.

01:38:30.560 --> 01:38:36.160
 Again, to your point on the granular, we intend on bringing some of those granular issues.

01:38:36.160 --> 01:38:43.560
 I will say, one of the split zone properties that we discussed on that Friday was a very good example.

01:38:43.560 --> 01:38:46.560
 And I don't know if Cody can pull that up, if you've talked about that, or?

01:38:46.560 --> 01:38:50.400
 >> Locus and 288.

01:38:50.400 --> 01:38:53.520
 >> So ironically, we discussed that.

01:38:53.520 --> 01:38:56.800
 We discussed a couple of split zonings, and there wasn't a good decision.

01:38:56.800 --> 01:39:00.160
 So we said, well, we should probably look at those individually.

01:39:00.160 --> 01:39:08.240
 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.

01:39:08.240 --> 01:39:16.880
 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.

01:39:16.880 --> 01:39:21.160
 Visit with the property owner, visit with the adjacent properties, and

01:39:21.160 --> 01:39:27.480
 bring those forward in something that at least we're taking an approach that we're doing the best that we can for notifications.

01:39:30.040 --> 01:39:35.760
 When that occurred, we had a couple of public open houses.

01:39:35.760 --> 01:39:40.000
 And the property owners came there and actually asked for

01:39:40.000 --> 01:39:46.040
 a rezoning of that property or said, hey, we want this to be, and I don't recall, SC.

01:39:46.040 --> 01:39:49.240
 Yeah, Suburban Corridor is what they were looking for.

01:39:49.240 --> 01:39:53.440
 And I don't know that we had necessarily an option on what we thought that would be zoned.

01:39:55.720 --> 01:40:00.720
 >> So one of the methodologies with these split zoning or multiple zoning parcels that you see here.

01:40:00.720 --> 01:40:04.600
 This particular parcel has three zoning districts.

01:40:04.600 --> 01:40:09.760
 And what we use as far as methodology, and we explained this as part of the 16,

01:40:09.760 --> 01:40:18.080
 because you can't split this parcel because it's not a broken parcel.

01:40:18.080 --> 01:40:22.600
 The map of the zoning map has it, has just three zoning districts.

01:40:22.600 --> 01:40:28.120
 So we told the committee that we're going to pick

01:40:28.120 --> 01:40:33.800
 the largest zoning of that property and assign it that and give that.

01:40:33.800 --> 01:40:41.000
 Now, that may not be the right option, but that was the methodology that we were using generally for all of these.

01:40:41.000 --> 01:40:45.720
 And Cody did his research, and we have a what, how many parcels are split?

01:40:45.720 --> 01:40:47.760
 >> I believe it was.

01:40:47.760 --> 01:40:48.680
 >> 370.

01:40:48.680 --> 01:40:54.600
 >> So we went back after our initial meeting, chair.

01:40:54.600 --> 01:41:01.640
 And we actually narrowed that down to less because they were either slivers or

01:41:01.640 --> 01:41:06.200
 they were not necessarily this evident as far as multiple zoning districts.

01:41:06.200 --> 01:41:10.360
 So I think it dropped to about 150, 160 of those parcels.

01:41:10.360 --> 01:41:11.960
 But that's still 160 parcels.

01:41:11.960 --> 01:41:14.200
 >> Sure. >> Yeah, it was 158.

01:41:14.200 --> 01:41:16.040
 >> There you go, 158.

01:41:16.040 --> 01:41:21.160
 So the question that I'm going to be asking, the committee, I mean, we're here today,

01:41:21.160 --> 01:41:26.920
 and I want to take advantage of your input, is we have three options.

01:41:26.920 --> 01:41:31.280
 The first option is, do we go with the largest zoning district?

01:41:31.280 --> 01:41:38.200
 And in this particular case is NR6, because the largest there is NR6.

01:41:38.200 --> 01:41:45.040
 Option two is we create a layer and we just split it based on the existing zoning district.

01:41:45.040 --> 01:41:51.400
 Which again is existing and moving forward, it'll be consistent with the transitional chart.

01:41:51.400 --> 01:41:54.920
 Option three is we reach out to the property owners.

01:41:54.920 --> 01:42:00.600
 In fact, as Scott mentioned, the property owners attended the public meeting, and those public meetings have worked.

01:42:00.600 --> 01:42:08.880
 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.

01:42:08.880 --> 01:42:16.120
 Because that's option three, do we want to propose what they are requesting?

01:42:16.120 --> 01:42:23.840
 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.

01:42:23.840 --> 01:42:26.120
 So those are the options we have.

01:42:26.120 --> 01:42:31.120
 Do we pick the largest one and apply that to all the 158?

01:42:31.120 --> 01:42:36.280
 Do we split it using just GIS and match exactly what it is today?

01:42:36.280 --> 01:42:44.480
 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?

01:42:44.480 --> 01:42:51.080
 That's a different option, and of course, the committee is going to chime in,

01:42:51.080 --> 01:42:56.720
 obviously provide input, the council, and then the Planning Zoning Commission as well.

01:42:56.720 --> 01:42:57.560
 >> Thanks, Ron.

01:42:57.560 --> 01:42:58.080
 Mr. Ellison.

01:42:58.080 --> 01:43:01.240
 >> Thank you, Chair.

01:43:01.240 --> 01:43:08.280
 Prior to this new approach to the map, you didn't have any split zonings left, correct?

01:43:08.280 --> 01:43:14.560
 You did go ahead and assign a zoning district based on the largest.

01:43:14.560 --> 01:43:19.880
 >> What methodology did you use when you did that?

01:43:19.880 --> 01:43:26.320
 >> One, we assigned it to the largest zoning district that was there.

01:43:26.320 --> 01:43:33.960
 But I will add that we also looked at and made sure the context of the area wasn't going to be detrimental.

01:43:33.960 --> 01:43:38.960
 And so we also adjusted based on our, we,

01:43:38.960 --> 01:43:45.360
 parcel by parcel, making sure that we weren't creating something that would be detrimental to the community.

01:43:45.360 --> 01:43:53.480
 >> 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.

01:43:53.480 --> 01:43:56.280
 That, to me, has got to be taken care of.

01:43:56.280 --> 01:44:03.800
 Split zoning makes no sense, and I do not understand why we would at least not proactively take that step with this draft map.

01:44:03.800 --> 01:44:11.000
 And use good methodology and best practices to assign it a zone.

01:44:11.000 --> 01:44:16.200
 >> No, you're absolutely, and that is, I think what Scott was referring to.

01:44:16.200 --> 01:44:20.520
 We had to react, and so we wanted to get the map out and

01:44:20.520 --> 01:44:26.840
 we assigned it that split zoning as a way to identify where we need to do more work.

01:44:26.840 --> 01:44:28.840
 And more discussion and more input.

01:44:28.840 --> 01:44:38.480
 >> If I, let me, but what I do recall coming out of committee in that February 22nd meeting was,

01:44:38.480 --> 01:44:44.000
 because we pulled up, and I don't know if it was this parcel, but we pulled up a split zoning parcel.

01:44:44.000 --> 01:44:49.720
 And it was discussed at that meeting by some members that

01:44:49.720 --> 01:44:51.720
 we're okay to leave it split zoning.

01:44:51.720 --> 01:44:57.760
 So, I mean, definitely going to bring that up again at this Friday's meeting,

01:44:57.760 --> 01:45:02.560
 because that just doesn't make sense to me, so.

01:45:02.560 --> 01:45:05.680
 But that was definitely a direction that was given, was to leave it split.

01:45:05.680 --> 01:45:12.040
 >> And I just want to be clear, that is, I believe option two is what I listed.

01:45:12.040 --> 01:45:18.760
 That the parcel would be one parcel, but the map would have the split zoning.

01:45:18.760 --> 01:45:21.160
 >> Okay, I think I understand what you're saying.

01:45:21.160 --> 01:45:23.040
 >> Commissioner Smith.

01:45:23.040 --> 01:45:24.480
 >> Thank you, Chair.

01:45:24.480 --> 01:45:31.600
 I think the having visited with some of the other committee members there on that committee.

01:45:31.600 --> 01:45:32.840
 I know that- >> Is your mic on?

01:45:32.840 --> 01:45:34.600
 >> Sure, it's my, yeah, it's on.

01:45:34.600 --> 01:45:41.280
 So having visited with some of the members on the committee, I'm in support of going through and not doing split zoning.

01:45:41.280 --> 01:45:44.480
 I think it's unintelligent for us to leave split zoning out there.

01:45:44.480 --> 01:45:51.560
 But I do know it's expressed that allowing the process be the process, allowing owners,

01:45:51.560 --> 01:45:57.720
 property owners to come and go through the exact same zoning process that they normally would if they want to rezone the property.

01:45:57.720 --> 01:46:06.960
 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.

01:46:06.960 --> 01:46:11.080
 I think that if we do a big citywide rezoning, we're not going to notify enough.

01:46:11.080 --> 01:46:16.560
 It's not going to be blatant enough to where somebody who's bought a home 5, 10 years prior and

01:46:16.560 --> 01:46:23.920
 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.

01:46:23.920 --> 01:46:25.760
 Well, it got rezoned.

01:46:25.760 --> 01:46:26.600
 Well, when was that?

01:46:26.600 --> 01:46:31.160
 It was through citywide rezoning and we sent out, we had notices on the website.

01:46:31.160 --> 01:46:35.960
 We sent out notifications in your electric bill, but we know how people are.

01:46:35.960 --> 01:46:38.040
 They don't read and they don't look at it.

01:46:38.040 --> 01:46:48.240
 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.

01:46:48.240 --> 01:46:53.600
 I'm not so sure if I would 100% agree the fact that we need to leave split zoning across there.

01:46:53.600 --> 01:47:00.680
 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.

01:47:00.680 --> 01:47:07.240
 That there is that process that is already in existence that allows for the neighborhood surrounding to be notified,

01:47:07.240 --> 01:47:11.320
 to have the signs out there, and we would do that anyways if we did the citywide rezoning, right?

01:47:11.320 --> 01:47:14.960
 If we're going to be changing the zoning, there would be signs put out, correct?

01:47:14.960 --> 01:47:17.560
 No, it would just be done?

01:47:17.560 --> 01:47:19.880
 >> No, there will be no signs.

01:47:19.880 --> 01:47:25.800
 Obviously, there will be notifications of the public hearing through the newspaper, illegal notice,

01:47:25.800 --> 01:47:31.280
 and we are planning on sending out letters out to every property owner,

01:47:31.280 --> 01:47:37.000
 over 30,000 letters letting them know that their property is being rezoned to whatever zoning district.

01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:40.960
 Not necessarily the neighborhood, the neighbors surrounding those properties that are being rezoned.

01:47:40.960 --> 01:47:42.800
 >> No. >> And that'd be unfeasible.

01:47:42.800 --> 01:47:44.120
 That'd be way too much.

01:47:44.120 --> 01:47:47.480
 That'd be way too much notification, and that's understandable.

01:47:47.480 --> 01:47:54.360
 So I guess the reason why I think that the mayor said what he said and the position he takes on it

01:47:54.360 --> 01:48:02.400
 is the process allows for neighborhoods to keep in touch with what's happening on land surrounding their property.

01:48:02.400 --> 01:48:04.840
 So just that point of view.

01:48:04.840 --> 01:48:06.160
 >> Commissioner Ellis.

01:48:06.160 --> 01:48:06.960
 >> Thank you, Chair.

01:48:06.960 --> 01:48:16.640
 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.

01:48:16.640 --> 01:48:24.040
 To me, what staff has set out to do with this entire process of the DDC rewrite and

01:48:24.040 --> 01:48:30.080
 this draft zone map is to communicate at the highest level and have dozens and dozens of meetings.

01:48:30.080 --> 01:48:36.960
 And I'm not sure how we could notify people more than what we're doing now.

01:48:36.960 --> 01:48:42.600
 And they're probably apt to pay more attention now because

01:48:42.600 --> 01:48:47.440
 the momentum is there and we're talking about it and meeting after meeting is being done.

01:48:47.440 --> 01:48:54.440
 So I mean, I think it's a great opportunity to do this and to alert everybody of what's going on because

01:48:55.760 --> 01:49:01.200
 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.

01:49:01.200 --> 01:49:03.360
 So that's just my take on that.

01:49:03.360 --> 01:49:10.160
 I certainly want everybody to be paying attention in reading and clicking on the mapping, clicking on their neighbor's mapping.

01:49:10.160 --> 01:49:16.320
 Clicking on the parcel north of town to see what, I mean, now is the time to do that.

01:49:16.320 --> 01:49:22.280
 And I think the staff's doing a great job on trying to get public engagement on this project.

01:49:26.440 --> 01:49:32.080
 >> So zoning map, any other questions on this?

01:49:32.080 --> 01:49:34.760
 Kind of a stop down, my apologies for contributing to that.

01:49:34.760 --> 01:49:40.560
 Ron, I'll give the presentation back to you, sorry for all that.

01:49:40.560 --> 01:49:46.200
 >> Yeah, if I can have Cody go back to PowerPoint and I'm going to grab the pointer.

01:49:46.200 --> 01:49:47.560
 >> Yep, I'll turn it back over.

01:49:47.560 --> 01:49:52.880
 I know, it's probably safer this way though.

01:49:55.440 --> 01:50:00.400
 >> So this work session is really dedicated to the zoning district, the zoning map.

01:50:00.400 --> 01:50:06.080
 Because there was a continuation from our last meeting, I just want to make sure we wrap that up and

01:50:06.080 --> 01:50:11.160
 we fully vet it out because I think it's important because there's been a lot of discussion and

01:50:11.160 --> 01:50:15.080
 I didn't want to leave it out and it's important that we discuss it.

01:50:15.080 --> 01:50:20.280
 We also want to talk about sub-chapter five, which is the uses.

01:50:20.280 --> 01:50:28.800
 And I know that you all have done your homework and we want to hear from you.

01:50:28.800 --> 01:50:31.920
 This is the opportunity to get input from you.

01:50:31.920 --> 01:50:33.800
 Are we missing land uses?

01:50:33.800 --> 01:50:38.080
 Are we adding land uses that don't necessarily need to be there?

01:50:38.080 --> 01:50:39.960
 How are we approving these land uses?

01:50:39.960 --> 01:50:42.000
 Should they have a specific use permit?

01:50:42.000 --> 01:50:45.760
 Should they be permitted in this particular zoning district or not?

01:50:45.760 --> 01:50:50.640
 Those are the type of information that we're looking from the commission so

01:50:50.640 --> 01:50:55.520
 that when we have this brought forward to you at a later time,

01:50:55.520 --> 01:50:59.000
 we're all comfortable and we have your buy in and we want to make sure we get it right.

01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:00.360
 That's probably the most important thing.

01:51:00.360 --> 01:51:04.000
 We want to get this right as close as we can.

01:51:04.000 --> 01:51:09.760
 We may not get that 100%, right, but we want to get it as close as we can.

01:51:09.760 --> 01:51:12.600
 So we want to hear from you.

01:51:12.600 --> 01:51:19.440
 You've listed behind me the new or added zoning.

01:51:19.440 --> 01:51:27.720
 I'm sorry, added land uses that we've added to help with questions that we've received.

01:51:27.720 --> 01:51:30.960
 When you hear a developer come in and say, well, I want to do this.

01:51:30.960 --> 01:51:32.920
 Well, we don't have a use for that.

01:51:32.920 --> 01:51:34.000
 We need to do a code amendment.

01:51:34.000 --> 01:51:35.960
 We're trying to address those today.

01:51:38.400 --> 01:51:42.720
 When we come open, we can talk about a particular use.

01:51:42.720 --> 01:51:47.040
 We can talk about a particular approval of that use.

01:51:47.040 --> 01:51:51.600
 We can also talk about the use specific standard that is associated to that use.

01:51:51.600 --> 01:51:55.200
 So when you see a plus assigned to that P or

01:51:55.200 --> 01:52:00.240
 to that S, P being permitted, S being specific use permit.

01:52:00.240 --> 01:52:04.120
 If you see a plus, that means that there is a use specific standard or

01:52:04.120 --> 01:52:06.800
 standards that are tied to that particular use.

01:52:06.800 --> 01:52:12.760
 So I know we talked about multifamily a little bit at our last meeting.

01:52:12.760 --> 01:52:21.040
 But really, the conversation that I want to hear is, what other uses do we want to discuss?

01:52:21.040 --> 01:52:24.840
 And I'm going to repeat myself, are we missing anything?

01:52:24.840 --> 01:52:33.160
 Is it the right approval, or is the use specific standard, it doesn't make sense, and we need to add or refine it.

01:52:33.160 --> 01:52:33.840
 >> Commissioner Beck.

01:52:33.840 --> 01:52:36.040
 >> Thank you, Chair.

01:52:36.040 --> 01:52:41.840
 Thanks, Ron, and I sent you a list of things, so we can probably start with some of those if you don't mind.

01:52:41.840 --> 01:52:46.520
 The use, excuse me, the use specific standard required tiny homes.

01:52:46.520 --> 01:52:49.560
 Projects to be on a minimum of two acres is a good idea, that makes sense.

01:52:49.560 --> 01:52:54.960
 And it's permitted on except the MD zones,

01:52:54.960 --> 01:52:59.280
 where we probably have several areas within Denton with less than two acres.

01:52:59.280 --> 01:53:07.840
 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.

01:53:07.840 --> 01:53:10.520
 Is that possible?

01:53:10.520 --> 01:53:13.920
 >> Two acres, yes.

01:53:13.920 --> 01:53:15.160
 Is that possible, Cody, or is that?

01:53:15.160 --> 01:53:18.480
 >> Anything's possible with Cody.

01:53:18.480 --> 01:53:19.240
 >> The Candyman.

01:53:19.240 --> 01:53:22.560
 >> The candyman will be working.

01:53:22.560 --> 01:53:25.000
 >> The only, well, I'll make a comment.

01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:35.640
 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?

01:53:35.640 --> 01:53:44.200
 >> Let me, when you were talking, Commissioner Beck, you mentioned MD.

01:53:44.200 --> 01:53:46.560
 What are you referring to specifically?

01:53:46.560 --> 01:53:47.160
 >> Tiny homes.

01:53:47.160 --> 01:53:52.120
 >> MD is permitted, I mean, tiny home developments are permitted in the MD.

01:53:52.120 --> 01:53:55.840
 >> Oh, let me get there, I think he was talking about lot size.

01:53:55.840 --> 01:54:02.640
 >> I see, see what I'm talking about?

01:54:02.640 --> 01:54:06.800
 I think I'm looking at tiny homes.

01:54:06.800 --> 01:54:10.780
 MD.

01:54:10.780 --> 01:54:18.200
 >> MD minimum lot size is none, so as long as you have

01:54:21.320 --> 01:54:24.240
 it permitted and you comply with the U-specific standard.

01:54:24.240 --> 01:54:29.280
 >> U-specific standard for it in MD, well, I guess in NMR,

01:54:29.280 --> 01:54:38.440
 was that it be, one of them in that way was that it be on at least two acres.

01:54:38.440 --> 01:54:40.200
 >> And that's page 212.

01:54:40.200 --> 01:54:43.040
 >> Yes.

01:54:43.040 --> 01:54:43.720
 >> Okay.

01:54:43.720 --> 01:54:48.000
 >> Okay, yeah, I didn't put pages, not on this one anyway.

01:54:49.320 --> 01:54:53.440
 >> Well, the first one is the minimum project size for tiny home development is two acres.

01:54:53.440 --> 01:54:54.480
 >> Right.

01:54:54.480 --> 01:55:00.480
 Now, MDs are usually in areas, we were talking about them all ago, aren't we?

01:55:00.480 --> 01:55:02.960
 >> Right, the downtown, and Cody has that up front.

01:55:02.960 --> 01:55:06.720
 >> Okay, that's what I wanted to see, if we've got areas.

01:55:06.720 --> 01:55:09.760
 >> Are we only looking at MD right now?

01:55:09.760 --> 01:55:13.480
 >> Yeah. >> Or anything that tiny homes are allowed?

01:55:13.480 --> 01:55:15.080
 >> MD with less than two acres.

01:55:15.080 --> 01:55:15.800
 >> Less than two acres.

01:55:15.800 --> 01:55:21.760
 >> Right, because the object of developing tiny home communities

01:55:21.760 --> 01:55:27.560
 is to get them in areas where public transportation is, close to jobs, stuff like that.

01:55:27.560 --> 01:55:31.240
 And I found a couple that are at least two acres, but

01:55:31.240 --> 01:55:34.120
 I was curious to see if we had anything.

01:55:34.120 --> 01:55:42.760
 >> So this is all MD that is less than two acres.

01:55:42.760 --> 01:55:43.560
 >> Which ones?

01:55:43.560 --> 01:55:47.320
 >> Everything that's highlighted in both, almost all of it there.

01:55:47.320 --> 01:55:53.880
 >> Okay, which is already done, I guess, probably to be more specific.

01:55:53.880 --> 01:55:56.120
 Do we have empty lots currently?

01:55:56.120 --> 01:56:04.320
 We can obviously go in if it's MD and say there's an old dwelling there, or a closed business.

01:56:04.320 --> 01:56:09.840
 We could go in and remove that and create a, and put a tiny home there.

01:56:09.840 --> 01:56:13.040
 >> As long as it is more than, or two acres or more.

01:56:14.120 --> 01:56:18.880
 >> Okay, so on MD, we don't have anything.

01:56:18.880 --> 01:56:21.720
 >> That are available?

01:56:21.720 --> 01:56:23.360
 >> Yeah, that are listed.

01:56:23.360 --> 01:56:28.480
 >> Someone can consolidate a lot, or lots, someone can take a larger.

01:56:28.480 --> 01:56:32.320
 I mean, there are a number of parcels, I believe, that are over two acres.

01:56:32.320 --> 01:56:34.800
 And those are the ones that are not highlighted.

01:56:34.800 --> 01:56:35.720
 So those are options.

01:56:35.720 --> 01:56:36.520
 >> Now they're highlighted.

01:56:36.520 --> 01:56:37.040
 >> Oh, sorry.

01:56:37.040 --> 01:56:42.480
 So not many, but those are currently over two acres.

01:56:42.480 --> 01:56:46.520
 >> Okay, that just seems like a limiting factor for tiny homes, but I understand.

01:56:46.520 --> 01:56:52.000
 >> And again, tiny homes are permitted in the MN, in the MR, RR, and R1 as well.

01:56:52.000 --> 01:56:54.000
 >> Right, right.

01:56:54.000 --> 01:56:58.840
 Okay, the other question was why not,

01:56:58.840 --> 01:57:06.040
 why manufactured home developments are allowed with an SUP in RR and R1, R2, but not R1?

01:57:06.040 --> 01:57:08.040
 Have I read that right?

01:57:08.040 --> 01:57:09.120
 Manufactured home?

01:57:09.120 --> 01:57:09.840
 >> Yep.

01:57:09.840 --> 01:57:15.640
 >> I'm trying to recall, and I'm with some of our planners back there that have hopefully their code book.

01:57:15.640 --> 01:57:19.320
 I don't know where they're permitted, how they're permitted now.

01:57:19.320 --> 01:57:21.080
 Manufactured housing developments?

01:57:21.080 --> 01:57:24.840
 >> R6.

01:57:24.840 --> 01:57:27.680
 >> R6, yes.

01:57:27.680 --> 01:57:31.520
 >> R6, the R, the rural residential.

01:57:31.520 --> 01:57:33.440
 >> You got to go to the mic, please, so.

01:57:33.440 --> 01:57:34.040
 >> You're getting me in trouble.

01:57:34.040 --> 01:57:39.160
 >> Rural residential by right.

01:57:40.160 --> 01:57:44.120
 >> NR2 and NR6 with an SUP.

01:57:44.120 --> 01:57:44.880
 >> So the rural.

01:57:44.880 --> 01:57:46.560
 >> I'm wrong.

01:57:46.560 --> 01:57:55.920
 >> Right, but you can get it in rural residential and rural residential too, but it's not permitted in rural residential one.

01:57:55.920 --> 01:58:03.080
 >> Commissioner Back, so ultimately your question is, or maybe we need to discuss with the committee, why we would not allow it in R1.

01:58:03.080 --> 01:58:05.080
 >> Exactly, yeah, that's all.

01:58:05.080 --> 01:58:10.960
 >> And I think it's just consistent with what the code is today, but we certainly can discuss that.

01:58:10.960 --> 01:58:11.460
 >> Okay.

01:58:11.460 --> 01:58:19.440
 >> And again, just to reiterate, obviously the draft, and this is why we're talking about this.

01:58:19.440 --> 01:58:24.760
 So if the commission recommends that it be permitted,

01:58:24.760 --> 01:58:30.720
 we can note that and discuss it further with the committee, but that is a good comment.

01:58:31.960 --> 01:58:37.680
 >> Well, it requires an SUP, so yeah, if we get into an R1 where it doesn't make sense and

01:58:37.680 --> 01:58:47.800
 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.

01:58:47.800 --> 01:58:48.400
 >> Duly noted.

01:58:48.400 --> 01:58:49.000
 >> Yes. >> Okay.

01:58:49.000 --> 01:59:01.040
 >> 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.

01:59:01.040 --> 01:59:04.800
 >> Certainly, see, your notes, if I understand it, have been submitted to the Senate?

01:59:04.800 --> 01:59:05.560
 >> Right.

01:59:05.560 --> 01:59:06.520
 >> Okay.

01:59:06.520 --> 01:59:09.760
 Well, let's see if anyone has any questions, and if we want to walk through your list, we can.

01:59:09.760 --> 01:59:16.440
 Does anyone else have questions right now to be addressed here?

01:59:16.440 --> 01:59:24.320
 And then just for the commission's sake, what's the best way to provide feedback?

01:59:24.320 --> 01:59:28.600
 There's three of us that have committee access, what's the options?

01:59:28.600 --> 01:59:35.560
 I encourage that you email me as Commissioner Beck has.

01:59:35.560 --> 01:59:40.120
 I encourage you to bring it up during our next work sessions.

01:59:40.120 --> 01:59:42.440
 I encourage you to call me as well.

01:59:42.440 --> 01:59:47.360
 I mean, I will be taking these, and Sean, who's not here,

01:59:47.360 --> 01:59:53.400
 does help me make sure that we document every comment that we receive.

01:59:53.400 --> 01:59:58.120
 And the hope is that we share that with the commission, the committee, and the council.

01:59:58.120 --> 02:00:02.280
 We've been doing that with, to date.

02:00:02.280 --> 02:00:09.200
 As we hear comments from the public, we put them in a comment spreadsheet, and we share that with everyone.

02:00:09.200 --> 02:00:09.700
 >> Great.

02:00:09.700 --> 02:00:11.960
 >> [UNKNOWN]

02:00:11.960 --> 02:00:12.800
 >> Thank you, Chair.

02:00:12.800 --> 02:00:18.320
 So with regard to uses, it'll be impossible to get them all, right?

02:00:18.320 --> 02:00:23.160
 because there's always a new site, yeah, that's new, we never thought about that.

02:00:23.160 --> 02:00:28.880
 Is that something that could be added to the table at one of those, as the,

02:00:28.880 --> 02:00:34.680
 I think it was Clarion who suggested that the city look at it maybe even so much as twice a year.

02:00:34.680 --> 02:00:39.160
 Is that something that could be added had it come up as a use that didn't fit down?

02:00:39.160 --> 02:00:44.160
 Is that something in that type of process that could be addressed then?

02:00:44.160 --> 02:00:50.120
 >> Absolutely, and I think just like the current DDC where we recognize changes in how people live or

02:00:50.120 --> 02:00:54.440
 operate businesses, we would take it as a text amendment if we needed to.

02:00:54.440 --> 02:01:02.000
 But with this process, we're going to have that six month, if you will, certainly going to look at it in a year.

02:01:02.000 --> 02:01:07.360
 How is this functioning, what changes do we need to make, and we do want to have a regular process, to your point.

02:01:07.360 --> 02:01:12.880
 >> 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.

02:01:12.880 --> 02:01:17.000
 >> Scott will, Scott knows them all.

02:01:17.000 --> 02:01:17.680
 >> I don't think so.

02:01:19.480 --> 02:01:22.560
 >> Every day is a new day, probably the beauty of the job.

02:01:22.560 --> 02:01:29.120
 >> Can you all just make me feel better about the term short term rental?

02:01:29.120 --> 02:01:34.120
 Is that like standard nomenclature, because we're addressing VRBOs, Airbnbs, right?

02:01:34.120 --> 02:01:35.120
 That's the- >> That is what-

02:01:35.120 --> 02:01:36.640
 >> That's like the type of term for sure.

02:01:36.640 --> 02:01:37.800
 >> Correct. >> Okay.

02:01:37.800 --> 02:01:44.960
 >> And just a point for the commission so that they have this reference.

02:01:44.960 --> 02:01:49.160
 Each use has a definition, so we're clear.

02:01:49.160 --> 02:01:54.520
 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.

02:01:54.520 --> 02:02:00.440
 And so we're trying to make it more clear, or two definitions, even worse.

02:02:00.440 --> 02:02:10.120
 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.

02:02:10.120 --> 02:02:14.840
 >> And I think it's important to note we've looked at those definitions.

02:02:14.840 --> 02:02:20.800
 And those definitions are probably the last part of the review that will happen,

02:02:20.800 --> 02:02:24.200
 just as we add uses, remove uses, and make changes.

02:02:24.200 --> 02:02:30.200
 So the definitions need some work, and we have changes for those definitions.

02:02:30.200 --> 02:02:36.880
 So you may read some of that today that will be different and certainly would like your feedback and input.

02:02:38.520 --> 02:02:45.400
 >> 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.

02:02:45.400 --> 02:02:51.680
 I don't know if they're going to be notified that they need to be registering or that.

02:02:51.680 --> 02:02:59.240
 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.

02:02:59.240 --> 02:03:00.440
 I don't do that for the record.

02:03:00.440 --> 02:03:06.880
 But hopefully that's a transparent term for the general public who are engaged in that activity.

02:03:06.880 --> 02:03:11.200
 That they know that there are new kind of conditions on the use of that.

02:03:11.200 --> 02:03:16.200
 >> And today, well, I think once we have the adoption,

02:03:16.200 --> 02:03:20.600
 we'll certainly be doing all sorts of press releases and notifications.

02:03:20.600 --> 02:03:23.160
 And we'll have an implementation period.

02:03:23.160 --> 02:03:31.120
 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.

02:03:31.120 --> 02:03:34.600
 >> Great, Commissioner Beck.

02:03:34.600 --> 02:03:40.000
 >> Thank you, Chair. I'd like to get the commission's input on religious assemblies.

02:03:40.000 --> 02:03:45.400
 If you look, get the use definition, which is on page 218.

02:03:45.400 --> 02:03:50.400
 To me, it read more like a definition than a limitation.

02:03:50.400 --> 02:03:58.600
 Am I overthinking it there?

02:03:58.600 --> 02:04:00.160
 Because what is the limitation?

02:04:00.160 --> 02:04:08.880
 >> Let me just, religious assemblies are pretty much allowed by right.

02:04:08.880 --> 02:04:13.480
 >> I think that's just trying to give at least a little bit of an understanding as to what it is.

02:04:13.480 --> 02:04:18.560
 And then you have the one and two on the following page.

02:04:18.560 --> 02:04:24.120
 So I don't know that it's so much as like the rest of the code that it's at least user friendly.

02:04:24.120 --> 02:04:28.520
 So you can look, review, and understand if that's where you're at.

02:04:28.520 --> 02:04:32.840
 >> Okay, but you don't go- >> It's given it a broader scope.

02:04:32.840 --> 02:04:36.000
 I mean, a shrine could be a place of religious assembly.

02:04:36.000 --> 02:04:42.200
 It may not be understandable to someone who's looking for a church.

02:04:42.200 --> 02:04:51.520
 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.

02:04:51.520 --> 02:04:57.600
 We had that come up again over on Oak Street a few years back.

02:04:57.600 --> 02:05:01.880
 And we had a big challenge under Ralupa.

02:05:01.880 --> 02:05:07.840
 And one of the things that became very obvious is that

02:05:07.840 --> 02:05:13.640
 there's really no good way to win those kinds of challenges.

02:05:13.640 --> 02:05:15.200
 >> All right, that makes sense, thanks.

02:05:15.200 --> 02:05:23.240
 >> And just to chime in real quick, there is a definition for religious assembly in the back.

02:05:24.360 --> 02:05:27.800
 This, you are correct, Larry.

02:05:27.800 --> 02:05:30.600
 >> The U specific standard just seemed to be redundant.

02:05:30.600 --> 02:05:37.680
 >> And I think what we did, and what Clarion did, was they did, I believe this was in the definition section.

02:05:37.680 --> 02:05:43.160
 Because it had a lot more standards, or tied to some standards related, we moved it here so

02:05:43.160 --> 02:05:52.360
 that it's clear that these are what an assembly, a religious assembly, should be.

02:05:52.360 --> 02:05:56.400
 >> Okay, that makes sense.

02:05:56.400 --> 02:05:58.960
 >> Commissioner Ellis.

02:05:58.960 --> 02:06:00.240
 >> Thank you, Chair.

02:06:00.240 --> 02:06:02.160
 Okay, so a couple things.

02:06:02.160 --> 02:06:05.360
 With regard to musician's studio, you have that noted from last meeting, right?

02:06:05.360 --> 02:06:10.360
 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?

02:06:10.360 --> 02:06:17.240
 Okay, and then secondly, with regard to definition, I know you said it'll be the end of the process.

02:06:17.240 --> 02:06:24.200
 So is our hope to maybe have the whole SRO, collegiate housing, whatever?

02:06:24.200 --> 02:06:27.280
 Are we going to try to maybe have it done by then, or?

02:06:27.280 --> 02:06:28.160
 >> Just curious.

02:06:28.160 --> 02:06:29.320
 >> Commissioner Ellis, no.

02:06:29.320 --> 02:06:38.680
 >> There's a lot to it, and as we discussed, it will require more analysis,

02:06:38.680 --> 02:06:42.440
 and we will do our best to get it as soon as we can.

02:06:42.440 --> 02:06:44.080
 >> Okay, thank you.

02:06:44.080 --> 02:06:50.520
 And I will say, ironically, we talked with the city manager's office today about that very topic, and some of your comments.

02:06:50.520 --> 02:06:53.880
 So we are diligently working on many facets.

02:06:53.880 --> 02:06:59.560
 >> Mr. Beck.

02:06:59.560 --> 02:07:02.280
 >> Thank you, Chair.

02:07:02.280 --> 02:07:03.880
 Again, input from the commission.

02:07:03.880 --> 02:07:12.600
 I have a problem with clubs or lodges being allowed at all in R2, R3, and R4, even with an SUP.

02:07:12.600 --> 02:07:20.400
 For me, these are single family districts that may be isolated from high traffic commercial areas.

02:07:20.400 --> 02:07:24.600
 That can burn the neighborhood with the undue amount of traffic on any given day.

02:07:24.600 --> 02:07:32.200
 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.

02:07:32.200 --> 02:07:36.240
 So how does the other commissioners feel about it?

02:07:42.600 --> 02:07:46.160
 >> That's a good question, Mr. Beck.

02:07:46.160 --> 02:07:54.080
 My first thought is there's a lot of planned development communities that have clubs as their entrance.

02:07:54.080 --> 02:07:57.960
 When you come in, they have the game room, or the coffee shop, or whatever.

02:07:57.960 --> 02:08:02.720
 So it seems like there needs to be some provision in the code to allow for those type of structures.

02:08:02.720 --> 02:08:05.720
 >> Well, to that point, what's it called?

02:08:05.720 --> 02:08:07.200
 >> Amenity center.

02:08:07.200 --> 02:08:08.800
 >> Not amenity, yeah.

02:08:08.800 --> 02:08:10.360
 Yes, amenity center.

02:08:10.360 --> 02:08:14.240
 >> That's fine, that's a different thing.

02:08:14.240 --> 02:08:18.640
 These lodges and clubs that allow the sale of alcohol.

02:08:18.640 --> 02:08:29.960
 I can see them on the periphery of certain neighborhoods, close to a mixed use area.

02:08:29.960 --> 02:08:35.920
 But if you allow that in the middle of a neighborhood, you're going to have a problem with that.

02:08:35.920 --> 02:08:36.640
 >> Right.

02:08:36.640 --> 02:08:39.000
 >> SUP process should stop that.

02:08:39.000 --> 02:08:43.880
 >> Yeah, and that's the idea that it is required to have a specific use permit.

02:08:43.880 --> 02:08:50.480
 >> Just the idea of even allowing those neighborhoods seems like we're inviting trouble, it's invariably.

02:08:50.480 --> 02:08:51.080
 Unless again.

02:08:51.080 --> 02:08:58.840
 >> And some of those may exist already today, so whether it's a Masonic or

02:08:58.840 --> 02:09:05.720
 some of the other clubs that could exist in some residential zones, I just, I'm sorry, Jerry.

02:09:05.720 --> 02:09:10.760
 >> Well, that's okay, but I was just going to say that really, SUP isn't a basis for

02:09:10.760 --> 02:09:15.600
 winnowing out which uses should go where.

02:09:15.600 --> 02:09:21.840
 SUPs are really more of an issue of what does the site look like and

02:09:21.840 --> 02:09:28.720
 how will this impact traffic and how will traffic impact the use and things of that nature.

02:09:28.720 --> 02:09:36.320
 Usually, SUPs, as we've used them in Denton for 30 years that I've been here,

02:09:36.320 --> 02:09:41.480
 is that these are uses that are allowed in these zoning districts.

02:09:41.480 --> 02:09:46.840
 But this is an extra administrative step that has to be taken.

02:09:46.840 --> 02:09:53.440
 You can't just count on the zoning being enough, you've got to additionally go through and

02:09:53.440 --> 02:09:59.240
 get the site plan review that goes along with the specific use permit.

02:09:59.240 --> 02:10:03.420
 >> Okay, and again, I'm sure that they exist, but I think if we look at them,

02:10:03.420 --> 02:10:10.080
 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

02:10:10.080 --> 02:10:17.000
 suburban corridor, some mixed use or something like that, where it kind of fits in a little bit better.

02:10:17.000 --> 02:10:25.180
 But in the thick of a neighborhood away from all that on one of the collector roads,

02:10:25.180 --> 02:10:30.000
 that just would be a problem, and obviously, hopefully the SUP would stop that.

02:10:30.000 --> 02:10:34.720
 It's just an idea that we've not allowed at all, so my two cents.

02:10:34.720 --> 02:10:37.600
 >> Thanks, Commissioner.

02:10:37.600 --> 02:10:39.920
 >> Commissioner Cole.

02:10:39.920 --> 02:10:44.040
 >> Yeah, I mean, look at Robeson Ranch, they got a club and

02:10:44.040 --> 02:10:47.240
 all that stuff right in the middle of the thick of everything.

02:10:47.240 --> 02:10:51.760
 They got several buildings.

02:10:51.760 --> 02:10:53.160
 >> But it's also a PD.

02:10:53.160 --> 02:10:53.920
 >> Yeah, that's true.

02:10:53.920 --> 02:10:54.560
 It is planable.

02:10:54.560 --> 02:10:55.160
 >> They sell alcohol.

02:11:08.720 --> 02:11:14.240
 >> We can continue with Commissioner Beck, I apologize,

02:11:14.240 --> 02:11:18.520
 I meant to print this out for the whole commission.

02:11:18.520 --> 02:11:22.240
 If it's okay with you, Commissioner Beck, I can share this, or

02:11:22.240 --> 02:11:24.880
 Kathy can help me share this with the rest of the commission.

02:11:24.880 --> 02:11:31.100
 >> And we'll get into it in detail Friday, too, probably more appropriate because we've got a lot of other things to do.

02:11:31.100 --> 02:11:34.360
 >> So the plan for

02:11:36.480 --> 02:11:43.400
 the next work session, which is on the 20th, we'll continue as we should.

02:11:43.400 --> 02:11:49.800
 In any of this discussion, we want to make sure we get it right, but we're going to go into the development standards.

02:11:49.800 --> 02:11:57.160
 So this ship is moving, but it's not moving as fast, but we want to make sure that we get your input.

02:11:57.160 --> 02:12:03.400
 But know that we are going to be going into development standards at our next work session.

02:12:03.400 --> 02:12:03.900
 >> Great.

02:12:07.360 --> 02:12:07.860
 >> Okay.

02:12:07.860 --> 02:12:21.400
 I want to, before we leave this, I know we kind of go back and forth, and that's okay.

02:12:21.400 --> 02:12:28.320
 Chair Rosell mentioned the condition zoning, but I also want to make sure that we understand that PDs,

02:12:28.320 --> 02:12:36.020
 there will be options for PDs, we also have existing PDs, those will be transitioned to PDs.

02:12:36.020 --> 02:12:43.000
 We also have existing MPCs, master plan communities, those will transition to PDs.

02:12:43.000 --> 02:12:48.040
 So before we leave the map and the zoning districts,

02:12:48.040 --> 02:12:55.040
 I want to be clear that that's how they'll be transitioned, and you should have, in your copy of the chart,

02:12:55.040 --> 02:13:03.000
 that's how we're going forward with those areas that are currently PDs, as well as master plan communities.

02:13:04.840 --> 02:13:07.240
 I kind of, go ahead.

02:13:07.240 --> 02:13:21.040
 >> Would conditional zoning is kind of in between the map zoning districts and overlay historic districts, correct?

02:13:21.040 --> 02:13:24.000
 Where are they being specifically addressed, are they going to be in three or four?

02:13:24.000 --> 02:13:29.600
 >> They will be in three, as part of the zoning map, yes.

02:13:29.600 --> 02:13:35.800
 >> Four are special purpose overlay districts, the Fry Street,

02:13:35.800 --> 02:13:42.040
 the Razor Range, to a certain degree, the Unicorn Lake, that area.

02:13:42.040 --> 02:13:48.200
 Those are special purpose overlay districts, and you see the list there in front of you.

02:13:48.200 --> 02:13:51.840
 Those are the existing special purpose overlay districts.

02:13:51.840 --> 02:13:58.280
 >> Right, but when we've approved zoning, we've used the term zoning with an overlay condition.

02:13:58.280 --> 02:14:01.200
 >> Right. >> But that's not necessarily this overlay.

02:14:01.200 --> 02:14:08.560
 >> That is correct, and that is why we're calling it conditioned zoning to help separate, because it is confusing.

02:14:08.560 --> 02:14:09.920
 >> Yeah. >> Well, you said overlay.

02:14:09.920 --> 02:14:12.720
 Was it a special purpose overlay, or was it an overlay with conditions?

02:14:12.720 --> 02:14:17.360
 So by calling it conditioned zoning, we're completely separating.

02:14:17.360 --> 02:14:23.360
 And again, hopefully in the future, we are not going to be discussing more conditioned zoning,

02:14:23.360 --> 02:14:27.360
 but rather looking at PDs or other options.

02:14:27.360 --> 02:14:28.320
 >> Right, that makes perfect sense.

02:14:28.320 --> 02:14:34.440
 >> But to your point, yes, they are not the special purpose overlay districts.

02:14:34.440 --> 02:14:42.680
 So the list that you have in front of you is the contents of sub-chapter four.

02:14:42.680 --> 02:14:51.640
 They are really to provide you with the same information that is currently in sub-chapter seven of the development code.

02:14:51.640 --> 02:14:55.760
 And it's how we create special purpose overlay districts,

02:14:55.760 --> 02:15:02.680
 how we amend it in the list of existing special purpose overlays that we have,

02:15:02.680 --> 02:15:12.720
 which includes our historic districts, and the historic districts are listed here as well as part of the new code.

02:15:12.720 --> 02:15:21.120
 One of the things that I want to express is the Razor Ranch

02:15:21.120 --> 02:15:26.960
 is a very large overlay, special purpose overlay district.

02:15:26.960 --> 02:15:33.600
 We are going to move that as part of the appendix.

02:15:33.600 --> 02:15:40.240
 And it will be referenced in sub-chapter four, but it will be contained in an appendix.

02:15:40.240 --> 02:15:47.720
 We want to keep it as it is today so that we're not adjusting the numbering system.

02:15:47.720 --> 02:15:50.840
 We're not adjusting the zoning that's associated with it.

02:15:50.840 --> 02:15:58.720
 It's going to remain intact, but referenced and located in an appendix.

02:15:58.720 --> 02:16:01.840
 Does that make sense?

02:16:01.840 --> 02:16:05.560
 If you have a question, Richard can answer.

02:16:05.560 --> 02:16:06.280
 >> No, just you.

02:16:06.280 --> 02:16:10.640
 >> Okay.

02:16:10.640 --> 02:16:19.920
 >> Roman isn't here, but I want to make sure that you all understand.

02:16:19.920 --> 02:16:27.400
 The amendments that you all approved some time ago on the historic districts and

02:16:27.400 --> 02:16:32.120
 the procedures and the code amendment related to administrative,

02:16:32.120 --> 02:16:37.080
 really minor in my opinion, will be incorporated with this draft.

02:16:37.080 --> 02:16:39.320
 It never went to city council.

02:16:39.320 --> 02:16:41.800
 We did take your recommendation.

02:16:41.800 --> 02:16:43.400
 We did take your comments.

02:16:43.400 --> 02:16:50.240
 We folded it into the draft that is now included in this DDC update.

02:16:50.240 --> 02:16:57.400
 Moving forward, when the city council approves this code amendment, this DDC update,

02:16:57.400 --> 02:17:02.880
 it will incorporate all those code amendments to the historic districts that was discussed here.

02:17:02.880 --> 02:17:09.640
 I think that's all of four.

02:17:09.640 --> 02:17:10.840
 It was a really simple one.

02:17:10.840 --> 02:17:18.920
 That's why I kept it towards the end, because I think it's just a carryover from what we already have.

02:17:18.920 --> 02:17:24.680
 And the only difference here is that the razor wrench is going to be just slightly in

02:17:24.680 --> 02:17:29.800
 a different location to help with the user friendliness of the code.

02:17:29.800 --> 02:17:34.280
 Any questions on sub-chapter four?

02:17:34.280 --> 02:17:36.540
 Okay.

02:17:38.280 --> 02:17:43.680
 Last, I know we're, I think what we'll do here, as I mentioned earlier,

02:17:43.680 --> 02:17:48.680
 the, I'll make sure the slide behind me is accurate.

02:17:48.680 --> 02:17:53.160
 We will be talking about sub-chapter six at our next work session.

02:17:53.160 --> 02:17:57.440
 That doesn't mean that we can't talk about prior sub-chapters, but

02:17:57.440 --> 02:18:04.440
 focusing on a agenda, our agenda for next discussion on the DDC update,

02:18:04.440 --> 02:18:09.080
 which will be March 20th, will be on sub-chapter six.

02:18:09.080 --> 02:18:13.840
 So, I expect everyone to review it.

02:18:13.840 --> 02:18:16.240
 Larry's already reviewed it already, I know that.

02:18:16.240 --> 02:18:16.960
 >> He's memorized it.

02:18:16.960 --> 02:18:21.760
 >> I know, he's had some time to look at.

02:18:21.760 --> 02:18:22.320
 >> Commissioner Beck.

02:18:22.320 --> 02:18:23.280
 >> I do have a question though.

02:18:23.280 --> 02:18:28.280
 Could we include, from chapter five, gas wells on that too?

02:18:28.280 --> 02:18:30.880
 That's a big area.

02:18:30.880 --> 02:18:39.240
 Gas well is actually in, we are absolutely not going to touch gas wells.

02:18:39.240 --> 02:18:41.400
 But thank you for your consideration.

02:18:41.400 --> 02:18:46.720
 If you'd like to bring that as a separate amendment to the, for a separate conversation,

02:18:46.720 --> 02:18:50.440
 we can, but we were given very specific direction.

02:18:50.440 --> 02:18:54.240
 And we have not touched gas wells, we will not touch gas wells.

02:18:54.240 --> 02:18:59.120
 We do have some numbering, I think some numbering issues as far as where they

02:18:59.120 --> 02:19:08.200
 might be contained when we made the transition, that requires a great deal of work.

02:19:08.200 --> 02:19:11.960
 Some of the things that we would like to include in the development code,

02:19:11.960 --> 02:19:18.880
 i.e. the reference to collegiate housing, SROs, we're even trying to get through that.

02:19:18.880 --> 02:19:26.880
 So, we certainly had no intention of making any changes with gas wells nor ESAs and don't intend to do that.

02:19:26.880 --> 02:19:28.160
 >> Go ahead to try, thank you.

02:19:28.160 --> 02:19:32.000
 >> Yeah, sir, thank you.

02:19:32.000 --> 02:19:34.200
 >> Thank you, Paul.

02:19:34.200 --> 02:19:35.880
 >> He's been in it.

02:19:35.880 --> 02:19:37.280
 >> Yes, he's been in it.

02:19:37.280 --> 02:19:40.400
 >> Well, what's he doing here?

02:19:40.400 --> 02:19:42.560
 >> Can't get enough of that on your record.

02:19:42.560 --> 02:19:47.560
 >> Larry, I just want to make, so that the commission and the viewing public know,

02:19:47.560 --> 02:19:53.560
 that the gas well production, drilling production, is a carryover.

02:19:53.560 --> 02:19:58.320
 And it will be located in sub-chapter five, section 5.7 to be specific.

02:19:58.320 --> 02:20:02.640
 And it is being literally just carried over to this chapter.

02:20:02.640 --> 02:20:03.480
 Nothing's changed.

02:20:03.480 --> 02:20:09.280
 >> And if Ron didn't mention it, nothing's changing with the gas well ordinance?

02:20:09.280 --> 02:20:22.040
 >> Really, this is the end of my presentation or our discussion, unless there's other topics or discussion items.

02:20:22.040 --> 02:20:27.080
 Sub-chapter six, I want to reiterate again our next work session.

02:20:27.080 --> 02:20:32.520
 There is a lot under this sub-chapter, so I just want to give you, during spring break,

02:20:32.520 --> 02:20:38.200
 there's opportunity to look at it, go on a vacation, take it with you.

02:20:38.200 --> 02:20:43.200
 We will have technical experts at the next work session.

02:20:43.200 --> 02:20:46.280
 So if you're asking about water, I'm not going to answer it.

02:20:46.280 --> 02:20:47.720
 I'm going to have someone else answer that.

02:20:47.720 --> 02:20:49.560
 So please take a look at it.

02:20:49.560 --> 02:20:53.320
 We want to again make sure that we have everything we need.

02:20:53.320 --> 02:20:59.360
 The big change in sub-chapter six is that we're trying to put in all one sub-chapter,

02:20:59.360 --> 02:21:07.200
 but know that there's certain requirements that are more in line with a criteria manual.

02:21:07.200 --> 02:21:14.080
 So a lot of what you may have seen in those sub-chapters are now in the criteria manual.

02:21:14.080 --> 02:21:21.840
 Sub-chapter six is meant to be more concise, clear, and specifically just related to development

02:21:21.840 --> 02:21:23.280
 related standards.

02:21:23.280 --> 02:21:25.220
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:21:25.220 --> 02:21:26.220
 Thank you, Chair.

02:21:26.220 --> 02:21:28.700
 Yeah, and it will reference the manual, correct?

02:21:28.700 --> 02:21:29.700
 That is correct.

02:21:29.700 --> 02:21:34.920
 Not only will it reference the manual, if it is in the code of ordinances, we are reviewing

02:21:34.920 --> 02:21:41.400
 that as well, so that, again, to be more user-friendly, if there's a discussion on, say, fees or whatever

02:21:41.400 --> 02:21:45.400
 it may be, it's not going to be in here, it will be in the code of ordinances, and it

02:21:45.400 --> 02:21:49.020
 will be referenced from here to the code of ordinances.

02:21:49.020 --> 02:21:56.800
 So trying to, again, make it more practical and understandable for the person that's looking

02:21:56.800 --> 02:21:57.800
 through the code.

02:21:57.800 --> 02:21:58.800
 All right.

02:21:58.800 --> 02:22:03.680
 I expect more questions next work session.

02:22:03.680 --> 02:22:05.840
 That you can defer to the water people.

02:22:05.840 --> 02:22:09.400
 Yeah, defer to the water people.

02:22:09.400 --> 02:22:12.200
 Thanks to Ron and Scott for their presentation and listening to all our questions.

02:22:12.200 --> 02:22:14.840
 Really appreciate the patience.

02:22:14.840 --> 02:22:19.320
 At this time, Councilmember Meltzer announced we had dinner.

02:22:19.320 --> 02:22:24.760
 So we will take a break at 527 to get a quick bite to eat, and then we'll reconvene to go

02:22:24.760 --> 02:22:34.960
 over the agenda items for this evening.

02:22:34.960 --> 02:22:35.960
 Thank you for that break.

02:22:35.960 --> 02:22:42.520
 It is now 546, and I'll call the meeting back to order, and we'll hop into the agenda.

02:22:42.520 --> 02:22:46.280
 The first item for the work session would be a clarification of agenda items, which

02:22:46.280 --> 02:22:53.320
 I think the only clarification is that on the public hearing section, item 4A has been

02:22:53.320 --> 02:23:00.760
 withdrawn and item 4B is being postponed to the March 20th meeting, so 4A and B will not

02:23:00.760 --> 02:23:01.760
 be heard tonight.

02:23:01.760 --> 02:23:05.720
 There's no other changes besides that, Richard?

02:23:05.720 --> 02:23:09.360
 So with that, there's four items on the consent agenda.

02:23:09.360 --> 02:23:12.440
 Is there any questions on the consent agenda?

02:23:12.440 --> 02:23:15.400
 And we'll call up the presenter if there is.

02:23:15.400 --> 02:23:19.260
 Oh, Commissioner Ellis.

02:23:19.260 --> 02:23:20.260
 Thank you.

02:23:20.260 --> 02:23:26.480
 I just have a comment about 3A, and I don't know if Julie wants to maybe come up, because

02:23:26.480 --> 02:23:34.600
 she and I had a little bit of a discussion today, and I just wanted to bring it up here.

02:23:34.600 --> 02:23:39.080
 So when I pulled up the plaque, what I noticed on this one is it was written in the general

02:23:39.080 --> 02:23:45.880
 notes about the lots being close to gas wells, and they listed them in the notes, the lot

02:23:45.880 --> 02:23:51.280
 numbers, but what I noticed that they didn't have was the asterisks on them that we've

02:23:51.280 --> 02:23:54.000
 seen in a lot of plots prior.

02:23:54.000 --> 02:23:58.640
 So I had presented Julie with the question of if it was a requirement or not to do that,

02:23:58.640 --> 02:24:03.600
 and apparently it's not, and it's more of a preference.

02:24:03.600 --> 02:24:08.240
 But I don't know what your all thoughts are, but I mean, I said to Julie that I like the

02:24:08.240 --> 02:24:09.240
 asterisks on there.

02:24:09.240 --> 02:24:12.640
 I think it's better for a person looking at a plot to be able to see that.

02:24:12.640 --> 02:24:13.640
 It's 3A.

02:24:13.640 --> 02:24:14.640
 More readily.

02:24:14.640 --> 02:24:15.640
 Yeah, bent rail.

02:24:15.640 --> 02:24:22.640
 Let me pull up the plat so we can kind of think at it.

02:24:22.640 --> 02:24:23.640
 Yeah.

02:24:23.640 --> 02:24:40.600
 Yeah, so it's listed on the notes on the plot where the lots are that are within a thousand

02:24:40.600 --> 02:24:48.440
 feet of the gas well, but they're not starred like we've seen on prior plots.

02:24:48.440 --> 02:24:50.600
 Were those active gas wells or they've been kept?

02:24:50.600 --> 02:24:51.600
 They are.

02:24:51.600 --> 02:24:52.600
 Are they?

02:24:52.600 --> 02:24:53.600
 Okay.

02:24:53.600 --> 02:25:00.520
 I don't know if it was that or not, that well's close to something, but they were kept, they

02:25:00.520 --> 02:25:01.520
 were closed.

02:25:01.520 --> 02:25:02.520
 Okay.

02:25:02.520 --> 02:25:05.200
 I agree that it should be.

02:25:05.200 --> 02:25:08.600
 So it was elapsed that?

02:25:08.600 --> 02:25:09.600
 Well no.

02:25:09.600 --> 02:25:10.760
 So apparently it's not.

02:25:10.760 --> 02:25:11.760
 It's not required.

02:25:11.760 --> 02:25:15.240
 I mean, I'll let Julie speak to that.

02:25:15.240 --> 02:25:18.560
 All right.

02:25:18.560 --> 02:25:19.800
 And Haley may correct me.

02:25:19.800 --> 02:25:21.220
 She's normally our gas well reviewer.

02:25:21.220 --> 02:25:25.160
 But I'm going to, I'll try to see if I can address your question.

02:25:25.160 --> 02:25:32.040
 So almost there.

02:25:32.040 --> 02:25:34.580
 All right.

02:25:34.580 --> 02:25:42.240
 So Commissioner Ellis is referring to plat note eight.

02:25:42.240 --> 02:25:48.940
 So and that does reference lots that are within a certain distance of a gas well.

02:25:48.940 --> 02:25:54.000
 And so often we see, particularly in ropes and ranch, they do an asterisk on each individual

02:25:54.000 --> 02:25:58.440
 lot that falls within that boundary.

02:25:58.440 --> 02:26:06.820
 This developer elected to just reference the actual lots in that note instead of depicting

02:26:06.820 --> 02:26:07.960
 it on the drawing.

02:26:07.960 --> 02:26:15.820
 So her concern was that would any future buyer of that lot read all of the notes?

02:26:15.820 --> 02:26:19.800
 So that was definitely a concern and that's certainly something that we will take into

02:26:19.800 --> 02:26:20.800
 consideration as we review.

02:26:20.800 --> 02:26:26.640
 So we want to make sure that that notice is seen.

02:26:26.640 --> 02:26:27.640
 I appreciate that.

02:26:27.640 --> 02:26:28.640
 Yeah.

02:26:28.640 --> 02:26:31.720
 And I think it's just easier to look at the plat and know what they are.

02:26:31.720 --> 02:26:32.720
 So okay.

02:26:32.720 --> 02:26:33.720
 Thank you.

02:26:33.720 --> 02:26:39.000
 For clarification though, Julie, apart from that is not part of the technical requirements

02:26:39.000 --> 02:26:40.880
 of a plat to have that included?

02:26:40.880 --> 02:26:41.880
 It is.

02:26:41.880 --> 02:26:45.200
 If it is within that gas well, the notice.

02:26:45.200 --> 02:26:46.200
 About the asterisk.

02:26:46.200 --> 02:26:47.200
 Not correct.

02:26:47.200 --> 02:26:48.200
 Correct.

02:26:48.200 --> 02:26:49.200
 But some sort of notation.

02:26:49.200 --> 02:26:50.200
 Yes, sir.

02:26:50.200 --> 02:26:51.200
 Yes, sir.

02:26:51.200 --> 02:26:52.200
 Okay.

02:26:52.200 --> 02:26:53.200
 Great.

02:26:53.200 --> 02:26:54.200
 Any other questions for 3A?

02:26:54.200 --> 02:26:55.200
 Thank you, Julie.

02:26:55.200 --> 02:26:56.200
 Thank you.

02:26:56.200 --> 02:27:05.760
 Any other questions about the other final plats we had for the Kinston agenda?

02:27:05.760 --> 02:27:06.760
 Great.

02:27:06.760 --> 02:27:20.040
 That'll move us on to 4C, so another final replat, 18-0018, and I'll invite Haley up

02:27:20.040 --> 02:27:39.520
 to discuss.

02:27:39.520 --> 02:27:52.800
 All right.

02:27:52.800 --> 02:27:53.800
 Good evening.

02:27:53.800 --> 02:27:55.160
 This site may be familiar to you.

02:27:55.160 --> 02:28:01.640
 It's the future McDonald's located at the intersection of 377 and I-35.

02:28:01.640 --> 02:28:06.040
 So the replat is actually a combination of portions of three lots.

02:28:06.040 --> 02:28:11.440
 Over the past few decades, the sunrise addition and adjoining subdivision have been kind of

02:28:11.440 --> 02:28:16.040
 piece milled and replatted and this was the remainder of some lots as well as the remainder

02:28:16.040 --> 02:28:19.800
 of what was left after TXDOT acquired right of way in this area.

02:28:19.800 --> 02:28:25.280
 So the McDonald's that you all saw for a specific use permit request a couple of months ago

02:28:25.280 --> 02:28:29.460
 is moving on through the process now and so they're looking to combine those pieces together

02:28:29.460 --> 02:28:32.400
 to make one cohesive lot for their development.

02:28:32.400 --> 02:28:35.160
 Happy to answer any questions about it if you may have.

02:28:35.160 --> 02:28:36.160
 We're back.

02:28:36.160 --> 02:28:37.960
 Thank you, Chair.

02:28:37.960 --> 02:28:43.840
 So everything on the looks like the west end is a it's going to be an open space, green,

02:28:43.840 --> 02:28:46.960
 is that what it's saying?

02:28:46.960 --> 02:28:48.960
 Gross land area.

02:28:48.960 --> 02:28:57.360
 No, sir, that's just a label for the entire lot area once they combine these three pieces.

02:28:57.360 --> 02:28:58.360
 Okay.

02:28:58.360 --> 02:28:59.360
 I'm sorry.

02:28:59.360 --> 02:29:03.360
 I thought I read somewhere in there that this was going to be open green space.

02:29:03.360 --> 02:29:08.560
 No, sir, this is the McDonald's we saw an SUP application for a couple of months ago.

02:29:08.560 --> 02:29:12.840
 I can't recall exactly when that was, but there will be a McDonald's restaurant located

02:29:12.840 --> 02:29:13.840
 somewhere in this area.

02:29:13.840 --> 02:29:18.760
 This will be primarily parking on this end and then they do have some landscape buffering

02:29:18.760 --> 02:29:22.120
 they're doing back here because they adjoin multifamily, but.

02:29:22.120 --> 02:29:23.120
 Okay.

02:29:23.120 --> 02:29:24.120
 Thanks.

02:29:24.120 --> 02:29:25.120
 Commissioner Sanchez.

02:29:25.120 --> 02:29:28.400
 So all they're picking up is that north side, right?

02:29:28.400 --> 02:29:29.400
 Is that correct?

02:29:29.400 --> 02:29:31.600
 No, they're actually combining three pieces.

02:29:31.600 --> 02:29:35.480
 So there's a label here, this was one of the old lot lines that used to come all the way

02:29:35.480 --> 02:29:40.780
 down to this area before TxDOT acquired their right of way.

02:29:40.780 --> 02:29:44.680
 And then there's another lot line that cuts through in kind of an L shape through here.

02:29:44.680 --> 02:29:49.440
 So this used to be lot two of the Sunrise Center addition.

02:29:49.440 --> 02:29:54.040
 And then this corner is a remainder of a piece that was left over when the apartments and

02:29:54.040 --> 02:29:59.680
 the commercial development to the north of this replatted, I believe back in the 70s.

02:29:59.680 --> 02:30:01.720
 Okay, great.

02:30:01.720 --> 02:30:05.760
 Any other questions for Haley?

02:30:05.760 --> 02:30:08.000
 Thank you very much.

02:30:08.000 --> 02:30:14.440
 Before we get into our next item, wanted to jump back real fast, I skipped over item two,

02:30:14.440 --> 02:30:15.440
 the minutes.

02:30:15.440 --> 02:30:23.800
 Is there any edits or comments on the minutes from February 6th or 13th?

02:30:23.800 --> 02:30:27.080
 We good?

02:30:27.080 --> 02:30:39.680
 Perfect, jumping back then to our public section 4D is to discuss sub chapters 13 and 17 of

02:30:39.680 --> 02:30:44.280
 the tree preservation landscape standards and ESSA standards.

02:30:44.280 --> 02:30:48.800
 Yeah, I don't know how much we want to go into right now.

02:30:48.800 --> 02:30:53.280
 I just wanted to point out I did hand out at the beginning of the meeting, some revisions

02:30:53.280 --> 02:30:56.600
 that were made just over the past couple of days.

02:30:56.600 --> 02:31:02.040
 Richard may want to speak to a few of those, but just in a work session we had with council

02:31:02.040 --> 02:31:06.040
 yesterday as well as some continual cleanup that we're trying to do as we notice minor

02:31:06.040 --> 02:31:09.200
 inconsistencies throughout, we've made some amendments.

02:31:09.200 --> 02:31:13.000
 So the red line that you all had just has a few changes throughout, they're all marked

02:31:13.000 --> 02:31:16.160
 in either red or blue so that you can see exactly what's changed since what you received

02:31:16.160 --> 02:31:29.040
 on Friday.

02:31:29.040 --> 02:31:52.040
 And what I'll do is I won't go in depth I think with each slide, but just try to hit

02:31:52.040 --> 02:31:53.520
 on some high points.

02:31:53.520 --> 02:31:59.200
 I know we've seen this multiple times, but really wanted to hit on, one, some of the

02:31:59.200 --> 02:32:05.640
 changes that we made from the last time that we saw this in November, December, as well

02:32:05.640 --> 02:32:12.960
 as then some really two substantive changes that were made as a result of the work session

02:32:12.960 --> 02:32:17.120
 we had yesterday with city council.

02:32:17.120 --> 02:32:24.320
 One thing I did want to just highlight, again, I'll get into more detail, but we did do quite

02:32:24.320 --> 02:32:31.600
 a bit of outreach on this, both from a number of professional agencies or organizations.

02:32:31.600 --> 02:32:37.080
 Two or three I'd like to just point out.

02:32:37.080 --> 02:32:43.080
 One was Keep Hittin' Beautiful, I think we had presented that previously, but since 2019

02:32:43.080 --> 02:32:46.800
 we actually presented this at the North Texas Urban Forestry Council.

02:32:46.800 --> 02:32:52.000
 We kind of set some time aside at their annual conference to just kind of have us talk a

02:32:52.000 --> 02:32:53.600
 little bit about it and get some input.

02:32:53.600 --> 02:33:02.040
 We also really haily sat with the American Society of Landscape Architects, Texas Dallas-Fort

02:33:02.040 --> 02:33:09.440
 Worth group for about three hours, going line by line, and they were very appreciative.

02:33:09.440 --> 02:33:14.260
 I think it was the first time that they've ever had a city reach out to the actual people

02:33:14.260 --> 02:33:22.800
 that do the work to talk about an ordinance and changes that would affect what they do.

02:33:22.800 --> 02:33:27.440
 And we also met with the development community, we met with the Denton Community Developers

02:33:27.440 --> 02:33:32.280
 Alliance as well as sent this out to the Dallas Builders Association.

02:33:32.280 --> 02:33:37.720
 And so a lot of the changes were a result from the input that we got primarily from

02:33:37.720 --> 02:33:42.280
 the development community once we got to that sort of final draft.

02:33:42.280 --> 02:33:47.800
 What was some of that input you got back from the development community?

02:33:47.800 --> 02:33:51.840
 What were some of the things that they brought up, the concerns they had with the tree code?

02:33:51.840 --> 02:33:54.600
 There were a number of concerns.

02:33:54.600 --> 02:33:58.800
 I don't know if I can summarize one, and I know we included in the backup kind of the

02:33:58.800 --> 02:34:02.240
 list of items that they had.

02:34:02.240 --> 02:34:09.560
 I think part of it initially was just kind of looking at it singularly.

02:34:09.560 --> 02:34:13.800
 I think the way our current code is, it's just the tree code.

02:34:13.800 --> 02:34:19.280
 You really don't take into account the landscape requirements associated with it and the credits.

02:34:19.280 --> 02:34:24.480
 And so one, it was just kind of changing that thought process.

02:34:24.480 --> 02:34:30.560
 But there were also some concerns that they addressed over tree types, some of the mitigation

02:34:30.560 --> 02:34:36.360
 standards they thought were a little too heavy-handed.

02:34:36.360 --> 02:34:41.640
 There were, I'm trying to think of some of the other big items.

02:34:41.640 --> 02:34:51.000
 Mostly secondary trees, again, the mitigation type.

02:34:51.000 --> 02:34:54.760
 Those were really probably, and just some clarification.

02:34:54.760 --> 02:35:00.040
 Some things that we didn't necessarily have in the current code, or I'm sorry, that we

02:35:00.040 --> 02:35:02.200
 have in the current code that we didn't have.

02:35:02.200 --> 02:35:08.800
 One being we didn't include an exemption for if you needed to go out to do a survey

02:35:08.800 --> 02:35:10.840
 and you had to clear some of the understory.

02:35:10.840 --> 02:35:15.440
 In the current code, there's a provision where you're exempt from having to comply with

02:35:15.440 --> 02:35:18.400
 the tree code in those instances.

02:35:18.400 --> 02:35:20.680
 And so we agreed and just kind of carried that language.

02:35:20.680 --> 02:35:24.280
 So some of it was more clarification.

02:35:24.280 --> 02:35:28.960
 We had some standards, I think we may have mentioned this even before, where we got into

02:35:28.960 --> 02:35:36.080
 really some details in some of the tree preservation plan-related items that really will get brought

02:35:36.080 --> 02:35:40.600
 into more into the criteria manual as opposed to being in a code.

02:35:40.600 --> 02:35:44.320
 So it was just kind of that overall discussion.

02:35:44.320 --> 02:35:45.320
 Mr. Beck.

02:35:45.320 --> 02:35:50.000
 Was one of the changes the removal of the signage requirement?

02:35:50.000 --> 02:35:51.000
 Yes.

02:35:51.000 --> 02:35:52.000
 Okay.

02:35:52.000 --> 02:35:53.000
 Okay.

02:35:53.000 --> 02:36:01.600
 What about on page 15 under enforcement, why do we line out protected tree stand, historic

02:36:01.600 --> 02:36:06.120
 trees, quality trees, or quality trees where it gives the building official the designated

02:36:06.120 --> 02:36:11.080
 authority to place a stop work order on any activity involving the removal of trees?

02:36:11.080 --> 02:36:17.420
 We line those out.

02:36:17.420 --> 02:36:18.420
 On which page?

02:36:18.420 --> 02:36:19.420
 Page 15.

02:36:19.420 --> 02:36:25.040
 Okay.

02:36:25.040 --> 02:36:27.080
 The enforcement provision.

02:36:27.080 --> 02:36:28.080
 Yes.

02:36:28.080 --> 02:36:30.600
 That's currently in there.

02:36:30.600 --> 02:36:38.560
 If you look at the current draft, line 559, enforcement, that line, actually line 560,

02:36:38.560 --> 02:36:41.760
 building official or designated authority to place a stop work order on any activity involving

02:36:41.760 --> 02:36:43.880
 removal of protected trees.

02:36:43.880 --> 02:36:44.880
 Okay.

02:36:44.880 --> 02:36:45.880
 So that encompasses.

02:36:45.880 --> 02:36:46.880
 Yeah.

02:36:46.880 --> 02:36:47.880
 It encompasses it.

02:36:47.880 --> 02:36:48.880
 Okay.

02:36:48.880 --> 02:36:52.880
 So that distinct, you know, we really brought it down from seven different designations of

02:36:52.880 --> 02:37:01.200
 types of trees down to really four, landmark, heritage, quality, and secondary.

02:37:01.200 --> 02:37:04.320
 So we're not talking about any trees, we're talking about those four?

02:37:04.320 --> 02:37:05.320
 Those four.

02:37:05.320 --> 02:37:06.320
 Okay.

02:37:06.320 --> 02:37:13.160
 On page 16, it seems like we removed some of the requirements from the tree survey and

02:37:13.160 --> 02:37:16.360
 preservation plan near the bottom.

02:37:16.360 --> 02:37:19.240
 There was a lot of things lined out there.

02:37:19.240 --> 02:37:20.240
 Did we?

02:37:20.240 --> 02:37:21.240
 Yes.

02:37:21.240 --> 02:37:24.400
 Some of that will eventually just get put back into a criteria manual as opposed to

02:37:24.400 --> 02:37:25.400
 being code.

02:37:25.400 --> 02:37:26.400
 Okay.

02:37:26.400 --> 02:37:27.400
 Thank you.

02:37:27.400 --> 02:37:36.120
 Just wanted to really touch a little bit on the work session we had yesterday and kind

02:37:36.120 --> 02:37:37.440
 of what prompted it.

02:37:37.440 --> 02:37:42.800
 Obviously, there were a number of concerns raised by the development community and some

02:37:42.800 --> 02:37:43.800
 changes.

02:37:43.800 --> 02:37:48.800
 There were some council members that did attend that developers or Denton County Developers

02:37:48.800 --> 02:37:53.480
 Alliance meeting and initially there was a discussion as to whether or not we should

02:37:53.480 --> 02:37:58.840
 go back to the committee on the environment for a meeting since that's really where a

02:37:58.840 --> 02:38:02.040
 lot of this started on a policy level.

02:38:02.040 --> 02:38:07.720
 And really the city manager looked at it and really recommended that Council Member Briggs

02:38:07.720 --> 02:38:11.760
 and the mayor really sit down rather than going back to the committee and her as the

02:38:11.760 --> 02:38:14.720
 chair of that committee and the mayor, let's work through and try to see if we can come

02:38:14.720 --> 02:38:17.680
 up with some resolution on some of these issues.

02:38:17.680 --> 02:38:21.680
 And that's really where the draft is today as a result of that.

02:38:21.680 --> 02:38:24.480
 And then presenting it to council yesterday.

02:38:24.480 --> 02:38:30.920
 Again, so as I said, really two major changes as a result of yesterday's work session.

02:38:30.920 --> 02:38:38.280
 One with respect to applicability and the other secondary trees.

02:38:38.280 --> 02:38:41.800
 Let's run through really quickly on the applicability side.

02:38:41.800 --> 02:38:46.100
 You'll start to see this will look substantially different even in the current draft if you

02:38:46.100 --> 02:38:59.640
 look on page -- if you look on page 12, starting at line 415, where really we started off with

02:38:59.640 --> 02:39:02.200
 just exceptions to it.

02:39:02.200 --> 02:39:05.760
 As we started making revisions, it was getting to have an exception to an exception and we

02:39:05.760 --> 02:39:10.320
 said, you know, let's just start with what we initially had as an applicability.

02:39:10.320 --> 02:39:17.500
 Let's mention how and in what circumstances this is applicable to what.

02:39:17.500 --> 02:39:21.960
 And so it's really undeveloped land, all non-residential multifamily to be redeveloped.

02:39:21.960 --> 02:39:28.000
 And part of the discussion yesterday had to do with what we did include in there was an

02:39:28.000 --> 02:39:32.160
 exemption for existing single family and duplex homeowners.

02:39:32.160 --> 02:39:38.360
 That was some input that we had received even from certain residents in the city to the

02:39:38.360 --> 02:39:44.280
 point that they actually reached out to the state senator and state rep with concerns

02:39:44.280 --> 02:39:48.860
 over the application of this.

02:39:48.860 --> 02:39:54.880
 In the current code, single family and duplex are exempt and we thought let's just carry

02:39:54.880 --> 02:39:56.040
 that forward.

02:39:56.040 --> 02:40:00.800
 There was already the exemption if you had a DBH of 10 inches or under and in just dealing

02:40:00.800 --> 02:40:05.780
 with the likelihood of us really having to enforce it, I don't think most people would

02:40:05.780 --> 02:40:09.720
 really be cutting down that many large trees on the property to begin with.

02:40:09.720 --> 02:40:12.040
 So we just carried that exemption over.

02:40:12.040 --> 02:40:17.080
 As part of the discussion that we had with council yesterday was a concern that individuals

02:40:17.080 --> 02:40:23.080
 buying single family lots with the purpose of land assembly and then ultimately demoing

02:40:23.080 --> 02:40:26.380
 those properties and then having that exemption.

02:40:26.380 --> 02:40:32.440
 And so we kind of rewrote it and put in that existing single family and two family properties

02:40:32.440 --> 02:40:38.560
 applying for demolition permit for the primary structure would be required to comply with

02:40:38.560 --> 02:40:45.040
 the regulations provided those trees have a minimum DBH of 10 inches or greater and

02:40:45.040 --> 02:40:49.680
 that comes from that local government code requirement.

02:40:49.680 --> 02:40:57.680
 And so that's in there, the other item that we included, if there is a, even though single

02:40:57.680 --> 02:41:02.840
 family and two family would be exempt, if there is a tree that was preserved as part

02:41:02.840 --> 02:41:09.800
 of an overall preservation plan and it's designated by plat or some other instrument and noted

02:41:09.800 --> 02:41:17.280
 on that, then they would have to comply with the ordinance provided that tree is greater

02:41:17.280 --> 02:41:20.200
 than 10 inches.

02:41:20.200 --> 02:41:25.040
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:41:25.040 --> 02:41:29.640
 So I guess just my concern on that is, I mean, how would they even know to look?

02:41:29.640 --> 02:41:33.800
 Because we have, we were supposed to under the current code, but we've been enforcing

02:41:33.800 --> 02:41:34.800
 it now.

02:41:34.800 --> 02:41:41.400
 So if you've preserved say a 20 inch or 30 inch pecan on your property, we now have

02:41:41.400 --> 02:41:47.700
 that notes on plat with an asterisk that will reference that trees located on this property

02:41:47.700 --> 02:41:55.600
 include a tree preserved under ordinance 3517, 35137.

02:41:55.600 --> 02:42:01.740
 And so if that is on that plat and it was part of an overall preservation plan, as long

02:42:01.740 --> 02:42:06.640
 as it was 10 inches or greater, then we're saying you would need to comply if you wanted

02:42:06.640 --> 02:42:07.640
 to tear that down.

02:42:07.640 --> 02:42:15.120
 I'm sure the average homeowner would not even know that that exists, if they even know what

02:42:15.120 --> 02:42:16.920
 a plat is.

02:42:16.920 --> 02:42:32.480
 So I don't quite know how the enforcement of that would even take place, honestly.

02:42:32.480 --> 02:42:37.320
 And then one other change on here, again, this came as a result of meeting with the

02:42:37.320 --> 02:42:38.320
 development community.

02:42:38.320 --> 02:42:45.520
 There was some language in here that's crossed out now that spoke to ag properties.

02:42:45.520 --> 02:42:49.740
 If they were actively being marketed, then they wouldn't be exempt.

02:42:49.740 --> 02:42:50.840
 That provision just came out.

02:42:50.840 --> 02:42:55.960
 And so if you have a current ag operation, you're exempt.

02:42:55.960 --> 02:43:00.560
 If you're marketing the property for sale, as long as you have that ag and continuous

02:43:00.560 --> 02:43:06.720
 operation, then you still would be exempt from the code.

02:43:06.720 --> 02:43:14.800
 And then item three that you see on the screen, four, really three and four, those are -- were

02:43:14.800 --> 02:43:19.040
 already part of the nonprotected tree definition.

02:43:19.040 --> 02:43:22.720
 We included it in the applicability section.

02:43:22.720 --> 02:43:28.220
 There were a lot of questions we had from -- primarily from single-family homeowners.

02:43:28.220 --> 02:43:33.200
 And so we thought more of a belt and suspenders, let's just put it in the exception part as

02:43:33.200 --> 02:43:38.680
 well so someone doesn't have to dig around and try to find it and just be explicit about

02:43:38.680 --> 02:43:39.820
 it.

02:43:39.820 --> 02:43:47.280
 And then five is the language that I talked about earlier with respect to the clearing

02:43:47.280 --> 02:43:48.280
 of understory.

02:43:48.280 --> 02:43:51.280
 >> Commissioner Burke, you have a question?

02:43:51.280 --> 02:43:52.280
 >> Yeah.

02:43:52.280 --> 02:43:53.280
 Thank you, Chair.

02:43:53.280 --> 02:43:55.840
 Richard, one thing, and if we don't have time to do it, that's fine.

02:43:55.840 --> 02:43:59.560
 In fact, I may, you know, see if I can schedule individual time when you come over.

02:43:59.560 --> 02:44:06.180
 But the mitigation issue, in fact, what -- I don't understand it.

02:44:06.180 --> 02:44:09.440
 It's a complex formula.

02:44:09.440 --> 02:44:17.440
 You've got the -- on page 20, sample tree mitigation worksheet.

02:44:17.440 --> 02:44:20.440
 Would you have time to help us with that?

02:44:20.440 --> 02:44:24.440
 >> Yeah, I know you've done this before, but it's -- for me, when I was in school, math

02:44:24.440 --> 02:44:25.440
 was like a brick wall.

02:44:25.440 --> 02:44:28.440
 Every time you just put it up there, it just -- I had a hard time with it.

02:44:28.440 --> 02:44:32.640
 I mean, if there's no objection from other commission members, I'm just trying to get

02:44:32.640 --> 02:44:35.640
 a -- wrap my head around how we're mitigating --

02:44:35.640 --> 02:44:37.640
 >> No, I'd love to see Richard do math.

02:44:37.640 --> 02:44:38.640
 >> -- using VBH.

02:44:38.640 --> 02:44:39.640
 >> Pardon me?

02:44:39.640 --> 02:44:40.640
 >> I'd love to see Richard do math.

02:44:40.640 --> 02:44:41.640
 >> No, don't.

02:44:41.640 --> 02:44:42.640
 Don't, please.

02:44:42.640 --> 02:44:43.640
 >> I --

02:44:43.640 --> 02:44:44.640
 >> Put them on the spot.

02:44:44.640 --> 02:44:51.960
 >> I've been known to do it on -- at council meetings.

02:44:51.960 --> 02:45:00.840
 >> All right, so we'll just kind of -- everyone can see this up, right?

02:45:00.840 --> 02:45:03.360
 I'll just kind of walk you through this.

02:45:03.360 --> 02:45:09.160
 So total VBH, under this example -- I'll just work off the worksheet.

02:45:09.160 --> 02:45:15.280
 Under this example, there's 120 inches VBH on the site total.

02:45:15.280 --> 02:45:17.080
 Non-protected VBH, 20 inches.

02:45:17.080 --> 02:45:23.760
 So non-protected would be a mesquite, would be a honey locust, an invasive.

02:45:23.760 --> 02:45:28.760
 So for the sake of this discussion, let's just say they're 20 inches of mesquite.

02:45:28.760 --> 02:45:31.280
 And then you have total protected VBH.

02:45:31.280 --> 02:45:36.640
 So those are really your heritage trees and your quality trees, 100 inches of those.

02:45:36.640 --> 02:45:43.600
 And so your preservation is based off of 30% of the protected VBH, which gives you that

02:45:43.600 --> 02:45:45.720
 30, okay?

02:45:45.720 --> 02:45:51.400
 And so kind of working it down, and so now we're looking at what protected trees were

02:45:51.400 --> 02:45:54.680
 removed.

02:45:54.680 --> 02:46:01.240
 So you took out, under this example, 40 inches of heritage, 30 inches of quality, which is

02:46:01.240 --> 02:46:03.500
 a subtotal of 70.

02:46:03.500 --> 02:46:07.840
 And so your preserved is at 30, which kind of nets here.

02:46:07.840 --> 02:46:12.320
 And so there's your removed of 70.

02:46:12.320 --> 02:46:15.960
 Now you have a replacement ratio or multiplier for each inch.

02:46:15.960 --> 02:46:20.480
 So for a heritage, it's two and a half to one, which gives you that 100.

02:46:20.480 --> 02:46:24.400
 >> I'm getting a little confused.

02:46:24.400 --> 02:46:32.440
 When you're going and replacing it, especially a heritage tree, which would be -- is that

02:46:32.440 --> 02:46:35.200
 post oak and blackjack?

02:46:35.200 --> 02:46:38.280
 >> Blackjack is no longer part of that.

02:46:38.280 --> 02:46:41.100
 It's really post oak, six inches or greater.

02:46:41.100 --> 02:46:43.760
 And then any quality tree, 18 inches or greater.

02:46:43.760 --> 02:46:44.760
 >> Okay.

02:46:44.760 --> 02:46:48.560
 And those are trees that we really can't replace as post oak.

02:46:48.560 --> 02:46:51.320
 So what are we going back in with on those?

02:46:51.320 --> 02:46:58.760
 Are you basing it on what the canopy will amount to over time?

02:46:58.760 --> 02:47:02.740
 >> The replacement is -- we're somewhat limited in that.

02:47:02.740 --> 02:47:08.800
 So the replacement -- and I'll go through how those numbers kind of -- how they net

02:47:08.800 --> 02:47:15.160
 out, but the replacement is really prescribed by the Texas local government code.

02:47:15.160 --> 02:47:19.040
 So if we're going to charge a mitigation fee, we have to be able to give credit for what

02:47:19.040 --> 02:47:20.040
 they're planting.

02:47:20.040 --> 02:47:23.040
 And the replacement tree is really a two-inch tree.

02:47:23.040 --> 02:47:24.040
 >> Two-inch.

02:47:24.040 --> 02:47:25.040
 >> Two-inch.

02:47:25.040 --> 02:47:29.360
 And so that's where -- that's what all of -- that's what these numbers are -- it's

02:47:29.360 --> 02:47:30.560
 the minimum of two-inch.

02:47:30.560 --> 02:47:37.360
 If they do a three-inch tree, then obviously they may not have to provide as many trees.

02:47:37.360 --> 02:47:43.160
 >> And it might help if I work through the table?

02:47:43.160 --> 02:47:48.880
 >> Well, I was reading where it said the preservation -- the replacement rate for a heritage tree

02:47:48.880 --> 02:47:52.720
 is 2.5 inches per one inch.

02:47:52.720 --> 02:47:54.080
 >> Correct.

02:47:54.080 --> 02:47:58.320
 >> So to me that sounds like if a developer moves an 18-inch --

02:47:58.320 --> 02:47:59.320
 >> DBH.

02:47:59.320 --> 02:48:05.120
 >> Heritage tree, they have to replace it with 36 two-and-a-half-inch trees?

02:48:05.120 --> 02:48:06.120
 >> No.

02:48:06.120 --> 02:48:12.240
 They would multiply that -- let's just say for this sake, the heritage tree was one 40-inch

02:48:12.240 --> 02:48:13.240
 tree.

02:48:13.240 --> 02:48:14.240
 >> Okay.

02:48:14.240 --> 02:48:21.160
 >> Under this example, those 40 times two-and-a-half, so they have to replace it with 100 inches.

02:48:21.160 --> 02:48:22.160
 >> Okay.

02:48:22.160 --> 02:48:31.160
 >> And that could be -- that could be 52-inch trees, it could be 34 three-inch trees.

02:48:31.160 --> 02:48:32.160
 >> Okay.

02:48:32.160 --> 02:48:33.160
 Okay.

02:48:33.160 --> 02:48:36.920
 >> And then same with quality, 30 inches times two, 60.

02:48:36.920 --> 02:48:42.600
 And so you have your total calculated DBH at 160, which is the number here.

02:48:42.600 --> 02:48:43.600
 >> Okay.

02:48:43.600 --> 02:48:47.280
 Now, when they're replacing these, obviously they had to cut down a lot of trees in the

02:48:47.280 --> 02:48:50.120
 first place, and that's why they're mitigating.

02:48:50.120 --> 02:48:51.120
 So where do they go to these trees?

02:48:51.120 --> 02:48:53.120
 Are they going back on that lot or --

02:48:53.120 --> 02:48:54.120
 >> Yes.

02:48:54.120 --> 02:48:55.120
 >> They are?

02:48:55.120 --> 02:48:56.120
 >> Yes.

02:48:56.120 --> 02:49:02.740
 And so under this example, we also require -- while they're not required to be preserved,

02:49:02.740 --> 02:49:07.560
 these secondary trees that are removed require replacement.

02:49:07.560 --> 02:49:13.120
 But instead of on an inch for inch, it's on a tree per replacement tree.

02:49:13.120 --> 02:49:14.120
 >> Okay.

02:49:14.120 --> 02:49:20.800
 >> So for every secondary tree that's removed, you have to replace it with two two-inch trees

02:49:20.800 --> 02:49:21.800
 or four inches.

02:49:21.800 --> 02:49:23.880
 So that's where that four inches comes from.

02:49:23.880 --> 02:49:26.920
 It's two two-inch replacement trees.

02:49:26.920 --> 02:49:27.920
 >> Okay.

02:49:27.920 --> 02:49:33.480
 So you mean you're not taking into consideration ultimate canopy when you replace them?

02:49:33.480 --> 02:49:34.480
 >> Not under this.

02:49:34.480 --> 02:49:35.480
 Not under this.

02:49:35.480 --> 02:49:36.480
 >> Okay.

02:49:36.480 --> 02:49:37.480
 Go ahead.

02:49:37.480 --> 02:49:43.720
 >> And so that gives you your total of 176.

02:49:43.720 --> 02:49:53.280
 Now because it's residential, the local government code requires a 50% discount, if you will.

02:49:53.280 --> 02:49:55.440
 That's where that number comes down to 88.

02:49:55.440 --> 02:49:57.960
 So it's sort of cut in half.

02:49:57.960 --> 02:49:58.960
 Now we give --

02:49:58.960 --> 02:49:59.960
 >> Okay.

02:49:59.960 --> 02:50:03.840
 So they got to cut down 70% of the trees.

02:50:03.840 --> 02:50:09.520
 But then when they go in and mitigate it by this formula, they can still cut it down to

02:50:09.520 --> 02:50:11.520
 half of that?

02:50:11.520 --> 02:50:12.520
 >> Correct.

02:50:12.520 --> 02:50:13.520
 >> Wow.

02:50:13.520 --> 02:50:21.640
 >> And then in addition to that, if you preserve heritage trees, you get more -- you get an

02:50:21.640 --> 02:50:24.480
 additional credit for the type of tree that you preserve.

02:50:24.480 --> 02:50:29.200
 And again, it's weighted more towards preserving the heritage as opposed to quality.

02:50:29.200 --> 02:50:34.160
 And so if you preserve a heritage tree, you get a three to one credit or 60.

02:50:34.160 --> 02:50:39.800
 A quality tree, it's a two to one, under this example, 20.

02:50:39.800 --> 02:50:46.080
 We've also built in the ability if you preserve a secondary tree, as long as you hit your

02:50:46.080 --> 02:50:53.240
 minimum preservation of 30%, so as long as you hit that, you can get credit for preserving

02:50:53.240 --> 02:50:59.640
 secondary trees up to 50% of the preserved quality.

02:50:59.640 --> 02:51:05.880
 So under this, so if you preserve 10 inches, you can get a credit for up to five.

02:51:05.880 --> 02:51:08.600
 >> But that's within the 30% that you're preserving?

02:51:08.600 --> 02:51:10.200
 >> This is in addition to the 30%.

02:51:10.200 --> 02:51:11.200
 >> Okay.

02:51:11.200 --> 02:51:12.200
 >> This is in addition.

02:51:12.200 --> 02:51:18.080
 It's just the ability to sort of write that down.

02:51:18.080 --> 02:51:26.000
 And so your total -- so your total 82.5.

02:51:26.000 --> 02:51:32.920
 And so the mitigation is 88 minus 82.5, which gives you the 5.5.

02:51:32.920 --> 02:51:33.920
 >> Okay.

02:51:33.920 --> 02:51:37.760
 That's where you lost when you were right there.

02:51:37.760 --> 02:51:38.760
 Okay.

02:51:38.760 --> 02:51:41.320
 Well, we had 88 inches of mitigation.

02:51:41.320 --> 02:51:44.720
 >> Because this is your -- yeah, this is your preliminary mitigation.

02:51:44.720 --> 02:51:45.720
 >> Right.

02:51:45.720 --> 02:51:46.720
 Right.

02:51:46.720 --> 02:51:52.160
 >> You're applying additional credits based on the tree's product, which is deducted from

02:51:52.160 --> 02:51:54.400
 that mitigation, which gives you your --

02:51:54.400 --> 02:51:57.440
 >> So they only have to replace 5.5 inches?

02:51:57.440 --> 02:51:58.440
 >> Correct.

02:51:58.440 --> 02:51:59.440
 >> DBH?

02:51:59.440 --> 02:52:00.440
 >> Correct.

02:52:00.440 --> 02:52:01.440
 >> Holy cow.

02:52:01.440 --> 02:52:02.440
 >> Right.

02:52:02.440 --> 02:52:03.440
 Correct me if I'm wrong.

02:52:03.440 --> 02:52:05.520
 They are preserving the minimum 30% to begin with.

02:52:05.520 --> 02:52:06.520
 >> Yeah, they're preserving the minimum.

02:52:06.520 --> 02:52:10.760
 And so I think what's important to note, though, under the current code, they're only -- depending

02:52:10.760 --> 02:52:16.080
 again on the size of your lot, they're only required to preserve -- the greatest they're

02:52:16.080 --> 02:52:18.200
 required to preserve is 20.

02:52:18.200 --> 02:52:21.440
 That number could be cut down to 10, 20% down to 10%.

02:52:21.440 --> 02:52:25.280
 >> See, that's where I'm confused, too, because I thought it was 30 that could be cut down

02:52:25.280 --> 02:52:26.280
 to 20.

02:52:26.280 --> 02:52:29.560
 >> That also is included in here.

02:52:29.560 --> 02:52:32.160
 But you're mitigating at a much higher rate.

02:52:32.160 --> 02:52:43.960
 And so I'll jump back to -- just so you can see it in -- sort of in real time.

02:52:43.960 --> 02:52:47.400
 And so these are real examples.

02:52:47.400 --> 02:52:54.620
 And so we looked at -- again, we took the -- a current tree preservation plan and subdivision.

02:52:54.620 --> 02:52:59.640
 And we took the 30% preservation and then looked at, okay, well, let's assume you're

02:52:59.640 --> 02:53:05.440
 going to preserve 75% of the heritage trees and 25% of the quality.

02:53:05.440 --> 02:53:11.760
 So under this, total trees DBH on that site was just over 3,000.

02:53:11.760 --> 02:53:16.300
 Berry trees made up 946 inches.

02:53:16.300 --> 02:53:20.200
 You had 80 inches of exempt.

02:53:20.200 --> 02:53:24.120
 And I think the majority of the exempt, ironically, were invasive species.

02:53:24.120 --> 02:53:25.120
 >> Okay.

02:53:25.120 --> 02:53:27.960
 >> I think some were -- I think the majority were China berries.

02:53:27.960 --> 02:53:33.080
 And so under the current code, you actually got credit so you can remove oaks and preserve

02:53:33.080 --> 02:53:37.200
 China berries and you're good to go.

02:53:37.200 --> 02:53:40.080
 Under the current code, under the current code.

02:53:40.080 --> 02:53:47.960
 And so your heritage and your -- heritage is at 15 -- just over 1,500, quality 456.

02:53:47.960 --> 02:53:53.480
 So looking at your heritage and quality, the required -- I'm sorry, it's 2005, required

02:53:53.480 --> 02:53:56.720
 preservation, 602 inches.

02:53:56.720 --> 02:53:59.560
 And so when you -- I won't go through the full math.

02:53:59.560 --> 02:54:07.160
 I mean, we can kind of walk you through each of it, but you see how that relates.

02:54:07.160 --> 02:54:16.280
 And so, again, secondary and so the way the numbers work out, your mitigation DBH is 185,

02:54:16.280 --> 02:54:19.620
 which is the equivalent of 93 trees.

02:54:19.620 --> 02:54:25.720
 Now you have to look at this in conjunction with what's required for a residential subdivision.

02:54:25.720 --> 02:54:31.720
 Currently they were required to plant 43 trees and mitigate 36.

02:54:31.720 --> 02:54:33.160
 You didn't get any credit for that.

02:54:33.160 --> 02:54:35.080
 So they can either pay or plant.

02:54:35.080 --> 02:54:39.760
 So it's either plant under the current 36 trees or pay $7,200.

02:54:39.760 --> 02:54:44.560
 It was actually less because the current fee is at 125.

02:54:44.560 --> 02:54:51.600
 We ran this on what we're proposing to be at 200 just so it's more of an apples to apples.

02:54:51.600 --> 02:54:57.020
 Under the current -- I'm sorry, under what's proposed, you're required to plant 86 trees

02:54:57.020 --> 02:55:02.680
 and it's really one tree per lot plus one -- plus a street tree averages out to about

02:55:02.680 --> 02:55:04.280
 one per lot.

02:55:04.280 --> 02:55:10.920
 So you're automatically going to get credit for planting those for the required plantings,

02:55:10.920 --> 02:55:16.600
 which brings your mitigation trees down to seven because it's being reduced off of that.

02:55:16.600 --> 02:55:20.000
 Again, these are based on two-inch trees.

02:55:20.000 --> 02:55:23.040
 It could be three-inch trees, so it could even be less.

02:55:23.040 --> 02:55:28.840
 >> I'm sorry, we're dealing with actual trees now, not DBH, these numbers?

02:55:28.840 --> 02:55:33.320
 >> Yeah, for this -- for the example in the middle, this shows you what it equates to

02:55:33.320 --> 02:55:34.320
 for trees.

02:55:34.320 --> 02:55:35.320
 >> Okay.

02:55:35.320 --> 02:55:36.520
 >> For trees.

02:55:36.520 --> 02:55:43.920
 And so you either would plant those seven trees or you would pay $2,600.

02:55:43.920 --> 02:55:48.560
 If you plant, it brings it back up to that 93 total.

02:55:48.560 --> 02:55:58.780
 And so looking at canopy on the required trees, we have a factor of 1,256 is what we assign

02:55:58.780 --> 02:56:01.160
 for a large shade tree.

02:56:01.160 --> 02:56:02.160
 >> Square footage?

02:56:02.160 --> 02:56:03.720
 >> Yeah, square footage of canopy.

02:56:03.720 --> 02:56:12.960
 And so when you do that comparison of 79 to 93, overall, it's a 17% canopy increase than

02:56:12.960 --> 02:56:15.840
 what's required under the current code.

02:56:15.840 --> 02:56:22.520
 >> You've helped some, not really, and that's a lot.

02:56:22.520 --> 02:56:31.520
 >> And just to give you the reverse, if you do 25% heritage and 75% quality, it completely

02:56:31.520 --> 02:56:34.760
 changes -- it completely changes it.

02:56:34.760 --> 02:56:40.520
 Because now your mitigation trees, even -- you're at 207.

02:56:40.520 --> 02:56:45.160
 So it's 414 where the inches -- again, these are -- I'm just using the minimum of 2-inch

02:56:45.160 --> 02:56:46.700
 trees.

02:56:46.700 --> 02:56:50.400
 So it would be a mitigation of 207 trees.

02:56:50.400 --> 02:56:53.060
 You'd get credit for the required 86.

02:56:53.060 --> 02:57:01.160
 So now you either have to plant an additional 121 or pay just over 24,000 or a combination

02:57:01.160 --> 02:57:02.880
 of both.

02:57:02.880 --> 02:57:07.720
 >> And this is just showing how much more significant a priority is for developers to

02:57:07.720 --> 02:57:11.040
 save the heritage trees over other trees?

02:57:11.040 --> 02:57:12.040
 >> Correct.

02:57:12.040 --> 02:57:17.960
 But also it gives them an option to get somewhere in the middle if it works for them.

02:57:17.960 --> 02:57:21.800
 >> Where does it come in -- and maybe I'm getting off script here, so if I am, tell

02:57:21.800 --> 02:57:26.920
 me -- when you don't have any place to put trees, so you can put them on another lot

02:57:26.920 --> 02:57:30.040
 somewhere or where does that play in?

02:57:30.040 --> 02:57:37.880
 >> You could -- you could either -- you can either pay, pay or plant them on a -- on another

02:57:37.880 --> 02:57:40.960
 property or at another location.

02:57:40.960 --> 02:57:46.040
 Some of that will come into play when the city's -- sort of that planting plan is done.

02:57:46.040 --> 02:57:47.040
 >> Right.

02:57:47.040 --> 02:57:48.560
 >> I know Parks has that.

02:57:48.560 --> 02:57:51.380
 I believe -- >> Would that be some of the areas that go

02:57:51.380 --> 02:57:52.380
 would be parks?

02:57:52.380 --> 02:57:53.380
 >> Correct.

02:57:53.380 --> 02:57:54.380
 >> Trails, things like that?

02:57:54.380 --> 02:57:55.380
 >> Correct.

02:57:55.380 --> 02:58:01.600
 I don't think anybody would probably pay as opposed to planting it on someone else's property,

02:58:01.600 --> 02:58:04.560
 but that option is there.

02:58:04.560 --> 02:58:09.240
 The other component to this, and I don't want us to forget it, because we didn't change

02:58:09.240 --> 02:58:15.600
 it, but if you remember, we also included language regarding a conservation area or

02:58:15.600 --> 02:58:17.760
 a preserved habitat.

02:58:17.760 --> 02:58:23.440
 If that's included, there's the ability, depending on what you're preserving in there, you have

02:58:23.440 --> 02:58:31.760
 the ability to -- if that -- if that DBH that's preserved within that conservation area, it

02:58:31.760 --> 02:58:36.160
 could essentially equalize your mitigation, and really that incentive is to get those

02:58:36.160 --> 02:58:37.160
 larger.

02:58:37.160 --> 02:58:41.680
 It would be 10% of the area.

02:58:41.680 --> 02:58:42.680
 >> Where is this area here?

02:58:42.680 --> 02:58:45.280
 This isn't the area over there off Brinker Road, is it?

02:58:45.280 --> 02:58:46.280
 No, it's not.

02:58:46.280 --> 02:58:47.680
 I can see it isn't.

02:58:47.680 --> 02:58:50.080
 >> This is off of Riddell, I think.

02:58:50.080 --> 02:58:51.080
 >> Okay.

02:58:51.080 --> 02:58:56.360
 >> The development that's coming off off Brinker that sits back behind Wal-Mart, they've got

02:58:56.360 --> 02:59:01.600
 -- they're going to conserve some trees, they're going to create a conservation area.

02:59:01.600 --> 02:59:02.600
 You know what I'm talking about?

02:59:02.600 --> 02:59:03.600
 >> Yes and no.

02:59:03.600 --> 02:59:04.600
 Oh, yeah.

02:59:04.600 --> 02:59:08.880
 Actually, yeah, the plate is on.

02:59:08.880 --> 02:59:09.880
 >> Okay.

02:59:09.880 --> 02:59:15.080
 And that would be a case where because they're creating that conservation area, their mitigation

02:59:15.080 --> 02:59:17.760
 factor is nil.

02:59:17.760 --> 02:59:20.720
 >> That one's a little -- that one's a little different.

02:59:20.720 --> 02:59:25.840
 Because they were under the old code, and so they had an upland ESA.

02:59:25.840 --> 02:59:30.840
 And so they were able to count their ESA area towards meeting their preservation.

02:59:30.840 --> 02:59:36.440
 Under the proposed, that ESA would not be counted.

02:59:36.440 --> 02:59:41.800
 And so the preservations -- >> Two and a half acre tree conservation.

02:59:41.800 --> 02:59:43.320
 >> Yeah, that's it.

02:59:43.320 --> 02:59:47.400
 >> So they would have had additional mitigation and preservation as a requirement of this

02:59:47.400 --> 02:59:48.400
 -- >> Of the new code?

02:59:48.400 --> 02:59:50.840
 >> Of the new code.

02:59:50.840 --> 02:59:51.840
 >> Okay.

02:59:51.840 --> 02:59:55.920
 >> I'm going to interrupt here, Commissioner Becker, I think you have good questions.

02:59:55.920 --> 03:00:00.040
 I don't want to catch you off too short, but if there is a meeting for you and Richard,

03:00:00.040 --> 03:00:01.040
 that might be helpful.

03:00:01.040 --> 03:00:02.040
 >> Yeah, I'm good.

03:00:02.040 --> 03:00:03.040
 Thanks.

03:00:03.040 --> 03:00:14.240
 >> Did that help the -- unless there's anything else.

03:00:14.240 --> 03:00:15.600
 >> Well, are we going to run through this presentation?

03:00:15.600 --> 03:00:16.600
 >> Yeah.

03:00:16.600 --> 03:00:17.600
 We'll go through the whole presentation.

03:00:17.600 --> 03:00:22.680
 The only question I have off the top of my head is hearing the elimination of like ESAs

03:00:22.680 --> 03:00:31.160
 in terms of counting towards -- was there significant developer feedback on -- what

03:00:31.160 --> 03:00:34.360
 was -- out of all the meetings, were they generally okay with it?

03:00:34.360 --> 03:00:35.840
 They feel this is aggressive?

03:00:35.840 --> 03:00:37.200
 How did the developers feel?

03:00:37.200 --> 03:00:42.080
 >> I think they were much -- and we met with them again on Friday afternoon to go over

03:00:42.080 --> 03:00:45.160
 the changes that we presented yesterday to council.

03:00:45.160 --> 03:00:49.360
 And I think it was much more palatable for them.

03:00:49.360 --> 03:00:54.840
 Unfortunately, with some of these -- it's like if no one's happy, then you really did

03:00:54.840 --> 03:00:56.720
 a great job.

03:00:56.720 --> 03:01:03.880
 But it's really hard to get really true preservationists on one spectrum and then development community

03:01:03.880 --> 03:01:08.800
 that doesn't want to do any and just to try to get somewhere in the middle, but ultimately

03:01:08.800 --> 03:01:11.840
 still try to get where the city's goals want to be.

03:01:11.840 --> 03:01:16.720
 So I think at the end of the day, I think it's much more palatable to them now that

03:01:16.720 --> 03:01:18.640
 they're looking at it differently.

03:01:18.640 --> 03:01:23.520
 They understand if they dedicate a conservation easement, it probably might be to their benefit,

03:01:23.520 --> 03:01:25.940
 but also to the city's benefit.

03:01:25.940 --> 03:01:33.520
 Something else that we added in is a line to allow tree fund dollars to be used towards

03:01:33.520 --> 03:01:37.940
 the maintenance of some of those conservation areas.

03:01:37.940 --> 03:01:42.160
 Even though they're really not touched, there is some minor maintenance that's related to

03:01:42.160 --> 03:01:43.160
 that.

03:01:43.160 --> 03:01:46.280
 And that's been an issue in the past where I think the city's been a little reluctant

03:01:46.280 --> 03:01:52.800
 to take those on because, you know, how are we going to manage those?

03:01:52.800 --> 03:01:56.400
 And so it's a little bit different under this scenario.

03:01:56.400 --> 03:01:57.400
 Great.

03:01:57.400 --> 03:02:02.920
 Well, then we can look forward to the rest of the presentation here in a little bit.

03:02:02.920 --> 03:02:08.000
 Any other questions for Richard or Haley?

03:02:08.000 --> 03:02:09.000
 Okay.

03:02:09.000 --> 03:02:13.440
 We'll close the work session at 625 and meet over in council chambers at 6.

03:02:13.440 --> 03:02:18.920
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting

03:02:18.920 --> 03:02:20.480
 for March 6, 2019.

03:02:20.480 --> 03:02:25.980
 I will call the meeting to order at 633, seeing that we have a quorum.

03:02:25.980 --> 03:02:32.040
 The first item of business is to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and

03:02:32.040 --> 03:02:33.040
 Texas flag.

03:02:33.040 --> 03:02:34.040
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for

03:02:34.040 --> 03:02:35.040
 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

03:02:35.040 --> 03:02:36.040
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.

03:02:36.040 --> 03:03:05.640
 The next item of business is to consider the

03:03:05.640 --> 03:03:08.440
 minutes from February 6th and February 13th.

03:03:08.440 --> 03:03:12.080
 We'll take these as separate items, and the chair will entertain a motion on the February

03:03:12.080 --> 03:03:13.080
 6th minutes.

03:03:13.080 --> 03:03:14.080
 Commissioner Smith?

03:03:14.080 --> 03:03:15.080
 Motion approved.

03:03:15.080 --> 03:03:18.280
 We have a first to approve.

03:03:18.280 --> 03:03:19.280
 Commissioner Beck?

03:03:19.280 --> 03:03:20.280
 Second.

03:03:20.280 --> 03:03:23.280
 We have a first and a second to approve the minutes for February 6th.

03:03:23.280 --> 03:03:24.280
 Any discussion?

03:03:24.280 --> 03:03:38.840
 Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board.

03:03:38.840 --> 03:03:42.840
 Motion carries 5-0.

03:03:42.840 --> 03:03:45.360
 Next item is February 13th minutes.

03:03:45.360 --> 03:03:46.360
 Commissioner Ellis?

03:03:46.360 --> 03:03:47.360
 I move approval.

03:03:47.360 --> 03:03:49.080
 We have a first for approval.

03:03:49.080 --> 03:03:50.080
 Commissioner Sanchez?

03:03:50.080 --> 03:03:51.080
 I second.

03:03:51.080 --> 03:03:54.600
 We have a first and a second for approval of the February 13th minutes.

03:03:54.600 --> 03:03:55.600
 Any discussion?

03:03:55.600 --> 03:04:06.240
 Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board.

03:04:06.240 --> 03:04:09.660
 Motion carries 5-0.

03:04:09.660 --> 03:04:12.360
 The next item of business is our consent agenda.

03:04:12.360 --> 03:04:17.960
 Is there any motion or discussion on the consent agenda?

03:04:17.960 --> 03:04:18.960
 Commissioner Smith?

03:04:18.960 --> 03:04:20.340
 Make a motion to approve.

03:04:20.340 --> 03:04:23.340
 We have a first to approve the consent agenda.

03:04:23.340 --> 03:04:24.340
 Commissioner Ellis?

03:04:24.340 --> 03:04:25.340
 Second.

03:04:25.340 --> 03:04:28.200
 We have a first and a second to approve the consent agenda.

03:04:28.200 --> 03:04:31.120
 Any discussion?

03:04:31.120 --> 03:04:39.880
 Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board.

03:04:39.880 --> 03:04:42.920
 Motion carries 6-0.

03:04:42.920 --> 03:04:44.800
 With that, I'll move it to the public hearings.

03:04:44.800 --> 03:04:45.960
 It's point of order.

03:04:45.960 --> 03:04:50.320
 There is two changes to the agenda, or at least two notes.

03:04:50.320 --> 03:04:58.400
 Item 4A has been withdrawn, and Item 4B has been postponed to the March 20th meeting.

03:04:58.400 --> 03:05:04.720
 So 4A and 4B will not be heard this evening.

03:05:04.720 --> 03:05:08.120
 The next item to be heard will be 4CFR18-0018.

03:05:08.120 --> 03:05:27.280
 I'll invite Haley for presentation and open the public hearing.

03:05:27.280 --> 03:05:32.360
 This is a replant for a proposed McDonald's located at the intersection of Fort Worth

03:05:32.360 --> 03:05:34.240
 Drive and I-35.

03:05:34.240 --> 03:05:38.920
 As you all may recall, there was recently an SGP application for this property.

03:05:38.920 --> 03:05:43.160
 This is the same project, moving on through the next steps of the development process.

03:05:43.160 --> 03:05:46.640
 The total property is approximately 1.69 acres.

03:05:46.640 --> 03:05:51.420
 This is a combination of portions of three lots that were left from various other replants

03:05:51.420 --> 03:05:55.880
 of adjoining properties, as well as text-out acquiring a significant amount of right-of-way

03:05:55.880 --> 03:05:58.080
 here on the southern side of the property.

03:05:58.080 --> 03:06:02.520
 So this is the combination of those three remainder parcels into one lot for that development.

03:06:02.520 --> 03:06:06.680
 And I'm happy to answer any other questions.

03:06:06.680 --> 03:06:09.600
 I do not see any questions for you, Haley.

03:06:09.600 --> 03:06:11.240
 Thank you.

03:06:11.240 --> 03:06:12.240
 This is a public hearing.

03:06:12.240 --> 03:06:13.640
 Anyone wishing to speak may do so.

03:06:13.640 --> 03:06:16.160
 We do have a card from the applicant.

03:06:16.160 --> 03:06:21.640
 If you're wishing to speak, invite Greg Massey.

03:06:21.640 --> 03:06:25.480
 And since you are speaking on behalf of the group, you have 10 minutes.

03:06:25.480 --> 03:06:28.760
 Okay, hopefully it won't take the full 10 minutes.

03:06:28.760 --> 03:06:30.320
 My name is Greg Massey.

03:06:30.320 --> 03:06:37.840
 I'm with Red Plains Professionals, the civil engineering group representing McDonald's.

03:06:37.840 --> 03:06:46.480
 As Haley identified, this plat is for combining three tracts in the remainder from the text-out

03:06:46.480 --> 03:06:51.520
 taking into one for the development of McDonald's.

03:06:51.520 --> 03:06:58.320
 We have been through extensive submittals and review processes with the city, and I

03:06:58.320 --> 03:07:02.080
 would be happy to answer any questions you have.

03:07:02.080 --> 03:07:10.000
 I'm hoping everyone's had a chance to review the staff report and the minutes and is familiar

03:07:10.000 --> 03:07:17.840
 with everything we have gone through in getting compliance with the engineering requirements,

03:07:17.840 --> 03:07:25.120
 the planning and zoning requirements, the tree preservation requirements, the TDP, all

03:07:25.120 --> 03:07:26.120
 those items.

03:07:26.120 --> 03:07:30.440
 So if there are specific questions, I will address them.

03:07:30.440 --> 03:07:36.040
 Otherwise, I'm not going to occupy your time for the night.

03:07:36.040 --> 03:07:37.560
 I appreciate you being here for questions.

03:07:37.560 --> 03:07:39.840
 However, we don't have any at this time.

03:07:39.840 --> 03:07:40.840
 Thank you very much.

03:07:40.840 --> 03:07:42.400
 Thank you.

03:07:42.400 --> 03:07:43.640
 This is a public hearing.

03:07:43.640 --> 03:07:50.360
 Anyone else wishing to speak may certainly do so.

03:07:50.360 --> 03:07:54.200
 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for conversation, discussion

03:07:54.200 --> 03:07:56.640
 or motion.

03:07:56.640 --> 03:08:01.600
 Mr. Sanchez?

03:08:01.600 --> 03:08:02.960
 We have a first for approval.

03:08:02.960 --> 03:08:03.960
 Mr. Smith?

03:08:03.960 --> 03:08:04.960
 Second.

03:08:04.960 --> 03:08:07.040
 We have a first and a second for approval.

03:08:07.040 --> 03:08:09.880
 Any discussion?

03:08:09.880 --> 03:08:17.840
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

03:08:17.840 --> 03:08:19.800
 Motion carries 6-0.

03:08:19.800 --> 03:08:21.240
 Congratulations.

03:08:21.240 --> 03:08:31.640
 The next item on the agenda for business is item 4-D, and I'll invite Haley for a presentation

03:08:31.640 --> 03:08:38.600
 on the tree preservation landscape standards and ESSA standards, and I'll go ahead and

03:08:38.600 --> 03:08:39.600
 open the public hearing.

03:08:39.600 --> 03:08:40.600
 Yeah.

03:08:40.600 --> 03:09:06.000
 I don't think this will be a tag team between Richard and I.

03:09:06.000 --> 03:09:07.000
 Good evening for the record.

03:09:07.000 --> 03:09:11.040
 I am Richard Campanoni, deputy director of development services planning director.

03:09:11.040 --> 03:09:16.720
 What I wanted to do tonight is just kind of walk through some of the changes that resulted

03:09:16.720 --> 03:09:23.200
 from meetings we had both with the development community public input that we've received,

03:09:23.200 --> 03:09:27.600
 that you'll see that really that's changed since that last draft and public hearings

03:09:27.600 --> 03:09:32.720
 that we had in November and December of last year.

03:09:32.720 --> 03:09:35.840
 And so I just want to give a little bit of background.

03:09:35.840 --> 03:09:40.680
 I usually start off, I think, every presentation that we've done with this slide, again, just

03:09:40.680 --> 03:09:48.360
 to give a little bit of guidance as to the approach that we took when we developed these

03:09:48.360 --> 03:09:49.360
 standards.

03:09:49.360 --> 03:09:54.760
 Again, a lot of that stems from a policy discussion from city council and the committee on the

03:09:54.760 --> 03:09:59.680
 environment in April and May of '18, again, looking at a unified approach, making sure

03:09:59.680 --> 03:10:03.880
 we comply with the Texas local government code, limit clear-cutting, require mitigation

03:10:03.880 --> 03:10:09.000
 for all trees removed, guide priorities towards preserving larger and quality trees, promote

03:10:09.000 --> 03:10:14.240
 multi-age forest, balance it with reasonable development, and increase tree canopy citywide

03:10:14.240 --> 03:10:16.480
 at 30 percent.

03:10:16.480 --> 03:10:23.780
 Some of that outreach that I had alluded to, up through 2018, we did have a draft initially

03:10:23.780 --> 03:10:27.320
 posted on the website for public comment in November.

03:10:27.320 --> 03:10:31.600
 We did meet right around that same time with Denton County Ag extension and the master

03:10:31.600 --> 03:10:37.840
 gardeners to get some input, particularly with respect to the tree species.

03:10:37.840 --> 03:10:43.240
 In December, we did present at a Keep Denton Beautiful board meeting to kind of go over

03:10:43.240 --> 03:10:46.760
 the proposed at that point in time.

03:10:46.760 --> 03:10:53.400
 And then we did put out another draft at the beginning of, once we really started honing

03:10:53.400 --> 03:10:59.520
 it in based upon a lot of the input and those initial two public hearings we had, we reissued

03:10:59.520 --> 03:11:05.960
 a draft in November, I'm sorry, in February, and then kind of went back out on the road.

03:11:05.960 --> 03:11:12.240
 We did meet at the North Texas Urban Forestry Council Conference in February.

03:11:12.240 --> 03:11:17.560
 We also sat, Haley really sat for, I think, almost three hours with the American Society

03:11:17.560 --> 03:11:21.560
 of Landscape Architects of Texas Dallas-Fort Worth chapter.

03:11:21.560 --> 03:11:26.700
 We did have a meeting with the Denton Community Developers Alliance.

03:11:26.700 --> 03:11:31.680
 We actually met with them again last Friday based on some changes.

03:11:31.680 --> 03:11:36.120
 We also sent the draft, that February draft, to the Dallas Builders Association.

03:11:36.120 --> 03:11:43.600
 It was discussed also at the community workshops we had with respect to the DDC update from

03:11:43.600 --> 03:11:47.060
 some of our residents and single-family homeowners.

03:11:47.060 --> 03:11:51.600
 And then just individual meetings with both members of the development community, citizens,

03:11:51.600 --> 03:11:54.260
 phone calls, et cetera.

03:11:54.260 --> 03:11:58.560
 A lot of those comments, or really any of the comments that we received either through

03:11:58.560 --> 03:12:06.760
 the website comment page or written comments, were all sort of combined into this spreadsheet

03:12:06.760 --> 03:12:08.240
 that was attached.

03:12:08.240 --> 03:12:13.200
 Again, most of those comments were from that February, really all of those comments were

03:12:13.200 --> 03:12:18.240
 from that, I don't know why, the February 1st draft.

03:12:18.240 --> 03:12:24.140
 So the changes that we've made really work to address a lot of those comments.

03:12:24.140 --> 03:12:26.160
 And so again, where are we today?

03:12:26.160 --> 03:12:33.800
 As I mentioned, we had 14, really now 15 different work sessions and committee meetings from

03:12:33.800 --> 03:12:37.400
 April of last year, so within 11 months.

03:12:37.400 --> 03:12:43.080
 We met, really the last full council review was on 11/13.

03:12:43.080 --> 03:12:52.000
 That sort of prompted those changes that ultimately went into that draft on February 1st.

03:12:52.000 --> 03:12:58.000
 Based upon some of the concerns that we heard from the development community, we were looking

03:12:58.000 --> 03:12:59.560
 at making additional changes.

03:12:59.560 --> 03:13:03.840
 And at the time, it was being contemplated whether we take that back to the committee

03:13:03.840 --> 03:13:06.040
 on the environment for input.

03:13:06.040 --> 03:13:11.720
 At that time, two weeks ago, the city manager's recommendation really was meet with the chair

03:13:11.720 --> 03:13:15.680
 of that committee, Council Member Briggs, as well as the mayor, and let's work through

03:13:15.680 --> 03:13:21.320
 that to avoid back and forth and make sure that we're moving together.

03:13:21.320 --> 03:13:27.080
 So we held three separate meetings with both the chair and the mayor to work through and

03:13:27.080 --> 03:13:29.280
 address some of those concerns.

03:13:29.280 --> 03:13:34.180
 And then that's essentially the draft that was sent out to you on Friday.

03:13:34.180 --> 03:13:40.480
 We did have another city council work session yesterday to go over those changes and get

03:13:40.480 --> 03:13:42.480
 input.

03:13:42.480 --> 03:13:49.440
 And for the most part, there were really two central changes as a result.

03:13:49.440 --> 03:13:53.080
 It had to do with applicability in secondary trees.

03:13:53.080 --> 03:13:56.840
 And so the draft that we handed out tonight has those changes, and I'll go through those

03:13:56.840 --> 03:13:59.760
 here shortly.

03:13:59.760 --> 03:14:01.840
 And so, again, where are we going?

03:14:01.840 --> 03:14:06.880
 You might have seen this slide before where we talked about sort of our overall canopy

03:14:06.880 --> 03:14:08.100
 goals.

03:14:08.100 --> 03:14:12.880
 And so I think in the past, we've always looked at the tree preservation landscape, but we

03:14:12.880 --> 03:14:17.040
 kind of looked at these all separately, whereas now they're kind of really looking at them

03:14:17.040 --> 03:14:20.080
 unified and how they all kind of tie together.

03:14:20.080 --> 03:14:27.000
 And so, again, our current – currently citywide, we're at 27.97 percent canopy, set a goal

03:14:27.000 --> 03:14:29.000
 of 30.

03:14:29.000 --> 03:14:33.240
 And we also broke that down between east to 35, west to 35, and, again, that's based

03:14:33.240 --> 03:14:41.380
 on the U.S. Forest Service, 40 to 60 percent for forested areas and 20 percent for grassland.

03:14:41.380 --> 03:14:46.960
 And so, again, what we looked at was, you know, what has development actually even brought

03:14:46.960 --> 03:14:47.960
 us?

03:14:47.960 --> 03:14:52.000
 Where have we – where are we going and where do we come from?

03:14:52.000 --> 03:14:58.040
 And so we were able to get a 1942 aerial photograph.

03:14:58.040 --> 03:15:04.280
 And so we then applied the current – or I'm sorry, the canopy in 1942.

03:15:04.280 --> 03:15:10.860
 And so this is an area between Bonnie Bray, 77, and university.

03:15:10.860 --> 03:15:14.140
 And so it really includes just about everything.

03:15:14.140 --> 03:15:17.920
 So you have larger commercial areas, you have some single family, you have some parks.

03:15:17.920 --> 03:15:22.000
 And so that's where we looked at this while we included this example.

03:15:22.000 --> 03:15:26.960
 And so what we did is we looked at, based upon the landscape requirements, applying

03:15:26.960 --> 03:15:34.560
 that maximum canopy cover of the undeveloped property to developed, it actually brings

03:15:34.560 --> 03:15:38.400
 our canopy citywide to about 36 percent, not including this area.

03:15:38.400 --> 03:15:41.800
 This is, again, across the spectrum.

03:15:41.800 --> 03:15:50.000
 And so what we thought was interesting in looking at that 42 to 2017 example is in 1942,

03:15:50.000 --> 03:16:00.120
 this area sort of within the yellow had a 6 percent tree canopy; 2017 it's at 33 percent.

03:16:00.120 --> 03:16:08.120
 And so while we had a lot of that single family development, where you see now the red, what's

03:16:08.120 --> 03:16:13.520
 interesting is – this is North Lake Park, so you see the increase in canopy as a result

03:16:13.520 --> 03:16:16.040
 of our parks.

03:16:16.040 --> 03:16:22.280
 And then this area here, which is equivalent to this area, this is actually an ESA area.

03:16:22.280 --> 03:16:26.280
 And so you see through those preservation areas of the ESA what is actually done as

03:16:26.280 --> 03:16:29.700
 far as promoting canopy.

03:16:29.700 --> 03:16:35.400
 And so looking at that 36 percent citywide when we extrapolated the numbers, it's the

03:16:35.400 --> 03:16:39.720
 equivalent of about 13 trees an acre.

03:16:39.720 --> 03:16:45.080
 Looking at past codes, I think we were at 15 trees per acre, but we really didn't

03:16:45.080 --> 03:16:46.080
 do preservation.

03:16:46.080 --> 03:16:54.040
 So looking at those combined, we're at or really close to or even above sort of meeting

03:16:54.040 --> 03:16:57.740
 that goal in the future.

03:16:57.740 --> 03:17:01.320
 And so, again, focusing on the changes, kind of what changed and why.

03:17:01.320 --> 03:17:06.820
 And so when we initially presented this back in November, we really tried to hone these

03:17:06.820 --> 03:17:14.480
 in in five sort of main components – applicability, tree type, preservation, credit and incentives,

03:17:14.480 --> 03:17:15.920
 and mitigation.

03:17:15.920 --> 03:17:19.280
 And so we'll walk through sort of each of those and what's changed.

03:17:19.280 --> 03:17:27.660
 And so under the applicability, we removed some language that was going to – if a agricultural

03:17:27.660 --> 03:17:33.360
 property was being marketed for non-agricultural use, they would not be exempt.

03:17:33.360 --> 03:17:39.400
 We removed that – we removed that from the code or from the draft.

03:17:39.400 --> 03:17:45.200
 We also included an exemption for property on which a single-family or two-family residential

03:17:45.200 --> 03:17:46.440
 dwelling exists.

03:17:46.440 --> 03:17:49.960
 Again, this is a current exemption in the code.

03:17:49.960 --> 03:17:54.000
 We just carried that over under – if you recall, under the local government code, there's

03:17:54.000 --> 03:17:58.840
 an exemption already for single-family for trees under 10 inches in DBH.

03:17:58.840 --> 03:18:00.320
 This just exempts them overall.

03:18:00.320 --> 03:18:05.640
 I'll speak to some additional changes with respect to number two as a result of yesterday's

03:18:05.640 --> 03:18:07.140
 work session.

03:18:07.140 --> 03:18:16.160
 Number three, if it's in a hazardous condition or in danger – again, this was already mentioned

03:18:16.160 --> 03:18:19.520
 in the non-protected tree definition.

03:18:19.520 --> 03:18:27.640
 We just included it here, so it's a little bit more explicit for property owners.

03:18:27.640 --> 03:18:29.180
 Same with number four.

03:18:29.180 --> 03:18:32.360
 Number five, this was a comment that we received from the development community, a concern

03:18:32.360 --> 03:18:36.800
 about if they needed to do a survey to even get onto the property, sometimes the clearing

03:18:36.800 --> 03:18:38.540
 of trees are required.

03:18:38.540 --> 03:18:42.200
 And so the language in number five is what's in the current code today.

03:18:42.200 --> 03:18:45.720
 And so we're just recommending now that that be included.

03:18:45.720 --> 03:18:51.240
 And then also number six will ultimately, I think, change somewhat.

03:18:51.240 --> 03:18:57.300
 One thing we talked about was having these regulations go in place almost like an interim

03:18:57.300 --> 03:19:01.760
 regulation, if you will, where for a six-month period of time you can fall under the current

03:19:01.760 --> 03:19:05.200
 code or have the ability to go under the current.

03:19:05.200 --> 03:19:08.600
 Interestingly enough, while there was some concern from the development community, we

03:19:08.600 --> 03:19:14.480
 also met with some residential builders that actually – one in particular that actually

03:19:14.480 --> 03:19:19.160
 liked our – liked the current or the proposed draft.

03:19:19.160 --> 03:19:27.160
 Their concern was the iron floor of 30 percent, but under the current code, their mitigation

03:19:27.160 --> 03:19:32.880
 amounts would have been much more.

03:19:32.880 --> 03:19:40.960
 And so the change that resulted from yesterday's work session – and again, you can see this

03:19:40.960 --> 03:19:47.120
 in the draft that was handed out on – starting at line 415, it really just – rather than

03:19:47.120 --> 03:19:54.120
 having exceptions to exceptions, we just created a applicability section outlined explicitly

03:19:54.120 --> 03:19:57.880
 when it's – when it's – what it's applicable to and when it's exempt.

03:19:57.880 --> 03:20:03.280
 So if you – undeveloped land, non-residential and multifamily being redeveloped, and number

03:20:03.280 --> 03:20:07.440
 C in particular was – really prompted this change as a result of the discussion with

03:20:07.440 --> 03:20:12.920
 council was if there was an existing single-family or two-family that was going to demo their

03:20:12.920 --> 03:20:19.040
 property primarily for redeveloping, making sure that if that was the case, then they

03:20:19.040 --> 03:20:25.320
 would have to comply with the preservation and mitigation requirements.

03:20:25.320 --> 03:20:30.520
 And the only caveat that we added in there is I – that the minimum DBH for protected

03:20:30.520 --> 03:20:33.080
 trees shall be 10 inches or greater.

03:20:33.080 --> 03:20:37.720
 Again, there's that exemption from the Texas local government code for single-family and

03:20:37.720 --> 03:20:45.640
 duplex that in order to apply it, it would have to be greater than 10 inches.

03:20:45.640 --> 03:20:48.800
 So that's why that – that's why that's spelled out.

03:20:48.800 --> 03:20:57.800
 We also included another item under item 2 – 2B.

03:20:57.800 --> 03:21:05.680
 We do have trees that are currently on a plat if they are preserved as part of a subdivision

03:21:05.680 --> 03:21:08.360
 on a single-family lot.

03:21:08.360 --> 03:21:11.760
 Typically they're a larger tree.

03:21:11.760 --> 03:21:16.000
 Any time that those would be removed unless otherwise exempt.

03:21:16.000 --> 03:21:20.360
 So if they were greater than 10 inches, they would not be exempt.

03:21:20.360 --> 03:21:24.360
 They would have to mitigate because, again, that would be a replacement tree or a preserved

03:21:24.360 --> 03:21:29.920
 tree that would be – that would be removed.

03:21:29.920 --> 03:21:38.680
 The tree types, really four types, under the current code there are seven different designations.

03:21:38.680 --> 03:21:43.360
 And so what we're looking at now is really preservation based on two types, mitigation

03:21:43.360 --> 03:21:44.640
 based on three.

03:21:44.640 --> 03:21:50.320
 So your preservation is based on heritage trees, which are quality trees with a DBH

03:21:50.320 --> 03:21:55.880
 of 18 inches or greater and all post-oaks with a DBH of 6 inches or greater.

03:21:55.880 --> 03:22:00.360
 And then quality trees are really all healthy non-secondary trees except post-oaks that

03:22:00.360 --> 03:22:03.260
 measure between 6 and up to 18 inches.

03:22:03.260 --> 03:22:09.280
 So very similar to the current definitions, if you recall at one point we had carved out

03:22:09.280 --> 03:22:16.400
 a separate line for post-oaks and blackjack oaks and had that minimum DBH at 4.

03:22:16.400 --> 03:22:22.400
 That was a concern that from the development community we brought it back up to 6 inches.

03:22:22.400 --> 03:22:28.100
 We heard a lot of concern also with the blackjack oaks.

03:22:28.100 --> 03:22:34.120
 And so where we're at under the proposed is really just the post-oaks at 6 inches or

03:22:34.120 --> 03:22:35.640
 greater.

03:22:35.640 --> 03:22:42.120
 And then secondary trees, while they're not required to be preserved, it includes all

03:22:42.120 --> 03:22:47.680
 bowdark, hackberry and cottonwoods, and so under the current code both honey locust and

03:22:47.680 --> 03:22:49.840
 mesquite are part of that secondary.

03:22:49.840 --> 03:22:53.360
 What we're proposing now is that those be removed.

03:22:53.360 --> 03:23:01.560
 That's kind of stayed the same from the secondary and be treated as a non-protected tree.

03:23:01.560 --> 03:23:05.160
 We do also have a designation of a landmark tree.

03:23:05.160 --> 03:23:10.200
 This included the current code has a designation of a historic tree, which we currently don't

03:23:10.200 --> 03:23:12.920
 necessarily have.

03:23:12.920 --> 03:23:20.240
 And it was also as we went through the creation of this, it was recommended we also include

03:23:20.240 --> 03:23:23.360
 any tree that's on the Texas Big Tree Registry.

03:23:23.360 --> 03:23:27.880
 But one thing I wanted to note that while 100 percent preservation is required in order

03:23:27.880 --> 03:23:37.500
 to have either of the designations under a landmark tree, it's something that's designated

03:23:37.500 --> 03:23:38.960
 by the property owner.

03:23:38.960 --> 03:23:43.240
 So this isn't something that the city's going to put on a property and then not allow you

03:23:43.240 --> 03:23:44.880
 to remove it.

03:23:44.880 --> 03:23:48.600
 So again, this would be something that would be designated by that property owner.

03:23:48.600 --> 03:23:51.980
 And currently there are none in the city.

03:23:51.980 --> 03:23:54.520
 Non-protected trees, again, no changes.

03:23:54.520 --> 03:23:59.280
 Mesquite, unless it's part of a preserved habitat or conservation easement, honey locust,

03:23:59.280 --> 03:24:02.160
 unless part of a preserved habitat or conservation easement.

03:24:02.160 --> 03:24:04.440
 These all essentially are the same.

03:24:04.440 --> 03:24:10.080
 Just to kind of give a recap on the preserved habitat or conservation easement, if you do

03:24:10.080 --> 03:24:15.640
 have an area, let's just say a preserved habitat that's adjacent to an ESA, again, we're still

03:24:15.640 --> 03:24:19.720
 with a development impact area where the ESA is not included.

03:24:19.720 --> 03:24:22.800
 So it's not counting for you, it's not counting against you.

03:24:22.800 --> 03:24:29.880
 But if you had an area equal to the greater of 5,000 square feet or 10 percent of that

03:24:29.880 --> 03:24:37.320
 development impact area, if that area was preserved, and it included mesquite or honey

03:24:37.320 --> 03:24:44.480
 locust or any other tree for that matter, since you are keeping that area intact, that

03:24:44.480 --> 03:24:49.200
 those trees could count towards designating that land.

03:24:49.200 --> 03:24:54.280
 And so this is something that we've had in there since day one, but I just wanted to

03:24:54.280 --> 03:24:59.480
 make sure that we didn't forget.

03:24:59.480 --> 03:25:06.160
 Under preservation, pretty much the biggest change is there were multiple types and varying

03:25:06.160 --> 03:25:07.640
 replacement rates.

03:25:07.640 --> 03:25:13.120
 This really simplified it into preserving the quality and heritage at 30 percent, and

03:25:13.120 --> 03:25:17.960
 then your replacement rate for a heritage is two and a half inches per one inch removed.

03:25:17.960 --> 03:25:21.040
 For quality trees, two inches per one inch removed.

03:25:21.040 --> 03:25:26.280
 And then for secondary trees, while there's no minimum preservation, there is a mitigation,

03:25:26.280 --> 03:25:32.600
 but it's not based on the DBH or the diameter at breast height, which is four and a half

03:25:32.600 --> 03:25:34.520
 feet above grade.

03:25:34.520 --> 03:25:38.000
 It's really at a tree-for-tree basis.

03:25:38.000 --> 03:25:42.620
 And so it's really for every secondary tree that's removed, the replacement rate is really

03:25:42.620 --> 03:25:48.320
 two replacement trees, and the replacement trees are the minimum of -- the minimum is

03:25:48.320 --> 03:25:49.320
 a two-inch tree.

03:25:49.320 --> 03:25:57.840
 And again, that's prescribed as a result of the Texas Civil Government Code 2 and 2905.

03:25:57.840 --> 03:26:01.200
 We did provide some additional flexibility.

03:26:01.200 --> 03:26:05.400
 One of the concerns we heard, particularly from the development community, was that in

03:26:05.400 --> 03:26:11.040
 addition to requiring more preservation, more mitigation, and then ultimately increasing

03:26:11.040 --> 03:26:19.880
 the fee, there was no real wiggle room, if you will, or the ability to lessen the preservation

03:26:19.880 --> 03:26:20.880
 amount.

03:26:20.880 --> 03:26:23.060
 Under the current code, if you're greater than two and a half -- I think it's two and

03:26:23.060 --> 03:26:28.100
 a half acres, you're required to preserve 20 percent.

03:26:28.100 --> 03:26:33.520
 That can be cut down in half to 10 percent, provided you mitigate.

03:26:33.520 --> 03:26:36.600
 And so we came up with something very similar.

03:26:36.600 --> 03:26:43.120
 So you could reduce the 30 to 20, provided that 10 percent -- there's some additional

03:26:43.120 --> 03:26:46.040
 mitigation associated with that 10 percent.

03:26:46.040 --> 03:26:50.480
 And really what it does, it bumps up those replacement rates by 0.25.

03:26:50.480 --> 03:26:56.960
 So it goes from -- for heritage, it goes from two and a half to two and three quarters.

03:26:56.960 --> 03:27:02.720
 For quality, it goes from two to two and a quarter.

03:27:02.720 --> 03:27:08.360
 We also included language to allow for an alternative tree preservation plan.

03:27:08.360 --> 03:27:14.280
 There's some language now in the code where, because it's in subchapter 13, you can do

03:27:14.280 --> 03:27:16.280
 an ADP.

03:27:16.280 --> 03:27:23.800
 When we discussed this, primarily with the committee chair and the mayor in developing

03:27:23.800 --> 03:27:29.480
 this, we had recommended -- staff had recommended that this be an administrative process, that

03:27:29.480 --> 03:27:35.240
 you allow for an alternative tree preservation plan for under certain circumstances.

03:27:35.240 --> 03:27:39.760
 And the first would be to allow trees less than the minimum DBH to be counted towards

03:27:39.760 --> 03:27:44.160
 protected trees when the allowance would result in the preservation of a greater number of

03:27:44.160 --> 03:27:46.780
 post oaks, regardless of DBH.

03:27:46.780 --> 03:27:52.440
 And so if you had a number of post oaks or a stand that you wanted to preserve, if they

03:27:52.440 --> 03:27:59.280
 were four inches or three inches, to be able to count those towards that preservation goal.

03:27:59.280 --> 03:28:02.000
 The second part of that would be the preservation.

03:28:02.000 --> 03:28:06.640
 If there's a substantial burden, but smaller DBH quality trees could be preserved in such

03:28:06.640 --> 03:28:13.160
 a way that they're incorporated into site design, such as parking lot buffer, front

03:28:13.160 --> 03:28:15.880
 yard landscaping, that they then could count.

03:28:15.880 --> 03:28:22.000
 And really, the rationale behind that was, if you had, let's say, a four-inch quality

03:28:22.000 --> 03:28:27.320
 tree while you're not required to preserve it, why -- and that's an area that you're

03:28:27.320 --> 03:28:31.840
 going to have a landscape buffer -- why remove those trees and plant them with a two-inch

03:28:31.840 --> 03:28:36.200
 tree where you already have a four-inch tree that's established and probably has a better

03:28:36.200 --> 03:28:38.880
 likelihood of surviving.

03:28:38.880 --> 03:28:44.320
 And so these are other sort of options and some flexibility that we included.

03:28:44.320 --> 03:28:48.680
 And then the other component to that is to allow secondary trees to count towards meeting

03:28:48.680 --> 03:28:52.040
 the minimum preservation instead of quality trees.

03:28:52.040 --> 03:28:56.560
 And this is really to avoid those instances where, if a site is just undevelopable because

03:28:56.560 --> 03:29:02.200
 of where those quality trees are located, rather than having to go through this long,

03:29:02.200 --> 03:29:06.320
 drawn-out process, if there are secondary trees that could be preserved on that site

03:29:06.320 --> 03:29:12.920
 to allow that to take the place.

03:29:12.920 --> 03:29:19.000
 In addition to that, as a result of yesterday's work session, we also included some additional

03:29:19.000 --> 03:29:22.820
 language with respect to secondary trees.

03:29:22.820 --> 03:29:30.720
 And so really, it starts on line 668 under subsection 8 -- I'm sorry, H of the draft

03:29:30.720 --> 03:29:32.960
 minimum preservation requirements.

03:29:32.960 --> 03:29:37.400
 And it's the language outlined in blue here.

03:29:37.400 --> 03:29:42.240
 And so while there's no minimum preservation required when there are quality and heritage

03:29:42.240 --> 03:29:45.960
 trees, in instances where there are no quality or heritage trees on the property, then a

03:29:45.960 --> 03:29:50.680
 minimum of 20 percent of the total DBH of the secondary trees must be preserved within

03:29:50.680 --> 03:29:52.600
 that development impact area.

03:29:52.600 --> 03:29:57.920
 And so the concern was, in some sites that maybe were all secondary trees, instead of

03:29:57.920 --> 03:30:03.560
 completely clearing that land, that at least some preservation would be -- would take place.

03:30:03.560 --> 03:30:10.360
 And again, this was something as a result of a discussion with council yesterday.

03:30:10.360 --> 03:30:14.960
 Credits and incentives -- again, these are the only thing that really changed here.

03:30:14.960 --> 03:30:22.120
 Under the previous draft, we had a 50 percent credit for both residential and non-residential.

03:30:22.120 --> 03:30:27.080
 We sort of went back, since we reduced some of the mitigation rates from what they were,

03:30:27.080 --> 03:30:31.920
 I think some were even at four -- the multipliers were four and three and a half.

03:30:31.920 --> 03:30:36.880
 We put the credit for non-residential at 40 percent, and again, these credits are prescribed

03:30:36.880 --> 03:30:40.760
 in Texas Local Government Code.

03:30:40.760 --> 03:30:44.060
 Credits were reduced for the required replacement.

03:30:44.060 --> 03:30:49.520
 So again, we're at a heritage trees at -- so if you preserve the heritage trees -- so in

03:30:49.520 --> 03:30:53.680
 addition to that 50 or 40 percent credit, depending if you're residential or non-residential,

03:30:53.680 --> 03:30:59.600
 again, gearing it towards preserving sort of those larger trees, there's a three-to-one

03:30:59.600 --> 03:31:04.120
 credit for preserved and a two-to-one credit for quality.

03:31:04.120 --> 03:31:09.400
 And so while your mitigation is two and a half on quality -- I'm sorry, on heritage,

03:31:09.400 --> 03:31:16.200
 your preservation credit is actually higher, again, with trying to incentivize preserving

03:31:16.200 --> 03:31:19.800
 those larger trees.

03:31:19.800 --> 03:31:26.960
 In addition, if you hit your minimum 30 percent and you wanted to further write down those

03:31:26.960 --> 03:31:33.720
 mitigation requirements, or mitigation inches, if you will, if you wanted to preserve secondary

03:31:33.720 --> 03:31:40.960
 trees, again, not a requirement, but if you did, you would get a half inch per every inch

03:31:40.960 --> 03:31:41.960
 preserved.

03:31:41.960 --> 03:31:47.400
 So again, I also wanted to state, if you preserved greater than your 30 percent, you would still

03:31:47.400 --> 03:31:51.340
 get credit for everything that you preserved over that.

03:31:51.340 --> 03:31:53.480
 Secondary trees could also be included in that.

03:31:53.480 --> 03:32:00.360
 And so the intent is really, if we can get more preservation, then really draw down the

03:32:00.360 --> 03:32:03.640
 mitigation amount.

03:32:03.640 --> 03:32:06.160
 This is a component, really nothing to change.

03:32:06.160 --> 03:32:09.280
 The only thing that we included is the cross-reference.

03:32:09.280 --> 03:32:11.740
 This is something that's in the code today.

03:32:11.740 --> 03:32:13.720
 Pre-preservation relief.

03:32:13.720 --> 03:32:23.800
 And what it does is, if a property owner believes that they're unreasonably burdened by the

03:32:23.800 --> 03:32:29.440
 preservation ordinances, and that they've been deprived of all economically viable use

03:32:29.440 --> 03:32:37.480
 of their property based on these three factors, then they can go to counsel for relief.

03:32:37.480 --> 03:32:43.600
 And we did have a discussion on this specifically yesterday with counsel.

03:32:43.600 --> 03:32:47.240
 It's interesting, because this has been in the DDC since adoption.

03:32:47.240 --> 03:32:49.800
 It, to my knowledge, has never been used.

03:32:49.800 --> 03:32:57.400
 Unfortunately, we never cross-referenced it within the tree preservation requirements.

03:32:57.400 --> 03:33:01.840
 But we just wanted to make sure that that was noted in the section where it would be

03:33:01.840 --> 03:33:03.920
 applicable.

03:33:03.920 --> 03:33:13.680
 And really, this is that prior to going to court for any taking, this is that option

03:33:13.680 --> 03:33:20.480
 or opportunity to meet with the elected body.

03:33:20.480 --> 03:33:22.480
 Payment into the tree fund.

03:33:22.480 --> 03:33:29.280
 While this is not a component of the tree code, the tree fund is set, the mitigation

03:33:29.280 --> 03:33:37.680
 amount is set by a separate ordinance or fee schedule.

03:33:37.680 --> 03:33:42.840
 Under the current code, we're at $125 an inch.

03:33:42.840 --> 03:33:48.640
 And so this has been the fee that has been in place, I think, since its inception, as

03:33:48.640 --> 03:33:51.400
 far as I can tell.

03:33:51.400 --> 03:33:58.220
 We had quite a robust conversation even at counsel back in November regarding this.

03:33:58.220 --> 03:34:01.920
 And really the question that came about was, what is the actual cost?

03:34:01.920 --> 03:34:04.640
 What does it cost the city to put it in?

03:34:04.640 --> 03:34:10.200
 And so if we're going to have to plant these trees, it should be for the cost, for the

03:34:10.200 --> 03:34:11.200
 cost not.

03:34:11.200 --> 03:34:18.400
 We shouldn't lose money on having to plant these or make it up with additional funds.

03:34:18.400 --> 03:34:25.040
 And so if you recall it, at one point we had referenced an appraisal document, I think

03:34:25.040 --> 03:34:31.320
 it was at North or the Texas Society on Tree Appraisers, Texas Edition, I can't remember

03:34:31.320 --> 03:34:34.040
 the exact name of the document.

03:34:34.040 --> 03:34:37.840
 And so when we presented this at the council workshop in November, we really had three

03:34:37.840 --> 03:34:39.840
 funds or three figures.

03:34:39.840 --> 03:34:46.520
 It was the current and then the recommended was either, I think that number was at like

03:34:46.520 --> 03:34:53.940
 286 more or less, and then the number that we had gotten was 317 for the city.

03:34:53.940 --> 03:34:59.520
 And so we went back to look at that 317 and as we started looking at it, we said, well,

03:34:59.520 --> 03:35:03.280
 if you plant a three inch tree, does it really cost close to $1,000?

03:35:03.280 --> 03:35:06.120
 It just seemed like an awful lot of money.

03:35:06.120 --> 03:35:10.480
 And so when we really looked at what was being included in that fee, there were some fees

03:35:10.480 --> 03:35:16.400
 that were associated with, because again, it includes purchase, planting, and irrigation.

03:35:16.400 --> 03:35:23.160
 Typically there's, on that irrigation, there's a meter fee or meter tap fee.

03:35:23.160 --> 03:35:28.140
 And so it's hard to determine, at least when we started really looking at it, hard to kind

03:35:28.140 --> 03:35:33.200
 of spread that out in an ordinance on tree mitigation.

03:35:33.200 --> 03:35:39.440
 And so we said, well, what does it actually cost just to buy the tree, plant it, and then

03:35:39.440 --> 03:35:43.080
 irrigate it on a three year basis?

03:35:43.080 --> 03:35:49.600
 And so I think the appraisal number was a little over 200.

03:35:49.600 --> 03:35:53.360
 The number that we got was 209 per inch.

03:35:53.360 --> 03:36:00.000
 And so we recommended that it just be a flat 200 an inch.

03:36:00.000 --> 03:36:08.920
 And so there was, again, this won't be part of, while the fees assess is part of the code,

03:36:08.920 --> 03:36:14.640
 the actual amount is set separately.

03:36:14.640 --> 03:36:22.960
 In conjunction with that conservation easement that I had mentioned previously, we did include

03:36:22.960 --> 03:36:28.040
 an additional item under what the tree fund can be used for.

03:36:28.040 --> 03:36:33.440
 And that's item B, to conduct maintenance on conservation easements dedicated in accordance

03:36:33.440 --> 03:36:35.980
 with this subsection.

03:36:35.980 --> 03:36:37.840
 And so that's something new.

03:36:37.840 --> 03:36:44.440
 All of the other, A through F, these are all currently in the code.

03:36:44.440 --> 03:36:46.800
 The only thing that we really did is just sort of reorganize it.

03:36:46.800 --> 03:36:50.120
 They were really all jumbled in just one paragraph.

03:36:50.120 --> 03:36:51.520
 Sometimes I think things got lost.

03:36:51.520 --> 03:36:58.180
 And so just for simplification purposes, we just sort of enumerated the list.

03:36:58.180 --> 03:37:05.000
 And then two and three, again, these are currently in the code and nothing changed.

03:37:05.000 --> 03:37:09.840
 And so what I wanted to do is run through a couple of examples that we had.

03:37:09.840 --> 03:37:16.840
 And so what we did is we took sort of the mitigation worksheet that's included as part

03:37:16.840 --> 03:37:25.160
 of the code, as part of the draft, and then we kind of broke out a comparison of current

03:37:25.160 --> 03:37:27.360
 versus proposed.

03:37:27.360 --> 03:37:32.920
 And so I won't get, I'm not really going to get deep into the math unless you have any

03:37:32.920 --> 03:37:38.700
 questions or would like, but I'll just kind of hit on some of the highlights.

03:37:38.700 --> 03:37:43.320
 And so again, the spreadsheet in the middle is based on, is really looking at trees.

03:37:43.320 --> 03:37:47.280
 So we did that conversion from the mitigation DBH.

03:37:47.280 --> 03:37:50.440
 And so for the purposes of these examples, we used that minimum two-inch.

03:37:50.440 --> 03:37:55.380
 Obviously, the numbers would be different if someone were to plant a three-inch tree.

03:37:55.380 --> 03:38:02.240
 And so the mitigation required trees, under this example, is a 43-lot residential subdivision.

03:38:02.240 --> 03:38:05.320
 Under the current code, they were only required to do street trees.

03:38:05.320 --> 03:38:08.820
 Under the proposed, it's a street tree plus a lot tree.

03:38:08.820 --> 03:38:12.320
 And so that's where you have the required trees of 43 and 86.

03:38:12.320 --> 03:38:16.520
 The mitigation trees were 93.

03:38:16.520 --> 03:38:21.200
 That's taking that number, dividing it by two, the two-inch trees.

03:38:21.200 --> 03:38:22.200
 So total new trees.

03:38:22.200 --> 03:38:29.940
 So either under this scenario, the 75, preserving 75% heritage, 25% quality, you would either

03:38:29.940 --> 03:38:35.360
 plant seven trees or pay 2,600.

03:38:35.360 --> 03:38:42.280
 And so you see the difference of what was required and mitigation under the current

03:38:42.280 --> 03:38:43.280
 versus the proposed.

03:38:43.280 --> 03:38:49.520
 And so if they were to plant on both examples, you're looking at an overall canopy increase

03:38:49.520 --> 03:38:50.520
 of 17%.

03:38:50.520 --> 03:38:55.560
 Again, just based on, most of that comes from the required, but again, that is, you are

03:38:55.560 --> 03:39:03.400
 now able to get credit towards your mitigation trees under the current code that is not permitted.

03:39:03.400 --> 03:39:05.560
 This is the reverse example.

03:39:05.560 --> 03:39:08.640
 So this is 25% heritage, 75% quality.

03:39:08.640 --> 03:39:13.920
 And again, we try to look at a development on the east side of town that's heavily

03:39:13.920 --> 03:39:18.720
 treed, one on the west side of town that I'll show next.

03:39:18.720 --> 03:39:21.880
 And so probably somewhere in the middle on a lot of these.

03:39:21.880 --> 03:39:26.360
 But you see the difference primarily from the credits that you get.

03:39:26.360 --> 03:39:32.400
 And so by preserving more quality than heritage, your mitigation trees, the total required

03:39:32.400 --> 03:39:33.400
 is 207.

03:39:33.400 --> 03:39:38.440
 So after you're writing down that 86 that's required, you're still required to mitigate

03:39:38.440 --> 03:39:40.560
 121 two-inch trees.

03:39:40.560 --> 03:39:46.240
 Of course, that number can be reduced if you do a three-inch or you have the ability to

03:39:46.240 --> 03:39:54.280
 pay just over $24,000 or a combination of both somewhere in between.

03:39:54.280 --> 03:40:00.080
 And so you see the difference from the current versus the proposed.

03:40:00.080 --> 03:40:06.720
 As I mentioned, you have the ability to take that 30% down to 20% with that additional

03:40:06.720 --> 03:40:07.720
 mitigation.

03:40:07.720 --> 03:40:13.280
 Under this example, I just did taking it down to 20% and just assume they preserved all

03:40:13.280 --> 03:40:16.620
 heritage trees, giving the greatest credit.

03:40:16.620 --> 03:40:23.240
 And as you see, this is one where the numbers are much greater.

03:40:23.240 --> 03:40:29.600
 But again, if you're going to go below the minimum, there is a cost associated with that.

03:40:29.600 --> 03:40:36.960
 So your mitigation trees now go up to 432, which would really be brought down to 346

03:40:36.960 --> 03:40:44.360
 after you net out the required trees or a payment of just over $138,000, which under

03:40:44.360 --> 03:40:49.220
 this development, that's the equivalent of roughly $3,200 a lot.

03:40:49.220 --> 03:40:53.360
 And so again, substantially different, but you have a spectrum that really you can choose

03:40:53.360 --> 03:40:54.360
 from.

03:40:54.360 --> 03:40:59.220
 What I didn't run in this example is that option to do a conservation easement.

03:40:59.220 --> 03:41:02.760
 So there's really the bottom line is there's multiple options.

03:41:02.760 --> 03:41:08.880
 There's just not one way to do this, and it's really trying to be more flexible to the property

03:41:08.880 --> 03:41:14.120
 owner and developer.

03:41:14.120 --> 03:41:19.720
 The example here is a subdivision that was approved on sort of the west side of town

03:41:19.720 --> 03:41:21.800
 of Bonnie Bray.

03:41:21.800 --> 03:41:31.840
 This site, if you look at the mitigation worksheet, had almost 3,300 inches of trees.

03:41:31.840 --> 03:41:34.920
 All of that secondary trees made up 2,852.

03:41:34.920 --> 03:41:40.720
 So again, this is one of those lots where they had primarily secondary trees.

03:41:40.720 --> 03:41:50.480
 A lot of these trees, or a good portion, you had mesquite, you had honey locust, you even

03:41:50.480 --> 03:41:52.320
 had some evasive species on here.

03:41:52.320 --> 03:41:59.640
 So while some were actually preserved under the current, they would have been exempt under

03:41:59.640 --> 03:42:01.960
 the existing.

03:42:01.960 --> 03:42:08.280
 And so what we really looked at was required trees, both current and proposed.

03:42:08.280 --> 03:42:16.680
 So again, 108 lots, using that example of one street tree per lot, and one lot tree

03:42:16.680 --> 03:42:17.760
 per lot.

03:42:17.760 --> 03:42:24.080
 And so under the proposed, you have a required 216 trees.

03:42:24.080 --> 03:42:30.400
 Also has a required mitigation of 233 that leaves you with 17 to mitigate.

03:42:30.400 --> 03:42:36.840
 So under this example, you would either have to plant those 17 trees or pay 10,000.

03:42:36.840 --> 03:42:41.240
 Under the current code, again, this is what was required.

03:42:41.240 --> 03:42:50.440
 You either mitigate by planting 77 trees in addition to the 108, or you pay $30,000.

03:42:50.440 --> 03:42:56.040
 So now you see under this example, it's actually substantially less than the current code, again,

03:42:56.040 --> 03:43:04.760
 because it doesn't put such a greater value on secondary trees under this example.

03:43:04.760 --> 03:43:09.840
 Last example that I'll just touch on briefly, commercial is a little bit different just

03:43:09.840 --> 03:43:15.600
 because of the, again, there's additional flexibility built in with respect to the landscape

03:43:15.600 --> 03:43:20.540
 table, the point system that's available and that Haley will get into.

03:43:20.540 --> 03:43:25.840
 But I just looked at this purely on preservation and mitigation.

03:43:25.840 --> 03:43:28.360
 This site had all post oaks.

03:43:28.360 --> 03:43:32.820
 Everyone probably remembers when this site redeveloped.

03:43:32.820 --> 03:43:36.120
 So under the current, they preserved 112.

03:43:36.120 --> 03:43:39.680
 Under the proposed, it would be 202.

03:43:39.680 --> 03:43:41.600
 Required trees, 34.

03:43:41.600 --> 03:43:46.760
 And so your mitigation down to 17 under the current 42.

03:43:46.760 --> 03:43:49.520
 And so you start to see that, again, that difference.

03:43:49.520 --> 03:43:54.840
 And so while both the mitigation would be less than the current code, whether planting

03:43:54.840 --> 03:44:01.040
 or payment, substantially less, the amount of trees that were preserved increased by

03:44:01.040 --> 03:44:02.040
 80%.

03:44:02.040 --> 03:44:06.520
 And again, I didn't run this with going down to 20.

03:44:06.520 --> 03:44:12.360
 It was, I could probably run I think 100 different scenarios, but just wanted to kind of give

03:44:12.360 --> 03:44:15.160
 some of these extreme examples.

03:44:15.160 --> 03:44:22.960
 And so with that, I'll turn over the landscape street tree and buffer to Haley.

03:44:22.960 --> 03:44:29.040
 All right.

03:44:29.040 --> 03:44:32.120
 Not a lot of drastic changes on this from what we've seen in the past.

03:44:32.120 --> 03:44:36.300
 So I'll move through it a little quickly.

03:44:36.300 --> 03:44:39.880
 So just some of the highlights of the landscaping portion of the code.

03:44:39.880 --> 03:44:43.580
 We are maintaining the minimum percentages for landscape and tree canopy requirements

03:44:43.580 --> 03:44:46.280
 that are in the current code.

03:44:46.280 --> 03:44:52.560
 The major changes that we're introducing a point system for both buffers and site landscaping.

03:44:52.560 --> 03:44:56.080
 So the buffer points will be based, again, similar to what we have now on what use is

03:44:56.080 --> 03:44:59.440
 developing and what uses are adjoining it.

03:44:59.440 --> 03:45:03.880
 The point system for everything else will be broken down into three main elements.

03:45:03.880 --> 03:45:07.320
 Adjoining at the right of way, parking lot landscaping, and then just your other site

03:45:07.320 --> 03:45:09.760
 landscaping requirements.

03:45:09.760 --> 03:45:13.640
 And then with that, there is a landscape plan requirement that would affect a multifamily

03:45:13.640 --> 03:45:17.360
 and non-residential development when they all across the board would be required to

03:45:17.360 --> 03:45:21.960
 provide a minimum of 30 points on that landscape plan.

03:45:21.960 --> 03:45:24.960
 And then for street trees, the major change that's occurred is that we're now basing

03:45:24.960 --> 03:45:29.360
 the street tree requirements on the total linear frontage for a property rather than

03:45:29.360 --> 03:45:36.600
 just the number of lots that we have, which would be a major change for residential development.

03:45:36.600 --> 03:45:41.240
 Since the last draft that you all saw, the largest change that was made to the landscape

03:45:41.240 --> 03:45:45.520
 code was a change for the single family and duplex requirements.

03:45:45.520 --> 03:45:51.880
 Previously, we just had in there a proposal for one yard tree per lot or per dwelling.

03:45:51.880 --> 03:45:55.840
 Based on what we've seen with the new parking code that was adopted with the four parking

03:45:55.840 --> 03:46:02.040
 spaces per unit, that creates some challenges with people that may want to enclose a garage

03:46:02.040 --> 03:46:04.880
 and just put all parking across the front yard.

03:46:04.880 --> 03:46:09.840
 So we're encouraging that there be a minimum of 30% landscaping within the front yard so

03:46:09.840 --> 03:46:13.440
 that someone just doesn't pave the entire frontage of a property and you still have

03:46:13.440 --> 03:46:16.280
 that nice street presence with room for that yard tree.

03:46:16.280 --> 03:46:22.780
 And then there would also, we're proposing a minimum 20% rear yard landscaping.

03:46:22.780 --> 03:46:27.400
 So looking specifically at how the point system would work, this is the table that would be

03:46:27.400 --> 03:46:28.960
 in the code for buffers.

03:46:28.960 --> 03:46:33.760
 So again, on the left-hand side, you see the various developing use categories.

03:46:33.760 --> 03:46:39.160
 So whatever your use is, you would go there and then look at what uses adjoin your property

03:46:39.160 --> 03:46:43.040
 on the various sides to determine what type of buffer would be required there.

03:46:43.040 --> 03:46:46.800
 So it assigns a minimum points that you would have to obtain within that buffer from the

03:46:46.800 --> 03:46:49.880
 next chart that we'll look at, as well as the minimum width.

03:46:49.880 --> 03:46:54.400
 So you'll see for a lot of them, there may not be a minimum width because it could be

03:46:54.400 --> 03:46:58.840
 as simple as a fence, but for some of the more intensive uses, that width goes up to

03:46:58.840 --> 03:47:05.000
 30 to 50 feet in some case, or 30 feet, I'm sorry, with points ranging from no minimum

03:47:05.000 --> 03:47:09.840
 points up to 50 points for industrial uses.

03:47:09.840 --> 03:47:14.240
 So again, the buffer element table with all the options hasn't changed drastically.

03:47:14.240 --> 03:47:18.820
 The one addition that we've made is to encourage the preservation of existing trees within

03:47:18.820 --> 03:47:24.720
 a buffer, so there would be an option if at least 50% of your buffer area contains preserved

03:47:24.720 --> 03:47:28.840
 trees that you could get some kind of bonus points for that, but all of the other options

03:47:28.840 --> 03:47:35.600
 remain the same in terms of different tree shrub options as well as fencing options.

03:47:35.600 --> 03:47:40.640
 And then as I mentioned, all non-residential and multi-family development would be required

03:47:40.640 --> 03:47:45.060
 a landscape plan that demonstrates not only that minimum percentage of landscape area,

03:47:45.060 --> 03:47:47.760
 but also a minimum number of 30 points.

03:47:47.760 --> 03:47:52.640
 So the way that would work is you would have at least two options from the right-of-way

03:47:52.640 --> 03:47:54.560
 screening if you have front parking.

03:47:54.560 --> 03:47:57.560
 If you don't have parking in the front, then that's reduced to one because it may be as

03:47:57.560 --> 03:48:02.280
 simple as foundation plantings if your building's pulled up to the street.

03:48:02.280 --> 03:48:06.520
 So you would choose one or two of those options, and then similarly, within your parking lot,

03:48:06.520 --> 03:48:09.360
 you would choose a minimum of two options.

03:48:09.360 --> 03:48:13.960
 Within this table, the significant change is outlined in yellow, and it's really nothing

03:48:13.960 --> 03:48:19.160
 drastic, just specifying how you would provide the vines if you were to do a wrought-iron

03:48:19.160 --> 03:48:20.440
 fence within that area.

03:48:20.440 --> 03:48:23.300
 That came from the American Society of Landscape Architects.

03:48:23.300 --> 03:48:29.480
 They had some encouragement on providing specifics on how we would want these things landscaped

03:48:29.480 --> 03:48:33.400
 to help guide their work.

03:48:33.400 --> 03:48:38.000
 And then within the other landscape options available for the remainder of your site,

03:48:38.000 --> 03:48:41.240
 there are a few things outlined here in yellow that are kind of the changes from the last

03:48:41.240 --> 03:48:42.960
 draft that you saw.

03:48:42.960 --> 03:48:46.480
 And again, it's really just geared towards providing more specificity on how these plantings

03:48:46.480 --> 03:48:47.900
 would look.

03:48:47.900 --> 03:48:51.920
 So what used to just say a five-foot-wide planting area along the foundation of the

03:48:51.920 --> 03:48:56.140
 building, we expanded that to clarify that you still have to maintain clear, accessible

03:48:56.140 --> 03:49:00.120
 space there, so it became a 10-foot area with five feet of planting and five feet of clear

03:49:00.120 --> 03:49:03.000
 space for maneuverability.

03:49:03.000 --> 03:49:05.840
 And then we do want to encourage the planting of larger trees.

03:49:05.840 --> 03:49:10.080
 Two inches may be the minimum under local government code for mitigation.

03:49:10.080 --> 03:49:14.440
 But if someone is to plant all four-inch trees or larger, we do want to give them some bonus

03:49:14.440 --> 03:49:15.680
 points for that on their landscaping.

03:49:15.680 --> 03:49:19.520
 So you see that option has been added there.

03:49:19.520 --> 03:49:25.160
 Combined all of the kind of bio-swell, grass-swell options into one to allow a combination of

03:49:25.160 --> 03:49:28.880
 those to be used together to obtain that seven points.

03:49:28.880 --> 03:49:32.440
 And then with the other options for living walls and green roofs, we're really just specifying,

03:49:32.440 --> 03:49:39.040
 again, a minimum area to those to help guide site design.

03:49:39.040 --> 03:49:42.400
 And then one of the other options that I think we discussed briefly with you all, but we

03:49:42.400 --> 03:49:46.480
 did provide some clarification on how the alternative development plan could still apply

03:49:46.480 --> 03:49:51.520
 to landscaping, since we are proposing to relocate these standards to a different subchapter.

03:49:51.520 --> 03:49:56.960
 And then in addition, we're proposing to allow a little bit of flexibility for sites, such

03:49:56.960 --> 03:50:02.160
 as you may recall the truck wash that we looked at in an ADP recently, where the property

03:50:02.160 --> 03:50:03.880
 was very large in size.

03:50:03.880 --> 03:50:07.840
 It was almost 12 acres, and they had significant encumbrances on the property that made it

03:50:07.840 --> 03:50:11.080
 nearly impossible to meet their minimum tree canopy.

03:50:11.080 --> 03:50:15.400
 So we did want to allow an option there without having to go to an ADP, where you could reduce

03:50:15.400 --> 03:50:21.440
 your canopy requirement by 10% and pay into the tree fund for that 10% instead.

03:50:21.440 --> 03:50:25.940
 So just another option to give some flexibility there.

03:50:25.940 --> 03:50:29.840
 And then really looking ahead, after tonight, our intended next stop, if you all make a

03:50:29.840 --> 03:50:34.160
 recommendation, is to go to city council for formal consideration on March 19.

03:50:34.160 --> 03:50:38.080
 And with that, Richard and I are happy to answer any other questions.

03:50:38.080 --> 03:50:39.080
 Thank you, Haley.

03:50:39.080 --> 03:50:40.080
 We do have a couple.

03:50:40.080 --> 03:50:41.080
 Commissioner Smith?

03:50:41.080 --> 03:50:42.080
 Thank you, Chair.

03:50:42.080 --> 03:50:47.200
 Richard, I actually have two questions for you, or a couple questions for you.

03:50:47.200 --> 03:50:55.880
 When you went and presented to the development community, as you mentioned in work session,

03:50:55.880 --> 03:50:57.400
 how much of this information did you share?

03:50:57.400 --> 03:50:58.400
 How much of this presentation did you share?

03:50:58.400 --> 03:51:02.320
 Did you share exactly this presentation with them, or what did you exactly get?

03:51:02.320 --> 03:51:04.680
 What exactly was that meeting like?

03:51:04.680 --> 03:51:08.000
 We met at the chamber office.

03:51:08.000 --> 03:51:14.000
 We had a little bit of a different presentation, but then we also went through just really

03:51:14.000 --> 03:51:16.040
 some of their concerns.

03:51:16.040 --> 03:51:24.960
 They provided us with really a marked-up PDF with a number of comments.

03:51:24.960 --> 03:51:31.760
 And so within your backup, we've kind of encapsulated all of those comments, both that were written

03:51:31.760 --> 03:51:38.600
 as well as some of the comments that we received, either via e-mail or when we posted the draft

03:51:38.600 --> 03:51:43.280
 on the website, there was the ability to add comments.

03:51:43.280 --> 03:51:48.320
 And so all of that, all of those comments were incorporated into that.

03:51:48.320 --> 03:51:55.440
 Would you describe those comments as regarding the new code as being too restrictive or more

03:51:55.440 --> 03:51:59.400
 restrictive than the current -- or the new code being too restrictive or more restrictive

03:51:59.400 --> 03:52:00.400
 than the current code?

03:52:00.400 --> 03:52:06.320
 Well, they had concerns with it being overly restrictive, primarily on really getting hit

03:52:06.320 --> 03:52:14.120
 with additional mitigation, an additional fee, and then additional landscaping.

03:52:14.120 --> 03:52:17.920
 And so I think what we really tried to do, though, is stress that, you know, not looking

03:52:17.920 --> 03:52:23.640
 at these sort of as it is in the current code, that there are credits that are built in as

03:52:23.640 --> 03:52:31.280
 a result, but also the changes that this draft reflects, even the one that was included in

03:52:31.280 --> 03:52:36.200
 the backup on Friday, I think is substantially different.

03:52:36.200 --> 03:52:43.520
 And when we met with some of those representatives again, I think that was Thursday or Friday

03:52:43.520 --> 03:52:53.600
 of last week, they understood also that it was a substantial change to what we had initially

03:52:53.600 --> 03:52:54.600
 discussed.

03:52:54.600 --> 03:52:56.860
 So there was some compromise there?

03:52:56.860 --> 03:52:59.600
 There was definitely some compromise.

03:52:59.600 --> 03:53:05.280
 And again, I don't think it's -- again, we have two sides that somebody -- you know,

03:53:05.280 --> 03:53:07.240
 have one side that wants to preserve all.

03:53:07.240 --> 03:53:12.560
 Obviously, the development community has other -- has a different opinion.

03:53:12.560 --> 03:53:16.920
 Yeah, if one half of the community had its way, we'd never cut down a single tree, and

03:53:16.920 --> 03:53:20.120
 if the other half of the community had its way, we'd cut down every single tree and develop

03:53:20.120 --> 03:53:21.120
 on it.

03:53:21.120 --> 03:53:29.740
 So if no one really is happy, it's probably a good thing.

03:53:29.740 --> 03:53:36.160
 The $200 per square inch or $200 per diameter inch increase from the $125, was that shared

03:53:36.160 --> 03:53:37.160
 with the development community?

03:53:37.160 --> 03:53:38.160
 Was that a conversation?

03:53:38.160 --> 03:53:42.080
 Actually, the number that was shared with them was actually higher.

03:53:42.080 --> 03:53:50.960
 It was that at one point it was $317, then we were actually looking at a $286 number,

03:53:50.960 --> 03:53:57.360
 and then before we -- as we were preparing for this workshop yesterday, we really sort

03:53:57.360 --> 03:54:02.960
 of rolled back and really dove into that, what really comprises that number, and let's

03:54:02.960 --> 03:54:07.000
 really take a hard look at it and make sure that we're not including something in there

03:54:07.000 --> 03:54:10.080
 that we can't necessarily defend.

03:54:10.080 --> 03:54:13.120
 And so that's where we brought it back down to $200.

03:54:13.120 --> 03:54:20.440
 And the last question I have, under the old code, if you could think about the time there's

03:54:20.440 --> 03:54:25.320
 been development that's happened where trees have been removed, whenever the mitigation

03:54:25.320 --> 03:54:29.680
 has occurred, about how many do you think is actually planting new trees, about how

03:54:29.680 --> 03:54:33.200
 much is it just paying the impact fee?

03:54:33.200 --> 03:54:42.800
 It really depends, and part of the issue is, to be quite honest and quite frank about it,

03:54:42.800 --> 03:54:47.400
 we were consistently inconsistent in enforcing the code.

03:54:47.400 --> 03:54:57.280
 I think part of it is, it's very confusing under some circumstances where if you have

03:54:57.280 --> 03:55:02.480
 a heritage tree, under the current it's called a protected tree, let's just say, if you have

03:55:02.480 --> 03:55:07.960
 heritage trees on site, anything that you remove requires mitigation.

03:55:07.960 --> 03:55:12.040
 However, if they're part of a tree stand, so if there's three or more trees together,

03:55:12.040 --> 03:55:16.640
 then all you have to do is preserve that quality tree stand.

03:55:16.640 --> 03:55:23.520
 And I've seen some tree preservation plans where you had secondary trees that were included

03:55:23.520 --> 03:55:27.040
 where really secondary trees should be in a secondary tree stand.

03:55:27.040 --> 03:55:31.920
 And so it's varied throughout the years.

03:55:31.920 --> 03:55:38.240
 And so that was one of the other difficult tasks is doing that comparison.

03:55:38.240 --> 03:55:44.580
 It was hard because a lot of them just were all sort of applied differently.

03:55:44.580 --> 03:55:48.400
 So when we applied it, it was all right, let's really look at it how it's supposed to be.

03:55:48.400 --> 03:55:53.220
 So it's hard to say which is which because the code was essentially too vague to be able

03:55:53.220 --> 03:55:57.540
 to be correctly applied in every single instance with the uniformity.

03:55:57.540 --> 03:56:03.640
 Going forward looking at it from a perspective of the city, I think this code leaned itself

03:56:03.640 --> 03:56:05.100
 more one way or another.

03:56:05.100 --> 03:56:11.600
 I think it's going to, personally, obviously the preservation is greater, but I suspect

03:56:11.600 --> 03:56:17.400
 because of the credits that are being built in, you're going to have less, less payment.

03:56:17.400 --> 03:56:18.400
 Okay.

03:56:18.400 --> 03:56:24.560
 And more because I think that's been a question has been payments into a tree fund that isn't

03:56:24.560 --> 03:56:29.440
 necessarily being what's being done with the money that's going in there.

03:56:29.440 --> 03:56:35.120
 So you're saying that it seems like the code is built more for trees to be planted by trees.

03:56:35.120 --> 03:56:39.760
 Yeah, I mean, if the intent looked at it really preserved, but then put new ones in to mitigate

03:56:39.760 --> 03:56:44.160
 them, correct, if our overall goal is really to increase canopy, then let's let's have

03:56:44.160 --> 03:56:48.780
 have them be planted rather than let's plant new trees rather than having them just pay

03:56:48.780 --> 03:56:51.800
 and say, well, I don't feel like doing the work, we'll just pay and get out of here.

03:56:51.800 --> 03:56:52.800
 So correct.

03:56:52.800 --> 03:56:57.160
 And just to kind of give you another sort of a for example, we had met with a residential

03:56:57.160 --> 03:57:01.120
 builder, looked at looked at a very large part, this is a few weeks back that looked

03:57:01.120 --> 03:57:05.760
 at a very large parcel covered in trees.

03:57:05.760 --> 03:57:11.040
 They actually preferred, interestingly, they preferred the new code because of the credits

03:57:11.040 --> 03:57:15.200
 that they were going to that they were going to get, where they where they were hung up

03:57:15.200 --> 03:57:20.680
 on was that was that hard 30%, where what they were looking at, I think they were going

03:57:20.680 --> 03:57:23.680
 to hit like 22 or 23%.

03:57:23.680 --> 03:57:29.840
 They weren't necessarily so much worried with the mitigation in their in their model.

03:57:29.840 --> 03:57:36.680
 At least what was what was explained to us was they typically plant three trees per lot,

03:57:36.680 --> 03:57:42.600
 two lot trees and a street tree, nine inch, so three, but but they plant three inch trees.

03:57:42.600 --> 03:57:45.840
 So what they were going to have to be required and what they thought they were going with

03:57:45.840 --> 03:57:49.760
 their landscape architect looked at what was going to be removed, really, for them, it

03:57:49.760 --> 03:57:53.320
 was it was it was zero, because they were going to they were going to they were going

03:57:53.320 --> 03:57:55.280
 to plant that on the property anyways.

03:57:55.280 --> 03:57:59.960
 And this is just a I want to just confirm, but that's not that's kind of a question

03:57:59.960 --> 03:58:04.360
 on Haley's section of the presentation, but you can answer it more than likely.

03:58:04.360 --> 03:58:07.680
 The the tree, but the trees are included in that landscape buffer.

03:58:07.680 --> 03:58:11.640
 Those are of course included into as long as they meet the size requirements, they're

03:58:11.640 --> 03:58:15.160
 included into the the mitigation planting and everything else.

03:58:15.160 --> 03:58:17.000
 Correct, correct.

03:58:17.000 --> 03:58:23.440
 And so we almost the other way to put it is we almost allowed a double dip, if you will,

03:58:23.440 --> 03:58:28.360
 because we added in now that flexibility if you can mitigate by putting your landscape

03:58:28.360 --> 03:58:32.260
 buffers in essentially is what you're saying, correct, or you can preserve you can preserve

03:58:32.260 --> 03:58:36.800
 under the alternative tree preservation plan, you can preserve smaller trees or even secondary

03:58:36.800 --> 03:58:45.040
 trees and get credit for meeting your preservation in addition to getting credit for for meeting

03:58:45.040 --> 03:58:47.320
 your landscape requirements.

03:58:47.320 --> 03:58:50.440
 And so it would have been it would almost be so it's counted against your plant, your

03:58:50.440 --> 03:58:55.920
 mitigation requirements in addition to getting an additional credit for your for your landscaping.

03:58:55.920 --> 03:58:56.920
 Thank you.

03:58:56.920 --> 03:58:57.920
 Commissioner Beck.

03:58:57.920 --> 03:58:58.920
 Thank you, Chair.

03:58:58.920 --> 03:58:59.920
 Thanks, Richard, for your presentation.

03:58:59.920 --> 03:59:02.960
 And I know you and your staff have worked real hard on this.

03:59:02.960 --> 03:59:06.920
 And there's a lot of details there that I haven't wrapped my head around yet.

03:59:06.920 --> 03:59:11.000
 But I'll take your word that this is going to be better for us overall.

03:59:11.000 --> 03:59:14.000
 We may have to fix some things down the road one way or the other.

03:59:14.000 --> 03:59:20.640
 But let me ask you this, I believe in currently or at least if it's not currently existing,

03:59:20.640 --> 03:59:22.320
 it'll be part of a new plan.

03:59:22.320 --> 03:59:26.400
 When somebody does plant a new tree, a developer does plant a new tree, they're responsible

03:59:26.400 --> 03:59:31.480
 for it for two or three years, if it dies within that time, they have to replace it.

03:59:31.480 --> 03:59:32.480
 Is that correct?

03:59:32.480 --> 03:59:33.480
 Correct.

03:59:33.480 --> 03:59:35.280
 If it's part of an approved and approved landscape plan.

03:59:35.280 --> 03:59:37.680
 Let me ask you this.

03:59:37.680 --> 03:59:43.200
 Do we have anything like that in place when they preserve trees, especially like post oak

03:59:43.200 --> 03:59:51.560
 trees or something, they go in and the ones that they preserve die from probably actions

03:59:51.560 --> 03:59:54.400
 that their developer did or something like that?

03:59:54.400 --> 03:59:55.400
 Do we go back?

03:59:55.400 --> 03:59:58.840
 I mean, and I'll use the example that is pretty obvious to everybody.

03:59:58.840 --> 04:00:07.200
 It was the last example you used on DBH, the raising cane development killed, killed off

04:00:07.200 --> 04:00:08.840
 some of those trees that they preserve.

04:00:08.840 --> 04:00:09.840
 Do we go back in?

04:00:09.840 --> 04:00:12.600
 Do we have anything set up where we can go back in, say?

04:00:12.600 --> 04:00:13.600
 Yes.

04:00:13.600 --> 04:00:14.600
 Yes.

04:00:14.600 --> 04:00:15.600
 Okay.

04:00:15.600 --> 04:00:16.600
 Can you elaborate on that?

04:00:16.600 --> 04:00:22.440
 And I know under that example, if I'm not mistaken, last I spoke to Haywood, one of

04:00:22.440 --> 04:00:27.440
 the issues was I think he was waiting until after the, until once the spring, until the

04:00:27.440 --> 04:00:28.960
 warmer weather gets here.

04:00:28.960 --> 04:00:34.720
 And again, just to look at the, to check and confirm the status of those, of those trees.

04:00:34.720 --> 04:00:35.720
 Okay.

04:00:35.720 --> 04:00:36.720
 But we do hold their feet to the fire.

04:00:36.720 --> 04:00:37.720
 Correct.

04:00:37.720 --> 04:00:38.720
 You know, for a certain period of time.

04:00:38.720 --> 04:00:40.720
 Yeah, on an approved preservation plan.

04:00:40.720 --> 04:00:41.720
 Okay.

04:00:41.720 --> 04:00:42.720
 Commissioner Sanchez.

04:00:42.720 --> 04:00:43.720
 I just wanted to talk about, well, I think, I think the whole idea of giving credit is

04:00:43.720 --> 04:00:44.720
 pretty good.

04:00:44.720 --> 04:00:45.720
 I think that, sorry.

04:00:45.720 --> 04:00:46.720
 Yeah, I like the idea of giving credit to, to the developer.

04:00:46.720 --> 04:01:04.720
 One, I just have a couple of minor questions and we had talked about secondary trees and

04:01:04.720 --> 04:01:11.640
 one of the issues was to the cottonwood tree.

04:01:11.640 --> 04:01:19.400
 And I mentioned that once before, is the female tree, preserving female cottonwood trees,

04:01:19.400 --> 04:01:26.080
 is that in a neighborhood or even in a developing neighborhood, they provide a lot, they create

04:01:26.080 --> 04:01:27.080
 a lot of problems.

04:01:27.080 --> 04:01:31.640
 Is there anything that we can put in that code that says, you know, I know it's hard

04:01:31.640 --> 04:01:38.400
 to determine a female from a male tree, but keeping female tree cottonwood trees, if there's

04:01:38.400 --> 04:01:45.160
 any way that can be resolved to try to, because they are a problem, especially air conditioning,

04:01:45.160 --> 04:01:48.480
 you know, they'll destroy an air conditioner in a few years.

04:01:48.480 --> 04:01:51.960
 So I was just curious if there was any thought for something like that.

04:01:51.960 --> 04:01:56.920
 We could certainly include that, include that in a recommendation, you know, to, to council.

04:01:56.920 --> 04:02:01.480
 Interestingly, one of the other comments that we received, even after our meeting on Friday

04:02:01.480 --> 04:02:07.120
 with one, with a member of the development community, that was his exact same concern

04:02:07.120 --> 04:02:13.280
 with the cottonwoods and the condensing units and some of the damage that they do.

04:02:13.280 --> 04:02:20.240
 And the other question is, I know we had talked quite a bit about blackjack oaks, why was

04:02:20.240 --> 04:02:25.760
 that taken out and just post oaks included?

04:02:25.760 --> 04:02:30.600
 There was a discussion and that came up as part of that, the meeting that we had with

04:02:30.600 --> 04:02:39.160
 the development community, and I can't recall the exact specifics, but it had to do with,

04:02:39.160 --> 04:02:48.920
 and Haley, maybe you remember the exact, but it had to do with the tree itself and, and

04:02:48.920 --> 04:02:53.160
 the rotting that it's susceptible to.

04:02:53.160 --> 04:02:59.840
 I can't remember the exact, the exact, the exact details, but, but that came from, from

04:02:59.840 --> 04:03:06.920
 an individual that does a lot of the tree surveys in the city.

04:03:06.920 --> 04:03:10.320
 And so that was, that was the reason why that, why that came out.

04:03:10.320 --> 04:03:11.320
 Okay.

04:03:11.320 --> 04:03:12.320
 Okay, thanks.

04:03:12.320 --> 04:03:19.440
 Richard, can you go back to the example worksheet you had, the very first one that had the 7525

04:03:19.440 --> 04:03:20.440
 heritage?

04:03:20.440 --> 04:03:22.480
 That one.

04:03:22.480 --> 04:03:28.880
 You mentioned that the proposed significantly reduces the mitigation, either by the seven

04:03:28.880 --> 04:03:36.200
 trees or the payment of $2,600 being less, but their required trees is double.

04:03:36.200 --> 04:03:37.200
 Correct.

04:03:37.200 --> 04:03:42.960
 So it's not that mitigation, I mean, mitigation is lower, but that's...

04:03:42.960 --> 04:03:46.560
 Because you're getting the credit.

04:03:46.560 --> 04:03:48.520
 For having more trees?

04:03:48.520 --> 04:03:52.560
 You're getting the credit for what's required.

04:03:52.560 --> 04:03:59.120
 So your mitigation is the 93 trees, so even though the amount doubled, it's still your,

04:03:59.120 --> 04:04:01.840
 it's being credited against the...

04:04:01.840 --> 04:04:09.800
 Yeah, well, maybe some of the speakers are going to speak to this, but it seems like,

04:04:09.800 --> 04:04:14.680
 like a sales tactic to say your mitigation's going down, but in all reality, they're having

04:04:14.680 --> 04:04:16.400
 to keep a lot more trees.

04:04:16.400 --> 04:04:22.400
 So the mitigation, the process of actually mitigating is lower, but the requirements

04:04:22.400 --> 04:04:28.800
 to build out a development around those 86 trees presents, seemingly to me, I welcome

04:04:28.800 --> 04:04:32.900
 feedback, greater challenge to the developer, because it used to be that they just could

04:04:32.900 --> 04:04:37.440
 identify 43 trees to build around and then mitigate, and now they're having to build

04:04:37.440 --> 04:04:41.320
 around 86 trees, although they can mitigate less.

04:04:41.320 --> 04:04:47.920
 86 is landscaping, right?

04:04:47.920 --> 04:04:52.240
 The required are the landscaping trees that are required as a result of the one tree per

04:04:52.240 --> 04:04:54.960
 lot, the lot tree and the street tree.

04:04:54.960 --> 04:04:55.960
 Okay.

04:04:55.960 --> 04:05:00.680
 And so under the current code, they're required just to do street trees, 43.

04:05:00.680 --> 04:05:05.040
 You don't get credit, so even though you're required to plant those, you don't get credit

04:05:05.040 --> 04:05:08.580
 off of the 36 that you're required to mitigate for.

04:05:08.580 --> 04:05:15.280
 So under the proposed, you're required to mitigate 93 trees.

04:05:15.280 --> 04:05:21.320
 In addition to that, you're required to plant 86, but you get credit for planting those

04:05:21.320 --> 04:05:26.120
 86 trees off the mitigation amount.

04:05:26.120 --> 04:05:31.920
 I think I understand it still nets the developer 14 additional trees.

04:05:31.920 --> 04:05:35.160
 Right, there's still more trees being worked on.

04:05:35.160 --> 04:05:41.040
 And then, not related to the presentation, this was presented at council yesterday?

04:05:41.040 --> 04:05:42.040
 Correct.

04:05:42.040 --> 04:05:47.240
 The recommendation is for P&Z to recommend to council for approval, then it goes back

04:05:47.240 --> 04:05:48.240
 to council for approval.

04:05:48.240 --> 04:05:50.240
 Is that the process that we're in right now?

04:05:50.240 --> 04:05:51.240
 Correct.

04:05:51.240 --> 04:05:58.240
 So the way it's scheduled now is it's advertised for city council public hearing to consider

04:05:58.240 --> 04:06:01.760
 adoption on the 19th.

04:06:01.760 --> 04:06:07.440
 And what we looked at is really having a sort of the six month period where you can still

04:06:07.440 --> 04:06:13.480
 go under, you can't choose, you pick between one or the other, you can't pull one from

04:06:13.480 --> 04:06:14.480
 this section, one from the other.

04:06:14.480 --> 04:06:17.080
 So if you wanted to go under the current code, you can.

04:06:17.080 --> 04:06:22.040
 If you wanted to go under the proposed, you can, and then what we would really do is after

04:06:22.040 --> 04:06:26.680
 that six months, just do an assessment, and then if any changes needed to be made, we

04:06:26.680 --> 04:06:29.600
 would make them at that point in time.

04:06:29.600 --> 04:06:36.800
 One other item that I would just like to add, depending where the recommendation goes tonight,

04:06:36.800 --> 04:06:45.960
 just that we have some leeway on some of the editing, I know, Jerry, there's some things

04:06:45.960 --> 04:06:50.080
 we probably want to tweak, just word it differently, I don't think, it won't change anything really

04:06:50.080 --> 04:06:56.960
 substantively, but one or two words might change, and so we just ask that we have that

04:06:56.960 --> 04:06:57.960
 ability.

04:06:57.960 --> 04:06:58.960
 Thanks, Richard.

04:06:58.960 --> 04:06:59.960
 Commissioner Beck.

04:06:59.960 --> 04:07:00.960
 Thank you, Chair.

04:07:00.960 --> 04:07:08.720
 Richard, let me fall back on Commissioner Sanchez's question about the blackjack post-op.

04:07:08.720 --> 04:07:14.320
 People would dispute, but we gave up quite a bit to the developers, and we're still,

04:07:14.320 --> 04:07:21.400
 I guess, in a pretty good position, but the guy that presented the case that our blackjack

04:07:21.400 --> 04:07:32.680
 oaks, is that right, blackjack oaks, are more prone to disease, now was he part of the community

04:07:32.680 --> 04:07:33.960
 development group?

04:07:33.960 --> 04:07:34.960
 Correct.

04:07:34.960 --> 04:07:37.760
 He was speaking on behalf of them?

04:07:37.760 --> 04:07:38.760
 Correct.

04:07:38.760 --> 04:07:39.760
 He was one of the members.

04:07:39.760 --> 04:07:40.760
 Okay.

04:07:40.760 --> 04:07:47.200
 He was more on one of the individuals that does more landscaping, and actually does the

04:07:47.200 --> 04:07:48.200
 tree preservation service.

04:07:48.200 --> 04:07:49.200
 Let me ask you this.

04:07:49.200 --> 04:07:53.400
 Was the city arborist there, Haywood Morgan, was he there, too?

04:07:53.400 --> 04:07:55.840
 He was not at that developers alliance.

04:07:55.840 --> 04:07:56.840
 Okay.

04:07:56.840 --> 04:08:01.480
 I would be curious if he would see the same thing.

04:08:01.480 --> 04:08:06.200
 I mean, again, we've conceded some things here, I'm wondering if this is something we

04:08:06.200 --> 04:08:07.200
 should have conceded.

04:08:07.200 --> 04:08:12.000
 I'd love to get some kind of feedback, and I don't want to hold this tree ordinance up

04:08:12.000 --> 04:08:17.680
 any longer, and I won't, but I would like to get some feedback from Haywood on his view

04:08:17.680 --> 04:08:18.680
 about that.

04:08:18.680 --> 04:08:27.160
 If he is in line with it, then fine, but if he has a solid opposition argument.

04:08:27.160 --> 04:08:31.680
 One of the concerns that they were, in fact, I think they actually referred to it as a

04:08:31.680 --> 04:08:39.520
 post oak ordinance, the previous draft, and so that was really the concern, even with

04:08:39.520 --> 04:08:46.680
 the sensitivity of post oaks, the example that we just talked about where they died,

04:08:46.680 --> 04:08:55.600
 and moving soil around them that not really conducive for their long-term viability.

04:08:55.600 --> 04:09:02.080
 So that was sort of that compromise, so we increased it from four inches back up to six,

04:09:02.080 --> 04:09:05.080
 and then removed the blackjack oaks from them.

04:09:05.080 --> 04:09:06.080
 Okay.

04:09:06.080 --> 04:09:10.040
 I think, though, at the end of our meeting tonight, with the matrix, I may make a recommendation

04:09:10.040 --> 04:09:14.840
 that we get a report of some kind from Haywood Morgan on that assessment.

04:09:14.840 --> 04:09:15.840
 That's okay.

04:09:15.840 --> 04:09:16.840
 That's all right.

04:09:16.840 --> 04:09:17.840
 Okay.

04:09:17.840 --> 04:09:18.840
 Thank you.

04:09:18.840 --> 04:09:19.840
 I don't see any other questions.

04:09:19.840 --> 04:09:20.840
 Thanks, Richard.

04:09:20.840 --> 04:09:21.840
 Thanks, Haley.

04:09:21.840 --> 04:09:22.840
 This is a public hearing.

04:09:22.840 --> 04:09:25.640
 Anyone wishing to speak may do so.

04:09:25.640 --> 04:09:28.200
 I do have a couple of cards.

04:09:28.200 --> 04:09:35.660
 First one is David Ladey, Ladey, if you could state your name and address for the record,

04:09:35.660 --> 04:09:37.080
 and you'll have four minutes.

04:09:37.080 --> 04:09:38.080
 Thank you.

04:09:38.080 --> 04:09:39.080
 David Ladey.

04:09:39.080 --> 04:09:41.080
 I'm director of government affairs for the Dallas Builders Association.

04:09:41.080 --> 04:09:47.920
 We're at 5816 West Plano Parkway in Plano, Texas, 75093.

04:09:47.920 --> 04:09:49.680
 We cover a 10-county region.

04:09:49.680 --> 04:09:56.320
 Obviously, Denton is one of those, of the 10, one of the more prominent ones, and appreciate

04:09:56.320 --> 04:09:57.920
 the opportunity to speak here.

04:09:57.920 --> 04:10:02.360
 We represent about 1,000 member companies, and that includes a broad range, a lot of

04:10:02.360 --> 04:10:06.640
 builders, remodelers, pusher developers.

04:10:06.640 --> 04:10:10.440
 Wanted to kind of speak on this, kind of give you kind of background how we do it.

04:10:10.440 --> 04:10:16.000
 I know we're marked on there, one or two options, really speaking on it, and the legislature

04:10:16.000 --> 04:10:19.840
 we also have an option to speak on something, we're still working with city staff to get

04:10:19.840 --> 04:10:23.040
 to the point where we can, so it's marked as opposition, because at this point we can't

04:10:23.040 --> 04:10:26.760
 support it as written until we get a few more answers, so just clarify on that.

04:10:26.760 --> 04:10:32.840
 When we look at tree ordinances, we look at through a lens primarily first of housing affordability.

04:10:32.840 --> 04:10:38.440
 There's only so much added money cost to an area, especially in Denton, that the market

04:10:38.440 --> 04:10:39.440
 can take.

04:10:39.440 --> 04:10:43.960
 To give you an example, we work at Texas A&M Real Estate Research Center, and for $1,000

04:10:43.960 --> 04:10:48.440
 we add to the price of home, they say at a medium price market, you price 22,000 Texas

04:10:48.440 --> 04:10:49.440
 families out of it.

04:10:49.440 --> 04:10:53.080
 So when we look at something like that, we look at from the scope of how many people

04:10:53.080 --> 04:10:55.040
 are we saying can't move to Denton.

04:10:55.040 --> 04:10:58.800
 This person who graduated from here, lives in the area, that's a big deal to me.

04:10:58.800 --> 04:11:04.120
 We also look at it from a lens that, especially tree ordinances, because we've dealt with

04:11:04.120 --> 04:11:08.480
 these before, that they should preserve the biggest and the best, and it should be about,

04:11:08.480 --> 04:11:13.120
 mainly about the trees and not necessarily the fees, and hey, we'll use this as punitive.

04:11:13.120 --> 04:11:18.260
 We see this in other cities, and it always ends up becoming about the fees and not the

04:11:18.260 --> 04:11:24.760
 trees, and the victim in that usually ends up being housing affordability, because it

04:11:24.760 --> 04:11:26.400
 prices people out of the market.

04:11:26.400 --> 04:11:31.600
 It is at the end of the day, the homeowner, buyer, who is going to pay for this ordinance,

04:11:31.600 --> 04:11:36.200
 and keep that in mind, that kind of rolls in as kind of a new property tax for them.

04:11:36.200 --> 04:11:40.520
 They end up paying for this, it's rolled into their mortgage, and obviously, amortization

04:11:40.520 --> 04:11:43.760
 charts that grows over time.

04:11:43.760 --> 04:11:47.920
 And if it's too high, like we've seen with recent tree ordinances in some areas, a development

04:11:47.920 --> 04:11:53.320
 may not happen, because simply it is too cost prohibitive to provide the home to the potential

04:11:53.320 --> 04:11:54.320
 buyer.

04:11:54.320 --> 04:11:57.400
 Just a couple items that we want to bring up, we think would help.

04:11:57.400 --> 04:12:01.160
 One of the key items that's a concern for us, is the preservation area, you've heard

04:12:01.160 --> 04:12:05.280
 from some home builders, and you see the mitigation prices, and we'll work with staff to get some

04:12:05.280 --> 04:12:10.200
 answers on this, but one of the first things that comes to our concern is, okay, if I have

04:12:10.200 --> 04:12:14.120
 to preserve a certain area, if I'm preserving more, that is less lots I develop.

04:12:14.120 --> 04:12:17.720
 Obviously, there's a fee, and they're saying the fee could be low, or it could be high,

04:12:17.720 --> 04:12:22.120
 depending on the range you saw, but you need to consider that you should be adding in the

04:12:22.120 --> 04:12:25.120
 calculation of any possible loss of lots.

04:12:25.120 --> 04:12:29.160
 Say, I was going to do 50 lots, and now I've got to go down to 40, whatever, one of those

04:12:29.160 --> 04:12:33.040
 lots comes with the price, and that's a much bigger price than when we're looking at the

04:12:33.040 --> 04:12:37.680
 fee, and that has to be rolled in and absorbed by the other lots in the development, driving

04:12:37.680 --> 04:12:42.080
 up the lot basis, and it runs into the issue of us worrying about pricing out members.

04:12:42.080 --> 04:12:46.880
 A few items I think they could address, we've dealt with in other cities, is, say, a buildable

04:12:46.880 --> 04:12:47.880
 area exemption.

04:12:47.880 --> 04:12:54.520
 Say, you've got a building pad, and 10 feet around it, this is a very rudimentary drawing

04:12:54.520 --> 04:12:55.520
 I have.

04:12:55.520 --> 04:12:58.560
 I have a member here, don't tell him I showed you this, because he'll never let me draft

04:12:58.560 --> 04:13:02.920
 a picture of a house, but say a building pad for the home structure, and then 10 feet around

04:13:02.920 --> 04:13:06.880
 it, and that helps a lot of times, because they can go ahead and, hey, I know I'm going

04:13:06.880 --> 04:13:08.420
 to have these areas.

04:13:08.420 --> 04:13:12.920
 This may free me up to preserve open space and more tree stands elsewhere.

04:13:12.920 --> 04:13:19.760
 A few other items that we're kind of mainly concerned about, especially with the secondary

04:13:19.760 --> 04:13:26.280
 trees, we would say don't raise the mitigation price, don't start mitigating trees until

04:13:26.280 --> 04:13:31.520
 they're at 10 inches, and under 10 inches, you're going to replant trees a lot of times,

04:13:31.520 --> 04:13:35.160
 you get a better health of canopy, those trees grow back quicker.

04:13:35.160 --> 04:13:39.160
 We're concerned about the enforcement provisions in this ordinance, that being a criminal item

04:13:39.160 --> 04:13:43.840
 that seems a bit extreme for messing with what is essentially your own property, and

04:13:43.840 --> 04:13:47.680
 then also with existing homeowners, especially with the site trees.

04:13:47.680 --> 04:13:53.400
 We have a significant concern about the city telling them, hey, you can't improve in our

04:13:53.400 --> 04:13:57.480
 right of way, but we have a tree that's in our right of way, and we're going to require

04:13:57.480 --> 04:14:04.220
 you to take the cost and the responsibility to maintain that tree.

04:14:04.220 --> 04:14:09.840
 That puts the existing homeowner in a considerable pinch, and look at it this way.

04:14:09.840 --> 04:14:13.480
 You're saying that they can't go in and approve and touch the right of way, at the same time

04:14:13.480 --> 04:14:18.800
 you shouldn't go out and say that they're responsible for the maintenance and the cost

04:14:18.800 --> 04:14:21.800
 of that in the right of way, it's the city's purview.

04:14:21.800 --> 04:14:26.440
 When you look at that section, it refers to a manual that few people outside or inside

04:14:26.440 --> 04:14:31.800
 this room would really know where to readily access or how to interpret as far as pruning

04:14:31.800 --> 04:14:32.800
 trees.

04:14:32.800 --> 04:14:36.120
 Some of the items that we have, obviously it's the mitigation costs that we're concerned

04:14:36.120 --> 04:14:39.560
 about, and that's why we'd like a little more time to look through this.

04:14:39.560 --> 04:14:40.560
 Any questions?

04:14:40.560 --> 04:14:41.920
 Please let me know.

04:14:41.920 --> 04:14:42.920
 We do.

04:14:42.920 --> 04:14:43.920
 So, Commissioner Beck.

04:14:43.920 --> 04:14:44.920
 Thank you, Chair.

04:14:44.920 --> 04:14:48.960
 Thank you, Mr. Leahy, for your presentation.

04:14:48.960 --> 04:14:54.400
 Your comments on cost, we understand that's going to be a big concern for you.

04:14:54.400 --> 04:15:02.760
 Your bottom line gets passed on to the homebuyer, but the value of trees that get added, do

04:15:02.760 --> 04:15:04.200
 y'all ever weigh that in?

04:15:04.200 --> 04:15:11.280
 Back in 2015, and Scott can probably pray, we did an urban forest study, and I don't

04:15:11.280 --> 04:15:17.880
 have all that data in front of me, but the value of trees for energy saving, absorbing

04:15:17.880 --> 04:15:25.240
 CO2 to clean the air here, which is pretty bad, and just the aesthetic value to you adds

04:15:25.240 --> 04:15:28.560
 some value to the house.

04:15:28.560 --> 04:15:36.280
 When you factor that in, I don't think the loss is as bad, and I know you're not a tree

04:15:36.280 --> 04:15:40.280
 lover, I know you're not a tree hater, I'm not a tree hugger, anything like that.

04:15:40.280 --> 04:15:43.600
 I can tell you, at the end of the day, they're looking at a home, and they're looking at

04:15:43.600 --> 04:15:48.400
 the prices, a tree that's pretty and all, but all this other stuff, there's really not

04:15:48.400 --> 04:15:50.080
 what you're going to be able to calculate in the price.

04:15:50.080 --> 04:15:55.080
 At the end of the day, they come to the market with a set value that they can afford, what

04:15:55.080 --> 04:15:58.640
 they know they can be loaned on, and what they can approach.

04:15:58.640 --> 04:16:02.280
 For example, when you deal with these existing trees, say I've got a tree in an area, and

04:16:02.280 --> 04:16:06.240
 I want to expand my home, or it's just here, and this root is growing.

04:16:06.240 --> 04:16:09.960
 Keep in mind, these roots can grow beyond the drip line, and we've talked with arborists

04:16:09.960 --> 04:16:14.680
 about this, and we have developers that have their arborists tell them a certain species

04:16:14.680 --> 04:16:18.840
 of a tree should not be out in the middle of the yard, away from the pad, and the reason

04:16:18.840 --> 04:16:25.600
 being is it absorbs so much moisture, that soil connects to the soil.

04:16:25.600 --> 04:16:29.400
 I have a tree, my guy's going to come in, I've got to do an FHA or a HUD loan or something,

04:16:29.400 --> 04:16:33.280
 my inspector's going to come in from my home that I'm looking at, and he's going to go,

04:16:33.280 --> 04:16:34.280
 that tree has to go.

04:16:34.280 --> 04:16:38.280
 Well, all of a sudden, I see this tree mitigation price, and what happens if it gets up over

04:16:38.280 --> 04:16:42.320
 $1,000, and I'm getting into the area of what I'd save for my down payment?

04:16:42.320 --> 04:16:47.200
 This starts affecting other decisions, so I realize it's a broad scope answer, but these

04:16:47.200 --> 04:16:52.280
 are all the things we have to consider, and I wouldn't say that, hey, it's bad to have

04:16:52.280 --> 04:16:57.520
 the tree on the lot, but I would come out and say, well, all these other benefits would

04:16:57.520 --> 04:16:59.960
 outweigh the added costs in some areas.

04:16:59.960 --> 04:17:04.200
 I can tell you from the reality in other cities where they've increased mitigation in some

04:17:04.200 --> 04:17:08.360
 of these items, like we've seen some of the ratios here, what we heard from the builder

04:17:08.360 --> 04:17:14.520
 was I can't make the development happen at the market price needed that can be absorbed

04:17:14.520 --> 04:17:15.520
 by this area.

04:17:15.520 --> 04:17:19.160
 I mean, so I understand your question, and yeah, there is some, but --

04:17:19.160 --> 04:17:20.480
 Well, there's going to be that.

04:17:20.480 --> 04:17:23.480
 They're going to see that bottom line, and it is going to scare someone away.

04:17:23.480 --> 04:17:24.480
 It's kind of like --

04:17:24.480 --> 04:17:29.920
 The value of trees, if we don't sustain -- we're trying to sustain 30 percent of them, we lose

04:17:29.920 --> 04:17:33.280
 in a lot of different other ways, too, and so will the individual homer.

04:17:33.280 --> 04:17:38.160
 They won't see it at first, of course, but the value that's there has to be taken into

04:17:38.160 --> 04:17:40.600
 consideration and not just ignored completely.

04:17:40.600 --> 04:17:45.720
 I would tell you to keep in mind that you are increasing trees as these gentlemen and

04:17:45.720 --> 04:17:50.600
 ladies develop in your area, and you saw the first slide this evening, and my members would

04:17:50.600 --> 04:17:55.080
 tell you, you're welcome, because -- and we see this in Dallas.

04:17:55.080 --> 04:17:58.880
 We always hear about the urban canopy and urban forest.

04:17:58.880 --> 04:18:03.320
 What that forest is, a lot of times, is the forest that was put there by the homeowner

04:18:03.320 --> 04:18:07.360
 and the builder, and they're going to plant trees in Edley, and you know, you see it.

04:18:07.360 --> 04:18:10.960
 There's not been a decrease in canopy, so when you look at the preservation, I ask you

04:18:10.960 --> 04:18:14.480
 to look at that whole picture there, and the tradeoff.

04:18:14.480 --> 04:18:15.480
 Thank you.

04:18:15.480 --> 04:18:20.600
 And I realize, and we don't want to be harsh on anybody here, I realize this can be a politically

04:18:20.600 --> 04:18:22.560
 sensitive issue.

04:18:22.560 --> 04:18:28.120
 We run into this in all sorts of city halls where there may be a loud group, but you always

04:18:28.120 --> 04:18:33.000
 have to keep in mind the quiet group who may bear the brunt of the impact.

04:18:33.000 --> 04:18:35.120
 That's what we ask you to consider.

04:18:35.120 --> 04:18:40.000
 And to your point, yeah, would you look at is there a value our guys like to plant it?

04:18:40.000 --> 04:18:46.000
 But there comes a point where that value tips the other way, and it becomes an encumbrance

04:18:46.000 --> 04:18:49.600
 on being able to sell the home or provide the home at the price they need.

04:18:49.600 --> 04:18:52.560
 And it's always -- and I know cities will look at what other cities do.

04:18:52.560 --> 04:18:58.800
 Always keep in mind, fees that can be absorbed, say, somewhere like in certain areas of Frisco

04:18:58.800 --> 04:19:01.080
 probably can't be absorbed so well in Denton.

04:19:01.080 --> 04:19:05.200
 Think of it like when you look at when we visited in the past about impact fees.

04:19:05.200 --> 04:19:10.200
 Well, that's a debate I wish we could have and, you know, open it up a little bit where

04:19:10.200 --> 04:19:11.200
 we'd see --

04:19:11.200 --> 04:19:13.320
 I mean, we want everybody to be able to move into Denton.

04:19:13.320 --> 04:19:17.600
 For the record, I love all the cities in my service area, so just for the record.

04:19:17.600 --> 04:19:18.600
 All right.

04:19:18.600 --> 04:19:19.600
 Thank you, sir.

04:19:19.600 --> 04:19:20.600
 All right.

04:19:20.600 --> 04:19:22.320
 Well, Commissioner, I'll let you go.

04:19:22.320 --> 04:19:23.320
 Thank you, Chair.

04:19:23.320 --> 04:19:25.560
 Mr. Leahy, thanks for coming out and speaking.

04:19:25.560 --> 04:19:27.800
 Have you been to any of the city meetings?

04:19:27.800 --> 04:19:28.800
 Have you met with staff?

04:19:28.800 --> 04:19:32.320
 We've been -- we've stayed in contact with the city staff.

04:19:32.320 --> 04:19:35.560
 Some of the meetings that were mentioned here, honestly, I didn't know about them until I

04:19:35.560 --> 04:19:36.560
 saw here.

04:19:36.560 --> 04:19:41.360
 We have asked what -- you know, we know other developers that have been at these, but we

04:19:41.360 --> 04:19:43.440
 have sent our comments throughout time.

04:19:43.440 --> 04:19:46.520
 We sent some last week to city staff.

04:19:46.520 --> 04:19:51.560
 So we can't be everywhere at once in some of these we did not know about.

04:19:51.560 --> 04:19:55.040
 And so we'll check and say, hey, where are these meetings going to happen?

04:19:55.040 --> 04:19:58.720
 But regardless, we try and send our comments in.

04:19:58.720 --> 04:20:00.880
 And then you mentioned having more time.

04:20:00.880 --> 04:20:01.880
 What exactly does that mean?

04:20:01.880 --> 04:20:03.920
 Well, our guys need to be able to look at this.

04:20:03.920 --> 04:20:05.720
 You saw the range up there.

04:20:05.720 --> 04:20:10.800
 Hey, you know, it could be less here, it could cost less, or it could cost more.

04:20:10.800 --> 04:20:13.160
 I need to be able to run this through my guys.

04:20:13.160 --> 04:20:16.760
 I'm not going to -- I can't sit here and say I would approve of ordinance without checking

04:20:16.760 --> 04:20:19.200
 with my board.

04:20:19.200 --> 04:20:23.800
 I have -- you know, I have to seek permission just like anybody else in a job, but I also

04:20:23.800 --> 04:20:28.320
 have to personally feel a lot more comfortable with this ordinance, and, you know, city staff

04:20:28.320 --> 04:20:30.920
 has been great to work with, have good relationships.

04:20:30.920 --> 04:20:33.960
 I think we could get there.

04:20:33.960 --> 04:20:37.320
 You know, I realize there's a timeline we've got to go on, but -- and that's one thing

04:20:37.320 --> 04:20:42.280
 I would add here is as you do this, you may consider, hey, maybe we don't implement this

04:20:42.280 --> 04:20:47.600
 for six months, because you have people that have already bought lots and they did it -- you

04:20:47.600 --> 04:20:51.620
 know, project success is very reliant on predictability.

04:20:51.620 --> 04:20:54.920
 And they did it coming in going, hey, this is the ordinance when we brought this lot.

04:20:54.920 --> 04:20:56.600
 Well, what if it kills the deal?

04:20:56.600 --> 04:21:01.120
 What if it is the $3,200 per home, and what if they're in a situation where the preservation

04:21:01.120 --> 04:21:06.520
 didn't work out and they had to reduce the amount of lots they had plus these fees?

04:21:06.520 --> 04:21:08.480
 You can make that deal go away.

04:21:08.480 --> 04:21:14.160
 >> Well, I think, yeah, Steph has mentioned the grace period for once adoption happens.

04:21:14.160 --> 04:21:18.040
 >> And one thing else I would stress is as you look at this -- and you had mentioned,

04:21:18.040 --> 04:21:20.040
 hey, we've got to do tweaks later down the road.

04:21:20.040 --> 04:21:22.560
 You mentioned that earlier this evening.

04:21:22.560 --> 04:21:23.560
 This isn't Washington.

04:21:23.560 --> 04:21:27.160
 You don't have to live with something bad and worry about images.

04:21:27.160 --> 04:21:30.480
 You can come back and say six months, we're hearing some things.

04:21:30.480 --> 04:21:34.840
 I always urge cities to be flexible and willing to come back and tweak it.

04:21:34.840 --> 04:21:38.840
 It's ordinances like this that have, you know, two big interests.

04:21:38.840 --> 04:21:42.480
 We always have an environment interest, we have a development interest, and then we have

04:21:42.480 --> 04:21:47.040
 a huge economic interest for the city of Denton.

04:21:47.040 --> 04:21:49.520
 Those are things that you want to revisit frequently.

04:21:49.520 --> 04:21:54.960
 >> Can you tell me how long you've been looking at the code?

04:21:54.960 --> 04:21:59.040
 >> I mean, I think I could, you know, we'll try to sit down sometime in the next couple

04:21:59.040 --> 04:22:02.280
 of weeks with staff, but -- >> Oh, no, but I mean how much time have you

04:22:02.280 --> 04:22:04.320
 worked with it prior to today?

04:22:04.320 --> 04:22:09.640
 >> I've been looking at this -- I got the most recent draft Friday night and I spent

04:22:09.640 --> 04:22:11.360
 through the weekend.

04:22:11.360 --> 04:22:13.720
 And we've sent it out to our members, so we're waiting to hear back.

04:22:13.720 --> 04:22:18.440
 We have some of them looking at it, but we looked at a previous draft back from I guess

04:22:18.440 --> 04:22:21.720
 I want to say a month ago, we were going through that, sending it out.

04:22:21.720 --> 04:22:23.720
 Obviously, there's new when you send that back out.

04:22:23.720 --> 04:22:28.120
 We had seen a previous draft back in 2017, too.

04:22:28.120 --> 04:22:30.640
 >> It's been going on a long time.

04:22:30.640 --> 04:22:31.640
 >> Yeah.

04:22:31.640 --> 04:22:35.520
 So we observe these, especially in kind of our flagship cities, we observe them a lot.

04:22:35.520 --> 04:22:36.520
 >> Understood.

04:22:36.520 --> 04:22:37.520
 Thanks.

04:22:37.520 --> 04:22:38.520
 >> Commissioner Smith.

04:22:38.520 --> 04:22:39.520
 Thank you, Chair.

04:22:39.520 --> 04:22:40.520
 Hey, Richard.

04:22:40.520 --> 04:22:41.520
 Thank you very much, Ms. Shalani.

04:22:41.520 --> 04:22:46.600
 Richard, on the six-month grace period, that initially I wouldn't go too far, I think there

04:22:46.600 --> 04:22:47.600
 might be.

04:22:47.600 --> 04:22:48.600
 I wouldn't go too far.

04:22:48.600 --> 04:22:55.600
 That six-month grace period, just splitting hairs here, is it -- they get to choose in

04:22:55.600 --> 04:22:59.240
 the six months, and do they have to start doing something, do they have to start doing

04:22:59.240 --> 04:23:02.320
 some sort of development within that six months for them to be able to choose the code, or

04:23:02.320 --> 04:23:07.480
 are they just elect it and if they don't build for another year, they still get to go underneath

04:23:07.480 --> 04:23:10.120
 the old code or whatever code they decide?

04:23:10.120 --> 04:23:11.960
 What's the cutoff, basically?

04:23:11.960 --> 04:23:19.360
 >> If they have the way we initially had it, under the applicability, if you can pull the

04:23:19.360 --> 04:23:27.720
 presentation back up, if you look at item 6, we did add in the draft, unfortunately

04:23:27.720 --> 04:23:34.120
 we didn't get it, but if you have a site plan, a preliminary or final plat, or a building

04:23:34.120 --> 04:23:40.280
 permit application that's deemed complete as of the effective date, then it would have

04:23:40.280 --> 04:23:44.520
 been fall under the new.

04:23:44.520 --> 04:23:49.760
 We since went back and really looked at and said, okay, as a way to really look and see

04:23:49.760 --> 04:23:55.920
 how this works, let's really look at sort of the six-month interim period, where during

04:23:55.920 --> 04:24:01.160
 that time, if you submit an application, you really have an option of, I'm going to go

04:24:01.160 --> 04:24:07.720
 with either the current code, what's on the books now, or under the proposed code, but

04:24:07.720 --> 04:24:13.220
 not to pick and choose from, I'd like to do some of this and some of that, so it was really

04:24:13.220 --> 04:24:14.920
 either one or the other.

04:24:14.920 --> 04:24:19.280
 >> But your preliminary or final plat or your building permit have to be deemed complete

04:24:19.280 --> 04:24:21.080
 within that six-month grace period?

04:24:21.080 --> 04:24:22.080
 >> Correct.

04:24:22.080 --> 04:24:23.080
 >> Got you.

04:24:23.080 --> 04:24:24.080
 Thank you.

04:24:24.080 --> 04:24:25.080
 >> Hang on.

04:24:25.080 --> 04:24:29.240
 >> Richard, correct me if I'm wrong, but the choosing between the two, that hasn't been

04:24:29.240 --> 04:24:30.840
 decided yet, has it?

04:24:30.840 --> 04:24:32.640
 >> It is not.

04:24:32.640 --> 04:24:34.240
 That was something we discussed yesterday.

04:24:34.240 --> 04:24:38.880
 I mean, it's just a proposal at this point, so I mean, it would be premature to promise

04:24:38.880 --> 04:24:43.160
 that that would be the case if this goes in, but just, okay.

04:24:43.160 --> 04:24:48.400
 >> Yeah, that was what we discussed with counsel yesterday.

04:24:48.400 --> 04:24:54.880
 That was something we, we weren't really sure how to put that language specifically in there

04:24:54.880 --> 04:25:00.200
 for today's discussion, but that's at least a premise that we're recommending this, that

04:25:00.200 --> 04:25:04.800
 we look at sort of this six-month interim period and then sort of do a true up at the

04:25:04.800 --> 04:25:08.840
 end and really do a reassessment and say, hey, this is what works, this is what, this

04:25:08.840 --> 04:25:17.880
 is what, this doesn't work, and provide that, again, provide that feedback.

04:25:17.880 --> 04:25:22.600
 >> Thanks, Richard.

04:25:22.600 --> 04:25:33.080
 First card I have is Rick Barrio.

04:25:33.080 --> 04:25:36.640
 And as you can just state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to

04:25:36.640 --> 04:25:37.640
 speak.

04:25:37.640 --> 04:25:38.640
 >> Okay.

04:25:38.640 --> 04:25:43.520
 Can I, I have some pictures that I would like to show you why I'm the guy that didn't like

04:25:43.520 --> 04:25:47.640
 the, the red oak trees, the blackjack oaks.

04:25:47.640 --> 04:25:49.760
 >> Did you have those loaded?

04:25:49.760 --> 04:25:55.480
 >> Yes, they loaded them up earlier, and it's not too many, I promise it won't be long,

04:25:55.480 --> 04:25:57.520
 there it is, right there.

04:25:57.520 --> 04:25:58.520
 Thank you.

04:25:58.520 --> 04:25:59.520
 I love trees.

04:25:59.520 --> 04:26:10.560
 Oh, my name, Rick Barrio, I live here in Denton, 5112 Edwards Road.

04:26:10.560 --> 04:26:13.120
 I love the beauty of trees.

04:26:13.120 --> 04:26:16.680
 I think that's a beautiful tree, it's out by the library.

04:26:16.680 --> 04:26:22.280
 I thought this tree was so beautiful that I recently got married about four years ago,

04:26:22.280 --> 04:26:26.480
 and I put that on our invitations because I like trees.

04:26:26.480 --> 04:26:31.120
 Now, some trees serve us longer than other trees, they're worth more.

04:26:31.120 --> 04:26:35.080
 I think this ordinance is a great improvement, it's been a lot of work and a long time coming,

04:26:35.080 --> 04:26:37.240
 so no doubt about that.

04:26:37.240 --> 04:26:42.720
 It recognizes relative value a little bit better, not quite enough, I think.

04:26:42.720 --> 04:26:49.640
 You know, shelters got value to everyone, but a house is worth more than a tent, a tent

04:26:49.640 --> 04:26:52.560
 doesn't last nearly as long, of course.

04:26:52.560 --> 04:26:56.600
 You know, hackberries always get mistletoe, post oaks almost never.

04:26:56.600 --> 04:27:01.120
 I only know a few in town that I've seen that have mistletoe.

04:27:01.120 --> 04:27:06.920
 Here's a picture of a hackberry right near downtown, and I guess the thing is, is you

04:27:06.920 --> 04:27:11.040
 see all the mistletoe in it, that tree is not going to last as long as a tree that doesn't

04:27:11.040 --> 04:27:15.320
 have it, of course, and then I asked myself, since it was planted by birds in the wrong

04:27:15.320 --> 04:27:19.880
 place, how long will it be until that wall gets pushed in by that tree?

04:27:19.880 --> 04:27:26.880
 Now, this is a black jack oak from a current tree survey, I'm doing this one now, and there's

04:27:26.880 --> 04:27:28.160
 a picture of the tree.

04:27:28.160 --> 04:27:33.520
 Now, this is a black jack oak that's in great shape, but the problem with them is that the

04:27:33.520 --> 04:27:37.480
 lower limbs die and they stay attached, they don't self prune and drop off.

04:27:37.480 --> 04:27:42.440
 Well, the family of red oaks, of which this is a member, has little channels that carry

04:27:42.440 --> 04:27:49.320
 water, so it carries water into the trunk, water and fungus, and so the structure rots

04:27:49.320 --> 04:27:56.560
 from the inside, and this is actually my property, and that's the last and best of five of them.

04:27:56.560 --> 04:27:58.760
 Four of the others died.

04:27:58.760 --> 04:28:02.860
 Now, you can see the problem starts early.

04:28:02.860 --> 04:28:06.320
 That's a black jack oak, you can see from the bark, and then you may notice that the

04:28:06.320 --> 04:28:12.240
 leaves also indicate that, but that tree is rotten all the way down to the bottom, and

04:28:12.240 --> 04:28:16.840
 it's not very big, that's about eight inches across, something like that.

04:28:16.840 --> 04:28:21.400
 Now, this is a mature tree, the one you see in the middle, and there's juvenile trees

04:28:21.400 --> 04:28:27.160
 around it, and they do change their shape of the crown, and I think that's important.

04:28:27.160 --> 04:28:32.200
 Most post oaks are crowded on the sites that you find them on, and they grow on elevated

04:28:32.200 --> 04:28:33.200
 rock piles.

04:28:33.200 --> 04:28:36.520
 Now, this was one of the worst ones that I've seen, I took a picture of that a few years

04:28:36.520 --> 04:28:39.840
 ago when I did a tree survey there.

04:28:39.840 --> 04:28:44.600
 They seldom have a full canopy, you can see none of these have a full canopy.

04:28:44.600 --> 04:28:51.700
 Note the canopies here, the trees that are small, and the smallest one would be probably

04:28:51.700 --> 04:28:55.280
 six inches, and some of the others may be up to about eight, and the one in the middle

04:28:55.280 --> 04:28:59.680
 I think is about 18 inches, something like that.

04:28:59.680 --> 04:29:06.440
 Huge difference in the amount of foliage, you see the girth increase is a cubic increase

04:29:06.440 --> 04:29:11.120
 of canopy volume, it's half the volume of a sphere, roughly.

04:29:11.120 --> 04:29:16.440
 So I just wanted to point this out, if we go from six inches to 12 inches, that's eight

04:29:16.440 --> 04:29:18.600
 times the foliage.

04:29:18.600 --> 04:29:23.280
 Now if we go to 12 inches to 24, that's eight times again.

04:29:23.280 --> 04:29:29.960
 Now if we go from six inches to 24, that's 64 times the foliage, and we're not given

04:29:29.960 --> 04:29:30.960
 64 times the value.

04:29:30.960 --> 04:29:36.080
 And if we go from two inch, which is the tree that we might put in, to 24 inches, that's

04:29:36.080 --> 04:29:44.520
 an astounding 1728 times as much foliage, as much leaves, as much cooling, as much space

04:29:44.520 --> 04:29:47.440
 for squirrels, if you want to call it.

04:29:47.440 --> 04:29:56.240
 So when I see that, according to the new plan, I'm offered four times, if I save the large

04:29:56.240 --> 04:30:02.000
 trees, that's better than I've gotten, but you see four compared to 1728 is a little

04:30:02.000 --> 04:30:03.000
 paltry.

04:30:03.000 --> 04:30:07.840
 In fact, you might say it's a little stingy, and I guess my time is about up.

04:30:07.840 --> 04:30:13.560
 I stand for any questions that you have, but I do believe the ordinance is definitely going

04:30:13.560 --> 04:30:15.920
 in the right direction, definitely.

04:30:15.920 --> 04:30:21.240
 As long as we can, for instance, also keep the lot size down, if we have to save so many

04:30:21.240 --> 04:30:22.240
 trees.

04:30:22.240 --> 04:30:26.120
 Some of these large trees are almost the size of a lot, and the volume of their canopy is

04:30:26.120 --> 04:30:28.840
 as much as a house.

04:30:28.840 --> 04:30:29.840
 Thank you.

04:30:29.840 --> 04:30:35.160
 We do have a question, and just for the record, you're in support of the current code?

04:30:35.160 --> 04:30:36.920
 I would like to see a few changes.

04:30:36.920 --> 04:30:41.720
 I'm in support of the new one, it's much better in my opinion.

04:30:41.720 --> 04:30:42.920
 It can be much better.

04:30:42.920 --> 04:30:43.920
 Chris Rebeck.

04:30:43.920 --> 04:30:44.920
 Thank you, Chair.

04:30:44.920 --> 04:30:45.920
 Thank you, Mr. Berrien.

04:30:45.920 --> 04:30:46.920
 Berrien.

04:30:46.920 --> 04:30:47.920
 Berrien.

04:30:47.920 --> 04:30:48.920
 Okay.

04:30:48.920 --> 04:30:51.000
 You mentioned the blackjack tree.

04:30:51.000 --> 04:30:52.960
 Were you the one that gave the report?

04:30:52.960 --> 04:30:53.960
 Yes.

04:30:53.960 --> 04:30:54.960
 Okay.

04:30:54.960 --> 04:30:55.960
 So that was your report.

04:30:55.960 --> 04:30:59.560
 I'm the one that's prejudiced against them, I suppose, but I've cut down quite a number.

04:30:59.560 --> 04:31:00.560
 Okay.

04:31:00.560 --> 04:31:04.040
 You're probably a lot smarter than I am, I'm sure you are on that.

04:31:04.040 --> 04:31:12.160
 What is the, in your opinion then, and your knowledge of the loss of blackjack oaks, what

04:31:12.160 --> 04:31:15.200
 percentage do we lose in the way you're talking about here?

04:31:15.200 --> 04:31:19.880
 Well, I did a tree surveyor, I'm doing one now, and I think I have two blackjack trees

04:31:19.880 --> 04:31:23.380
 on this site that's about five acres.

04:31:23.380 --> 04:31:29.600
 Everything else is post oak, plus I have maybe two or three cedar elms, a couple of cedar

04:31:29.600 --> 04:31:30.600
 trees.

04:31:30.600 --> 04:31:37.160
 They're a pretty small percentage, especially when they get bigger because they die and

04:31:37.160 --> 04:31:39.160
 they get rotten inside and fall down.

04:31:39.160 --> 04:31:44.000
 Let me ask you this, if maintaining them, pruning them properly.

04:31:44.000 --> 04:31:49.680
 If you do that, that works, but a lot of times when you see one that's been out in the woods,

04:31:49.680 --> 04:31:50.680
 no one's pruning it.

04:31:50.680 --> 04:31:51.680
 Right, right.

04:31:51.680 --> 04:31:52.680
 Yeah.

04:31:52.680 --> 04:31:56.760
 But where we're in an area where we can preserve some, then if we did take care of them.

04:31:56.760 --> 04:32:00.400
 Right, but a lot of times you would have to start when that tree was young.

04:32:00.400 --> 04:32:01.400
 Right.

04:32:01.400 --> 04:32:02.400
 Not when it's already old.

04:32:02.400 --> 04:32:03.400
 Okay.

04:32:03.400 --> 04:32:08.120
 And granted, if we got a dead tree and it's dying, then that's automatically on the exempt

04:32:08.120 --> 04:32:11.120
 list from preservation.

04:32:11.120 --> 04:32:12.840
 So, okay.

04:32:12.840 --> 04:32:13.840
 Thank you for that.

04:32:13.840 --> 04:32:14.840
 All right.

04:32:14.840 --> 04:32:15.840
 One more question.

04:32:15.840 --> 04:32:16.840
 Commissioner Sanchez.

04:32:16.840 --> 04:32:17.840
 Yes.

04:32:17.840 --> 04:32:22.400
 I just wanted to mention, you know, I worked on grasslands up in Decatur and we used to

04:32:22.400 --> 04:32:26.960
 do, we had that's the Blackland Prairie back in there and we did have a lot of blackjacks

04:32:26.960 --> 04:32:28.240
 and post oaks.

04:32:28.240 --> 04:32:33.760
 Basically that was what the primary trees we had and we had larger blackjacks and large

04:32:33.760 --> 04:32:35.160
 post oaks.

04:32:35.160 --> 04:32:39.200
 And so, you know, it depends on the habitat, I guess, in your area.

04:32:39.200 --> 04:32:40.200
 I don't know.

04:32:40.200 --> 04:32:42.720
 It's hard to determine what's causing them to die.

04:32:42.720 --> 04:32:48.320
 Well, it's a fungal disease and any time you go further north and west, there's less rain

04:32:48.320 --> 04:32:50.160
 and so the trees does better.

04:32:50.160 --> 04:32:51.160
 Okay.

04:32:51.160 --> 04:32:58.480
 Because like I said, out west, in Decatur, we had I guess the soils also make a big difference.

04:32:58.480 --> 04:33:05.280
 So if we're not finding those trees, to me, they have a bigger value.

04:33:05.280 --> 04:33:09.020
 I think I've seen them in the city.

04:33:09.020 --> 04:33:14.800
 So I can say that you do have some decent larger blackjack oaks.

04:33:14.800 --> 04:33:21.080
 So again, I think if they're not surviving, it's a species that then if we can't find

04:33:21.080 --> 04:33:27.200
 it that often, we need to protect it even more because it's part of the Blackland Prairie.

04:33:27.200 --> 04:33:32.760
 This is what was up in this area or across Timbers, you know.

04:33:32.760 --> 04:33:44.560
 So I just wanted to mention that you may have an experience with blackjack oak, but there's

04:33:44.560 --> 04:33:52.880
 other experiences that other people have had that they haven't had the fungus problem.

04:33:52.880 --> 04:33:56.080
 I don't know, maybe your property or something's going on in there.

04:33:56.080 --> 04:34:03.560
 So to say that's relevant throughout its habitat, I mean, there's areas where blackjack oak

04:34:03.560 --> 04:34:05.600
 is very prominent.

04:34:05.600 --> 04:34:06.600
 You're absolutely right.

04:34:06.600 --> 04:34:11.360
 I'm basing my opinion on what I've done in Denton County.

04:34:11.360 --> 04:34:12.360
 Okay.

04:34:12.360 --> 04:34:17.120
 Well, I just wanted to say what I see in Wise County.

04:34:17.120 --> 04:34:18.120
 Okay.

04:34:18.120 --> 04:34:20.200
 I did not see any questions.

04:34:20.200 --> 04:34:21.200
 Thank you.

04:34:21.200 --> 04:34:22.200
 Thank you.

04:34:22.200 --> 04:34:23.200
 Richard, do you have something to say?

04:34:23.200 --> 04:34:27.520
 I just wanted to make a point of clarification on the blackjack oaks.

04:34:27.520 --> 04:34:31.160
 They are still included in the protected trees.

04:34:31.160 --> 04:34:36.000
 They're just not, those trees that are between six inches and less than 18 inches are counted

04:34:36.000 --> 04:34:41.000
 as a quality tree instead of being counted as a heritage tree.

04:34:41.000 --> 04:34:44.040
 So they're still required to be preserved.

04:34:44.040 --> 04:34:49.000
 They're just not given that extra, they're not given having the extra multiplier of two

04:34:49.000 --> 04:34:53.040
 and a half if they're a quality tree, but they're also not getting that additional

04:34:53.040 --> 04:34:55.080
 credit either if they're preserved.

04:34:55.080 --> 04:35:03.760
 So if they're a quality tree, they're still required to be preserved.

04:35:03.760 --> 04:35:04.760
 This is a public hearing.

04:35:04.760 --> 04:35:05.760
 Anyone wishing to speak?

04:35:05.760 --> 04:35:06.760
 We certainly do so.

04:35:06.760 --> 04:35:07.760
 Yes, sir.

04:35:07.760 --> 04:35:10.440
 It's a stranger among us.

04:35:10.440 --> 04:35:17.100
 Just state your name and address.

04:35:17.100 --> 04:35:20.800
 Jim Strange, 3613 Falcon Court here in Denton.

04:35:20.800 --> 04:35:23.600
 Thank you, Commissioners, for giving me the opportunity to speak.

04:35:23.600 --> 04:35:26.760
 As most of you know, I've been involved with this for many years.

04:35:26.760 --> 04:35:31.880
 I think Rick and I served together probably 20 years ago on the original tree code in

04:35:31.880 --> 04:35:32.880
 the city of Denton.

04:35:32.880 --> 04:35:41.160
 I did attend the DCDA forum, and I have to say, from where the tree code was at the beginning

04:35:41.160 --> 04:35:45.240
 of that meeting to where we are today, much more pleased with it.

04:35:45.240 --> 04:35:48.160
 I thought we had a fantastic discussion.

04:35:48.160 --> 04:35:49.160
 Rick was there.

04:35:49.160 --> 04:35:52.840
 There were a number of other people there and a couple of city council people there.

04:35:52.840 --> 04:35:59.560
 I think there were a lot of tremendous ideas that were shared there that really opened

04:35:59.560 --> 04:36:03.200
 a lot of different perspectives and ideas.

04:36:03.200 --> 04:36:07.760
 To me, as I've gotten more and more involved in this over the years and studied it, I'm

04:36:07.760 --> 04:36:13.120
 going to go back to the original slide that was started, when you really look at trees

04:36:13.120 --> 04:36:15.880
 in the city of Denton, they're planted trees.

04:36:15.880 --> 04:36:19.480
 The vast majority of our canopy is planted trees.

04:36:19.480 --> 04:36:21.520
 It's not preservation.

04:36:21.520 --> 04:36:25.560
 The concern I have with preservation is we're increasing it.

04:36:25.560 --> 04:36:26.840
 It was a mandatory 30.

04:36:26.840 --> 04:36:27.840
 It's now down.

04:36:27.840 --> 04:36:29.120
 You can go from 30 to 20.

04:36:29.120 --> 04:36:31.280
 Currently, it's 20 and can go down to 10.

04:36:31.280 --> 04:36:37.480
 You're doubling preservation, which you are going to lose that develop a land.

04:36:37.480 --> 04:36:38.480
 It's going to be gone.

04:36:38.480 --> 04:36:41.520
 On the heavily treed side, it's untouchable.

04:36:41.520 --> 04:36:49.400
 There's no flexibility to address that.

04:36:49.400 --> 04:36:54.520
 That's a concern that I have, because we have so many public facilities in our city.

04:36:54.520 --> 04:36:55.520
 We have the city of Denton.

04:36:55.520 --> 04:36:58.520
 We have Denton County, UNT, TWU.

04:36:58.520 --> 04:37:02.060
 The concern I have is how much more private property are we going to take and basically

04:37:02.060 --> 04:37:06.240
 make off limits by tree preservation.

04:37:06.240 --> 04:37:13.800
 The goal, to me, is canopy, and how we're going to increase canopy, in my view, is by

04:37:13.800 --> 04:37:17.880
 planting trees, to have an aggressive tree planting program.

04:37:17.880 --> 04:37:22.560
 I asked many years ago when I sat on this board, how much money is in the tree fund?

04:37:22.560 --> 04:37:23.560
 It's millions.

04:37:23.560 --> 04:37:30.720
 I'm not going to say it should be zero, but it ought to be close to zero, because we're

04:37:30.720 --> 04:37:34.160
 not growing any tree canopy with money sitting in the bank.

04:37:34.160 --> 04:37:36.880
 We're earning a quarter or a half percent interest on it.

04:37:36.880 --> 04:37:39.560
 It does nothing to increase tree canopy.

04:37:39.560 --> 04:37:44.340
 Money in the tree code needs to be spent planting trees in public areas.

04:37:44.340 --> 04:37:47.400
 We have North Lakes Park is almost 400 acres.

04:37:47.400 --> 04:37:50.480
 South Lakes Park is almost 200 acres.

04:37:50.480 --> 04:37:51.800
 Those are city properties.

04:37:51.800 --> 04:37:53.720
 There is right-of-way all over.

04:37:53.720 --> 04:37:58.880
 All of our old subdivisions don't have street trees planted in them.

04:37:58.880 --> 04:38:01.200
 All of our new subdivisions have street trees.

04:38:01.200 --> 04:38:05.120
 There's tremendous areas that are already public property outside of our parks and our

04:38:05.120 --> 04:38:08.520
 right-of-ways that we can plant street trees in.

04:38:08.520 --> 04:38:11.080
 That's the best way to increase our canopy.

04:38:11.080 --> 04:38:16.040
 The other concern I have about preservation is it makes those areas very species-defined.

04:38:16.040 --> 04:38:21.040
 Typically, if it's going to be post oaks, they're all post oaks.

04:38:21.040 --> 04:38:23.520
 In 40 years, what do those areas really look like?

04:38:23.520 --> 04:38:26.020
 They're very susceptible to disease.

04:38:26.020 --> 04:38:31.560
 I think an aggressive tree planting program where you plant multitudes of species in all

04:38:31.560 --> 04:38:34.200
 of these areas gives great diversity.

04:38:34.200 --> 04:38:39.240
 If there are ash borers, if there's oak wilt, we don't lose a whole area that's just gone

04:38:39.240 --> 04:38:43.800
 because there's no diversity in our tree canopy.

04:38:43.800 --> 04:38:49.360
 From my point of view, I would ask this commission to really take a hard look because I think

04:38:49.360 --> 04:38:56.480
 the goal here is canopy, but it focuses on preservation.

04:38:56.480 --> 04:39:01.160
 You're not going to increase the canopy by preserving a certain percentage of what's

04:39:01.160 --> 04:39:02.160
 left.

04:39:02.160 --> 04:39:06.600
 You're going to increase canopy by planting and encouraging the planting of trees.

04:39:06.600 --> 04:39:10.000
 I think Rick's slide was phenomenal.

04:39:10.000 --> 04:39:12.600
 How much more exponential growth are you going to get?

04:39:12.600 --> 04:39:18.480
 Bang for the buck, planting two-inch trees, four-inch trees versus preserving a 30-inch

04:39:18.480 --> 04:39:23.320
 poke stoke that may be in 10 or 15 years of stead and it's gone.

04:39:23.320 --> 04:39:27.840
 The value of what you would have gained in planting trees is tremendous.

04:39:27.840 --> 04:39:32.080
 I urge you to consider that as you get ready to move this forward that I think your biggest

04:39:32.080 --> 04:39:38.360
 bang for your buck needs to move off of the preservation and more onto an aggressive tree

04:39:38.360 --> 04:39:39.360
 planting program.

04:39:39.360 --> 04:39:42.160
 I'd stand for any questions.

04:39:42.160 --> 04:39:43.160
 Thank you.

04:39:43.160 --> 04:39:44.160
 Commissioner Smith.

04:39:44.160 --> 04:39:45.160
 Thank you, Chair.

04:39:45.160 --> 04:39:46.160
 What's up, old man?

04:39:46.160 --> 04:39:50.120
 I'm here, on this side, though.

04:39:50.120 --> 04:39:53.640
 Yeah, I can pick on you now.

04:39:53.640 --> 04:39:57.640
 I asked a question to Richard earlier about paid versus planted and your experience as

04:39:57.640 --> 04:39:59.800
 a developer.

04:39:59.800 --> 04:40:03.360
 The buildings you've done, the times that you've been involved in projects where there

04:40:03.360 --> 04:40:08.120
 was trees being removed and you had a choice under the tree code between planting and mitigation

04:40:08.120 --> 04:40:10.880
 or paying and mitigation.

04:40:10.880 --> 04:40:13.120
 What's been your experience?

04:40:13.120 --> 04:40:14.520
 What have you seen more of?

04:40:14.520 --> 04:40:16.360
 Paying more for mitigation or planting?

04:40:16.360 --> 04:40:21.740
 I think most guys like to pay because you've won and done and it's somebody else's responsibility

04:40:21.740 --> 04:40:24.200
 to take care of it because you've got to care for it for three years.

04:40:24.200 --> 04:40:25.200
 Got it.

04:40:25.200 --> 04:40:28.760
 Do you think underneath this new code that would, because of the credits that are built

04:40:28.760 --> 04:40:32.440
 into it, that you would see the exact same trend?

04:40:32.440 --> 04:40:35.560
 They'd probably still be paying even though the cost is getting higher, but do you think

04:40:35.560 --> 04:40:38.000
 it'd still be easier to pay and get out of there?

04:40:38.000 --> 04:40:39.000
 There's still a few million dollars in the tree fund.

04:40:39.000 --> 04:40:40.000
 Say it again.

04:40:40.000 --> 04:40:41.000
 There's still millions of dollars in the tree fund.

04:40:41.000 --> 04:40:42.000
 Understood.

04:40:42.000 --> 04:40:43.600
 I think I'm going to get to that point in a minute.

04:40:43.600 --> 04:40:44.600
 The proof's in the pudding.

04:40:44.600 --> 04:40:47.240
 You'd rather pay than plant trees.

04:40:47.240 --> 04:40:48.240
 Okay.

04:40:48.240 --> 04:40:52.840
 Before I come back to that piece there, which I guess will actually probably be just a conversation

04:40:52.840 --> 04:41:01.240
 I have with commissioners in a minute, the 20% versus 30% in conservation and preservation,

04:41:01.240 --> 04:41:05.680
 from a developer standpoint, what do you see as that adding in cost to a homeowner and

04:41:05.680 --> 04:41:06.680
 the value of the home?

04:41:06.680 --> 04:41:11.320
 Because Mr. Laney brought up as 100% the truth, I think that's been my only concern I've really

04:41:11.320 --> 04:41:17.040
 had with this the entire time has been the end up cost is not going to be on the builder

04:41:17.040 --> 04:41:18.040
 themselves.

04:41:18.040 --> 04:41:21.120
 The builder's going to pass the cost on to the homeowner.

04:41:21.120 --> 04:41:28.320
 By preserving tree canopy, we are in turn creating a pathway for us to ramp up home

04:41:28.320 --> 04:41:32.680
 values in the city of Denton and cause everybody to be affected.

04:41:32.680 --> 04:41:33.680
 Yeah.

04:41:33.680 --> 04:41:34.680
 The overall cost, sure.

04:41:34.680 --> 04:41:38.720
 The overall cost is going to affect overall home value as well and drive out affordability

04:41:38.720 --> 04:41:42.760
 even more, which I'm sure many people who are wanting the preservation of trees would

04:41:42.760 --> 04:41:46.720
 probably also not want to drive affordability downwards.

04:41:46.720 --> 04:41:55.360
 So a 20% versus 30% from a development standpoint, do you feel like that increase in preservation

04:41:55.360 --> 04:41:58.760
 is big enough to make that huge of a cost difference or is that ...

04:41:58.760 --> 04:41:59.760
 Sure.

04:41:59.760 --> 04:42:03.040
 Do you have a dollar amount you think you could ... I mean, that's a hard number, but ...

04:42:03.040 --> 04:42:04.040
 Sure.

04:42:04.040 --> 04:42:06.840
 Well, every deal is different because there's two things you have to consider when you do

04:42:06.840 --> 04:42:07.840
 that.

04:42:07.840 --> 04:42:11.640
 One is you're having to preserve more of the property that you're paying for, but then

04:42:11.640 --> 04:42:16.780
 you have the lost revenue that if you were going to develop 10 more lots, the profitability

04:42:16.780 --> 04:42:19.120
 that you get on the 10 lots as well.

04:42:19.120 --> 04:42:23.120
 So not only are you increasing the cost of the dirt that you've already bought by losing

04:42:23.120 --> 04:42:28.200
 the 10%, but then you're also losing the margin that you would make developing it.

04:42:28.200 --> 04:42:33.240
 So it's kind of a double whammy in my experience and opinion.

04:42:33.240 --> 04:42:34.240
 Sure.

04:42:34.240 --> 04:42:35.240
 I agree with you.

04:42:35.240 --> 04:42:36.240
 All right.

04:42:36.240 --> 04:42:37.240
 Thank you very much.

04:42:37.240 --> 04:42:38.240
 Commissioner Sanchez.

04:42:38.240 --> 04:42:46.040
 I just want to talk ... We talk about canopy, but there's also a value in old trees, the

04:42:46.040 --> 04:42:51.040
 fact ... And maybe they don't have a lot of canopy, but have you ever driven by some of

04:42:51.040 --> 04:42:52.040
 these old trees?

04:42:52.040 --> 04:42:55.880
 They just said that they're just beautiful, but the fact that they don't necessarily have

04:42:55.880 --> 04:43:02.960
 a lot of canopy, but they just have that old look that makes them beautiful that it adds.

04:43:02.960 --> 04:43:07.800
 So it's not always just young trees, but looking at these old trees that are maybe two, three,

04:43:07.800 --> 04:43:17.620
 400 years old, they're sitting out there with 36 inch DBHs or ... Those also provide value

04:43:17.620 --> 04:43:19.580
 to me.

04:43:19.580 --> 04:43:20.580
 Don't disagree at all.

04:43:20.580 --> 04:43:27.520
 And I think the issue is, and we talked about it quite a bit at the DCDA meeting, there's

04:43:27.520 --> 04:43:33.240
 a big difference in intentions and results.

04:43:33.240 --> 04:43:37.400
 And I will just use a great example, and I thought it was very eye-opening and informative

04:43:37.400 --> 04:43:38.400
 for a lot of people there.

04:43:38.400 --> 04:43:43.160
 One of the slides, and it was actually in the presentation again tonight, is the property

04:43:43.160 --> 04:43:47.620
 that was so controversial, which is Raising Canes over on Loop 288.

04:43:47.620 --> 04:43:51.600
 If you ever had a property that was under a microscope for tree preservation, maybe

04:43:51.600 --> 04:43:52.600
 that was it.

04:43:52.600 --> 04:43:58.040
 I mean it was top of the line, and I can guarantee you with all the tree fencing and all the

04:43:58.040 --> 04:44:02.400
 things that they had going on over there, they did everything according to the book

04:44:02.400 --> 04:44:03.800
 to preserve the trees.

04:44:03.800 --> 04:44:08.280
 And I challenge each one of you to drive by that property now and see how many of those

04:44:08.280 --> 04:44:14.600
 trees have survived in what, less than 24 months since that store's opened.

04:44:14.600 --> 04:44:19.080
 And that's the problem that I have with the focus being on preservation.

04:44:19.080 --> 04:44:25.640
 I think the intentions of it are extraordinarily well-meaning, and it's great.

04:44:25.640 --> 04:44:29.340
 The problem is, is what happens with the results.

04:44:29.340 --> 04:44:30.600
 And that's what I'm really looking at.

04:44:30.600 --> 04:44:33.280
 At the end of the day, I'm a results-oriented kind of guy.

04:44:33.280 --> 04:44:38.160
 That's what people come to me for in the business that I'm in, results.

04:44:38.160 --> 04:44:43.240
 And I drive by and I look at those properties, and I go, well, Raising Canes to me is a great

04:44:43.240 --> 04:44:44.680
 example of that.

04:44:44.680 --> 04:44:49.320
 Lowe's Cafe out in front of Lowe's was done at least 10 years ago, same thing.

04:44:49.320 --> 04:44:54.960
 The new sprouts out there on 2181, they had a huge big oak tree that they preserved out

04:44:54.960 --> 04:44:55.960
 in front.

04:44:55.960 --> 04:44:56.960
 It's gone now.

04:44:56.960 --> 04:45:01.640
 So I mean, the problem that I have with it, when you focus on the preservation, you really

04:45:01.640 --> 04:45:04.880
 need to look at the end of the day, how successful is that?

04:45:04.880 --> 04:45:10.120
 Or would you be better off in the loss of however many years it is as those trees are

04:45:10.120 --> 04:45:14.200
 declining and dying because they've been disturbed?

04:45:14.200 --> 04:45:18.080
 If you'd have gone in the very beginning and say, you know what, we can preserve a certain

04:45:18.080 --> 04:45:22.640
 amount out here in an area, but a lot of these other places, let's go ahead and plant the

04:45:22.640 --> 04:45:24.240
 trees and get them growing.

04:45:24.240 --> 04:45:29.480
 And what do you end up with at the end of the day with a whole bunch of new trees?

04:45:29.480 --> 04:45:34.600
 And I think you have to look at it from my point of view, the long-term game, not, well,

04:45:34.600 --> 04:45:37.280
 I had this and tomorrow I got a little bitty two-inch.

04:45:37.280 --> 04:45:39.960
 It's, well, what did we plant 20 years ago?

04:45:39.960 --> 04:45:45.600
 We can see in the example what has been planted since the '40s and the '50s has increased

04:45:45.600 --> 04:45:49.080
 the canopy multitudes of times.

04:45:49.080 --> 04:45:53.720
 And if we continue to take that same point of view and take the long view here in our

04:45:53.720 --> 04:46:00.320
 city, what can our tree canopy actually grow to by not focusing exclusively on preservation

04:46:00.320 --> 04:46:05.560
 but planting and not just doing it in private areas, doing it in the public areas?

04:46:05.560 --> 04:46:10.600
 Because, again, I don't think it's right to focus so much of what's good for the public.

04:46:10.600 --> 04:46:12.600
 I don't disagree.

04:46:12.600 --> 04:46:16.240
 We work tremendously on most of our projects to save every tree that we can.

04:46:16.240 --> 04:46:18.920
 We get credit for them.

04:46:18.920 --> 04:46:21.000
 Properties sell for more money with trees.

04:46:21.000 --> 04:46:22.320
 I get it.

04:46:22.320 --> 04:46:25.680
 But they're not always able to be saved.

04:46:25.680 --> 04:46:31.280
 When you look at developing and things that, to me, are just obvious that I know just because

04:46:31.280 --> 04:46:34.600
 of my background and experience might not be to other people, but by the time you come

04:46:34.600 --> 04:46:39.240
 into these sites and you have to meet all the criteria for the grading and the right

04:46:39.240 --> 04:46:45.560
 of ways and the utilities and all the compaction and everything, it's almost impossible sometimes

04:46:45.560 --> 04:46:50.840
 to actually preserve and save the trees because there's too much disturbance.

04:46:50.840 --> 04:46:56.160
 They may live for a little while, but eventually I think they're going to die and they're not

04:46:56.160 --> 04:46:58.400
 going to be a successful and healthy tree.

04:46:58.400 --> 04:47:00.560
 And I think raising canes is a great example.

04:47:00.560 --> 04:47:05.720
 I'm not trying to pick on them, but the trees that are left there are not like they were

04:47:05.720 --> 04:47:07.080
 before they did anything.

04:47:07.080 --> 04:47:13.080
 So the ones that are still there are declining and will probably die as well.

04:47:13.080 --> 04:47:19.600
 And if they'd been planted initially, what would they have already grown to versus the

04:47:19.600 --> 04:47:25.080
 trees that have been preserved take four or five years to die, then they get replanted

04:47:25.080 --> 04:47:29.640
 with two-inch trees, versus if you'd planted new trees and they have five years' worth

04:47:29.640 --> 04:47:33.020
 of growth, I'm planting gobs of trees on jobs.

04:47:33.020 --> 04:47:39.000
 And I'm always amazed when you come back and look and go, that's a 30-foot tall tree.

04:47:39.000 --> 04:47:43.160
 It was a little eight-footer when we stuck it out there in the front yard, and it's totally

04:47:43.160 --> 04:47:46.800
 changed what something looked like before.

04:47:46.800 --> 04:47:51.440
 And I think that's something that we take a look and we talked about at the DCDA meeting.

04:47:51.440 --> 04:47:56.840
 We were talking about, I said, guys, look across the street, Eagan Street, Congress Street,

04:47:56.840 --> 04:47:59.640
 Panhandle Street, those aren't post oaks that are over there.

04:47:59.640 --> 04:48:03.040
 Those are all trees that were planted when those homes were built.

04:48:03.040 --> 04:48:04.320
 Some of them are 60 feet tall.

04:48:04.320 --> 04:48:07.760
 Like I said, they're huge trees and beautiful trees.

04:48:07.760 --> 04:48:08.760
 But they were planted.

04:48:08.760 --> 04:48:12.760
 They were planted at the right elevation, they were planted in the right spots, and

04:48:12.760 --> 04:48:14.760
 they've done extraordinarily well.

04:48:14.760 --> 04:48:18.600
 And the nice thing about it, when they get planted in areas like that, I've driven through

04:48:18.600 --> 04:48:24.240
 several existing neighborhoods as I've gotten more and more involved in the tree code, you

04:48:24.240 --> 04:48:25.980
 know what happens with those?

04:48:25.980 --> 04:48:30.640
 People typically take care of their places, and when those trees die, they plant a new

04:48:30.640 --> 04:48:31.640
 one.

04:48:31.640 --> 04:48:33.800
 You're not going to have that in preserve areas.

04:48:33.800 --> 04:48:36.600
 That's one of the reasons I think staff is now starting to talk about it, I brought that

04:48:36.600 --> 04:48:37.600
 up in the meeting.

04:48:37.600 --> 04:48:40.040
 You'll preserve all these areas and put it in HOA.

04:48:40.040 --> 04:48:44.840
 HOA ain't going to come in there and do tree planting programs.

04:48:44.840 --> 04:48:49.600
 The residents all complain about how high the fees are already and how much it costs

04:48:49.600 --> 04:48:53.560
 when there's a storm and you've got to go in there and clean up the trees.

04:48:53.560 --> 04:48:58.040
 It's much better off to look at turning a lot of this stuff over, either in public or

04:48:58.040 --> 04:49:02.400
 private people that, you know what, in their own property, they replant the trees.

04:49:02.400 --> 04:49:06.960
 People have Bradford pears and they're gone and they plant new trees, and go drive through

04:49:06.960 --> 04:49:08.080
 some of these older neighborhoods.

04:49:08.080 --> 04:49:12.000
 You'll find a lot of places where people have planted new trees in the older existing neighborhoods.

04:49:12.000 --> 04:49:18.680
 And I think long term, that type of approach is a much more successful tree canopy approach

04:49:18.680 --> 04:49:23.840
 for our city, because it's not exclusively focused on preservation.

04:49:23.840 --> 04:49:25.960
 Christian Ellis.

04:49:25.960 --> 04:49:28.760
 Thank you, Chair.

04:49:28.760 --> 04:49:30.040
 Thank you, former Chair Strange.

04:49:30.040 --> 04:49:31.860
 Good to see you.

04:49:31.860 --> 04:49:33.960
 Do you have an ideal for preservation?

04:49:33.960 --> 04:49:38.720
 Is there any percentage that you would consider for preservation?

04:49:38.720 --> 04:49:42.840
 You know, I'm a property rights guy.

04:49:42.840 --> 04:49:47.360
 I think that we ought to leave a lot of this to private property people to decide.

04:49:47.360 --> 04:49:49.320
 I think we're going in the right direction.

04:49:49.320 --> 04:49:54.120
 I've complimented staff on some of the landscaping and then go into a point system and let people

04:49:54.120 --> 04:49:57.640
 start picking and choosing and go, you know what, what's important to this person?

04:49:57.640 --> 04:50:01.600
 You may have people that say, you know what, I want to preserve a whole bunch of trees.

04:50:01.600 --> 04:50:05.960
 And you may have people that say, because of their project, that's really not a viable

04:50:05.960 --> 04:50:11.960
 option and it's going to be very economically and it may kill that particular type of project,

04:50:11.960 --> 04:50:15.760
 where they can pick and choose and say, you know what, for this particular project, we'd

04:50:15.760 --> 04:50:20.440
 much rather take trees out and then replant them or do a conservation area.

04:50:20.440 --> 04:50:27.080
 I think the key is for this program to be even more successful is the greater flexibility

04:50:27.080 --> 04:50:29.120
 that you can build into it, the better.

04:50:29.120 --> 04:50:34.600
 I think it'll be more well received to private property owners, that it's not them having

04:50:34.600 --> 04:50:36.160
 to bear the burden of it.

04:50:36.160 --> 04:50:41.400
 I think you'd be surprised with the creativity that you might find with people that can actually

04:50:41.400 --> 04:50:46.560
 go out there and have some flexibility to be able to do things versus, this is the only

04:50:46.560 --> 04:50:49.560
 way that you will be able to do that.

04:50:49.560 --> 04:50:52.960
 And I think that's the challenge.

04:50:52.960 --> 04:50:54.880
 But do you want clear cutting as an option then?

04:50:54.880 --> 04:50:56.200
 Is that what you mean?

04:50:56.200 --> 04:50:59.720
 Well, I think there's a place for that.

04:50:59.720 --> 04:51:03.920
 And I think that's what the difficult part for this body to consider.

04:51:03.920 --> 04:51:08.120
 There are pieces of property, use raising gains for example, there are pieces of property

04:51:08.120 --> 04:51:11.260
 that is going to be a corner property, they might have a lot of trees, it might be worth

04:51:11.260 --> 04:51:13.600
 a million dollars.

04:51:13.600 --> 04:51:19.560
 There may be a piece of property that's heavily treed that's in the back and it's worth 10,000.

04:51:19.560 --> 04:51:23.840
 Now for our city from a property tax standpoint and those types of things and what comes out

04:51:23.840 --> 04:51:26.640
 of that, are those two properties exactly the same?

04:51:26.640 --> 04:51:29.400
 No, there's a huge economic difference in them.

04:51:29.400 --> 04:51:32.920
 They may have the same tree canopy on them.

04:51:32.920 --> 04:51:38.360
 But because of the different things that those properties bring, I think it makes it very

04:51:38.360 --> 04:51:42.520
 difficult to say, well, here's the box and it applies to everything.

04:51:42.520 --> 04:51:46.320
 So to answer your question, I think there are instances that some of those properties,

04:51:46.320 --> 04:51:51.900
 if you want to clear cut it, you've got a huge mitigation to do.

04:51:51.900 --> 04:51:52.900
 But you know what?

04:51:52.900 --> 04:52:00.320
 If the property is that valuable and it is a high volume corner, you may have a pretty

04:52:00.320 --> 04:52:05.960
 high tree mitigation, either payment or combination of plant.

04:52:05.960 --> 04:52:10.500
 So I think that's the challenge that you guys have of trying to draft a code that's got

04:52:10.500 --> 04:52:16.440
 enough flexibility in it that allows people to then say, you know what?

04:52:16.440 --> 04:52:21.000
 This corner is worth a million bucks and I can do a whole lot of tree mitigation on it.

04:52:21.000 --> 04:52:25.480
 And other ones that drive by and say, you know what, I'm not going to cut down any of

04:52:25.480 --> 04:52:30.480
 the trees because the property doesn't have enough value to offset the tree and the mitigation

04:52:30.480 --> 04:52:31.480
 cost.

04:52:31.480 --> 04:52:38.800
 And I think that's the part that is very difficult for people to comprehend when you start passing

04:52:38.800 --> 04:52:43.720
 these is what kind of economic impact are you going to have when you change, when you

04:52:43.720 --> 04:52:47.240
 go from you have to preserve this much to doubling it?

04:52:47.240 --> 04:52:52.280
 How many things have people already purchased or deals that are in the works that people

04:52:52.280 --> 04:52:57.240
 say, you know, maybe they can't be ready in six months or maybe it's a very big piece

04:52:57.240 --> 04:52:58.240
 of property?

04:52:58.240 --> 04:52:59.240
 I don't know.

04:52:59.240 --> 04:53:05.240
 But those are some of the issues that you get into is unintended consequences of thinking

04:53:05.240 --> 04:53:10.960
 that this is not going to have those kinds of impacts because every property may be different.

04:53:10.960 --> 04:53:11.960
 Okay.

04:53:11.960 --> 04:53:14.380
 And one more question.

04:53:14.380 --> 04:53:19.880
 So you mentioned earlier that you can sell property for more money with trees on it.

04:53:19.880 --> 04:53:23.720
 So a lot has been brought up about passing the cost on and raising the prices, but can

04:53:23.720 --> 04:53:29.520
 you not also put a lot premium on a tree lot?

04:53:29.520 --> 04:53:31.960
 I mean, I know the answer is yes to that.

04:53:31.960 --> 04:53:39.360
 Well, I've been doing this a long time and I'll tell you what my experience a lot of

04:53:39.360 --> 04:53:44.440
 times with tree lots are, is people pay a premium for them and then they pay a premium

04:53:44.440 --> 04:53:49.320
 to have to remove a bunch of them to be actually able to build on them.

04:53:49.320 --> 04:53:56.440
 And then the problem that I've seen over and over again is because of post oaks and I love

04:53:56.440 --> 04:53:57.440
 post oaks.

04:53:57.440 --> 04:53:59.760
 They're beautiful trees.

04:53:59.760 --> 04:54:08.960
 The problem is a minute that you sometimes look at them, they are just so finicky and

04:54:08.960 --> 04:54:13.880
 even trying to be very cautious around them by staying outside the root zones with sprinkler

04:54:13.880 --> 04:54:17.600
 systems rather than, you know, guys running trenches right up against the bottoms of them

04:54:17.600 --> 04:54:20.640
 and doing everything that you can.

04:54:20.640 --> 04:54:24.400
 When you put sprinkler systems around them and start to water them and try to keep grass

04:54:24.400 --> 04:54:29.640
 and all the landscaping and the requirements that you have, sometimes you just kill them.

04:54:29.640 --> 04:54:36.000
 And that's the problem sometimes that you get into with the preservation part of them.

04:54:36.000 --> 04:54:45.600
 But yes, typically as you know in real estate, a tree lot and an older existing home with

04:54:45.600 --> 04:54:53.240
 a beautiful tree lot has an intrinsic value that's very hard to over, you know, some people

04:54:53.240 --> 04:54:58.560
 will love that and will choose that as long as that's available in the marketplace and

04:54:58.560 --> 04:55:04.040
 sometimes it's not available and then people are going to be over in new construction homes.

04:55:04.040 --> 04:55:05.940
 Things are going to be different to different people.

04:55:05.940 --> 04:55:09.520
 Some people want new construction and all the energy efficiency that comes with it and

04:55:09.520 --> 04:55:14.280
 a new home with all new things and the maintenance that's not as much versus an older home that

04:55:14.280 --> 04:55:16.200
 has a beautiful tree stand around it.

04:55:16.200 --> 04:55:17.200
 All right.

04:55:17.200 --> 04:55:21.400
 But I even know a new construction home that's built on a tree lot.

04:55:21.400 --> 04:55:25.680
 I would say in this day and age, that's extreme rarity.

04:55:25.680 --> 04:55:31.480
 I've been in the high end custom home business for many years here in town.

04:55:31.480 --> 04:55:36.560
 That's not the typical market, main part of our market in town.

04:55:36.560 --> 04:55:41.400
 Most of our market is closer down in the 200 to 300 range.

04:55:41.400 --> 04:55:46.800
 There's not a tremendous number of folks that are up in that upper echelon.

04:55:46.800 --> 04:55:54.840
 I wish there were, but that's unfortunately just not where our city is and therefore,

04:55:54.840 --> 04:56:02.340
 the demand for those types of, you know, half acre, three quarter acre, acre type lots is

04:56:02.340 --> 04:56:07.560
 extremely limited and there's not very much of that property that's still available.

04:56:07.560 --> 04:56:11.740
 I think there may be some opportunities for redevelopment in some of those areas in our

04:56:11.740 --> 04:56:17.680
 city, but I think that is a challenge.

04:56:17.680 --> 04:56:18.680
 Sure.

04:56:18.680 --> 04:56:19.680
 We still got questions.

04:56:19.680 --> 04:56:20.680
 Christian Beck.

04:56:20.680 --> 04:56:21.680
 Okay.

04:56:21.680 --> 04:56:22.680
 Thank you, Chair.

04:56:22.680 --> 04:56:23.680
 Good seeing you again, Jim.

04:56:23.680 --> 04:56:24.680
 I'm glad to be here.

04:56:24.680 --> 04:56:30.280
 You always still speak elegantly and wisely and inspire me to this day, so I appreciate

04:56:30.280 --> 04:56:31.280
 your input.

04:56:31.280 --> 04:56:32.280
 Thank you.

04:56:32.280 --> 04:56:33.280
 I think you make a good point about the tree planting thing.

04:56:33.280 --> 04:56:37.320
 I want to make a couple of points here first.

04:56:37.320 --> 04:56:44.600
 The raising canes parcel, I think what aggravated most people is not that they're dying now

04:56:44.600 --> 04:56:51.120
 because they built it, it's the fact that I think there was a kind of a cop out there.

04:56:51.120 --> 04:56:52.760
 That land was supposed to have been preserved anyway.

04:56:52.760 --> 04:56:57.840
 It was supposed to be part of a deal that was made and I think everybody realized once

04:56:57.840 --> 04:57:00.960
 they come in and built their building, there was that risk of losing them because you're

04:57:00.960 --> 04:57:06.460
 right, post-op can be sensitive when you start building around them.

04:57:06.460 --> 04:57:14.400
 Along with clear cutting is, again, robust tree planting program is good and has its

04:57:14.400 --> 04:57:19.960
 benefits that you pointed out, but when you come in and clear cut a lot of trees, you

04:57:19.960 --> 04:57:22.800
 don't get the benefit of those for another 15, 20 years.

04:57:22.800 --> 04:57:25.800
 It takes that long to lose it.

04:57:25.800 --> 04:57:31.680
 We're in a position here in Denton, sitting north of Dallas and Fort Worth where our quality

04:57:31.680 --> 04:57:32.680
 is poor.

04:57:32.680 --> 04:57:40.060
 If we lose the value that trees do for air quality, then it takes a while to get it back.

04:57:40.060 --> 04:57:41.060
 Just want to make those points.

04:57:41.060 --> 04:57:44.080
 Let me ask you this.

04:57:44.080 --> 04:57:49.820
 The tree fund, according to the exhibit that we have here, says the city shall administer

04:57:49.820 --> 04:57:56.040
 and use the tree fund to purchase, plant, and maintain trees, conduct maintenance on

04:57:56.040 --> 04:58:01.120
 conservation easements dedicated in accordance with this subsection, and to preserve a wooded

04:58:01.120 --> 04:58:05.640
 property remaining in naturalistic state in perpetuity.

04:58:05.640 --> 04:58:11.920
 That tree fund could do an active tree planting program, but what if we also went in areas

04:58:11.920 --> 04:58:17.000
 especially that are salvageable, get in there and prune and clean up the area to help sustain

04:58:17.000 --> 04:58:18.320
 the trees that are there?

04:58:18.320 --> 04:58:25.880
 A combination of those two things would probably work to our advantage more than just doing

04:58:25.880 --> 04:58:27.440
 strictly a tree planting program.

04:58:27.440 --> 04:58:33.560
 I agree there's going to be areas where trees are in areas that are threatened just because

04:58:33.560 --> 04:58:34.560
 of the development.

04:58:34.560 --> 04:58:35.560
 They're old.

04:58:35.560 --> 04:58:38.900
 There are some diseases, but there's a lot of them out there that can be sustained if

04:58:38.900 --> 04:58:40.480
 we get in there and prune them properly.

04:58:40.480 --> 04:58:45.920
 The house I had over on Sherman Drive, probably about half the post oaks are there.

04:58:45.920 --> 04:58:46.920
 Probably grew after they built that house.

04:58:46.920 --> 04:58:53.800
 That house was built in '55 or '57, but the owners took good care of it, pruned the trees

04:58:53.800 --> 04:59:00.000
 when they were supposed to, kept the area watered, and when I came in, I did the same

04:59:00.000 --> 04:59:01.000
 thing.

04:59:01.000 --> 04:59:05.880
 So it's not that they're bad trees, they're just not being taken care of.

04:59:05.880 --> 04:59:12.480
 So the money we have in the tree fund, along with planting trees, could be helped to clean

04:59:12.480 --> 04:59:14.560
 up areas and sustain what we've got.

04:59:14.560 --> 04:59:17.320
 What would you say to that?

04:59:17.320 --> 04:59:22.560
 Well, I don't know what the value, the amount of money that's in there, but just doing the

04:59:22.560 --> 04:59:29.080
 math, if you're going to figure it at $200 a caliper inch, you'd go plant 5,000 two-inch

04:59:29.080 --> 04:59:32.000
 trees with the money that's in there right now.

04:59:32.000 --> 04:59:36.280
 And if you count the canopy that's there on what you're going to get, you're going to

04:59:36.280 --> 04:59:41.420
 get a lot more bang for the buck out of that versus the preservation.

04:59:41.420 --> 04:59:47.280
 I think the other thing about preservation that I think Rick touched on a little bit,

04:59:47.280 --> 04:59:52.320
 and Commissioner Ellis brought it up, a lot of those heavily treed areas, when you go

04:59:52.320 --> 04:59:54.760
 look at them, the canopy's not that great.

04:59:54.760 --> 04:59:57.880
 The trees are so close together, they're like little sticks, and they've got a little tuft

04:59:57.880 --> 04:59:58.880
 on them.

04:59:58.880 --> 05:00:04.680
 So one of the first things that we do when we go into a nice tree lot is have somebody

05:00:04.680 --> 05:00:08.840
 come in here and tie ribbons on all the little small understories and clear them out so that

05:00:08.840 --> 05:00:12.480
 those other trees that are the larger nice ones can pop.

05:00:12.480 --> 05:00:16.560
 And when you look at most of the pictures of these great big beautiful trees, these

05:00:16.560 --> 05:00:24.760
 big 24 larger post oak trees, they're not in a group with 100 other trees stuck underneath

05:00:24.760 --> 05:00:25.760
 them.

05:00:25.760 --> 05:00:31.680
 They're by themselves because somebody took the time to go in and selectively prune and

05:00:31.680 --> 05:00:36.200
 clean out all the competition and choose that's the one that's going to live and all these

05:00:36.200 --> 05:00:40.840
 other guys are going to go so that that tree can grow into all that it can be.

05:00:40.840 --> 05:00:45.720
 And I think that's the other part that you need to consider when you talk about preservation.

05:00:45.720 --> 05:00:48.480
 When you preserve it, you're not going to be doing that.

05:00:48.480 --> 05:00:50.360
 It's all going to stay like it is.

05:00:50.360 --> 05:00:55.880
 So you're going to end up with a whole bunch of trees in there with all bent over and misshapen

05:00:55.880 --> 05:01:00.220
 and a little tough trying to find the one little spot that he can get some sunlight

05:01:00.220 --> 05:01:07.840
 and survive waiting for the guy that's bigger above him to die and he takes over.

05:01:07.840 --> 05:01:18.880
 And I think that's part of the issue that part of my point and standing before you is

05:01:18.880 --> 05:01:23.520
 what's the intention versus at the end of the day, what are they going to be the results?

05:01:23.520 --> 05:01:27.200
 And I think the results of what people have envisioned on the preservation is you're going

05:01:27.200 --> 05:01:31.840
 to end up with a whole bunch of big 36 inch giant post oak trees standing out there all

05:01:31.840 --> 05:01:32.840
 by themselves.

05:01:32.840 --> 05:01:35.040
 I don't think that's what you're going to end up with.

05:01:35.040 --> 05:01:41.280
 I think you're going to end up with an acre or two acres stuck over here in the corner.

05:01:41.280 --> 05:01:46.080
 That's a bunch of little four and six inch trees all sitting there fighting with maybe

05:01:46.080 --> 05:01:47.640
 one or two larger ones in there.

05:01:47.640 --> 05:01:53.120
 And I think that's a very different type of look of what you're going to really end up

05:01:53.120 --> 05:01:59.080
 with versus what you may think that you're going to have two or three or four of these

05:01:59.080 --> 05:02:04.440
 ginormous trees all pruned out all by themselves.

05:02:04.440 --> 05:02:08.640
 That's not what you're going to end up with the preservation that you're after.

05:02:08.640 --> 05:02:09.640
 I agree.

05:02:09.640 --> 05:02:14.840
 And I don't want to add to your cause or anything, but if we put the onus of pruning those trees

05:02:14.840 --> 05:02:18.360
 up and you're being out before you say that, that's an added cause, I agree.

05:02:18.360 --> 05:02:22.520
 But perhaps we could give credits for that where you at least break even where if you're

05:02:22.520 --> 05:02:27.160
 going in helping preserve those trees by pruning and cleaning up the understory and everything

05:02:27.160 --> 05:02:31.000
 like that, you should get credited for that.

05:02:31.000 --> 05:02:35.520
 Well, you might, but I think the problem is most of those trees are going to then count

05:02:35.520 --> 05:02:39.160
 instead of being as preserved, they're going to be counted as being taken out.

05:02:39.160 --> 05:02:42.320
 Because essentially what you're going to be doing is you're going to be removing a bunch

05:02:42.320 --> 05:02:48.200
 of those understory trees that may be four inch, six inch trees to make room for that

05:02:48.200 --> 05:02:52.400
 one tree to spread out and grow and you're not going to be allowed to do that under this

05:02:52.400 --> 05:02:53.400
 code.

05:02:53.400 --> 05:02:54.400
 Okay.

05:02:54.400 --> 05:02:58.000
 I'm just thinking that on the top of my head maybe that is something we could take a look

05:02:58.000 --> 05:02:59.000
 at.

05:02:59.000 --> 05:03:07.520
 But that's my only point is as this commission considers this, is really what is the goal

05:03:07.520 --> 05:03:10.600
 and at the end of the day what are we going to end up with if we move forward with it?

05:03:10.600 --> 05:03:15.040
 Is it going to produce the results that we're truly after?

05:03:15.040 --> 05:03:23.040
 And again, I think the goal or it's been presented as tree canopy and I think the tree canopy

05:03:23.040 --> 05:03:27.120
 is going to do all the things that you're talking about, it's going to clean the air,

05:03:27.120 --> 05:03:32.620
 it's going to cool, but the most effective way that the city is going to grow the tree

05:03:32.620 --> 05:03:37.040
 canopy is going to be to plant more trees than it is going to be to preserve.

05:03:37.040 --> 05:03:41.960
 And I'm not saying that just so you can go cut down every tree that there is out there,

05:03:41.960 --> 05:03:45.680
 but I think when you look at the past history of our city and where we've been to where

05:03:45.680 --> 05:03:51.320
 we are today and how do we go from today into the future to actually grow the tree canopy,

05:03:51.320 --> 05:03:55.840
 I think you'll have a lot more success and at 20 years or 30 years from now when you

05:03:55.840 --> 05:04:01.740
 look back in time, you'll be glad that you planted way more trees than trees that you

05:04:01.740 --> 05:04:09.200
 preserved because your canopy will be bigger and larger and more diverse rather than species

05:04:09.200 --> 05:04:14.960
 specific and end up like I was saying, it's going to be clumped in all kinds of small

05:04:14.960 --> 05:04:22.160
 trees growing together versus these big giant monarch trees that are, you know, that's not

05:04:22.160 --> 05:04:26.140
 what you're going to end up with, you're going to end up with clumps all clumped together

05:04:26.140 --> 05:04:30.720
 and not great big individual trees standing there majestically spaced all out all over

05:04:30.720 --> 05:04:31.720
 the place.

05:04:31.720 --> 05:04:33.720
 That's not how this is going to pan out.

05:04:33.720 --> 05:04:34.720
 >> Thank you, sir.

05:04:34.720 --> 05:04:36.520
 >> So that looks very good.

05:04:36.520 --> 05:04:37.520
 One more.

05:04:37.520 --> 05:04:38.520
 Mr. Sanchez?

05:04:38.520 --> 05:04:39.520
 >> Yeah.

05:04:39.520 --> 05:04:46.520
 When you talk about preservation, and one of the things I disagree with that we've done

05:04:46.520 --> 05:04:52.560
 is when we talk about preserving areas, and I've always said that you just can't preserve

05:04:52.560 --> 05:04:56.680
 it, you have to manage it or you're going to lose it.

05:04:56.680 --> 05:04:59.320
 But that's one aspect of it.

05:04:59.320 --> 05:05:03.800
 There's the other aspect where we go in and I don't believe in preserving an area 10 acres

05:05:03.800 --> 05:05:08.600
 and never touch it again because you're going to lose it over time or like you said, you're

05:05:08.600 --> 05:05:12.360
 just going to have a bunch of little trees growing, nothing ever happen or you're going

05:05:12.360 --> 05:05:18.960
 to have some invasive species move in and then you don't have what you want to do, what

05:05:18.960 --> 05:05:20.360
 you should have.

05:05:20.360 --> 05:05:26.400
 But I also think is when we're looking at areas where we're looking at building homes

05:05:26.400 --> 05:05:31.520
 and trying to preserve some of those trees or neighborhoods and trying to preserve some

05:05:31.520 --> 05:05:36.400
 of those bigger trees or trees that are already there and a variety of trees that we're looking

05:05:36.400 --> 05:05:40.040
 at is a totally, they're two different animals to me.

05:05:40.040 --> 05:05:45.560
 And so I think I don't agree with preservation of state 10 acres unless you manage it, but

05:05:45.560 --> 05:05:51.080
 I do believe in preserving when you're building a neighborhood, preserving some of those old

05:05:51.080 --> 05:05:56.320
 trees that were in that area so that you're going to have some new plant, new trees, but

05:05:56.320 --> 05:06:00.600
 you should also have some old trees in there, make sure that some of those trees are left

05:06:00.600 --> 05:06:07.480
 behind so that you have a staggered, what do you call it, growth there.

05:06:07.480 --> 05:06:12.920
 So I've been into neighborhoods where all you have is a bunch of young trees and it

05:06:12.920 --> 05:06:17.840
 doesn't add nothing to the neighborhood, you know, maybe 10, 20 years, but it takes a long

05:06:17.840 --> 05:06:18.840
 time.

05:06:18.840 --> 05:06:23.600
 So keeping some of the old trees there, I think we're talking about two different animals.

05:06:23.600 --> 05:06:29.640
 One is preservation of an area and leaving trees in areas where neighborhoods are going

05:06:29.640 --> 05:06:30.640
 to be.

05:06:30.640 --> 05:06:31.640
 Well, I agree with you.

05:06:31.640 --> 05:06:33.440
 I think it's nice to be able to preserve them.

05:06:33.440 --> 05:06:40.960
 I think the problem is the reality of when you develop those sites, by the time you cut

05:06:40.960 --> 05:06:46.480
 the streets and fix all the grades to meet all the criteria that you have to for FHA

05:06:46.480 --> 05:06:55.040
 and all the slopes, the ability to maintain the elevation of existing trees is extremely

05:06:55.040 --> 05:06:58.280
 difficult if not impossible.

05:06:58.280 --> 05:07:01.440
 And that's the problem that the reality that you get into.

05:07:01.440 --> 05:07:07.160
 I think your idea is great and I think around the perimeter, there's an opportunity to do

05:07:07.160 --> 05:07:08.160
 that.

05:07:08.160 --> 05:07:11.280
 It's trying to do it out and get them out into much further.

05:07:11.280 --> 05:07:14.280
 It doesn't mean that it can't be done.

05:07:14.280 --> 05:07:18.280
 I've done subdivisions in town that we've got trees out in the middle of the street

05:07:18.280 --> 05:07:22.080
 and have little islands around them and put private streets in to save them.

05:07:22.080 --> 05:07:28.560
 So people do try to do that, but I think the problem is a lot of times when you're forced

05:07:28.560 --> 05:07:33.440
 to save it, the problem is you end up saving a tree that you know is not going to live

05:07:33.440 --> 05:07:37.080
 because there's going to be so much change and disturbance around it and grade change

05:07:37.080 --> 05:07:41.960
 and elevation wise that it may be there for a few years and then it's going to die.

05:07:41.960 --> 05:07:46.160
 And that's the problem and the concern that I have is that what you give up when you force

05:07:46.160 --> 05:07:50.120
 that on people is if you would have taken it out at the beginning and replaced it with

05:07:50.120 --> 05:07:54.880
 other trees and those trees can grow during the period that that tree is dying, you end

05:07:54.880 --> 05:08:02.280
 up to your point replacing a lot more canopy in that regard versus one that is a declining

05:08:02.280 --> 05:08:05.200
 tree until it eventually dies.

05:08:05.200 --> 05:08:07.720
 And then you plant new ones and you've lost that whole time.

05:08:07.720 --> 05:08:12.400
 It's the same argument I've had about the tree fund.

05:08:12.400 --> 05:08:14.920
 Plant the trees.

05:08:14.920 --> 05:08:18.280
 You're not gaining any canopy with the money sitting in the bank.

05:08:18.280 --> 05:08:23.400
 That's what it was there for, it was to plant trees and mitigation.

05:08:23.400 --> 05:08:27.540
 And so it needs to be spent and those those trees can be growing and making canopy.

05:08:27.540 --> 05:08:31.160
 And I think that's the same principle that you should look at on a lot of these development

05:08:31.160 --> 05:08:32.160
 projects.

05:08:32.160 --> 05:08:36.560
 The more trees that you get planted, correct elevation, right places that they can grow

05:08:36.560 --> 05:08:43.200
 in the long term, again long term look, you will have a much bigger, healthier, diverse

05:08:43.200 --> 05:08:49.560
 tree canopy in our city versus preserving individual or small tree stand areas.

05:08:49.560 --> 05:08:55.480
 It's just my opinion and experience.

05:08:55.480 --> 05:08:56.480
 We ran out of questions.

05:08:56.480 --> 05:09:00.160
 Well again, I want to thank you to staff.

05:09:00.160 --> 05:09:01.160
 I think they've made a lot of changes.

05:09:01.160 --> 05:09:06.880
 It's come a long way from the DCDA and I think it's going in the right direction.

05:09:06.880 --> 05:09:07.880
 I appreciate it.

05:09:07.880 --> 05:09:10.160
 Thank you, Chairman Strange.

05:09:10.160 --> 05:09:13.040
 Yes, sir.

05:09:13.040 --> 05:09:15.260
 Scott McDonald, Director of Development Services.

05:09:15.260 --> 05:09:17.080
 Just want to touch on a couple of things.

05:09:17.080 --> 05:09:20.080
 I appreciate the public comment.

05:09:20.080 --> 05:09:27.960
 As far as a reference for the tree fund and the approach that the city is taking, we've

05:09:27.960 --> 05:09:30.360
 moved most of that over to parks and recreation.

05:09:30.360 --> 05:09:32.960
 Parks and recreation is doing a tree master plan.

05:09:32.960 --> 05:09:37.880
 Additionally, our urban forester Haywood Morgan is now in parks and recreation.

05:09:37.880 --> 05:09:43.640
 And so we're going to come together with a plan and a strategy to best utilize those

05:09:43.640 --> 05:09:44.640
 funds.

05:09:44.640 --> 05:09:47.600
 I think the point's valid, the money's been sitting there.

05:09:47.600 --> 05:09:51.760
 We haven't necessarily spent the dollars.

05:09:51.760 --> 05:09:57.600
 We've spent some over the years, but we're going to go in a more pragmatic way and make

05:09:57.600 --> 05:09:59.520
 certain that we address that.

05:09:59.520 --> 05:10:04.080
 Additionally, a couple of the other points that were made I'd like to address and a portion

05:10:04.080 --> 05:10:10.840
 of that is that between having conversations with the Development Review Committee, even

05:10:10.840 --> 05:10:17.640
 with the DCDA and council and city manager's office, we're certainly attempting to find

05:10:17.640 --> 05:10:26.860
 a means to-- we anticipate that this will go to council if approved and if council approves

05:10:26.860 --> 05:10:32.960
 that that it wouldn't be-- the effective date would be six months out.

05:10:32.960 --> 05:10:38.120
 Certainly looking at a way that we may possibly be able to run it parallel with our existing

05:10:38.120 --> 05:10:43.400
 tree ordinance so we have an opportunity to test it, allow the development community that

05:10:43.400 --> 05:10:49.320
 opportunity whether they use the old or the new just to see how it in fact functions.

05:10:49.320 --> 05:10:54.360
 We're going to continue to receive feedback and input from all of our stakeholders and

05:10:54.360 --> 05:10:59.480
 we certainly don't want to stop at the point where it's adopted and we're done.

05:10:59.480 --> 05:11:05.680
 We know that this has been in process since I think literally 2005.

05:11:05.680 --> 05:11:12.240
 Richard has been working aggressively on it for just about a year and we can't do it without

05:11:12.240 --> 05:11:13.240
 that input.

05:11:13.240 --> 05:11:18.680
 But I think it's really important that we recognize that it's going to need refinement

05:11:18.680 --> 05:11:21.000
 and we know what we have is a better product.

05:11:21.000 --> 05:11:26.280
 We know that we're going to increase canopy and we just want to make sure that it's fair

05:11:26.280 --> 05:11:30.280
 for all of our stakeholders and it does the job that we're trying to do.

05:11:30.280 --> 05:11:31.800
 So just wanted to add that.

05:11:31.800 --> 05:11:32.800
 Thank you.

05:11:32.800 --> 05:11:33.800
 Thanks.

05:11:33.800 --> 05:11:42.800
 I'm going to pop quiz you but I'm confident you can have these answers.

05:11:42.800 --> 05:11:43.800
 Okay.

05:11:43.800 --> 05:11:44.800
 I'll try my best.

05:11:44.800 --> 05:11:55.600
 What's the current canopy and see you didn't east of 35 east of 35 in East 33% and what's

05:11:55.600 --> 05:11:57.640
 the goal for the city?

05:11:57.640 --> 05:12:07.880
 Citywide goal is 30% oh citywide goal East East 40% if I can go to that's good enough.

05:12:07.880 --> 05:12:13.300
 My question stems from that.

05:12:13.300 --> 05:12:19.240
 Has there been any research done to know if the tree fund was put into practice with its

05:12:19.240 --> 05:12:26.800
 master tree master tree plan if that's what we're calling it.

05:12:26.800 --> 05:12:32.440
 What what needs to be done of private residents to hit the 40% I guess what I'm saying is

05:12:32.440 --> 05:12:39.920
 if we put out a thousand trees do private residents need to preserve 30% for us still

05:12:39.920 --> 05:12:42.640
 to hit our goal.

05:12:42.640 --> 05:12:49.080
 It seems like the burden of the city driven goal can be absorbed mostly by the city not

05:12:49.080 --> 05:12:53.240
 by individual property owners.

05:12:53.240 --> 05:13:00.040
 It's really it's really a combination of both and again I want to make sure sure we as we

05:13:00.040 --> 05:13:05.360
 talk about this if you're an existing lot or single family you're exempt and so really

05:13:05.360 --> 05:13:13.760
 our biggest gains if you will will come from the development really west of 35 so as we

05:13:13.760 --> 05:13:20.360
 start to annex if that's even a possibility given where where even some of these latest

05:13:20.360 --> 05:13:26.080
 bills are are headed but but that's where our biggest gains are are being made and I

05:13:26.080 --> 05:13:33.400
 think that's where if you look at even that old the example from 1942 to 2017 if you look

05:13:33.400 --> 05:13:39.800
 out west at 35 I mean Hunter cold ranch that that development alone if you just look at

05:13:39.800 --> 05:13:45.640
 what what would be required would would bring that number up quite a bit I mean it's a long

05:13:45.640 --> 05:13:52.120
 that's a long term number but I think it's it's an overall you know when we first approached

05:13:52.120 --> 05:13:59.600
 this it really was looking at this in stages and so continuing just to assess where we

05:13:59.600 --> 05:14:05.000
 are and whether that goal needs needs to move at some point in time in the future but the

05:14:05.000 --> 05:14:13.440
 intent was really to to really look at that balance of of mature and and and and new trees.

05:14:13.440 --> 05:14:18.280
 Right right so but if we're looking at the east of the city where most of the trees are

05:14:18.280 --> 05:14:24.000
 if we're at 33 we're trying to get 40 that can't happen through preservation we we can't

05:14:24.000 --> 05:14:31.120
 increase our canopy by saving trees.

05:14:31.120 --> 05:14:41.240
 So to Mr. Strange's point it seems like there's a there's a missed priority being placed on

05:14:41.240 --> 05:14:48.580
 actually growing the canopy rather than saving what we have if you're in terms of numbers

05:14:48.580 --> 05:14:59.280
 of of again two inch trees it's a huge number but but you're you're looking at 283,000 trees

05:14:59.280 --> 05:15:05.560
 currently in the city or what would be required to be to be planted and so that doesn't take

05:15:05.560 --> 05:15:12.200
 into account any canopy that's lost and so that that's just meeting meeting the the 40

05:15:12.200 --> 05:15:13.200
 percent.

05:15:13.200 --> 05:15:19.640
 So so in some on some parcels it's a gain citywide some parcels it's a loss and so it's

05:15:19.640 --> 05:15:24.800
 hard to look at each individual parcel in addition if you look at some of the single

05:15:24.800 --> 05:15:35.960
 family standards the the percent of canopy coverage isn't necessarily applied that to

05:15:35.960 --> 05:15:39.360
 single family and so it's looking then at the number of trees that are being required

05:15:39.360 --> 05:15:43.360
 that's why you see an increase in the number of trees required to sort of start to bring

05:15:43.360 --> 05:15:49.520
 that that that equalization up but but it's really it's really a combination a combination

05:15:49.520 --> 05:15:56.100
 of both but just looking at at truly the undeveloped parcels and so that's that's not taking into

05:15:56.100 --> 05:16:00.240
 account parcels that redevelop which which now we're starting you know we're starting

05:16:00.240 --> 05:16:12.320
 to see but just on undeveloped parcels it's the equivalent of about 13 trees per acre.

05:16:12.320 --> 05:16:13.320
 Chris Rebeck.

05:16:13.320 --> 05:16:19.800
 Thank you chair I would to address your point chair I know this seems it is unrealistic

05:16:19.800 --> 05:16:25.440
 we're not going to go there but actually the fact that we're eliminating a lot of trees

05:16:25.440 --> 05:16:32.400
 because of their inferiority prevents nature from adding to the canopy but that's neither

05:16:32.400 --> 05:16:37.440
 here there really but it can do that nature can can add to it but again it's going to

05:16:37.440 --> 05:16:43.640
 need some help from us too let me ask you this Richard KDB once a year Keep It Beautiful

05:16:43.640 --> 05:16:48.480
 has its tree program where it offers up trees free for those people willing to come and

05:16:48.480 --> 05:16:59.920
 get them do we have any data on how that is contributing to planting trees that we need

05:16:59.920 --> 05:17:00.920
 to do.

05:17:00.920 --> 05:17:06.400
 I know that it's out there I don't I don't particularly have it but but you kind of raise

05:17:06.400 --> 05:17:12.840
 you kind of raise a point and I know we've talked about this months ago as we were really

05:17:12.840 --> 05:17:20.840
 debating over the tree type and I think it's one thing to note on the secondary trees if

05:17:20.840 --> 05:17:26.600
 you go back to that 2016 study if you remember I think it was probably in November I had

05:17:26.600 --> 05:17:32.680
 this sort of chart which assigned values to types of trees and so the majority of the

05:17:32.680 --> 05:17:39.080
 trees a lot of the trees that we have are hackberries I think was like 20 or 30 percent

05:17:39.080 --> 05:17:41.920
 in addition there were a lot of mosquitoes and there are a lot of honey locusts and all

05:17:41.920 --> 05:17:45.760
 of a sudden if those are now exempt you're not required to preserve those there is going

05:17:45.760 --> 05:17:51.320
 to be a ultimately there will be a loss in an overall canopy and so that's where I think

05:17:51.320 --> 05:17:55.320
 it's that's again why we're looking at that at that balancing.

05:17:55.320 --> 05:18:00.400
 Commissioner Ellis Thank You Chair Richard do you know the percentage

05:18:00.400 --> 05:18:13.960
 of current canopy on undeveloped land.

05:18:13.960 --> 05:18:40.760
 I can probably calculate it relatively.

05:18:40.760 --> 05:18:45.480
 I'm going to just throw a number out there while he's looking what I the urban forest

05:18:45.480 --> 05:18:58.760
 report what I remember it was like 44 48 percent it's a lot but let's see what he comes up

05:18:58.760 --> 05:19:00.760
 with.

05:19:00.760 --> 05:19:16.000
 I know the undeveloped parcel acreage is 21,705 I'm trying to find the

05:19:16.000 --> 05:19:21.780
 the existing the existing because what we did is and I remember I had these numbers

05:19:21.780 --> 05:19:26.960
 at one one presentation because we actually when we first looked at the undeveloped parcels

05:19:26.960 --> 05:19:33.200
 we looked at citywide and then what we did is we netted out we took out these city owned

05:19:33.200 --> 05:19:38.880
 parcels from that number and so I know that percentage dropped because a lot of the city

05:19:38.880 --> 05:19:47.520
 owned parcels had a higher canopy and again depending where it was in the city but I'm

05:19:47.520 --> 05:19:56.960
 going to look to see if we can find that that actual number of canopy of that of that no

05:19:56.960 --> 05:20:03.240
 I just love that number so if she can that'd be great thank you this is a public hearing

05:20:03.240 --> 05:20:16.360
 anyone wishing to speak we certainly do so no one else okay seeing no other speakers

05:20:16.360 --> 05:20:20.760
 I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for a motion and then discussion

05:20:20.760 --> 05:20:34.440
 yeah I did want to mention a couple other had so many papers now I lost my notes just

05:20:34.440 --> 05:20:38.640
 wanted to make make a couple sort of points closing because I know there's there's been

05:20:38.640 --> 05:20:43.480
 a lot of a lot of a lot of discussion I guess it's good no one's throwing I've got any

05:20:43.480 --> 05:20:48.680
 I got having gotten hit with anything yet but but just wanted to note a couple a couple

05:20:48.680 --> 05:20:54.840
 items I know Scott talked about this the six month one one item in particular was that

05:20:54.840 --> 05:20:59.840
 was the conversation or discussion regarding the conservation easements one of the again

05:20:59.840 --> 05:21:07.760
 one of the one of the new points in in this proposed draft is contrary to the past they

05:21:07.760 --> 05:21:13.080
 can be dedicated to the city in the past that that was really not an option now it doesn't

05:21:13.080 --> 05:21:17.200
 necessarily mean the city has to accept every single one but at least that that option that

05:21:17.200 --> 05:21:26.040
 option is there and going with that option is the ability to use tree fund dollars to

05:21:26.040 --> 05:21:30.640
 maintain those areas and so I think it's important as we look at this or as a budget is brought

05:21:30.640 --> 05:21:36.880
 to council each year we at least will have an idea of what what we have and and what

05:21:36.880 --> 05:21:42.800
 it costs to maintain those and so we can begin to actually see you know kind of holistically

05:21:42.800 --> 05:21:46.200
 how these tree fund dollars while they're being sort of pulled on the development side

05:21:46.200 --> 05:21:50.000
 how they're being how they're being put to work in a variety of aspects whether it's

05:21:50.000 --> 05:21:53.920
 through the planning plan whether it's through maintenance of dedicated conservation areas

05:21:53.920 --> 05:22:01.400
 so I just wanted to kind of bring that make sure that that point was there the other is

05:22:01.400 --> 05:22:06.400
 the ability for and I think this is a big one is the ability for that alternative tree

05:22:06.400 --> 05:22:14.280
 preservation plan that that that option to be able to be used at an administrative level

05:22:14.280 --> 05:22:19.720
 based upon those sort of three three areas or three criteria that that really I think

05:22:19.720 --> 05:22:24.800
 puts it in those really difficult instances where you may not be able to develop to really

05:22:24.800 --> 05:22:29.600
 look at an alternative an alternative method you know our intent here is to really try

05:22:29.600 --> 05:22:34.640
 to work you know to not not really be a hammer but try to try to work the best way we can

05:22:34.640 --> 05:22:40.040
 one making sure we're meeting our overall goals but also not limiting someone's ability

05:22:40.040 --> 05:22:51.840
 to to to develop their property I think I was it thanks Richard Christian Beck thank

05:22:51.840 --> 05:22:59.800
 you chair I move we approve this agenda item if I can comment this has been a long time

05:22:59.800 --> 05:23:04.400
 coming I think both sides can agree it's got a little bit everything that we like there's

05:23:04.400 --> 05:23:09.920
 some things both sides don't like and it's something we can work on but I think it's

05:23:09.920 --> 05:23:15.360
 a starting point for us we've been a long time waiting for this and to you know put

05:23:15.360 --> 05:23:19.440
 the brakes on now I think would be a mistake we need a good tree ordinance this is a good

05:23:19.440 --> 05:23:24.120
 start and we can work out the kinks as we go along there's a six month waiting period

05:23:24.120 --> 05:23:31.160
 that we can take advantage of that if we need to change some things I think Mr. Strange's

05:23:31.160 --> 05:23:35.440
 suggestion about planting more trees is an excellent idea but I think they can go hand

05:23:35.440 --> 05:23:42.960
 in hand with preservation too and where the city can contribute to that with the out of

05:23:42.960 --> 05:23:48.880
 the fun I think they should do it we have a first for approval Commissioner Sanchez

05:23:48.880 --> 05:23:56.760
 yes like I second it I'd like to state you know we've talked you know about increasing

05:23:56.760 --> 05:24:04.160
 costs well everything we've doing now I mean and that's one of the big things that I struggle

05:24:04.160 --> 05:24:10.500
 with is that we want we we want the developer developer to pay for everything and think

05:24:10.500 --> 05:24:17.520
 we can still have affordable housing out there you know so it's kind of a catch-22 but and

05:24:17.520 --> 05:24:23.520
 so yeah it's going to increase the cost but I think it also is going to increase the quality

05:24:23.520 --> 05:24:30.760
 of of those neighborhoods and I think that's a very important two of the individuals that

05:24:30.760 --> 05:24:37.680
 did talk about this new program both of them said we're headed in the right direction and

05:24:37.680 --> 05:24:46.520
 so I don't want to go backwards I think we're going forwards and from this point I I I believe

05:24:46.520 --> 05:24:54.920
 there is some a lot of a kinks in this in this ordinance but at the same time I believe

05:24:54.920 --> 05:25:01.320
 the city is is willing to work hard enough to work them out and I think over time it's

05:25:01.320 --> 05:25:08.600
 no no program that's ever implemented is 100% proof you know it always has to be worked

05:25:08.600 --> 05:25:14.340
 on and so that's why I'm going to vote for it because I believe the city is willing to

05:25:14.340 --> 05:25:22.120
 work on on those issues and and developers need to come and work with them and give them

05:25:22.120 --> 05:25:27.040
 input and hopefully the city will look at that and say okay we need to fix it and that's

05:25:27.040 --> 05:25:30.720
 what they've said you know we have six months to try it and if it doesn't work we're going

05:25:30.720 --> 05:25:37.080
 to have to change some things and so that's why I'm voting for it we have a first and

05:25:37.080 --> 05:25:43.520
 and a second for approval of the item Commissioner Smith thank you chair I had some pretty big

05:25:43.520 --> 05:25:51.320
 apprehensions about this in regards to the affordability piece I think that I was trying

05:25:51.320 --> 05:25:57.760
 to get from Mr. Strange and I was trying to get from Richard is that my and my experience

05:25:57.760 --> 05:26:03.240
 and knowledge of how developers work is it's a lot easier to just pay and move on and so

05:26:03.240 --> 05:26:09.600
 I'm really afraid of the affordability both for what's going to happen with that money

05:26:09.600 --> 05:26:14.440
 that goes in and it's not being used by the tree fund and so I'm glad that Gary Packen

05:26:14.440 --> 05:26:19.520
 and the guys in Parks Department are putting together a master tree plan to use some of

05:26:19.520 --> 05:26:25.600
 that money for a good use and actually gets a planting but when it comes to the affordable

05:26:25.600 --> 05:26:30.200
 of the house this is not just like building a brand new three hundred thousand dollar

05:26:30.200 --> 05:26:34.720
 home development right next to a bunch of homes that are right now one hundred fifty

05:26:34.720 --> 05:26:38.840
 thousand dollars when it comes to real estate comps you are actually looking at comparables

05:26:38.840 --> 05:26:43.120
 and homes that were sold within a certain amount of time that are truly comparable in

05:26:43.120 --> 05:26:50.040
 both the how old the house is the size of the house I think we start getting into passing

05:26:50.040 --> 05:26:56.120
 on cost to customers because our buyers of a home because of the trees that are on the

05:26:56.120 --> 05:27:03.600
 lot those aren't included within comp purview and so you could very easily have a home that's

05:27:03.600 --> 05:27:09.800
 the exact same size built in the exact same time frame on a lot that is much fewer much

05:27:09.800 --> 05:27:15.120
 fewer trees and therefore lower cost built next to a home that has more trees on a lot

05:27:15.120 --> 05:27:19.360
 there for a higher cost and that's going to start pushing home values upwards I think

05:27:19.360 --> 05:27:24.120
 that's a little bit scary for me but I think I do agree with everybody else on the commission

05:27:24.120 --> 05:27:30.560
 that we have to move forward in that Richard said something that is probably the best thing

05:27:30.560 --> 05:27:34.440
 that's ever been said is that a good negotiation is whatever both sides feel like they got

05:27:34.440 --> 05:27:40.680
 screwed so this is probably this is probably this is probably the best thing that we could

05:27:40.680 --> 05:27:47.160
 possibly do I will I will ask that it's just not a requirement and what Commissioner Sanchez

05:27:47.160 --> 05:27:51.880
 mentioned it's not something in there now the six month grace period I would like for

05:27:51.880 --> 05:27:58.040
 that to be recommended to City Council be included in that and then I would really really

05:27:58.040 --> 05:28:04.760
 like to see the tree fund actually plan be highlighted more in a City Council presentation

05:28:04.760 --> 05:28:11.160
 as well Commissioner Ellis thank you chair yeah just a couple thoughts a whole lot of

05:28:11.160 --> 05:28:17.640
 time and work has gone into this and I think staff has done a tremendous job engaging stakeholders

05:28:17.640 --> 05:28:23.280
 and the public and and not only engaging them but listening to them and and adapting the

05:28:23.280 --> 05:28:28.700
 code and I mean we will never get everyone to agree on every aspect of this code it's

05:28:28.700 --> 05:28:33.800
 just not going to happen and that's why we've been at this for so many years and at some

05:28:33.800 --> 05:28:39.640
 point we just have to stop the debate because we can debate it indefinitely so I am comfortable

05:28:39.640 --> 05:28:46.360
 with with the way this reads right now I think it's improved I think it's fair and I think

05:28:46.360 --> 05:28:51.480
 we need to move it forward now that being said as an aside the tree fund is something

05:28:51.480 --> 05:28:57.180
 that I have been talking about since I've been on this commission the city has got to

05:28:57.180 --> 05:29:02.960
 get a process in place of how to spend money out of the tree fund and it should be used

05:29:02.960 --> 05:29:08.460
 to plant trees and beautify the city that is what the money's for without a process

05:29:08.460 --> 05:29:13.120
 it's not going to get done on any kind of consistent basis so I plead whoever it is

05:29:13.120 --> 05:29:20.440
 whether it be parks or council or whatever we have got to get something in place on paper

05:29:20.440 --> 05:29:28.640
 that regularly looks at this fund and spends it in the most appropriate places on a regular

05:29:28.640 --> 05:29:30.800
 basis so thanks.

05:29:30.800 --> 05:29:33.160
 Chris or Cole?

05:29:33.160 --> 05:29:43.040
 Thank you chair is this perfect no not even close but it's progress I I got two big problems

05:29:43.040 --> 05:29:48.440
 with this first one is we're giving we're still giving Mesquite and Honey Locust a lifeline

05:29:48.440 --> 05:29:53.160
 you know I mean if you got a conservation easement you're going to have a conservation

05:29:53.160 --> 05:29:58.480
 easement full of Mesquite before long if you can't touch it and then your natural state's

05:29:58.480 --> 05:30:04.320
 gone you're going to have several invasive species come in and your conservation easement

05:30:04.320 --> 05:30:08.960
 is going to change but that's something I would like to you know I don't want to give

05:30:08.960 --> 05:30:14.920
 Mesquite and Honey Locust a reprieve y'all know how I feel about those two that's that's

05:30:14.920 --> 05:30:26.560
 my two cents on it but I'll vote I'm gonna vote for this.

05:30:26.560 --> 05:30:27.560
 Absolutely you're more than welcome.

05:30:27.560 --> 05:30:28.560
 Okay thank you.

05:30:28.560 --> 05:30:34.600
 I just wanted to confirm that I know that Richard mentioned it earlier the the proposal

05:30:34.600 --> 05:30:41.480
 that that the your your attorneys work with the planners to make a few editorial tweaks

05:30:41.480 --> 05:30:49.520
 just to make the the the submitted code provision work better and and and read better and be

05:30:49.520 --> 05:30:55.720
 a little bit clearer and cleaner as it goes forward to City Council and if we're okay

05:30:55.720 --> 05:31:03.440
 with that that is you're not necessarily voting on it exactly in this sense but the the idea

05:31:03.440 --> 05:31:11.080
 is that substantively no changes in meeting are going to be proposed it's just a matter

05:31:11.080 --> 05:31:18.200
 of making it a little bit clearer and putting the little few touches on organization commas

05:31:18.200 --> 05:31:22.600
 editing things of that nature.

05:31:22.600 --> 05:31:29.160
 So before we vote I have a couple things to weigh in and hopefully the analogy works I'm

05:31:29.160 --> 05:31:33.920
 going to try to use one but I feel like we're at a poker table we've made a bet and really

05:31:33.920 --> 05:31:38.240
 got out of cards Commissioner Cole says our cards are not perfect Commissioner Ellis says

05:31:38.240 --> 05:31:43.400
 we got to move forward with these cards Commissioner Sanchez says there's glitches in these cards

05:31:43.400 --> 05:31:48.480
 Commissioner Beck says we worked way too hard we've been betting this game too long we're

05:31:48.480 --> 05:31:54.000
 all looking at these cards and saying we could get better cards let's bet it all.

05:31:54.000 --> 05:32:02.540
 So I'm not one to say we've worked so hard we can all identify ways in which it's it's

05:32:02.540 --> 05:32:07.800
 weak but yet we're going to say let's move forward because I don't know why it sounds

05:32:07.800 --> 05:32:12.720
 like we don't want to spend two more months three more months to perfect this we want

05:32:12.720 --> 05:32:20.440
 to go right now and looking at just numbers I'm not as good as numbers as Richard is but

05:32:20.440 --> 05:32:29.200
 if there's a property that can be developed with 50 homes at $200,000 if we decrease that

05:32:29.200 --> 05:32:36.000
 by 10% the amount that the builder can build and he's going to pass that on to the clients

05:32:36.000 --> 05:32:43.120
 that's $22,000 a home that's just the cost of missing out on the other developer land

05:32:43.120 --> 05:32:46.240
 that's not the cost of mitigation preservation or anything else that we come to with it so

05:32:46.240 --> 05:32:52.880
 the from what I can sell the concrete minimum dollar for a new house to Commissioner Smith's

05:32:52.880 --> 05:32:58.840
 point is 22 grand on a $200,000 home I think if someone's in the $200,000 home and that's

05:32:58.840 --> 05:33:04.480
 their their budget that's probably their budget if they could spend $222,000 on a home they

05:33:04.480 --> 05:33:09.680
 would have been looking at that home to begin with and so I'm not a proponent of this I

05:33:09.680 --> 05:33:15.040
 think that the staff has done a good job and I think we all agree on that I think most

05:33:15.040 --> 05:33:20.840
 of the the individuals here have complemented the progress but I don't know if progress

05:33:20.840 --> 05:33:28.000
 means it's it's final and so for an agreement with Commissioner Smith's point about affordability

05:33:28.000 --> 05:33:38.040
 I'd also like to see if possible in sub chapter 17 codifying the city's responsibility for

05:33:38.040 --> 05:33:43.840
 the tree code we have up and down the requirements of property owners what they have to do what

05:33:43.840 --> 05:33:48.840
 they have to mitigate but nowhere does it say the city must spend 15% of the tree fund

05:33:48.840 --> 05:33:56.200
 every year it never holds the city responsible for their end of this bargain so I feel like

05:33:56.200 --> 05:34:02.820
 the city is saying property owners do all this to help with us and we'll continue messing

05:34:02.820 --> 05:34:08.320
 around the tree fund well we'll look at a master plan but but nowhere are they putting

05:34:08.320 --> 05:34:13.480
 their feet to the fire like they are the property owners and so I think there's an easy opportunity

05:34:13.480 --> 05:34:18.760
 to codify some sort of requirement from the city to do something that's refund it's sitting

05:34:18.760 --> 05:34:25.320
 there it got moved around apparently so I have concerns about that so for those primary

05:34:25.320 --> 05:34:31.720
 reasons I'm going to vote against Commissioner Beck's motion with that commission else thank

05:34:31.720 --> 05:34:36.680
 you chair and just a couple words to your comment you mentioned perfection it's we're

05:34:36.680 --> 05:34:44.000
 never going to reach perfection we could we could debate forever because we have you almost

05:34:44.000 --> 05:34:52.460
 have polar opposites on the extremes of this this discussion so perfection is never going

05:34:52.460 --> 05:35:00.020
 to be reached no matter how much time we give it I think those of us who want to go see

05:35:00.020 --> 05:35:06.680
 it for it is not because we're tired of it but we've seen it change we've seen the engagement

05:35:06.680 --> 05:35:16.420
 we've seen staff make the changes after listening and engaging these groups and there's more

05:35:16.420 --> 05:35:24.160
 positive in it than negative I believe I mean I can only speak for myself but for me there's

05:35:24.160 --> 05:35:30.360
 more positive in it than negative that I can feel comfortable moving it forward because

05:35:30.360 --> 05:35:34.800
 perfection is never going to happen with it sure for clarification I was quoting Commissioner

05:35:34.800 --> 05:35:40.720
 Cole's perfection comment I agree with you perfection is unattainable Mr. Beck thank

05:35:40.720 --> 05:35:47.120
 you chair I would be glad to email each and every one of you a copy of the Denton urban

05:35:47.120 --> 05:35:55.160
 forest report and if just a sewage the feelings you have about how this cost impacts the homeowner

05:35:55.160 --> 05:36:03.040
 in a negative way yes it's not an upfront cost but the the value of trees for economic

05:36:03.040 --> 05:36:11.440
 reasons energy reasons and just plain beauty are out there and it should carry some weight

05:36:11.440 --> 05:36:15.560
 so if you don't have a copy of that let me know I'll be glad to email it to you I've

05:36:15.560 --> 05:36:22.280
 had it on my desktop since it first came out it's it's really worth reading let me ask

05:36:22.280 --> 05:36:30.680
 chairman Roselle question would you have some amendment that would address codifying addressing

05:36:30.680 --> 05:36:38.240
 the need to use the tree fun for the purposes we stated so you could jump on board with

05:36:38.240 --> 05:36:43.280
 this I don't know if my boats gonna be needed and this man I know but still I would say

05:36:43.280 --> 05:36:47.760
 you make a valid point I don't disagree I would hesitate to try to come with a language

05:36:47.760 --> 05:36:53.520
 with the tree code so substantial thing it's a thousand lines I mean it's okay eleven hundred

05:36:53.520 --> 05:36:58.120
 lines okay I would want to have that fleshed out well I just wanted to offer you the opportunity

05:36:58.120 --> 05:37:12.840
 I appreciate it thank you see no other suggestion I'll call for vote on the board

05:37:12.840 --> 05:37:24.280
 motion carries five one that leads us to the last item of our agenda which is the planning

05:37:24.280 --> 05:37:32.840
 and zoning matrix I allow Richard to start and we can add on if we needed just wanted

05:37:32.840 --> 05:37:38.080
 to really don't have much to add on here I know we're continuing to work through through

05:37:38.080 --> 05:37:44.080
 these through these items it's almost I think we're down to three a year ago I think we

05:37:44.080 --> 05:37:49.280
 probably have three pages yeah and so I want to just continue to to kind of flush these

05:37:49.280 --> 05:37:53.600
 out I know some of these we're still keeping on because we're continuing to discuss them

05:37:53.600 --> 05:38:00.800
 I think it's part of the the DDC update I will be coming back at some point in time

05:38:00.800 --> 05:38:07.080
 with with sort of discussion on those policies that we talked about but but perhaps and maybe

05:38:07.080 --> 05:38:12.800
 someone's going to bring it up but it probably would be I think appropriate to to include

05:38:12.800 --> 05:38:20.800
 a discussion on the tree fun and whether I have I asked Gary to come from parks or somebody

05:38:20.800 --> 05:38:28.080
 else just to kind of talk about where things are headed with that and and even some of

05:38:28.080 --> 05:38:34.320
 the projects that they're looking at now I know that I think well I won't speak on behalf

05:38:34.320 --> 05:38:39.080
 of council I know some you know that that's been an issue that constantly comes up I think

05:38:39.080 --> 05:38:46.320
 Scott hit hit it earlier but I know they are actively looking at both looking at purchasing

05:38:46.320 --> 05:38:53.720
 property some large tree stands to preserve as well as just how those funds will be used

05:38:53.720 --> 05:38:59.120
 more strategically I know that there's been that concern of just kind of planting them

05:38:59.120 --> 05:39:07.920
 on a hodgepodge basis but I'll I'll speak to Gary and next month for the next meeting

05:39:07.920 --> 05:39:11.880
 I'll at least have a I know it probably won't be next meeting but at least I'll have a date

05:39:11.880 --> 05:39:20.120
 as to when when when we can look to to put that on if that if that works.

05:39:20.120 --> 05:39:31.600
 Chris Rebecca thank you chair I would like to if I could and not to disparage Mr. various

05:39:31.600 --> 05:39:38.640
 you know research on the blackjack oak but I would like to get another point of view

05:39:38.640 --> 05:39:45.720
 from a professional and if we could ask our arborist he would Morgan to give his assessment

05:39:45.720 --> 05:39:51.560
 on and if it lines up with it then you know so much better but if there's some sound research

05:39:51.560 --> 05:39:56.180
 that disputes it enough I think we ought to reconsider you know whether we want to remove

05:39:56.180 --> 05:40:02.160
 the blackjack or not so if we could put that on the agenda okay.

05:40:02.160 --> 05:40:06.520
 Chris Ellis thank you chair Richard I'm just bringing up again Bernard Street I know I

05:40:06.520 --> 05:40:11.240
 had asked a couple of weeks ago if you could I was on it again I mean the pothole I think

05:40:11.240 --> 05:40:15.520
 is bigger than you know three weeks ago when I was there so we'd just love an update from

05:40:15.520 --> 05:40:20.320
 from someone regarding that and just so I make sure which is it between it's Bernard

05:40:20.320 --> 05:40:29.080
 between Sycamore and Mulberry where none of the construction is going okay because when

05:40:29.080 --> 05:40:33.800
 I first call this well yeah we're doing construction there and then I meant to circle back they're

05:40:33.800 --> 05:40:40.360
 not doing construction so between Sycamore yeah okay it's highly traveled with UNT students

05:40:40.360 --> 05:40:46.520
 on foot on bike it is incredibly dangerous it's very difficult to even drive your car

05:40:46.520 --> 05:40:53.360
 there so I would just love an update on that particular area I'll have it before the I'll

05:40:53.360 --> 05:40:57.840
 send any I'll just copy everyone but I'll send it before having to update on the next

05:40:57.840 --> 05:41:04.800
 one so I have to wait thank you I don't see anything else with that I will close our meeting

05:41:04.800 --> 05:41:06.880
 at 912.