* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. HELLO AND WELCOME TO [00:00:01] THE OCTOBER 17TH, 2022 [Development Services Committee on October 17, 2022.] MEETING OF THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE. I'M CHAIRMAN DI HEDRICK, AND WITH ME, I HAVE COUNCIL EDDIE MORRIS. AND, UH, WELL, CAN WE MOVE WITH APPROVAL WITHOUT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BASS HERE? YES, WE CAN. OKAY. AND WE WILL HIT THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. AND LIKE I SAID, COUNCIL MEMBER BASS IS, HE'S NOT HERE AT THE MOMENT, BUT HOPEFULLY HE HOPE WILL JOIN US SOON. THE FIRST ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2022 MEETING. MR. CHAIR, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES. MOVE APPROVE. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAIR? AYE. RIGHT MINUTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED. MOVING ON TO OUR ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. WELL, FIRST ITEM WE'LL HAVE NOW, UH, ADDED BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR COUNCIL POLICIES IS PUBLIC COMMENT, EVEN ON WORK SESSION ITEMS. SO I WILL ALLOW A MOMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HERE. SO IF ANYONE EVER WISHES, COME JOIN US. WE ARE ALWAYS HAPPY TO HAVE YOU. SO NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM TWO B, DOWNTOWN AUTOMOTIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT REVIEW. AND MR. GARRIN IS HERE WITH US. I IMAGINE YOU HAVE SOMETHING FOR US. UH, YES. ACTUALLY I'M GONNA HAND IT OVER TO MISS VAN HORN FIRST. I FIGURED IT WAS A DEVELOPMENT ITEM, THAT'S WHY I READ TO YOU, BUT OKAY. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. A COUPLE OTHERS. AGENDA AND, AND YOU ASKED FOR, UM, SOME REVIEW OF THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE HISTORY AND COS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE AUDIT COMMITTEE PUT TOGETHER, LOOKED AT THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND CAME UP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND, UM, SUGGESTIONS DEPENDING ON WHICH WAY YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. SO, UM, I'LL JUST, UH, AND YOU GOT THAT, IT'S A SPREADSHEET. IT'S GOT LOTS OF COLORS. IT'S GOT THE, UH, ADDRESSES AND IT'S SIMILAR, LOOKS SIMILAR TO THE AUDIT, UM, INFORMATION THAT YOU RECEIVED EARLIER. SO, AND WHEN LOOKING THROUGH, UM, THE INFORMATION AND ALL THESE ADDRESSES THAT ARE PART OF THIS AUTOMOTIVE OVERLAY PROGRAM AND REVIEWING THIS CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN HERE IN JUST A MINUTE, UM, WE'VE COME UP WITH, UM, I'VE COME UP WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR, UM, POTENTIAL S U IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO THAT DIRECTION AND, AND THE APPROPRIATE SIZE BASED ON THAT CO INFORMATION. SO IN THE, UM, THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN WHITE ARE, ARE, THERE'S FROM THE ORIGINAL OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM 2005, THERE ARE 42 THAT ARE IN WHITE. UH, ON THE FIRST EIGHT OR SO PAGES OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT WE LOOKED AT, THE COS AND C CAME UP WITH THE, UM, CORRECT SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT DOES MATCH THE AUTO, UH, OVERLAY AUDIT THAT WAS DONE. WE HAVE TWO THAT ARE COLORED GREEN WHERE THERE'S NO U THAT'S NEEDED OR SOME OTHER KIND OF ACTION NEEDED LATER BECAUSE THEY DON'T FALL UNDER THE CRITERIA OF AN AUTOMOTIVE USE. WE HAVE THREE THAT ARE IN PINK, WHICH IS MY EQUIVALENT TO A RED, WHICH MEANS THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED. EITHER THERE WAS AN ILLEGAL EXPANSION OR THERE WAS A A, A LAPSE IN TIME AND WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THERE'S NO S U GRANTED IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU CHOOSE TO GO FOR THOSE, UM, BUSINESSES OR THOSE LOTS AND BUILDINGS. UM, IF YOU WANNA SAY, SAY IT LIKE THAT. AND THEN THERE ARE ALSO FIVE THAT ARE IN YELLOW, AND THEY ACTUALLY CURRENTLY HAVE AN S U UNTIL APRIL OF 20, UH, 25. SO, UM, THEY'RE STILL UNDER THEIR CURRENT S U SO THE LAST THREE PAGES, UM, THERE'S A BLANK, THERE'S A WHITE SHEET SEPARATING THE TWO, BUT THE LAST THREE PAGES ARE, UM, THOSE PARCELS THAT WERE ADDED. AND WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHY WHEN THE MAP WAS EXPANDED AROUND THE TIME THE GDC WAS ADOPTED. SO THEY WERE NEVER GIVEN ANY CREDITS. YOU'RE, YOU, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT FROM THE AUDIT. SO WITHIN THAT, I HAVE KIND OF LOOKED AT THOSE AS WELL. WE HAVE ONE THAT'S WHITE THAT MATCHES THE CO HISTORY AND IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU'D LIKE TO GO, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, PRETTY CLEAR SIZE FOR AN S U UH, ONE GREEN WHERE THERE'S NO S U NEEDED. THERE IS A BUSINESS THAT ACTUALLY HAS AN OFFICE IN A SMALL PORTION OF A BUILDING AND IT WAS UNCLEAR WHETHER IT WAS AUTOMOTIVE OR NOT, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY AN OFFICE FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS. THEY HAVE THEIR AUTOMOTIVE SECTION IN A DIFFERENT CITY, ACTUALLY. UM, WE HAVE ONE PINK WHERE THERE'S, UH, NO, UM, IT DOESN'T QUALIFY ANYMORE FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER FOR AN U P IN MY OPINION. UH, AND THEN THERE ARE SIX THAT ARE COLORED BLUE. AND, UM, I WOULD RECOMMEND IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU DECIDE TO GO AN U IS APPROPRIATE, BUT WE NEED TO TALK TO THE OWNERSHIP AND FIND OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW THEY'VE DIVIDED THOSE BUILDINGS CUZ THEY HAVE MULTIPLE TENANTS AND WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DETAILED INFORMATION TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY SQUARE FOOT WOULD GO WITH EACH BUILDING. SO WE COULD, YOU KNOW, HAVE THAT CONVERSATION IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU WANTED TO GO WITH THE OWNERSHIP OF THOSE BUSINESSES AND THE BUILDINGS. SO IN ADDITION, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UM, DOING THIS RESEARCH THAT WAS INTERESTING, AND I [00:05:01] THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEVER ACTUALLY REALLY THOUGHT OF THAT KIND OF CAME TO LIGHT WHEN I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THESE, IS THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL LOTS THAT WERE CONS THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT IT, IT APPEARED THAT THEY WERE ADDED OR THE, THE, IT EXPANDED OVER TIME. BUT I ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH AND LOOKED AT GOOGLE, UM, STREET VIEW FOR THOSE WHERE I CAN GO BACK TO AND DEPENDING ON THE ADDRESS IT WAS, UM, 2007 OR 2008. AND IN LOOKING AT THE STREET VIEWS, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH ALL OF THE LOTS THAT WERE UNDETERMINED ACTUALLY WERE ASSOCIATED WITH AN EXISTING BUSINESS NEXT DOOR FROM THAT TIME. AND SO WE CAN'T BE EXACTLY SURE WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN 2005 AND 2007, BUT IT APPEARS AS THOUGH IT'S POSSIBLE THE, THE CREDITS THAT WERE GRANTED MAYBE WEREN'T QUITE RIGHT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE THE LOTS THAT WERE ADJACENT. AND SO IN THESE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU'LL SEE THAT I HAVE NOTES THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'LL TALK ABOUT GOOGLE STREET VIEWS AND AS FAR BACK AS I CAN SEE, THEY WERE AFFILIATED WITH THE ADJACENT BUSINESS. AND SO, UH, GOOD NEWS OR BAD NEWS, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT MAYBE THE CREDITS WEREN'T QUITE RIGHT FROM THE VERY GET GO. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED THEN MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO, YOU KNOW, AND, AND COS HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR THESE BUSINESSES AS TIME HAS GONE ON. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT, I WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, ALLOCATING WHAT IS APPROPRIATE BASED ON WHAT WE CAN SEE HAS BEEN USED FOR QUITE SOME TIME, EVEN THOUGH WE CAN'T SEE BACK TO 2005. EXACTLY. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, THIS, THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE, OBVIOUSLY IT'S JUST MY, MY BEST RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE CO INFORMATION AND THE OTHER INFORMATION THAT I WAS ABLE TO SORT THROUGH AS I'VE GONE THROUGH THESE INDIVIDUALLY. ALL RIGHT. AND ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? PLEASE GO AHEAD. MM-HMM. . YES. AND, AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THE GROUNDWORK ON THIS. SO, SO YOUR, YOUR BASIC RECOMMENDATION FOR THE, THE BIG OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS A BUNCH OF BUSINESSES EXPANDING OR COMING INTO, INTO EXISTENCE WHERE WE HAD SAID NO MORE, WHERE WE HAD SAID YOU REQUIRE A CREDIT, BUT THEY JUST GOT A CO ANYWAY. SO YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS BASICALLY TO, AT THIS POINT COME IN AND PUT THEM IN A C S U P. WELL, I THINK, UM, AS OF THE LAST MEETING THERE WERE SOME IDEAS THROWN ABOUT, ABOUT HOW THIS COULD BE CHANGED OR MODIFIED THIS PROGRAM MM-HMM. GOING FORWARD. I THINK THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UP TO YOU HOW YOU WANT TO DO THAT. AND U IS CERTAINLY ONE OPTION AND I KNOW THAT, UM, OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW THAT MIGHT BE DONE. YOU, YOU COULD CONSIDER CHANGING THE PROGRAM, YOU COULD CONSIDER OTHER THINGS AS WELL. I THINK FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, THIS S U ROUTE IS I GUESS WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, JUST FOR EASE OF MANAGEMENT OVER TIME. YOU'RE DOING, I KNOW TIME IN IT, IT JUST, IT, IT WOULD, IT WOULD CREATE A TIMEFRAME. I KNOW FROM OUR LAST MEETING ON, UH, BACK IN AUGUST WE TALKED ABOUT POSSIBLY CAN WE PUT AN U ON AN EXISTING BUSINESS AND THEN YES. AND WE TALKED ABOUT EX WHAT PERIOD WOULD WE PUT ON TO EXTEND TO MAKE SURE THEY GOT THEIR RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT BACK. AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AROUND THAT, WHETHER IT WAS 20 YEARS OR 15 OR 10 YEARS OR WHAT WOULD THE APPROPRIATE TIME BE FOR THAT. BUT I GUESS THAT'S REALLY THE FIRST QUESTION WE NEED TO CONSIDER IS DO WE WANT TRY TO GO WITH A CREDIT PROGRAM OR SCRAP THAT AND GO WITH A S U P PROGRAM OR WHAT DO WE WANT THAT TO LOOK LIKE GOING FORWARD? CAN I ASK YOU MA A MAYBE A EVEN BROADER QUESTION YEAH. BEFORE YOU, CUZ THAT'S THE NEXT BROAD QUESTION. BUT EVEN THE ONE BROADER QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT IS YOUR POLICY DECISION? WHAT'S YOUR LONG TERM GOAL IN THE AUTOMOTIVE IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT? IS IT TO EXCLUDE AUTOMOBILE USES IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT 10, 15, 20 YEARS OUT? OR IS IT TO LIMIT IT? OR WHAT IS YOUR ONGOING GOAL? CAUSE THAT'S REALLY, IF WE CAN DETERMINE THAT, THEN WE CAN GIVE YOU BETTER OPTIONS ON HOW TO DO THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE KIND OF NEEDING IS WHAT THE LONG TERM GOAL IS. I THINK OUR, CERTAINLY OUR FIRST GOAL IS NOT TO HAVE IT EXPAND PAST WHERE IT IS. I THINK WE CAN AGREE ON THAT NOW, WHETHER WE WANTED TO SLOWLY DISAPPEAR, GO AWAY IF WE TALK ABOUT THAT. SO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON, UH, YEAH, AND, AND SLOWLY, UH, GRADUALLY SHRINK AND EVENTUALLY END I THINK WAS THE WHOLE GOAL. NONE OF US WERE HERE THEN. BUT WHEN THIS, UM, CREDIT LAND CREDIT, UH, PROGRAM WENT INTO EFFECT, THAT WAS A STATED GOAL WAS THAT THE AUTOMOTIVE USES WOULD GRADUALLY GO AWAY. MM-HMM. . AND CERTAINLY, I MEAN, I, I LIVE IN DOWNTOWN AND I HEAR HEAR FROM PEOPLE ALL THE TIME IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT AS DEFINED PEOPLE WANT THE AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESSES TO DIMINISH AND EVENTUALLY BE GONE. SO I WOULD SAY FROM A, THAT'S NOT A CITYWIDE THING. AND THAT WAS ANOTHER THING WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IS DO [00:10:01] WE WANNA MAKE THIS CITYWIDE OR DO WE WANNA HAVE SPOTS? UM, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING JUST DOWNTOWN, I CERTAINLY THINK THAT'S THE GOAL IS TO SEE THEM GRADUALLY DIMINISH. OKAY, THERE'S A, THERE'S SOME ALTERNATIVES ON HOW WE CAN DO THAT. AND, AND, AND WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THOSE LAST TIME ABOUT GRANTING SUS TO CURRENT USES, THEN PUTTING EXPIRATION DATES. AND THEN THE COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE CAN THEN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S AN APPROPRIATE USE TO CONTINUE. HOWEVER, KEEP IN MIND, IF THEY'RE A CURRENT USE, EVEN IF WE GRANT THEM AN U RIGHT NOW, IF THEY DON'T TERMINATE THAT USE, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS. SO ALL THAT MEANS IS ONCE THE U EXPIRES, THEY CAN STILL OPERATE AS LONG AS THEY HAVEN'T TERMINATED THEIR USE AT THE, OR REBUILT OR EXPANDED THEIR USE. UM, BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN ACTUALLY SET A, A DATE CERTAIN TO WHERE ALL USES IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, ALL AUTOMOBILE USES IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT ARE EXPIRED. AND, AND DO THAT 10, 15, 20 YEARS OUT AS AN AMORTIZATION. SO TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYBODY THAT HAS INVESTED IN THEIR PROPERTY COULD GET THAT MONEY OUT. AND BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN AUTO USES 10 YEARS IS PROBABLY SUFFICIENT. IF YOU WANNA BE SAFE, YOU COULD GO 12 OR 15 AND IF YOU WANNA BE REALLY SAFE, YOU COULD GO 20. BUT WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS IT MEANS IN 20 YEARS OR 10 YEARS, WHATEVER THEIR TIME PERIOD IS, THAT COUNCIL DOESN'T TAKE HAVE TO TAKE ANY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, IT JUST DISAPPEARS. THE USE IS GONE AT THAT POINT. AND IT'S NOT A, THEY CAN NO LONGER LAWFULLY OPERATE, BUT THE, UM, AUTOMOBILE USE AT THAT POINT, THEY'RE NOT A NON-CONFORMING USE. THEY JUST, THEY'RE, THEY'RE UNLAWFUL NON-CONFORMING USE IS WHAT THEY ARE AT THAT POINT. SO THAT'S JUST AN OPTION. I KNOW WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE ATION THAT MUCH LAST TIME, BUT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PROVISION, WHICH I HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT IN THE GDC THAT ALLOWS US TO DO THAT. CURRENTLY, I WOULD, WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A DATE CERTAIN AND HAVING THAT HAPPEN WHERE IT WOULDN'T BECOME A POLITICAL BREW, HAHA, IN 15 OR 20 YEARS MM-HMM. . UM, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S, IF WE'RE TALKING JUST THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S, UM, OVERLY RESTRICTIVE. WE HAVE A LOT OF AUTOMOTIVE USES IN THIS TOWN AND IN OTHER AREAS OF MY DISTRICT AS WELL. SO MY OPINION, I MEAN, I'M GOING TO, UH, I'M GONNA DEFER TO YOU ON THAT. UM, OF COURSE I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN I'VE SEEN THE AUTOMOTIVE USES DOWN THERE, BUT YOU'RE MUCH MORE FAMILIAR WITH THEM THAN I AM. SO I, I WOULD DEFER TO YOU. AND THAT I DO AGREE HOW, HOWEVER, THAT, AND I LIKE THAT YOU FOUND AN ALTERNATIVE. UM, I DO AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, US WITH SUS JUST, JUST KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD ISN'T NECESSARILY GONNA SOLVE IT IN THE FUTURE. SO I LIKE SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE MORE FINITE. SO I, I LIKE THAT SOLUTION OF THE EXPIRATION DATE TIMING THEN IF THAT'S WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATION, WHAT, WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT TIME-WISE TO BE AS GENEROUS AS POSSIBLE. I, I I WOULD SAY 20 YEARS THAT OUR, IF WE WANT TO GET RID OF THESE TYPE OF USES, I DON'T THINK 10 YEARS, EVEN THOUGH IT, OUR ATTORNEY SAYS THAT'S A POSSIBILITY TO HAVE THAT TIE, WE'D WANNA PUSH IT TO BE REALLY SAFE. YOU SAID TO GO FURTHER OUT. I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT 20 YEARS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF GIVING, BEING BEYOND, UM, HELPFUL TO THE BUSINESSES AND GIVING THEM MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME TO PLAN FOR IT AND TO SEE IT. NOW THE QUESTION IS, IN 20 YEARS, WHO'S GOING TO ENFORCE THAT? BUT WE WON'T BE HERE. THAT'S RIGHT. COUNSEL. THE, OF COURSE, AS WE ALL KNOW, WE CAN'T, UM, BIND FUTURE COUNSELS SO THEY COULD TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO EXTEND IT MM-HMM. , BUT WHAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO JUST LET 'EM JUST DISAPPEAR, WHICH, UM, WITH SUS AND THEM JUST A, A STRAIGHT U WITH AN EXPIRATION DATE WITHOUT ANY KIND OF AMORTIZATION PERIOD, IT WOULD REQUIRE COUNSEL TO TAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO HAVE 'EM, CUZ OTHERWISE THEY'D BE LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING. AND SO, UM, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IN TWO STEPS THIS TIME AROUND. NUMBER ONE, GRANT THE EXISTING USE OF SUVS, BUT MAKE IT CLEAR IN THAT GRANTING OF THAT U THAT THEY ARE GONNA BE AMORTIZED OUT IN A 20 YEAR PERIOD. I'M HAPPY WITH THAT MR. CHAIR. MM-HMM. AND I, YOU KNOW, THE FUTURE COUNCIL CAN LOOK BACK AND AND BLAME IT ON US, UM, POLITICALLY, BUT I THINK THIS IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND SENSIBLE. THE SUS FOR NOW MAKING SURE THEY'RE ALL OPERATING LEGALLY, UM, INSTEAD OF OUR MISTAKES FALLING ON THEM. UM, WHAT ABOUT, ONE OTHER POINT I THINK THAT, UH, YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IS THE ONES THAT EXPANDED WITHOUT PERMISSION, ARE WE GONNA JUST LET 'EM JUST GO AHEAD AND GIVE 'EM THE S U FOR THOSE EXPANSIONS AND JUST SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA LET 'EM STAY WHERE THEY ARE NOW, BUT IN 20 YEARS IT ALL GOES AWAY. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING? THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE, BECAUSE WE WERE THE ONES WHO MADE THE MISTAKES AND DIDN'T ENFORCE IT. SO I THINK, I THINK CERTAINLY THE GREEN ONES WOULD BE [00:15:01] FALLOUT. THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE ACCORDING TO THE LIST THAT WE HAVE HERE. RIGHT. ONLY THE ONES WHO ARE ACTIVELY OPERATING RIGHT NOW IN AUTOMOTIVE RELATED BUSINESSES, SO, OKAY. MM-HMM. , LOGISTICALLY, HOW WOULD THAT WORK THEN AT THE END OF 20 YEARS? WOULD THERE HAVE TO THEN CLOSE OPERATIONS OF THE CAR SALES AND THEN OPERATE ACCORDING TO WHAT THE BASE ZONING IS? MM-HMM. ? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND WE WOULD SEND OUT, SOMEBODY'S GONNA HAVE TO REMEMBER TO DO THIS IN 19 AND A HALF YEARS. I WON'T BE HERE BY THE WAY, . UM, UM, BUT WE'LL SEND OUT NOTICE PROBABLY I WOULD GUESS, UM, EITHER 12 MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS, PROBABLY 12 MONTHS, AND THEN PROBABLY ANOTHER SIX MONTHS IN ADVANCE AND JUST TELL 'EM TO, UM, UM, THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER OPERATE AS AN AUTOMOBILE USE AT THIS DATE. AND BRIAN, DOES THIS ALSO INCLUDE A GDC AMENDMENT WHERE WE'RE, ARE WE REMOVING AUTO USES FROM THE DOWNTOWN? YES. WELL, WE'LL AT LEAST PUT AN ASTERISK AND EXPLAIN WHAT WE'VE DONE. YES. ACTUALLY THEY'VE ALREADY MOVE REMOVED FROM THE MATRIX. IT'S JUST THE DOWNTOWN AUTO OVERLAY RIGHT. SECTION OF THE GDC THAT WE WOULD NEED TO AMEND. RIGHT. WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL PROHIBIT THE USE EXCEPT BY U THAT WAS ISSUED ON OR BEFORE WHATEVER THE EFFECTIVE DATE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL DO THE EFFECTIVE DATE. YEAH. AND, UM, THAT WAY NO MORE USES CAN COME IN. AND THAT'S HOW WE CAN DO THAT. AND THAT MEANS THE FIVE THAT CURRENTLY HAVE SUS WILL EXPIRE IN 2025. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. DO Y'ALL WANT TO GO AHEAD AND EXTEND THOSE, THE ONES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE SUVS THAT ARE EXPIRING IN 2025? OR HOW DO YOU WANNA DO THAT? THEY'RE ON THE FORCED. THOSE ONES, THOSE ONE SEEM TO BE OPERATING. THEY WENT FOLLOWING THE RULES AND YEAH, WE DON'T WANNA THEMSELVES, I KNOW SEAN, SO I MEAN, I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR TO, TO EXTEND THOSE AND ARE ONLY TALK. RIGHT. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, ARE WE ALSO TALKING ABOUT GARAGES OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT JUST SALES? THAT'S, WELL, I THINK IT'S ANY AUTOMOTIVE USE, AUTOMOTIVE USE. OKAY. THESE AREN'T ALL SALES. THERE'S A LIST OF, UM, YEAH, REPAIRS. OKAY. SO WE WANT THE REPAIRS TO BE YEAH. MOST OF THESE AUTOMOTIVE USES. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE WITH, WITH JEFF, IF THESE GUYS HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE RULES, LET'S NOT PUNISH THEM AND LET'S JUST PUT 'EM ON THE SAME TIME CLOCK AS EVERYBODY AND BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. EASIEST REP. YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO THE, UM, THE ONES IN THERE IN PINK, THERE'S ONE THAT EXPANDED WITHOUT A PERMISSION CO BACK IN 20 2016, WHICH IS ON PAGE, WHAT'S THE ADDRESS? 2 22 LEVON MM-HMM. . UM, YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO RECORD OF THAT BEING DONE. YOU KNOW, YOU COULD GO EITHER WAY WITH THAT ONE. YOU COULD LET THEM HAVE THE ENTIRETY OF IT OR, OR JUST SAY, LISTEN, YOU NEVER HAD APPROVAL FOR THAT EXPANSION. WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE VACANT, AND I WOULD SAY IF THEY'RE VACANT NOW, THEY'RE, WE'RE DONE. WE'RE DONE. SO THERE, THERE ARE A FEW THAT ACTUALLY CAN GO AWAY AND, YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THAT HAVE COME OFF THE LIST. SO CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE VACANT ONES? YES. HOW DO WE KNOW THEY'RE VACANT AND HOW DO WE KNOW THEY'VE BEEN VACANT FOR 180 DAYS? I THINK THEY'RE VACANT CURRENTLY, AND I'D HAVE TO CHECK BACK ON'S, CREDIT RECORDS. FINE. THAT'S, THOSE ARE, WE'LL, WE'LL CONFIRM THAT FOR SURE. TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A LEGITIMATE OKAY. AND AS FOR THE, THE ONE, UM, 2 22, UM, LEVON MM-HMM. THING IS HOW WE APPARENTLY WERE IN SOME, UH, DISARRAY ABOUT EVEN TALKING WITH BUSINESSES AND GIVING, EVEN DISCUSSING THIS WITH THEM. I, I AM MORE PRONE TO SAY, OKAY, THEY EXPANDED INTO THE ADJACENT AREA. WE DIDN'T GIVE THEM PERMISSION, AND THAT MAY HAVE BEEN BECAUSE WE WERE ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL OR WHATEVER. I WOULD GIVE 'EM ALL THE SAME THING EXCEPT FOR THE ONES THAT ARE VACANT. UM, MAKE IT CLEANER. YEAH. MM-HMM. , SAME RULES FOR EVERYBODY. ALL RIGHT. SO THEN ARE WE IN AGREEMENT THEN WE'LL HAVE CROSS THE BOARD 20 YEAR APPLICATION OF REALLY A EXPIRING S U IS THAT WHAT IT IS THEN? YES, THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO SAY IT. EXPIRING U IN 20 YEARS. SO IF WE MAKE IT, I DON'T KNOW, JANUARY 1ST, 2023, THEN JANUARY 1ST, 2025, THEY CAN HAVE 20 YEARS FROM JANUARY ONE TO OPERATE. AND THEN AFTER THAT, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS WITHIN THOSE 20 YEARS, IF THEY STOP BECOMING AN AUDIBLE BILL USE, THEY WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO BE AN AUTOMOBILE USE. NO, NO, NO. THAT WAS ACTUALLY WE HAVE PROVIDED IN OUR U CAUSE ONLY QUESTION I [00:20:01] ASK IS WE OWN THE LAND LIKE RIGHT WILL IN THE U THAT WE GRANT THEM. UM, WE'RE GONNA, WE WILL, AND I WORKED ON SOME LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE IN OUR GENERIC FORM, UM, THAT TALKS ABOUT TERMINATION OF THE USE AND OPERATION OF A DIFFERENT USE AND, AND HOW THOSE RIGHTS WOULD TERMINATE. OKAY. SO HAPPY WITH THAT. YEAH. OKAY. THEN ARE WE CLEAR THEN EVERYTHING YOU HAVE, RIGHT? MM-HMM. . ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THEN. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS ONE. YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. OUR NEXT ITEM, CAN I, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? UM, DO Y'ALL WANT US TO BRING BACK THE FINAL FORM FOR, OR THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE FORM BEFORE, BEFORE WE GO TO CO COUNCIL AS A WHOLE? YEAH. IF WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT STARTING IT UNTIL JANUARY ONE, THERE'S TIME. OKAY. YEAH, I CAN, I CAN GET THAT. I CAN WORK WITH THEM AND WE CAN GET THAT TO Y'ALL. YEAH. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR INPUT AND THOUGHT ON THIS CUZ THIS WAS A TANGLED MESS WHEN WE SAW FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE. YEAH. THE, THIS MESS WE CREATED. SO. ALL RIGHT. THEN THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM TWO C, FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS. ALL RIGHT, WELL GOOD AFTERNOON. LOVE IT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. WELL, YOU BET. SO THE LAST TIME THAT WE MET, THERE WERE A COUPLE THINGS OR A FEW THINGS THAT YOU WANTED TO SEE FROM US. UH, ONE WAS, UH, INFORMATION ABOUT FIREWALLS AND HOW EVERYBODY SEES THOSE. ANOTHER ONE WAS THE SPECIFIC SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THE OTHER, UH, CITIES REQUIRE. AND THEN TO UNDERSTAND BASICALLY A RUNDOWN OF THE CHART AND THE BUILDING CODE AND WHAT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS ARE THERE AS FAR AS THAT'S CONCERNED. I'M GONNA LET BRITA DO THAT. , I GET TO DO THAT FIRST, I GUESS. YES. OKAY. OKAY. SO, UM, I HATE TO BORE YOU WITH CHARTS AND TABLES, BUT IT'S A GOOD WAY TO ILLUSTRATE IT. I ALSO WROTE A LITTLE BIT OF NARRATIVE. IF YOU WANNA REVIEW IT LATER, IT KIND OF GOES THROUGH THE LOGIC, BUT, SO IN YOUR INFORMATION, YOU SHOULD HAVE A CHART THAT ON PAGE TWO LOOKS SOMETHING LIKE THIS. OKAY. SO OPTION A, THAT THE, THE COGS OPTION A IS ESSENTIALLY FOLLOW THE CODE. SO THIS IS INFORMATION RIGHT FROM THE CODE AS IT RELATES TO HOW YOU DETERMINE THE SIZE WITH AND WITHOUT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. SO, UM, THE, IT'S ALWAYS, IT'S NEVER EASY CUZ WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME CONFUSING OURSELVES WITH THESE CHARTS. BUT ESSENTIALLY THE WAY IT WORKS, AND I'M GONNA SEND YOU TO PAGE THREE WHERE I'VE HIGHLIGHTED SOME THINGS, IS THAT, SO IN THIS CHART, THE TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION THAT ARE ON THE RIGHT TEND TO BE MADE OUT OF WOOD OR SOMETHING THAT'S MORE COMBUSTIBLE AND NOT PROTECTED. THE, THE ONES ON THE LEFT, WHICH ARE STARTING AT TYPE ONE, THE FARTHER YOU GO TO THE LEFT, THE MORE NON COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS THE BUILDING IS MADE OUT OF. AND ALSO THE MORE FIRE RATINGS THAT ARE APPLIED TO ALL OF THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. SO IT MAKES THE BUILDING INHERENTLY MORE FIRE RESISTANT. AND SO THAT'S HOW THIS CHART IS STRUCTURED. AND THEN ALSO THE USE, WHICH IS UNDER THE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION COLUMN. REALLY THE USE OF THE BUILDING ALSO IS, HAS INHERENT HAZARDS. SO IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T EVACUATE THEMSELVES OR YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT'S GOT LOTS OF COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL IN IT, THOSE ALL PLAY INTO THIS, THIS TABLE BASICALLY AND GIVES YOU ALL THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF HOW TO USE THIS. SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE M MERCANTILE LINE, WHICH IS THE THIRD ONE DOWN, AND YOU LOOK AT THE NS, WHICH IS NON SPRINKLER LINE, AND YOU GO ACROSS, YOU'LL SEE THAT ON THE VERY RIGHT HAND SIDE, A BUILDING THAT'S MADE OUT OF WOOD OR SOMETHING THAT'S VERY COMBUSTIBLE CAN BE 9,000 SQUARE FEET WITHOUT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. AND THEN ON THE VERY FAR END, UM, A BUILDING THAT'S A TYPE ONE A BUILDING, WHICH IS THE MOST FIRE RESISTANT, CAN BE UNLIMITED IN SIZE. AND UM, SO THERE'S A WIDE VARIETY OF OPTIONS THEN IN BETWEEN AND WITHIN THOSE, THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO BUILD THE BUILDING. AND SO WHEN A DESIGNER IS DOING THE DESIGN, THEY USE THIS CHART TO SORT OF FIGURE OUT THE IDEAL SOLUTION AS FAR AS COST AND WHAT THE CUSTOMER NEEDS. THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF FACTORS THAT, UM, DRIVE PEOPLE TO CHOOSE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM SUCH AS, UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU NEED A SPACE THAT'S LARGE AND WIDE OPEN WHERE YOU CAN'T COMPARTMENTALIZE IT, THAT MIGHT BE ONE REASON. OR YOU HAVE A, A SPACE WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF OCCUPANTS IN IT AND YOU KNOW, YOU GET OVER AN ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS, THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE TO SPRINKLE A BUILDING. SO, OR YOU HAVE TO COMPARTMENTALIZE IT AND PUT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS IN EACH COMPARTMENT, WHICH DOESN'T WORK FOR ALL BUSINESSES. CUZ YOU KNOW, A CHURCH FOR EXAMPLE, MIGHT HAVE A BIG SANCTUARY WITH LOTS OF PEOPLE IN IT. YOU PRETTY MUCH NEED A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THAT BUILDING. SO WITHIN THIS CHART, THERE ARE A LARGE VARIETY OF OPTIONS THAT DESIGNERS CAN CHOOSE TO, TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY WANT TO SPRINKLE THE BUILDING, WHAT THEY WANNA MAKE THE BUILDING OUT OF, [00:25:01] WHAT THE, WHAT THE CUSTOMER'S GONNA USE IT FOR, AND HOW TO ESSENTIALLY, UM, WORK WITHIN THAT STRUCTURE TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR THEM. IN THE OPTION B, WHICH WE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT MORE, BUT IN THE OPTION B, AS IT'S PROPOSED BY THE, THE, THE COG IN ALL OF THESE LINES THAT ARE NS OR NOT SPRINKLED, YOU WOULD BASICALLY INS INPUT 6,000 ACROSS THE BOARD. AND THAT'S HOW THE SAME CHART WOULD PLAY OUT IN OPTION B. SO, BUT CURRENTLY IT'S 5,000 FOR, FOR, FOR THE CITY WE'VE ADOPTED A, AN AMENDMENT TO THAT WHICH IS 5,000. SO, AND THEN ALSO JUST GOING BACK TO THE OPTION A AGAIN, UM, ANOTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU BUILT A BUILDING TO THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE TABLE, YOU COULD BUILD A FIREWALL AND THEN YOU COULD BUILD ANOTHER BUILDING RIGHT NEXT TO IT AND BUILD A FIREWALL. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE FIREWALL PROVISIONS COME INTO PLAY AS WELL. SO DOES THAT HELP ILLUSTRATE IT FOR YOU? IS THAT ANSWERING SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS? I THINK THIS IS HELPFUL, YES. TO SEE VERY HELPFUL. RIGHT. AND JUST, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, SO THIS, ALL OF THESE CHARTS ON ALL THESE PAGES ARE ALL OPTION A? YES. THIS WHOLE, THIS WHOLE PACKAGE PACKAGE IS OPTION, OPTION A. UM, ALSO JUST IF YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANNA RECHARGE BEFORE YOU GO TO BED OR IF YOU NEED TO PUT YOURSELF TO SLEEP, UM, THE LAST PAGE IS THE ACTUAL TE TABLE THAT TELLS YOU WHAT KIND OF FIRE PROTECTION RATING NEEDS TO GO ON ALL THESE COMPONENTS. AND I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE, IT'S TECHY AND YOU DON'T NEED TO GET TOO WRAPPED UP IN THAT. BUT YOU, YOU'LL SEE THERE AGAIN WHERE YOU KNOW THE TYPE ONE A COLUMN YOU HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, THREE HOUR RATED WALLS, WHICH IN MANY CASES ARE WHERE YOU SEE THAT SPRAY APPLIED FIREPROOFING. IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE. YOU SEE IT IN HIGH RISES. PEOPLE RARELY USE IT IF THEY CAN AVOID IT. SO THERE ARE REASONS FINANCIALLY WHY PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SPRINKLE OUR BUILDING OR SOMETIMES NOT SPRINKLER BUILDING. UM, BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO THAT CATEGORY WHERE YOU GET TO UNLIMITED SIZE BUILDINGS, A LOT OF TIMES IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE AND YOU HAVE TO REALLY WANNA BUILD A LARGE BUILDING AND MAKE IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. SO LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THAT. OKAY. SO THIS LAST PAGE, SO BASICALLY THERE'S, THERE'S 10 TYPES, RIGHT? ONE THROUGH FIVE AND THEN A AND B OF EACH OR NO TYPE FOUR ON ONE. THERE'S NINE. SO NINE. OKAY. THERE'S NINE. OKAY. UM, OKAY, SO TYPE FIVE B DOESN'T HAVE ANY OF THESE THINGS ON IT. CORRECT? IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. I JUST WONDER I B IS, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE TYPICALLY IT'D BE A BUILDING THAT'S MADE OUT OF WOOD AND IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY FIRE PROTECTION IN ADDITION TO THE WOOD FRAMING AND THE FINISH MATERIALS. THERE'S NO FIRE RESISTANCE ASIDE FROM, IT'S JUST MADE OUT OF ANYTHING WE CAN BURN. SO WE ALLOW WOOD FRAMING ON COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. WE DO. AND WE SEE A LOT OF IT BECAUSE, WELL, WE SEE A LOT OF IT NOW BECAUSE THERE'S NO FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE TO BUILDING THE HIGHER TYPES. CUZ IF YOU GET A BIGGER BUILDING, YOU'RE SPRINKLING IT. SO YOU'RE BUILDING IT CHEAPLY AND PUTTING A SPRINKLER IN TYPICALLY, ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT TRUE, THERE'S A FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE TO BUILDING IT WITH CERTAIN MATERIALS JUST BASED ON COST. YEAH, PLEASE. OKAY. UM, SO SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT, THAT WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED, WHICH IS WHY I REALLY WANT US TO LOOK HARD AT, AT EASING THE VERY RESTRICTIVE, UM, ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE. IF YOU'RE BUILDING A BUILDING FROM SCRATCH, THEN YOU CAN DO ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED AND PICK AND CHOOSE AND ALL. BUT IN A LOT OF THIS TOWN BEING 130 YEARS OLD, IT ISN'T BUILDING NEW BUILDINGS FROM SCRATCH. IT'S COMING IN WITH OLDER BUILDINGS AND THEN TRYING TO RETROFIT THEM FOR NEW MODERN PURPOSES. UM, AND GOING OVER THE, THE FIRE CODE AND OPTION A THAT LETS YOU BE MORE FLEXIBLE, UM, DEPENDING, YOU KNOW, NOT TREATING AN OFFICE THE SAME AS A RESTAURANT OR JUST HAVING A DIFFERENTIATION THAT'S MORE SENSIBLE TO ME, MORE PRACTICAL. UM, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING THAT. IT, IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO CONTINUE TO BE INFLEXIBLE, UM, WITH THE OPTION B, ESPECIALLY WITH 5,000 SQUARE FEET. UM, AND I I, I SAID LAST TIME, WE'VE ALMOST LOST SEVERAL BUSINESSES, VERY VIABLE BUSINESSES IN THIS TOWN BECAUSE OF THIS VERY THING, THIS, THIS LEVEL OF RESTRICTION THAT WENT KIND OF BEYOND, UM, WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES RIGHT NEXT TO US DO. SO I SEE THAT RICHARDSON, UM, RICHARDSON AND ROCKWELL BOTH HAVE THE 5,000 SQUARE FEET LIMITATION, UM, AND FRISCO, BUT THE REST [00:30:01] OF THE CITIES EITHER ARE 6,000 OR OPTION A. SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN STEP WITH SURROUNDING CITIES WITH THIS. SO ANYWAY, THE, THE DIFFICULTY OF RETROFITTING OLDER BUILDINGS AND HAVING IT BE COST EFFECTIVE WHERE SOMEBODY BUILDS IN GARLAND, REDEVELOPS IN GARLAND VERSUS GOING NEXT DOOR, UM, THIS IS A DISADVANTAGE AND I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING THAT THIS IS A PURELY A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE CITIES SMALLER THAN US HAVE THE 6,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIREMENT. AND I THINK WHEN THIS REQUIREMENT OF 5,000 WENT IN, HOW MANY, HOW MANY FIRE STATIONS DID WE HAVE AT THAT TIME? WE SURE DIDN'T HAVE 11. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA BRING. WE HAVE NO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT THAT'S, YEAH, THERE WERE QUESTION. I WANT TO GUESS PROBABLY EIGHT WHEN THIS WAS ADOPTED MADE. YEAH. I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, WE ARE IN BETTER SHAPE THAN THAT NOW. WELL, Y YES AND NO. WE HAVE MORE STATIONS, BUT WE STILL HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF STAFFING OR A LITTLE BIT MORE STAFFING. BUT WE'RE NOW, INSTEAD OF HAVING DOUBLE COMPANY STATIONS, YOU HAVE SINGLE COMPANY STATIONS. SO WE STILL HAVE TO GET THAT AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ON SCENE FROM FURTHER AWAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY WENT TO THE SINGLE COMPANY STATIONS. THAT ALLOWS THAT FIRST END TO GET THERE A LITTLE QUICKER. AND IF WE CAN GET A QUICK KNOCKDOWN, THEN THAT'S GREAT, BUT IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, PAST THAT, THEN YOU GOTTA WAIT FOR HELP TO COME AND HELP YOU OUT THERE. SO. UM, SO DID YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR BRITA? I'M SORRY I DIDN'T, I GUESS THIS IS JUST A MATTER OF US DISCUSSING IT AND SEEING THIS, THIS CHART IS SUPER HELPFUL. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. SO ON THE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPARISON CITIES, UH, ONE THING THAT I WAS NOT AWARE OF WERE THE TYPICAL COMPARISON CITIES THAT WE USE. SO I ADDED, UM, WHEN I WENT THROUGH THIS, I FOUND OUT THAT WE NORMALLY DO ALLEN AS A COMPARISON, CITY DENT AND GRAND PRAIRIE IN LOUISVILLE. SO I WENT AHEAD AND ADD THOSE IN HERE MM-HMM. , AND, AND YOU'VE ALREADY NOTICED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON HERE, UH, AND EVERYBODY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FRISCO, IF THEY'VE DONE OPTION B OR AN OPTION B DERIVATIVE, I SAY DERIVATIVE BECAUSE IT GETS, I MEAN, THERE ARE SO MANY LITTLE TWEAKS THAT EVERY CITY DOES THAT. EVERY ONE OF 'EM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FRISCO, DOES NOT, UH, ALLOW THE USE OF A FIREWALL TO SEPARATE BUILDINGS. OKAY. UH, FRISCO, WHEN I, I VISITED WITH THEM CURRENTLY, THEY DON'T ALLOW IT. I MEAN, THEY, THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT RESTRICTS IT, BUT WHEN I TALK WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL OVER THERE, HE SAYS WHEN THEY ADOPT THE NEWEST CODE, HE'S ONLY BEEN THERE ABOUT A YEAR, HE'S GONNA GO WITH THE COG AMENDMENTS AND THEN THEY'RE ALSO GONNA NOT USE FIREWALLS. SO THAT'LL BE THE SAME ON ALL OF 'EM. MM-HMM. . AND THEN ON HERE WE HAVE THE, THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS HERE. AND OF COURSE OPTION A, UH, IS THE CODE IS WRITTEN, A COUPLE OF THESE FOLKS LIKE GRAND PRAIRIE AND DENTON ACTUALLY HAVE THEIR LOCAL AMENDMENTS. UM, AND DENTON, I FOUND IT FASCINATING. THEY DO 75, UH, TO 10,000, AND THEN YOU HAVE AS RESTRICTIVE DOWN HERE TO LOUISVILLE THAT DOES 3,600. SO THEY'RE EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN US. BUT, UH, UH, THE OTHER THING TOO, WHENEVER WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S NON-CONFORMING IN THE CITY, UH, WE DO TRY TO WORK WITH THEM IF WE CAN. AS LONG AS, YOU KNOW, THE CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY IS SIMILAR OR LESS HAZARDOUS FROM A, A RISK OF FIRE OR LIFE SAFETY, WE TRY TO WORK WITH FOLKS SO THAT THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO PUT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THAT CASE. SO WE DO TRY TO WORK WITH FOLKS, IT JUST, IF YOU COME IN AND YOU WERE, YOU KNOW, STATE FARM BUSINESS OFFICE, AND NOW YOU'RE WANTING TO MAKE IT A CHURCH AND CRAM A BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THERE, SORRY, YOU GOTTA PUT A SPRINKLER IN THERE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT'S MORE HAZARDOUS, I'VE GOTTA DO IT. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH RIGHT NOW. SO WE DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN AND I DO TRY TO HELP FOLKS GET THE YES IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. OKAY. I ACTUALLY, I AGREE WITH YOU CHIEF LEVI, WHERE YOU'RE BASICALLY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT BEING RISK BASED [00:35:01] AND THAT THAT'S HOW I FEEL WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT. AND, AND I THINK THE OPTION A GIVES US A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE IT RISK BASED. UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT JUST CUT AND DRY, YOU KNOW, UNDER THIS NUMBER, OVER THIS NUMBER. YOU KNOW, I'D PREFER TO SEE SOMETHING MORE RISK BASED AND IT LOOKS LIKE OPTION A GIVES US THAT FLEXIBILITY. WELL, FROM MY STANDPOINT, OBVIOUSLY FROM THE FIREFIGHTERS STANDPOINT, I'M ALWAYS GONNA WANT SPRINKLERS. YES. I MEAN, THEY'RE, AS WE TALKED LAST TIME, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S INGRAINED IN ME FROM THE FIREFIGHTERS STANDPOINT, THE SPRINKLER IS THAT UNWAVERING ALWAYS ON DUTY IS GONNA PUT, YOU KNOW, THE FIRE OUT AS LONG AS SOMEBODY DOESN'T SABOTAGE IT OR SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH IT. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I DO, I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHERE I'M COMING FROM TOO, FROM A LIFE SAFETY AND, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST FROM CITIZENS, FROM CUSTOMERS. AND, AND AT THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING WHEN OUR FOLKS ARE RUNNING INTO THE BURNING BUILDING, IT'S NICE TO KNOW THAT THAT SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS THERE. YEP. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND I, I, MY POSITION FROM LAST TIME HASN'T CHANGED BASED UPON WHAT THE CHIEF HAS SAID ABOUT THE ABILITY TO RESPOND TO THESE FIRES IN THESE SITUATIONS, THAT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING TO BURN DOWN, YOU'D LOSE A LOT MORE THAN IT WOULD BE THE COST OF INSTALLING A SPRINKLER SYSTEM. AND WITH THE SINGLE COMPANY STATIONS THAT WE HAVE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO, TO REALLY, I MEAN, GO ABOVE THAT 5,000. I MEAN, WE MIGHT TALK ABOUT GOING TO 6,000. I'D BE WILLING TO HEAR THAT DISCUSSION. WOULD THAT, IF IT WOULD RAISE THOUSAND FEET, WOULD THAT HELP THOSE BUSINESSES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT NEEDING TO GO TO SOMETHING EVEN HIGHER? BUT I DON'T WANNA GO TO STRICTLY OPTION A BECAUSE WE DON'T, AREN'T LIKE THE BIG CITY DALLAS OR FORT WORTH WHERE THEY HAVE MORE COMPANIES THAT CAN RESPOND TO A FIRE IN THAT CASE. WELL, LIKE I SAY, HONESTLY, I MEAN, I'D, IT'S JUST, I'D HAVE TO THINK WE'RE IN BETTER SITUATION NOW, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS RESPONSE GOES THAN WE WERE, UM, WHEN WE MADE IT 5,000 SQUARE FEET. BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO, I'D BE WILLING, YOU KNOW, TO LOOK AT AN, UM, OPTION B AT 6,000. I MEAN, I THINK SOMETHING'S BETTER THAN NOTHING. RIGHT. SO, UM, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I WOULD EVEN, AND, AND JUST LOOKING AT THE, AT THE CHART FOR OPTION A, YOU KNOW, I MEAN OF COURSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE, THE MORE YOU DO, THE MORE WORK IT IS. UM, I WOULD HONESTLY, I MEAN I THINK SOME OF THESE, SOME OF THESE NUMBERS IN HERE I THINK ARE EXTREMELY GENEROUS. RIGHT? UH, I THINK THAT WE COULD, YOU KNOW, MODIFY THESE NUMBERS TO FIT OUR CITY. UM, AND I KNOW THAT WOULD TAKE WORK, BUT IF WE DID, THEN THAT WOULD BE RISK, MORE RISK BASED UPON THE USE OF THE FACILITY. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE OPTIMUM THING TO DO. UM, AND I DON'T MEAN CAUSE ON OPTION A, WE CAN CHANGE THESE NUMBERS, RIGHT? WELL, YEAH, YEAH. WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT WITH WITHOUT CHART ON OPTION A. RIGHT. YOU CAN DO IT. THIS COMES FROM THE FIRE CODE, THE BUILDING CODE IS WHAT IT FROM. RIGHT, RIGHT. I'VE ALREADY DONE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS LOOKING AT THOSE SITUATIONS AND LOOK AT THAT RISK. AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, YEAH, THESE ARE FINE, BUT WE ONLY HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DO LESS THAN THAT IN MANY CASES. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. YEAH. SO THAT, THAT'S, I MEAN, IF YOU, WE'D GO OUT LOOKING AT THESE, I THINK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS A LOT OF THESE WOULD ACTUALLY COME WAY DOWN FROM WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WHICH IS FINE. BUT THAT, I MEAN, AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S RISK BASED BASED UPON THE USAGE TYPE AND, AND THE BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION. THAT, THAT WOULD BE EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN NOT NECESSARILY. I I, I MEAN I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTIVE OR NOT RESTRICTIVE. I'M TALKING ABOUT RISK BASED. RIGHT. I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE, I THINK THAT, THAT IT SHOULD BE, AGAIN, I THINK IT SHOULD BE RISK BASED, RIGHT? AND THAT'S, AND THE LEVEL OF RISK IS ON THIS CHART RIGHT HERE AND IN THAT BRAIN RIGHT THERE. UM, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, ONE THING THAT I'VE LEARNED IS NO MATTER WHAT LINE IN THE SAND THAT WE DRAW THIS LINE, SOMEBODY CAME UP WITH THIS NUMBER, SOMEBODY'S GONNA COME IN HERE WITH A, LET'S SAY EVEN IF WE WENT TO THIS CHART, LET'S SAY TYPE FIVE B AT 9,000, THAT THAT SHE HIGHLIGHTED, SOMEBODY'S GONNA COME IN HERE WITH A 9,100 SQUARE FOOT AND GO, WHAT? YOU'RE MAKING ME PUT A SPRINKLER IN IT. WHATEVER LINE YOU DRAW, SOMEBODY'S ALWAYS GONNA HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT. UM, SOMETHING ELSE THAT I DID, DID WANNA POINT OUT TO IS, IS, FOR EXAMPLE, PLANO ON HERE, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY'VE GOT 6,000, BUT THEY ALSO RIDE WITH FOUR PEOPLE ON THEIR ENGINES AND TRUCKS, YOU KNOW, AND THEY HAVE SOME MULTI-COMPANY STATIONS TOO. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND. ALSO, MR. CHAIR, I, I WOULD SUPPORT THE TAKING US BACK TO WHERE WE UNDID THIS GOING BACK TO [00:40:01] 6,000, WHICH IS WHERE THE OPTION B STARTED, AND THEN IT WAS REVISED DOWNWARD. I WOULD, I WOULD, UH, SUPPORT STAYING WITH OPTION B TAKING IT TO 6,000. IT IS AN INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENT AND THAT IS ENOUGH, UH, ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET THAT IT WOULD'VE SAVED A LOT OF DRAMA AND NEARLY LOSING AT LEAST ONE OF MY BUSINESSES. SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. I SEE YOU. SAME. I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT OPTION B AS AS WRITTEN HERE, GO, UM, GOING BACK AT THE 6,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST, JUST WHEN TO ME KNOW, IDEALLY, I MEAN, IT'S, FOR ME IT'S, IT'S ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, RISK BASED, RIGHT? IDEALLY OPTION A GIVES YOU THE MOST, MOST, UH, OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT RISK BASED. HOWEVER, I WOULD BE WILLING TO, YEAH. LET'S JUST SAY OPTION B TO 6,000 SQUARE FEET. AND THE THING ABOUT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, GO INTO 6,000 SQUARE FEET WHEN THOSE PEOPLE DO, YOU KNOW, COME AND PROTEST, HEY, WELL YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE FOLLOWING NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS. SURE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FOLLOWING. SO WE HAVE THAT TO FALL BACK ON AS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY WE'RE DOING THAT, AS OPPOSED TO, WELL, WE'RE BEING EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN RECOMMENDED. AND THEN WE HAVE TO JUSTIFY THAT. YOU, SO I'D, I'D BE FINE GOING BACK TO JUST OPTION B AS WRITTEN. I'M FINE TO TAKE IT TO THE COMMITTEE WITH A SPLIT DECISION, CUZ I STILL DISAGREE. I THINK 5,000 IS THE NUMBER, BUT I'M HAPPY TO BRING IT TO THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR DIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS POOL, OUR, OUR FIRE CAPABILITIES AND, AND DECISION ON WHAT OPTION B SHOULD, SO I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND THEN REPORT IT AND BRING IT TO THE COUNCIL AS, AS THAT THEN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. REALLY APPRECIATE JOE'S WORK ON THIS. YES, YOU BET. YOU'RE WELCOME. MR. CHAIR, AM I CLEAR IN SAYING THAT YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT? I THOUGHT A MOMENT AGO YOU SAID YOU WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH, I SAID, I'M WILLING TO HEAR OPTION B AND 6,000. I'M WILLING TO HEAR THE DISCUSSION, BUT I'M STILL NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH IT BEING 6,000. YEAH. SO DO WE NEED TO MAKE THIS A VOTE? SO YOU SURE. LET'S, LET'S TAKE A VOTE THEN. AND, OKAY. FOR OFFICIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, COUNCIL, YEAH. OKAY. MM-HMM. . SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THE, OH, MAKE A MOTION IF YOU WILL. THEN I MOVE THAT WE MOVE THIS BACK TO OPTION B WITH 6,000 SQUARE FEET AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, COUNSEL, LADY MORRISON BASS AND THE CHAIRS POSE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOOD CATCH. ALL RIGHT, SO NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS 2D AMENDING SCREENING REQUIREMENTS NEXT TO COMMERCIAL USES OR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS. MR. GARRIN, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU'LL SEE THAT, UM, THAT I'VE GOT SLIDES AVAILABLE IF YOU NEED ME TO RERUN THROUGH AGAIN, WHAT OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE. UM, THIS OF COURSE REGARDING BOTH, UM, COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY, THAT SCREENING REQUIREMENT AS WELL AS, UM, THOROUGHFARE, UM, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR, FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. UH, BUT THE COMMITTEE LAST TIME ASKED TO, UM, UH, FOR STAFF TO COME BACK AND, UH, SEE WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE ARE DOING AS FAR AS THESE PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS GOES. SO I'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO IT. UM, STARTING WITH ROULETTE, UM, THIS IS OF COURSE THE COMMERCIAL OR NON-RESIDENTIAL USE WHEN IT'S ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL, UM, ZONING DISTRICT. UM, THEY KIND OF BREAK IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO NON-RESIDENTIAL, SO TO SPEAK. SO FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, UM, UNLIKE GARLAND AND SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES, UH, AND ROULETTE FOR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, THEY DO NOT REQUIRE SCREENING, UH, ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY. UM, HOWEVER, FOR COMMERCIAL, UH, DEVELOPMENT, THEY REQUIRE EITHER A MASONRY WALL OR LIVING SCREEN. UM, AND ONE NOTE THERE IS THAT THEY, UH, UM, EVERGREEN PLANTINGS MUST BE EIGHT FEET PLUS AT THE TIME OF PLANTING. SO THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. WE, WE CURRENTLY HAVE, UM, IN THE LIVING SCREEN, AS I UNDERSTAND, IS MORE OF YOUR TRUE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A HEDGE OR A, A VERY CONTINUOUS SOLID, MORE OPAQUE VERSUS KIND OF JUST TREE SHRUB, SHRUB, SHRUB TREE SHRUB, SHRUB. SO, UM, WANNA NOTE THAT. UM, AND THEN FOR, UM, INDUSTRIAL OR UTILITY USES LIKE SUBSTATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THEY DO REQUIRE MASONRY WALL ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY. AND THEN THERE ARE TREES THAT THEY, UM, THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, UH, PLANTED ALONG THESE, UH, SCREENING AREAS OR MASONRY WALLS. UM, HAVE TO BE 35 FEET. UM, ON CENTER, UH, 35 FEET APART, I BELIEVE IN GARLAND IT IS, UH, OH, 25 FEET. OKAY. YEAH. UM, AND THEN FOR ROUTE, STAYING WITH ROUTE, THE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY THOROUGHFARE SCREENING, THEY DO REQUIRE MASON AND WALLS, UM, FOR, UM, SIDE AND REAR YARDS ALONG RIGHTS OF WAY JUMPING TO PLANO, UM, FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT, UM, UH, USES, [00:45:01] UM, A MASONRY WALL. THEY KEEP IT PRETTY SIMPLE. MASONRY WALL IS REQUIRED. UM, HOWEVER, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER A LIVING SCREEN, UM, UM, THROUGH A VARIANCE REQUEST. UM, NOW WITH PLANOS, UH, THOROUGHFARE SCREENING, IT'S A BIT MORE COMPLICATED. THEY'VE GOT A WHOLE CHART, WHICH, UM, I MAY NEED SOME TIME. I PRINTED THEIR ORDINANCE. IF ANYONE REALLY, YOU KNOW, WANTS TO SEE IT, I'M NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING IT, BUT JUST IF ANYONE WANTS TO GET KIND OF DIVE INTO PLANOS ORDINANCE A LITTLE MORE, UM, I'VE, I'VE GOT SOME HARD COPIES AVAILABLE, UH, BUT I TRY TO PICK OUT KIND OF THE HIGHLIGHTS AS I UNDERSTAND IT. UM, IT SAYS MASONRY WALLS ARE NOT, WELL, I GUESS TO STEP BACK, IT SEEMS THAT THE, THE HIGH LEVEL, UM, DEAL HERE IS THAT THEY GIVE THEIR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, UM, SOME, SOME AUTHORITY OVER, UM, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE ROD IRON OR ANY KIND OF TRANSPARENT OPTION, THEY REALLY LEAVE IT TO THEIR PZ COMMISSION VERSUS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, WHICH OF COURSE IN GARLAND WE DO HAVE AS AN OPTION, AS A REMINDER. UM, BUT JUST SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS, MASONRY WALLS ARE NOT, UM, THEY USE THE WORD ENCOURAGED, UH, FOR TYPE D THOROUGHFARES AND SMALLER, UM, SO FORMER LOCAL AND KIND OF SMALLER COLLECTOR ROADS. THEY, UM, ENCOURAGE OTHER SCREENING OPTIONS. AND OF COURSE, AS A REMINDER IN GARLAND, IT'S REALLY TYPE D THOROUGH AFFAIRS IN LARGER WHERE WE HAVE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. OTHERWISE, STANDARD BACKYARD FENCES ARE, ARE ACCEPTABLE. UM, HOWEVER, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND PLANO MAKES THE DECISION ON ROD IRON. UH, THEY'VE GOT A FEW OPTIONS HERE. UM, THEY MAKE THE DECISION ON ROD IRON OPTIONS WITH BRICK FENCING. UM, THAT'S WITH THE BRICK COLUMNS. I'VE WORDED THAT A LITTLE ODDLY, BUT ROD IRON WITH BRICK COLUMNS, UM, METAL ORNAMENTAL FENCING WITH THE LANDSCAPE SLOPE AND, UM, BERMS WITH RETAINING WALL OPTIONS. THEY'VE GOT KIND OF VISUALS FOR THESE TYPES OF OPTIONS, BUT THOSE, THOSE HAVE TO GO TO THE PLANNING, UH, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. UH, AND THEN LIVING SCREENS WITH A FENCE, UM, ARE ACCEPTED. IT'D BE A LIVING SCREEN WITH LIKE A METAL ORNAMENTAL FENCE KIND OF BEHIND IT. UH, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE WHEN THERE'S NOT AN ALLEY PROPOSED BETWEEN THE ROADWAY AND RESIDENTIAL LOTS. AND THEN FINALLY, RICHARDSON, UM, FOR COMMERCIAL USES ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, UH, MASONRY WALL, UM, IS REQUIRED. AND THEN, UM, FOR THEIR THOROUGHFARE SCREENING, UM, THEY REQUIRE A, UH, SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OR A LIVING SCREEN, UH, WITH, UH, A LANDSCAPE BUFFER OF AT LEAST 20 FEET IN WIDTH OR A COMBINATION, UH, THEREOF, UM, CAN BE CONSIDERED. UM, HOWEVER, THE ONLY INSTANCE WHERE THEY ALLOW KINDA THE MORE TRANSPARENT ROD IRON WOULD BE IF IT'S, UM, USED TO ALLOW SOME VIEW INTO SOMETHING SUCH AS A LANDSCAPE FEATURE, LANDSCAPE MEDIA IN A COMMON AREA, CUL-DE-SAC, SOMETIMES YOU SEE CUL-DE-SACS WITH A LITTLE PEDESTRIAN OPENING AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE DOWN THE STREET. SO, UH, SO THEY DO HAVE SOME LIMITED ALLOWANCES FOR THAT, BUT THAT'S, UM, THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. AND I, I'D PUT A MEDICINAL NICE CHART TO TRY TO ORGANIZE IT. THIS, UH, DOESN'T HAVE QUITE AS MUCH DETAIL AS THE SLIDES I JUST WENT THROUGH, BUT, UM, IN CASE YOU KIND OF WANNA, UM, LOOK AT THAT, I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'LL KIND OF STOP THERE, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND, UM, AND I'VE GOT GARLANDS OF COURSE, UM, UH, CURRENT REQUIREMENTS IN THE GDC RIGHT THERE ON THAT RIGHT, RIGHT HAND COLUMN. UM, SO I'LL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. KAREN THEN? NO QUESTIONS. STILL READING? OH, YEAH. SEEMS LIKE FOR THE MOST PART WE'RE IN ALIGNMENT. FEW RESTRICT THE USEFUL ORNAMENTAL OFFENSE, BUT MASON MARIE WALL SEEMS TO BE AN OPTION IN ALL OF 'EM. OPTION OR, OR REQUIRED OR, YEAH. OPTION OR REQUIRED, RIGHT? CORRECT. YEAH, WE'RE, UM, WE'RE A BIT MORE FLEXIBLE THAN, YEAH, THAN I WOULD THAN OTHER CITIES, I WOULD SAY. UM, IN TERMS OF KIND OF ALLOWING THE OPTIONS ADMINISTRATIVELY, UM, THEY'VE GOT, IN SOME CASES THEY'VE GOT OPTIONS, BUT THEY'RE A BIT STRICTER WHEN IT COMES TO THE, UM, KIND OF METAL ORNAMENTAL OPTION, ROD IRON, THAT SORT OF THING, ALLOWING, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S ANY KIND OF TRANSPARENCY INVOLVED. SO, GO AHEAD. YES. THANK, THANK YOU. WELL, UM, SURE. YEAH. SO THE, THIS, THIS ITEM THAT WAS REFERRED TO US IS TALKING ABOUT, UM, ARTERIAL ROADWAYS AND, UH, COMMERCIAL USES NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL. AND IT DOES LOOK LIKE, UM, WE ARE FAR MORE FLEXIBLE IN THOSE OPTIONS, WHICH IS WHAT THE, UM, THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS I'VE HEARD FROM ANOTHER DEVELOPER WHO HAS DEVELOPED A LOT IN GARLAND TO SAY, UM, NON-RESIDENTIAL, UM, THERE SHOULD BE SOLID, RELIABLE SCREENING ALONG THOROUGH AFFAIRS, AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DRIVE DOWN A STREET AND LOOK INTO THE BACK, [00:50:01] THE, THE BACKYARD AND BACK WINDOWS OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES, MANY OF THEM BEING HOA THAT DON'T ALLOW THEM TO PUT UP A FENCE. AND, AND I, I AM STILL IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. SO I WOULD, AS FAR AS, UM, SINGLE FAMILY ALONG THOROUGH AFFAIRS, UM, THERE WAS ONE OF 'EM THAT IN ONE OF YOUR EARLIER THINGS, IT WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SIDE AND THE BACK, UM, REQUIRED A MASONRY WALL. MM-HMM. , I'M TRYING TO SEE WHERE THAT WAS. UH, YES. WAS THAT, IT MAY HAVE BEEN ROULETTE, IT WAS A FEW SLIDES BACK. DR. ROWETT, UH, BACK, UM, SIDE AND REAR YARDS. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PERSONALLY. MASONRY WALL REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARDS ALONG RIGHTS OF WAY. UM, BUT I DO LIKE RICHARDSON'S EXCEPTION WHERE THERE COULD BE FLEXIBILITY IF THAT WALL WOULD BLOCK THE VIEW OF A LANDSCAPE FEATURE. AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD EVEN NEED TO BE WRITTEN IN, BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE ARGUED, UH, TO PLAYING COMMISSION INTO US, UM, AS AN EXCEPTION. SO I WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE MASONRY WALLS REQUIRED SINGLE FAMILY ALONG THOROUGH AFFAIRS. WAS THERE ANY INFORMATION ON THE OWNERSHIP OF THESE WALLS AFTER THEY WERE BUILT THE PROPERTY OF HOA OR THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER? AND IF SO, IF ONE GETS DAMAGED, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING IT AND MM-HMM. FOR MASONRY WALLS SPECIFICALLY, THAT'S MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ROD IRON FOR SURE. IT IS. YEAH. IT COMES UP MORE OFTEN. AND I KNOW RICHARDSON HAD A BOND PROGRAM WHILE BACK. HE WAS IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE, UM, WELL, YEAH, SOMEWHERE AROUND 20 2005, 2010, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE THEY, UM, THEY PUMPED SOME BOND MONEY INTO THAT EXACT ISSUE. YEAH. THE MASON WALLS. AND THEY BOUGHT ALL THEIRS. THEY DID A, I KNOW ALONG ARAPAHOE THEY HAD A LOT THAT, THAT WERE GOING IN AND WITHIN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS THAT THEY FINALLY BUILT. YEAH. YEAH. UM, NO, BEYOND THAT I DID NOT, UM, LOOK AT THE MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS, UM, FOR THE MASON WALLS IN THESE CITIES, JUST KIND OF FOCUSED ON THE KIND OF SCREENING ASPECT OF IT OR THE OPTIONS. SO TO THESE REGULATIONS SHOW THEN ARE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION THEN? IS THAT, THAT'S MY CONCERN, IS WHAT I ASKED ABOUT IN AFTER THEY, SOMEONE RUNS OFF THE ROAD AND NEXT TO THOROUGHFARE AND TAKES THEIR CAR THROUGH, ARE WE GOING TO REQUIRE THE OWNER TO FIX THIS? AND UH, I KNOW IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WE'VE HAD THIS ISSUE WHERE YOU CAN'T FIND THE TYPE OF BRICK ANYMORE AND WE'LL HAVE A HOLE IN OUR FENCE FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE THAT. IT'S REALLY THE RESPONSIBLE OF THE HOMEOWNER TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY OWN THE WALL IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES THAT GO AROUND THAT WITH REPLACING IT ONCE IT'S BEEN DAMAGED, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S NOT IN AN HOA THAT SPELLS IT OUT, RIGHT? MM-HMM. , THERE'S A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS IN GARLAND THAT AREN'T IN HOAS. MM-HMM. . BUT THAT IS A VALID, UM, THAT IS A VALID CONCERN. IT'S, TO ME, IT'S ALSO A VALID CONCERN TALKING ABOUT GREEN SCREENS. I MEAN, THE ICE STORM LAST YEAR, UH, A GREAT MINI SOLID EVERGREEN HEDGES ARE DEAD AND GONE. SO, UM, THAT IS ANOTHER DIFFICULTY THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY STAY FOREVER ANY MORE THAN MASONRY DOES. UM, WE CURRENTLY, THE SCREENING WALLS, OUR POSITION HAS BEEN, OUR SCREENING WALLS ARE OWNED BY THE HOA. I THINK IN SOME OF THE LATER DEVELOPMENTS WE'VE ACTUALLY REQUIRED IN THE PD THAT NOT ONLY IS THE HOA RESPONSIBLE, BUT ALSO THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER IS SEPARATELY RESPONSIBLE AS WHERE IT AS WELL MM-HMM. . SO WE COULD GO AFTER EITHER OF THE HOA BEC, UM, GOES BANKRUPT, THERE'S NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE. UM, BUT, UM, I KNOW IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD TO WRITE LETTERS TO HOAS TO HAVE THEM REPAIR THE SCREENING WALLS. AND WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE DEPENDING ON WHAT THE PD SAYS, OUR POSITION IS THAT THEY WERE GRANTED A, UM, SCREENING WALL EASEMENT OWNED BY THE HOA, AND THEREFORE THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. AND IF IT'S, UM, IF IT'S A NUISANCE WHERE IT'S FALLING DOWN, THEN WE CAN ACTUALLY GO AFTER 'EM EITHER THROUGH, UM, ZONING VIOLATIONS OR THROUGH, UM, A CIVIL VIOLATION. WE COULD ACTUALLY SUE 'EM. WE'VE HAD TO THREATEN TO DO THAT BEFORE. MM-HMM. , WHATEVER REQUIREMENT WE DO, DEVELOPERS ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION TO ASK FOR VARIANCE IF THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR IT. SO I THINK, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE CHART SHOWS ALL THAT? ABSOLUTELY. IT IS AGAIN. YEP. THANK YOU. PART OF THE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE NOW IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS GOING IN THAT REQUIRE THESE TYPES OF SCREENING. WELL, WE'LL HAVE SOME COMING IN THE FUTURE, BUT NOT A LOT. MOST OF THAT'S BEEN BUILT OUT MM-HMM. AND GOING BACK AND FIXING [00:55:01] THE ONES, ESPECIALLY THE OLDER ONES WHERE WE DIDN'T ADDRESS IT EITHER IN THE PD ITSELF, OR THERE'S A QUESTION IN THE PLAT AND WHO OWNS THE SCREENING WALL. UM, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT PROBLEM, THERE'S REALLY NO REMEDY FOR THAT, QUITE FRANKLY. MM-HMM. , BECAUSE, UM, IF IT HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED EITHER BY THE PLAT OR THE PD, UM, UM, THEN WE, NO MATTER WHAT WE PASS AS FAR AS THE GDC GOES, IT'S NOT GONNA APPLY TO THEM ANYWAY. MM-HMM. AND BRIAN, DOES THAT INCLUDE, UM, THE ISSUE THAT, ONE OF THE ADJACENCY ISSUES THAT I THINK TRIGGERED THIS DISCUSSION AS FAR AS, UM, I THINK A FENCE, YES. AN ORNAMENTAL FENCE WAS ALLOWED TO, SO IF THEY BUILT THE, ORIGINALLY BUILT THE FENCE, UM, UM, UNDER A CERTAIN SET OF REGULATIONS, THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO, WE CAN CHANGE IT, WE CAN CHANGE THE ORDINANCE LIKE WE DO ANY OTHER ORDINANCE AND MAKE 'EM, UM, LEGALLY NONCONFORMING. AND THE FA PORTION OF THAT FENCE, A LARGE ENOUGH PORTION HAS TO BE REPLACED, UM, UH, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN DESTROYED. UM, THEN YES, WE COULD IN, WE COULD REQUIRE THEM TO REPLACE IT TO THE NEW STANDARDS, BUT MOST, MOST OF THE TIME IT'S NOT A LARGE ENOUGH PORTION. MOST OF THE TIME THEY GET TO BUILD IT BACK TO THE STANDARDS IN WHICH THEY INITIALLY BUILT IT. OKAY. WELL, AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE IN DISTRICT FIVE WAS IT HAD BEEN A MASONRY WALL AND A NEW, UM, A NEW OWNER WAS REPLACING IT WITH AWR IRON MM-HMM. AND THAT, AND THAT'S ALLOWED UNDER OUR CURRENT MM-HMM. ORDINANCES. SO IF WE CHANGE IT, IT DOESN'T, EXCEPT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. WELL, UM, I, I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY EITHER WAY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF IT REMAINS OR TAKING AWAY THE OPTION FOR ARM MINERAL FENCING. I MEAN, LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S ALWAYS AN OPTION TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE IF IT REQUIRED, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE EARTH AND BERMS. I KNOW THAT TAKES MORE AREA. I'VE ACTUALLY DONE A FEW OF THOSE IN MY CAREER, BUT IT'S, UH, IT TAKES A LOT MORE SPACE TO BE ABLE TO SLOPE UP AND DOWN, BUT THEY DO PROVIDE SOME NICE GREEN SPACE WHEN AVAILABLE. BUT, UM, MANY. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON MOVING FORWARD? I LIKE HAVING THE OPTIONS. I'D LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS, BUT I MEAN, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING, WE NEED SOMETHING IN THERE THAT KEEPS THE, YOU KNOW, ENSURES THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE HAVING. A DISTRICT FIVE RIGHT NOW DOESN'T HAPPEN WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO GO IN AND REPLACE IT WITH WHAT LIKE, WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, AS OPPOSED TO STARTING WITH ONE OPTION AND THEN CHANGING HALF OF IT TO ANOTHER OPTION. WOULD THAT BE BETTER ADDRESSED THROUGH SOMETHING TO BUILD A PD AND SAY, IF YOU'RE BUILDING THIS TYPE TO KEEP THAT, THEN RATHER THAN BEING RETROACTIVE AND GOING BACK? I, I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THE, BRIAN, I'M SORRY, ON, ON THIS, ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS ISSUE IN DISTRICT FIVE IS WHAT BROUGHT THIS UP TO BEGIN WITH, RIGHT? NO, ALSO IN MY DISTRICT, OKAY. A NEIGHBORHOOD, NEWLY BUILT NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE, WHICH IS AN HOA THAT PER OUR ALLOWANCES BUILT ROD IRON AND PUT LITTLE TREE BRIGGS EVERY 25 FEET OR WHATEVER, AND YOU CAN LOOK STRAIGHT IN, YOU CAN WATCH THE PEOPLE IN THEIR LIVING ROOM WATCHING TV. IT IS PRETTY OFFENSIVE. AND I AGREE WITH THE DEVELOPER WHO FOUND FAULT WITH THAT, SO, OKAY. UM, SO IT WAS THOSE TWO THINGS THAT BROUGHT THIS HERE. OKAY. SO THERE'S, RIGHT. OKAY, SO THERE'S, WELL, THERE'S, THERE'S TWO. SO THERE'S TWO THINGS AT STAKE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE, RIGHT? AND ONE OF THEM, I DON'T THINK THIS ADDRESSES AT ALL, WHICH IS THE ISSUE IN DISTRICT FIVE RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS WHERE, YOU KNOW, OFFENSE IS BEING REPLACED BUT NOT WOULD LIKE, SO IT'S AESTHETICALLY NOT GOING TO BE LOOK GOOD. AND, AND OF COURSE WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE AESTHETICS OF THINGS AS WELL AS ANY OTHER ISSUE. UM, SO I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, ONE QUESTION IS, ONE, HOW DO WE ADDRESS THAT? AND TWO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK THAT, SO DO WE NEED TO, WELL, IF IT'S IN LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH A NEW ONE, THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS HERE. UM, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU KNOW, IT WOULD TAKE AWAY OPTIONS, RIGHT? JUST MAYBE JUST GOING TO MASONRY WALL OR JUST GOING TO SOMETHING THAT IS, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST OPAQUE, YOU KNOW, NO MATTER HOW THEY, WHETHER THEY ACCOMPLISH IT WITH THE ORNAMENTAL FENCING AND LANDSCAPING OR, OR THE MASONRY WALL OR, OR A BURR , APPARENTLY WE HAVEN'T HAD BERMS COME UP. YEAH. SO, WELL, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION'S EASY. UM, THAT'S, THAT'S AN EASY FIX. THAT'S JUST A MATTER TO, IT'S THE FIRST PROBLEM THAT YOU, THE DISTRICT FIVE PROBLEM. IT'S THE MORE DIFFICULT ONE. UM, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY PASS A PROVISION THAT SAYS [01:00:01] THAT IN THE EVENT YOU HAVE TO REBUILD THE, UM, A PORTION OF THE WALL DUE TO DAMAGE, UM, OR IT FAILING THEN, AND YOU NEED TO USE, UM, THE SAME OR LIKE MATERIALS. OKAY. WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, I CAN FORESEE AN ARGUMENT BEING MADE WHERE, WHAT, WHERE THEY COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, WHEN I DEVELOPED THE PROPERTY THAT PROVISION WAS NOT IN PLACE. WHERE DOES IT SAY IN THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT THAT I HAVE TO DO THAT? UM, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER, AND I'M QUITE CERTAIN THERE'S PROBABLY NOT AN ANSWER OUT THERE IN LAND USE LAW. SO I'M NOT SURE THE COURTS HAVE CLARIFIED THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY GIVE IT A SHOT AND SEE WHERE IT TAKES US. AND, UM, THAT PROBABLY AN APPROPRIATE, UM, AMENDMENT TO THE YEAH, AND I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A SOLUTION FOR WHAT'S CURRENT, THE CURRENT ONE ISSUE WE HAVE, BUT WE CAN PREVENT THAT FOR THE FUTURE. MM-HMM. . YEAH. SO I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE, RIGHT, AT A PROVISION WHERE BASICALLY REPLACE, LIKE, WOULD LIKE, AND I MEAN, IF WE HAVE AN ISSUE WHERE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO BUILD A, A PRIVACY FENCE IN THEIR BACKYARD AND THEY HAVE A, A FENCE THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO LOOK IN YEAH. THAT'S, THAT'S NOT RIGHT. SO I MEAN, I'D BE FINE WITH REMOVING THE OR ORNAMENTAL FENCE FROM THE, UH, FROM THE LIST OF OPTIONS, UM, ON THE, UH, ON THEIR AFFAIRS. AND I LIKE THE WAY IT WAS WORDED IN THE, WAS THAT ROULETTE? RICHARDSON RICHARDSON RICHARDSON, YEAH. BUT I ALSO LIKE THE, I LIKE THE OPTION WHERE IT SAYS ROD IRON MAYBE USED IN COMBINATION TO PROVIDE A VIEW TO A LANDSCAPE FEATURE. I LIKE THAT. CAUSE I'VE SEEN THOSE BEFORE AND THEY LOOK REALLY NICE. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SEE THAT LITTLE BREAK, THERE'S THE CUL-DE-SAC, MAYBE IT'S GOT A LITTLE, LITTLE ISLAND IN THE CUL-DE-SAC. IT LOOKS REALLY NICE. SO YEAH, I LIKE THE WORDING IN THAT. AND THEN THE WORDING ON THE RAIL, THAT ONE. YEAH. OKAY. AND YEAH, WHILE THESE MAY NOT ADDRESS CURRENT ISSUES WE HAVE, THEY WILL KEEP THEM FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. THEN I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THEN WE'LL REMOVE THE ROT IRON ALONG THROUGH AFFAIRS. MM-HMM. , AND THEN WITH THE PROVISION OF THIS RICHARDSON HAS, AND THEN HAVE SOMETHING ADDRESSING THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION WITH A SIMILAR MATERIAL. YES. OKAY. ANY AGREEMENT THEN? UM, OH, GOOD. READY TO PUSH FORWARD? OR DO WE WANT TO POSTPONE? I, I'M READY TO PUSH FORWARD WITH THAT. THAT, YEAH, THAT'S SIMPLE AND YEP. OKAY. GREAT. ALL RIGHT, GREAT. AND, UH, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR FINAL ITEM THEN. IT'S FIVE E REVIEW OF GDC TREE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS. ALL RIGHT. UH, SO COMMITTEE MEMBERS, UM, SO AS YOU KNOW, UM, IN THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEE AUDIT, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS LOOKED AT WAS TREE MITIGATION, UH, FEES. AND, UM, SO THAT KIND OF BRINGS US TO, TO LOOK AT, UM, SOME KIND OF POLICY RELATED ITEMS AND LANGUAGE, UH, CLEANUP THAT'S CERTAINLY NEEDED IN THE GDC WHEN IT COMES TO THE TREE PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION SECTION. SO I'LL JUST KIND OF JUMP INTO IT HERE. UH, JUST KIND OF STARTING WITH THE, UH, PURPOSE AS THE GDC, UM, UH, WORDS IN THIS TREE PRESERVATION AND MITIGATION, UH, CHAPTER. THE PURPOSE COURSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO REQUIRE THE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING HEALTHY TREES AS PROPERTIES ARE DEVELOPED OR REDEVELOPED, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF TREES WHEN THEY'RE REMOVED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT OF LANDS. SO, UM, AS A REMINDER, THE, UH, TREE MITIGATION FEE REQUIREMENT AND GARLAND IS $150 PER CALIPER INCH REMOVED AND NOT REPLANTED. UM, AND SO PROTECTED TREES PER THE GDC ARE, UM, ANY TREE SIX INCHES AND ABOVE, AND THAT'S REALLY ANY TREE SPECIES. UM, UH, BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE, THE ACTUAL MITIGATION AMOUNT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE TREE. THERE'S A CERTAIN RANGE, AND IT DEPENDS ON THE SPECIES TYPE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A A, UH, HACKBERRY THAT'S SIX INCHES AND ABOVE, IT STILL NEEDS MITIGATION. SOMETIMES DEVELOPERS ASSUME, WELL, THAT'S A TRASH TREE. I DON'T NEED TO MITIGATE THAT. IT DOES NEED MITIGATION JUST AT A LOWER RATE VERSUS, SAY, A PECAN OR A LIVE OAK. THAT WOULD BE A CLEAR LARGE CANOPY TREE, UM, YOU KNOW, PROTECTED TREE. SO, UM, OF COURSE THERE'S A REFORESTATION AND TREE MANAGEMENT FUND, UH, THAT, THAT 150 PER CALIBER INCH, UH, THAT TREE MITIGATION PAYMENT GOES INTO, UH, IS TO BE USED BY THE CITY TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION, AND OTHER SIMILAR RELATED ACTIVITIES ON PROPERTIES WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY. UH, OF COURSE, TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED TO HELP, UH, DETERMINE WHAT THESE FEES ARE. THAT INCLUDES, YOU KNOW, A TREE SURVEY AND, AND INVENTORY, UH, THAT THE, UH, DEVELOPER, TYPICALLY IT'S A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR AN ARBORIST THAT PREPARES THESE. UM, OF COURSE, THERE'S AN EXCEPTION FOR DEAD AND UNHEALTHY TREES. THE, UH, DEFINITION OF PROTECTED TREE DOES SAY HEALTHY TREES. SO, UM, TYPICALLY IF THERE'S A VERY UNHEALTHY OR DEAD TREE, THOSE DO NOT, UM, NEED TO [01:05:01] BE MITIGATED, UH, AND TREES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. THIS COULD BE A LITTLE CLEAR IN THE GDC, BUT OUR INTERPRETATION HAS TYPICALLY BEEN THAT IF A TREE'S IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR IT'S WITHIN AN AREA THAT'S CLEARLY BEING, UH, DEDICATED FOR RIGHT OF WAY, UM, THEN THAT'S REALLY THE CITY'S, UM, PROPERTY AND DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE TO, UM, MITIGATE THAT. UM, SO THE AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS, JUST AS A REMINDER, UM, THIS ISN'T VERBATIM, BUT I KIND OF PARAPHRASE THE FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TREE MITIGATION SECTION. I'LL RUN THROUGH IT HERE. UH, TO CREATE A, A STANDARDIZED FORM OR TEMPLATE IN CALCULATING VERIFYING TREE MITIGATION FEES. UM, WE HAVE CREATED KIND OF A CALCULATOR THROUGH, UM, AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET, AND, UM, THAT'S GONNA BE VERY HELPFUL ACTUALLY. UM, AND WE'VE PROVIDED THAT TO OUR, UM, UH, UH, THIRD PARTY, UM, CONSULTANT WHO'S ACTUALLY, UH, ALREADY BEGUN HELPING US REVIEW THESE. UM, SO IT'LL BE A TREMENDOUS HELP FOR STAFF. AND, UH, WE HAVE A THIRD PARTY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, UM, AS PART OF A FIRM WHO, WHO'S GONNA, UM, UH, HELP US REVIEW THESE MOVING FORWARD. UH, OF COURSE, OVERSIGHT OF FEES ASSESSED AND COLLECTED, UH, CITY ADMINISTRATION DETERMINATION ON, UM, OVER AND UNDER PAYMENTS THAT WERE FOUND. UH, CONSIDER ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND UPDATE THE GDC TO REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR APPROVAL WHEN REMOVING TREES TO BE REPLANTED AT AN OFFSITE, UH, LOCATION. WE WILL, UM, GET TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT HERE SHORTLY. AND REVA REEVALUATE TABLES ONE THROUGH NINE. UH, THIS IS IN THAT CHAPTER IN THE GDC, UH, TO PROVIDE MORE CLARITY AS TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF VEGETATION TO BE PROTECTED, PRESERVE, MITIGATED, PLANTED, AND PLANTED OFFSITE. UM, SO THAT'S ONE OF OUR, UH, ITEMS WE'LL DISCUSS. SO, UM, AND THIS IS KIND OF AN INTRODUCTORY, UM, DISCUSSION COMMITTEE. I IMAGINE WE MAY NEED TO CONTINUE THIS. THERE'S, WE'RE JUST KIND OF IN THE BEGINNING STAGES OF REALLY JUMPING INTO THIS, AND THERE'S SOME ITEMS THAT WE KNOW NEED TO BE CLEANED UP AND CLARIFIED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. WE, SOME OF WHICH WE DON'T, WE MAY NEED TO JUST OBVIOUSLY DISCUSS WITH THE COMMITTEE HERE, Y'ALL'S THOUGHTS. IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER RESEARCH WE NEED TO DO TO HELP US MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO SO. BUT, UM, SOME OF THE ITEMS, JUST JUMPING RIGHT OFF HAND, SOME OF THESE THAT WERE DEFINITELY IDENTIFIED IN THE AUDIT REPORT WERE, UM, A SECTION OF THE GDC REGARDING THE, UM, UH, MITIGATION RATIOS. UM, IT SAYS OTHER TREE SPECIES NOT LISTED IN TABLES, FOUR DASH ONE AND FOUR DASH TWO FOLLOW A, THIS IS THE LOWER MITIGATION RATE, THE 0.25 TO ONE MITIGATION RATE. UM, TABLES FOUR DASH ONE AND FOUR DASH TWO ARE YOUR LARGE CANOPY TREES AND SMALL ORNAMENTAL TREES, UH, RESPECTIVELY. AND SO THERE'S, IT'S A SPECIFIC LIST OF TREE SPECIES IN EACH ONE. AND SO THE, UM, THE QUESTION OR KIND OF CONFUSION IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT ABOUT TABLE FOUR DASH THREE, WHICH IS CALLED TREES AND SHRUBS? AND IN THAT TABLE, UM, UH, EASTERN RED SEARS ARE, ARE WITHIN THAT LIST. AND SO THAT WAS KIND OF A BIG TOPIC DURING THIS AUDIT PROCESS IS, UM, EASTERN RED CEDARS ARE TREES STAFF'S INTERPRETATION REALLY HAS BEEN THAT IF IT'S NOT LISTED IN TABLES FOUR DASH ONE AND FOUR DASH TWO, WHICH ARE AGAIN LARGE CANOPY TREES AND SMALLER AMOUNT MIDDLE TREES, UM, IF IT'S NOT WITHIN THAT, THEN, YOU KNOW, MITIGATION IS NOT REQUIRED. FOUR DASH THREE IS KIND OF LUMPED IN WITH, WITH SHRUBS AND, AND WHATNOT. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, EASTERN RED SEATERS ARE, ARE TREES AND, YOU KNOW, UM, HAD SOME LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CONFIRM THAT YES, IT IS INDEED A TREE. UM, SO SHOULD IT BE FOLLOWING THAT 0.25 TO ONE MITIGATION RATE. SO, UM, OBVIOUSLY THE, THE FEES ASSESSED DEFINITELY, UM, VARIED GREATLY DEPENDING ON WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TOOK CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS AND, AND EXAMPLES OF, OF, UM, OF THOSE TREE MITIGATION FEE REVIEWS. IT, IT DEFINITELY VARIES IN TERMS OF WHETHER THEY COUNT OR WHETHER THEY DON'T. JUST REAL BRIEFLY ON THE TREE ISSUE IN EASTERN RED CEDARS, THEY MAY BE TREES UNDER EVERY OTHER CITY'S ORDINANCE OR EVEN UNDER SOME FEDERAL REGULATION OR UNDER SOME STATE REGULATION. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THEM TREES IN GARLAND. AND QUITE FRANKLY, THEY'RE INTERPRETING, AND I EXPLAINED THIS TO AUDIT, THEY'RE INTERPRET, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE WAY THEY HAD BEEN INTERPRETING WHAT'S A TREE BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT. THERE IS SOME AMBIGUITY THERE THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE CLEARED UP, BUT IF, BUT IF COUNCIL IS OKAY WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION, THEN WE CAN CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE AND THEY CAN CONTINUE THAT. OR IF Y'ALL WANT US TO CONSIDER THE EASTERN RED CEDARS, I GUESS EASTERN RED CEDARS IS TREES, WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL. BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE WAY PLANNING WAS INTERPRETING THAT. AND IT'S A, IT'S A LEGISLATIVE DEFINITION. IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL DEFINITION. SO EVEN IF AN ARBORIST TELLS US, NO, IT'S A TREE, WELL, WE MAY CHOOSE TO DEFINE IT AS OTHER, AS A SHRUB INSTEAD OF A TREE. SO THAT'S REALLY Y'ALL'S DECISION AND NOT ANY, ANYBODY ELSE'S. THANK YOU, BRIAN. YEAH, APPRECIATE IT. AND, AND YEAH, PART OF THE, THERE'S MULTIPLE REFERENCES IN THE GDC, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF JUMPING DOWN, I'LL, I'LL CONTINUE IN THE ORDER, BUT JUST, [01:10:01] UM, JUMPING DOWN TO THIS SECTION, UM, REGARDING THE 33 CREDITS, IT HAS A REFERENCE IN TABLE FOUR DASH ONE AND FOUR DASH TWO. UM, IT'S PRESERVED ON A SITE AND SIX INCHES CALIPER BRICK. UM, THERE'S MULTIPLE REFERENCE TO THAT, SORRY, INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN THAT REALLY TABLES FOUR DASH TWO ARE THE, WAS THE INTENT OF THE GVC TO PRESERVE THOSE VERY CLEAR SPECIES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS LARGE CANOPY TREES AND SMALL ORNAMENTAL TREES. SO EASTERN REGISTERS DID NOT FALL IN EITHER THOSE TABLES. SO THAT'S REALLY, THAT WAS KINDA THE BACKGROUND AS TO WHY STAFF INTERPRETED THAT WAY. BUT EITHER WAY, WHICHEVER WAY WE GO, UM, DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE JUST CLARIFIED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. MM-HMM. AND JUST, WE WILL NEED TO FIND A HOME FOR RECENT RED CEDARS AND, AND, UM, AND MOVE FORWARD. UM, SO THE NEXT ONE IS OFFSITE TREE CREDITS. UM, THE GDC DOES ALLOW IT, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY PROVIDE ANY TYPE OF GUIDANCE ON WHERE THEY SHOULD GO AND HOW THAT SHOULD LOOK. SO A QUESTION OF COURSE, DURING THIS AUDIT PROCESS IS, DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW OFFSITE TREE PLANTINGS IN LIEU OF REPLANTING ONSITE OR OF COURSE PAYING INTO THE TREE MITIGATION FUND? UM, IF SO, IS THAT IN GARLAND ONLY? THAT WAS A, CERTAINLY A QUESTION AUDIT HAD THAT, YOU KNOW, THE GDC DOESN'T SAY IT COULD, YOU COULD THEORETICALLY PLAN IN A DIFFERENT CITY. AND, UM, SO ONE NOTE OF COURSE THAT WE CERTAINLY DISCOVERED AND, AND IS JUST THE, THE, UM, REALITY IS OFFSITE TREE PLANTINGS, IT, IT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ADMINISTER AND TRACK. UM, UH, JUST JUST, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE TRACK OFFSITE TREE PLANTINGS? DO WE, YOU KNOW, REQUIRE PICTURES? HOW DO WE INSPECT THAT IF IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROPERTY, DIFFERENT PART OF TOWN? SO JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND. UM, ONE CITY AND A COUPLE OF SLIDES, UM, I THINK IT'S ARLINGTON, UM, DOESN'T ALLOW OFFSITE TREE PLANTINGS. THEY JUST KEEP IT STRAIGHTFORWARD. SAY EITHER YOU CAN REPLANT ON SITE OR YOU PAY INTO THE TREE MITIGATION FUND. OF COURSE THE INTENT OF THE TREE MITIGATION FUND IS FOR THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO THEN USE THAT MONEY AND DETERMINE OURSELVES WHERE THAT, WHERE THOSE TREES ARE, ARE PLANTED, UM, WHETHER IT'S CITY RIGHT OF WAY STREET PROJECTS OR IN PUBLIC PARKS. UH, SO IT KIND OF ENSURES THAT THE CITY HAS FULL CONTROL ON, UM, ON THAT. SO JUST A NOTE THERE JUST TO CHAIR. SURE. MM-HMM. . UM, DO YOU WANT US TO SPEAK TO THESE ITEMS AS WE GO DOWN? I'M, I'M WATCHING THE CLOCK. I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BRING THIS DISCUSSION BACK, RIGHT? FOR MORE DISCUSSION. I MEAN, UM, SURE. IF YOU WANNA SPEAK NOW, AND I HAVE A FEW THOUGHTS TOO, BUT OKAY. FOR US TO ADDRESS THESE NOW. YEAH. CAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA GET THROUGH TO THE END OF THIS MM-HMM. IF ANY OF US ACTUALLY WANT TO EAT TONIGHT. SO, UM, WHAT, WELL, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE DISADVANTAGE OF HAVING EASTERN RED SEATERS COUNT TOWARD MITIGATION OR A DISADVANTAGE FOR US? I MEAN, IT'D BE A DISADVANTAGE FOR DEVELOPERS, PROBABLY MORE SO FOR THE DEVELOPERS. UM, THE FEE, AND OF COURSE THE FEED ADDS UP WITH OR WITHOUT EASTERN RED SEATERS ANYWAY WITH 150. BUT WHEN YOU, IF YOU DO COUNT 'EM, UM, AND SOME SITES DO HAVE A NUMBER OF EASTERN RED SEATERS, THEIR, THEIR FEE JUST IT GOES UP. SO THAT'S THE OKAY. YEAH. IT'S REALLY IMPACTING DEVELOPERS MORE THAN, OKAY, WELL THERE'S A LOT OF EASTERN RED SEATERS. THEY'RE BIG, THEY'RE EVERGREEN, THEY'RE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT TREES. SO I MEAN, MY, JUST COMMON SENSE, I WOULD THINK THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED, UM, IN COUNTED AS TREES, BUT, UH, I'M NOT DRAMATICALLY, UH, UPSET ABOUT THAT. SO THE, UH, ALL SITE TREE CREDITS, UM, ABSOLUTELY , THEY SHOULD IN, THEY SHOULD PLANT THEM ON THAT SITE, NOT ON SOME OTHER SITE, AND CERTAINLY NOT OUTSIDE THE CITY. THAT WOULD BE NUTS. UM, SO THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT ON THAT. IF, IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT IN LIEU OF PAYING INTO THE TREE MITIGATION FUND, THEN THEY CAN TAKE A TREE AND MOVE IT TO A DIFFERENT SITE SPOT ON THAT SAME SITE. UM, SO THOSE WERE, THOSE WERE MY ONLY TWO INITIAL THOUGHTS. THANKS. OKAY. WELL, I, I WAS LOOKING AND I CAN'T FIND MY BOTANY DEGREE, SO, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT AN, WHAT AN EASTERN RED CEDAR IS COMPARED TO ANOTHER TREE. I ASSUMED MAYBE IT WAS A TYPE OF SHRUB OR SOMETHING AND I LOOKED IT UP AND IT LOOKS LIKE A TREE TO ME. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM OTHER TREES TO BEGIN WITH. I MEAN, IS WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THE SHUNNING? WHAT'S THE REASON FOR SEPARATING IT TO BEGIN WITH FROM OTHER TREES? IS THERE, IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT? WE DON'T KNOW AS A SHORT . OKAY. I MEAN, IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT? I MEAN, IS IT, IT'D BE, THEY'RE QUITE DENSE OFTENTIMES IN DIFFERENT AREAS, AND I HAVE BE PROLIFIC HISTORY ON THAT ONE ACTUALLY. YEAH. OKAY. DURING THE TREE DISCUSSION, WHEN WE FIRST IMPLEMENTED THE GDC, MARTIN GLENN, UM, DIDN'T LIKE EASTERN RED CEDARS. AND I MEAN, SERIOUSLY, BECAUSE, AND WE HAD A LOT OF THEM AND THE, THEY WERE ALWAYS CONSIDERED KIND OF [01:15:01] TRASH TREES. MM-HMM. AND CUZ THEY WERE DMPS. AND SO THAT'S THE REASON, I MEAN, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY, BUT AT THE TIME, THAT WAS KIND OF THE DECISION, THE POLICY SUITED. THANK YOU. AND SOME PEOPLE ARE ALLERGIC TO IT, SO, AND I THINK THAT'S A BIG PART OF IT TOO. IS THAT OKAY? MM-HMM. . YEAH, THAT'S COME UP A NUMBER OF TIMES. WELL, THAT'S WHY WE SPECULATED MAYBE IT WAS PURPOSEFUL. CAUSE IT'S ALLERGIES. WE HEAR BOUNTY ON THEIR HEADS, SO OKAY. LIKE, LIKE YOU WOULD TREAT AN INVASIVE SPECIES OR SOMETHING, BUT, OKAY. I WOULD, I WOULD BE UNDER THE OPINION THAT EASTERN RED CEDARS SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME RESPECT AS OTHER TREES. UM, THE OFFSITE TREE CREDITS. YEAH. I MEAN IT'S ON SITE ONLY, PERIOD. YOU KNOW THAT. OTHERWISE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. UM, READING ON THE TREE CREDITS, I THINK THAT LOOKS FINE THE WAY IT IS. SO YEAH, THAT'S MY 2 CENTS ON THOSE. LET'S HOLD OUR CONVERSATION RIGHT HERE. WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS AT THIS POINT, BUT I WOULD LIKE, ONE THING POSSIBLE IS BRING IN SOMEONE FROM PARKS DEPARTMENT PERHAPS TALK ABOUT SURE. UH, WHERE IN THE CITY WE MAY BE ABLE TO PLANT TREES IF THEY'RE NOT ON SITE, THEN NOT OUTTA THE CITY, BUT SOMEWHERE IN THE CITY. AND, AND THAT'S, HAVE SOMEONE SPEAK TO THAT, SO FROM PARKS. SO, BUT WE, WE'LL TABLE THIS ITEM FOR NOW THEN, AND COME BACK TO IT OUR OUR NEXT MEETING THEN. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU MR. GARRIN AND THE OCTOBER 17TH 22, 20 22 MEETING DEVELOPMENT SERVICE IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.