[00:00:01]
AND WELCOME TO THE JANUARY 22ND, 2024[Development Services Committee on January 22, 2024.]
MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE OF THE GARLAND CITY COUNCIL.UH, MYSELF, DYLAN HEDRICK, THE CHAIRMAN WITH ME.
I HAVE MAYOR PRO TIM JEFF BASS AND DISTRICT TWO COUNCIL LADY DEBORAH MORRIS.
UH, THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TODAY IS THE APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS FROM THE, IS THE DECEMBER, WHAT WAS THAT DATE? UH, FROM OUR DECEMBER MEETING.
SECOND ITEM THEN ON OUR AGENDA IS THE, IT'S PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I DON'T SEE ANYONE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO COMMENT, BUT WE ALWAYS WELCOME THEM IF THEY ARE HERE.
AND OUR FIRST ITEM THEN, FOR AN INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION IS TREE MITIGATION WAIVERS.
THE TOPIC WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE MR. GARRON, YOU'RE READY TO TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN, SIR? I'LL MAINLY LET MATT RUN THE SHOW HERE.
UM, MADE MOST OF THESE CHANGES SINCE LAST TIME WE SPOKE.
UM, IT'S REALLY JUST PER OUR LAST DISCUSSION, KIND OF TIGHTENING A FEW THINGS UP AND, UM, WE'LL KIND OF WORK OFF THE RED LINE VERSION, WHICH BY THE WAY, I KNOW I, I SENT YOU ALL, UM, A CLEAN AND A RED LINE VERSION EARLIER TODAY.
UH, MR. ROTON, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DID MAKE A FEW TWEAKS TO, UM, JUST KIND OF REORGANIZE IT A LITTLE BIT.
UH, JUST ONE EXAMPLE IS THE DEFINITIONS THAT WERE AT THE BACK THAT KIND OF, HE KIND OF EMBEDDED THOSE INTO THE LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT MORE.
UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE IT MENTIONS PLACEMAKING, IT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS IT UP BY DEFINING WHAT PLACEMAKING MEANS IN THIS CONTEXT.
SO, UM, SO WE'LL KINDA WORK OFF THAT LATEST AND GREATEST VERSION, WHICH I BELIEVE IS IN FRONT OF YOU, THE HARD COPY.
AND, UM, BUT YEAH, I'LL LET MATT KINDA JUST WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE AND SURE.
UH, THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS.
UH, PLEASURE TO BE HERE WITH YOU ALL TONIGHT.
SO YOU GUYS HAD A LOT OF GREAT COMMENTS LAST TIME WE WERE TOGETHER ABOUT TRYING TO GET THIS THING A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY TO IT.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT, BUT SO WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS TO GO BACK AND KIND OF BRING A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT CLARITY, BUT ALSO NOT LOSE THE, THE ESSENCE OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, UH, WITH THIS SECTION OF THE TREE ORDINANCE.
UM, SO WE'LL JUST KIND OF RUN THROUGH THIS, UH, WITH THE DIFFERENT ADDITIONS THAT WE MADE OR CHANGES THAT WE MADE THROUGHOUT THE TIME.
UH, IT STARTS WITH NUMBER ONE, WITH THE ENHANCED WATER PEDESTRIAN.
WHAT WE DID THERE IS WE ACTUALLY, UH, JUST INCREASED.
WE CHANGED THE POINT RANGE IN THERE FROM 25 TO 50 POINTS AND ACTUALLY RAISED IT UP TO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS THAT YOU COULD GET.
AGAIN, THE MOST TYPES OF POINTS THAT YOU CAN GET IN THIS ARE THE MOST OF AMOUNT OF REDUCTION IN YOUR TREE MITIGATION THAT YOU COULD EVER GET IS 50%.
UM, BUT WHAT, WHAT WE WANTED TO SAY AGAIN HERE WAS AGAIN, TO BE ABLE TO BRING VALUE.
UH, SO IF YOU ARE HELPING US TO, UH, INSTALL A SECTION OF TRAIL THAT MIGHT BE ALONG A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, OR IF YOU'RE GONNA INCREASE, LET'S SAY THERE'S AN ON STREET, UM, TRAIL SYSTEM THAT RUNS THROUGH THERE AND YOU'RE GONNA WORK WITH US TO, TO EXPAND THAT EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK TO A 12 FOOT SIDEWALK, SO TO SAY.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE, BE ABLE TO REALLY GET THAT VALUE TO IT.
SO, SO BEING ABLE TO HAVE A HIGHER POINT VALUE THERE WAS WHY WE JUST, WE RAISED THE POINT VALUE FOR THAT PERSPEC, THAT PARTICULAR PIECE.
UM, THE PLACEMAKING, UH, NUMBER TWO, THAT WAS ONE THAT WHERE THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION THROUGH.
SO KIND OF OVER ANALYZING THAT ONE AGAIN.
UM, WHAT WE WANT TO, AGAIN, TO BRING SOME CLARITY TO THAT, ONE OF THE ONES THAT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE WHEN I RE-READ IT WAS ATHLETIC FIELDS WE'RE PROBABLY NOT GONNA BE PUTTING ATHLETIC FIELDS INTO PLACE, MAKING PIECES WITHIN, UM, PIECES THAT COULD BE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR PUBLIC PAR PROPERTY.
SO WE JUST XED THAT PART OUT OF IT.
UM, TOOK AWAY THE 5% OF LOT AREA.
AGAIN, THAT ONE KIND OF JUST MADE THINGS A LITTLE CONFUSING.
UM, DID STILL WANT THAT AMENITY TO BE FULLY IDENTIFIED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
AND THEN JUST SAID, HEY, IF IT'S A MINIMUM OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET, CONTIGUOUS 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE, UM, THEN THAT'S WHEN YOU WOULD START TO BE ABLE TO GET SOME, UM, REDUCTION AT FIVE POINTS AND THEN FIVE POINTS FOR EVERY, UM, ADDITIONAL 2,500 SQUARE FEET.
AND THEN WE TOOK AWAY THE PUBLIC VERSUS INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR THAT JUST KIND OF CLEANED UP THAT WHOLE PIECE OF IT.
SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT IS EXTERIOR OR INTERIOR.
UH, 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE WOULD GET YOU FIVE POINTS AND EVERY 2,500 BEYOND THAT WOULD GET YOU AN ADDITIONAL FIVE POINTS.
AND PLEASE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE AS WE MOVE THROUGH, PLEASE.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH UNDER TWO, UM, THE RED LINED PART ABOVE THE INITIAL 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF CONTAGIOUS SPACE.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY IS PROBABLY CORRECT ON HIS VERSION, BUT WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT THOSE GET GOOD CATCH.
GRAMMARLY, YOU JUST NEED TO RUN THINGS THROUGH GRAMMARLY EVERY TIME.
SO NUMBER THREE, ENHANCED LANDSCAPE ENTRY OR CORRIDOR FEATURE.
UM, THIS IS WHAT WE ADDED IN HERE WITH SOME LANGUAGE THE APPLICANT MAY CHOOSE FROM A PRE-SELECTED.
LET ME MAKE SURE I'M FOLLOWING.
'CAUSE HE DID CHANGE SOME, I'M GOING OFF OF, WE GOT
[00:05:01]
MULTIPLE VERSIONS, I APOLOGIZE.BUT, UM, PRE-SELECTED ENTRY AND GATEWAY FEATURES.
UM, SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GONNA HEAR ABOUT MORE IN THE FUTURE IS WE ARE GOING THROUGH AND, AND, UM, LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN, UH, ENHANCE OUR GATEWAY AND ENTRY FEEDS AND OUR LANDSCAPING.
UH, WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN RFP THAT'S GETTING READY TO GO OUT, THAT YOU'RE GONNA HEAR ABOUT MORE LATER.
THAT'S CAN HELP US IDENTIFY THAT AND COME UP WITH SOME SAMPLE LANDSCAPE DESIGNS.
SO WE WILL HAVE THESE POTENTIAL, UH, PIECES OUT THERE.
AND IF ONE OF THOSE POTENTIAL PIECES IS ADJACENT TO A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S LOOKING TO GET OFFSET FROM, UH, THEIR TREE MITIGATION AND THEY WANNA WORK WITH US ON THIS IS ONE THAT THEY COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.
AND AGAIN, TO MAKE IT, UM, EASIER TO BE ABLE TO ASSOCIATE THAT WE LOOKED AT 250 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS, UM, A SMALL, UH, WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SMALL ENTRYWAY LANDSCAPE BED FOR A SMALLER MEDIAN, BUT THEN COULD GROW.
SOME OF THEM ARE MUCH LARGER THAN THAT AND WENT THROUGH AND KIND OF DID AN AVERAGE.
A LOT OF OUR ENTRYWAY LANDSCAPE BEDS AND SOME OF 'EM ARE AS SMALL AS 200 TO 250.
UH, AND SOME OF THEM GO UP TO CLOSE TO A THOUSAND DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE, THE, THE MEDIAN IN THAT SPOT.
SO FOR EVERY 250 SQUARE FEET OF ENHANCED LANDSCAPE THAT THEY'D BE ABLE TO WORK WITH US ON, THAT WOULD GIVE 'EM FIVE POINTS OF, OF REDUCTION IN TREE MITIGATION, POTENTIAL TREE MITIGATION.
UH, TALKING MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS, WE'RE TALKING OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS, RIGHT.
WOULD THE APPLICANT THEN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT AREA? NO, SIR.
THAT WOULD STILL RELY ON US TO DO THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT.
SO THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING IT INITIALLY THROUGH ONE OF THEIR, THESE APPROVED ENTRY FEATURES AND THEN THE CITY TAKES OVER MAINTENANCE SEPARATE? CORRECT.
WE WOULD TAKE OVER THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT JUST LIKE WE WOULD ANYWAY.
UH, AND SO IT ALLOWS US TO A WAY TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH A POTENTIAL DEVELOPER THAT MAYBE WE HAVE THIS PROPOSED GATEWAY FEATURE THAT WE WANT TO GET INSTALLED AND WE WANNA DO ENHANCED LANDSCAPE THERE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET FOR IT AT THIS TIME.
AND LET'S SAY IT'S ADJACENT TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT, IT'S GONNA BETTER THEIR DEVELOPMENT LETS US GET IT DONE IN A QUICKER WAY AND, AND BE ABLE TO GET THAT DONE.
IT GETS THEM SOME REDUCTION IN THEIR TREAT OF MITIGATION AND THEN WE WOULD TAKE OVER THE MAINTENANCE OF IT JUST LIKE WE WOULD REGULARLY.
THAT, THAT'S MY NEXT QUESTION.
YOU MENTIONED ADJACENT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE ADJACENT OR IS IT JUST PER THE DIRECTORS? NO, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO.
UH, IF THEY WANTED TO WORK WITH US AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE THAT LIST WILL COME FROM.
SO WHEN WE'RE DONE DOING OUR ANALYSIS AND GOING THROUGH IT, WE'LL HAVE A LIST OF ALL OF THE ENTRY GATEWAY FEATURES, HOW LARGE THEY ARE, WHAT THAT LANDSCAPE IS GONNA LOOK LIKE.
AND SO IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO CHOOSE FROM ANOTHER ONE, THEN WE COULD WORK WITH THEM TO DO THAT.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE WORDY AND THERE WAS TOO MANY POINTS.
SO WHAT WE DID THERE WAS AGAIN, A MAXIMUM OF 50 POINTS.
UM, WE ALSO PUT IN SOME DEFINITION, UH, IN THERE, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT WITH THE QUESTIONS FROM LAST TIME.
SO WE ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AND, AND RAIN GARDENS AND THEN RETHOUGHT WHAT THOSE, THOSE PIECES ARE.
AND AGAIN, UP THE NEXT NUMBER OF POINTS THAT YOU CAN GET BECAUSE AGAIN, PUTTING IN THINGS LIKE BILE SWELLS AND RAIN GARDENS ARE NOT CHEAP.
SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF THEY WERE TO TAKE THAT EXTRA STEP AND PUT SOMETHING IN AND THOSE, THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY GONNA BE ABLE TO GET THAT VALUE IN RETURN.
UM, AND AS WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME, AND IT DIDN'T NOT MAKE ANY SENSE, IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET ANY VALUE FROM A ONE SQUARE FOOT RAIN GARDEN.
SO WHAT WE DID IS STARTED WITH A MINIMUM OF 2,500 SQUARE FEET, UP TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET WOULD GET YOU 10 POINTS.
AND THEN FOR EVERY ADDITIONAL A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, UM, YOU'D GET 10 EXTRA POINTS.
AND THEN SAME WAY WITH THE BIO SWELLS, YOU COULD GET UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 50.
IF IT'S 50 TO A HUNDRED FEET LONG, YOU COULD GET 10 POINTS AND THEN FOR EVERY ADDITIONAL FEED AND ADDITIONAL 10 POINTS.
SO THERE'S OPPORTUNITY, IT LOOKS LIKE FOR OVERLAP IN SOME OF THESE, IF THEY HAVE AN OPEN CONTIGUOUS SPACE AND A BIO SWELL IN ONE SAME SIZE, THEN THEY COULD GET, THEN YOU COULD GET, YES, YOU COULD GET MULTIPLE POINTS AGAIN UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 50 MM-HMM.
UM, SAME WAY WITH THE WATERWISE, UH, PLANT MATERIAL.
WE MET, WE MOVED THAT FROM A MAXIMUM OF FIVE POINTS, OR FROM 10 POINTS TO FIVE POINTS.
UM, AND THEN WHAT WE DID THERE IS WE TOOK OUT ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH LOW WATER CONSUMING GRASSES.
TO ME THAT JUST GETS HARD TO TRACK AND WE JUST LEFT IT STRAIGHT TO LANDSCAPING.
UM, FOR, SO AGAIN, WE KEPT THE, FOR ADDITIONAL WATER CONSUMING TECHNIQUE FOR MINIMUM OF 50% OF LANDSCAPE, YOU CAN GET TWO POINTS AND A AND A MINIMUM OF 80% ON LANDSCAPE AREAS FOR FIVE POINTS AND THEN TOOK OUT, UH, THINGS DEALING WITH TURF JUST GETS HARDER TO TRACK AGAIN, KIND OF KEEP IT SIMPLER AND STILL KEEP TO THE INTENT OF WHAT THE CHANGES ARE.
UM, WE TOOK OUT EVERYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH, UH, LEAD AND PLATINUM, UH, BUILDINGS, AGAIN, TO THE POINT WHERE A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE BUILDING PIECE OF IT.
UM, JUST AGAIN, CLEANING THAT UP AND, AND TAKING THAT PIECE OUT OF IT.
SIX, UH, ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS.
THIS ONE I THOUGHT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING, UH, TO ME IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF, AS WE'RE REPLANTING NEW TREES, WE WANT TREES TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE GONNA HIT THEIR MAXIMUM GROWTH POTENTIAL.
AND THAT ALL HAS TO DO WITH SOIL VOLUME.
SO THIS IS ONE AGAIN, WE, WE INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF MAXIMUM POINTS THAT YOU COULD GET, UM, AND MADE IT A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER TO READ.
SO IF YOU INCREASE YOUR, IF YOU MEET THE MINIMUM SOIL VOLUME REQUIREMENT,
[00:10:01]
YOU GET THE FIVE POINTS.IF YOU INCREASE IT BY 10%, YOU CAN GET 15, UH, POINTS AND UP TO 20, UH, 20%, 20 POINTS, AND 30%, UH, 25 POINTS.
AND THAT MIGHT NOT SEEM LIKE A BIG DEAL.
UM, BUT REDUCING CONCRETE AND HAVING MORE ROOTING VALUE FOR TREES, THOSE TREES THAT THEN WE DO PLANT, WE'VE ALL SEEN THOSE TREES THAT ARE IN LITTLE CAUGHT OUT PARKING ISLANDS AND THEY HAVE BEEN THERE FOR FIVE YEARS AND THEY'VE NEVER GOTTEN ANY BIGGER.
WELL, THOSE TREES ARE LIKE THAT BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T, LITERALLY DON'T HAVE THE SOIL VOLUME TO BE ABLE TO GROW.
AND SO IF WE'RE PLANTING TREES WITH THE, WITH THE INTENT THAT YOU'RE GONNA SHADE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, THAT YOU'RE GONNA SHADE PARKING LOTS, THAT YOU'RE GONNA REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE PLANTING TREES IN THOSE ENVIRONMENTS.
AND TO ME, ONE, I'M WILLING TO GIVE A DEVELOPER A BREAK ON THEIR MITIGATION IF THEY GO A LITTLE BIT EXTRA TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THAT PROPER SOIL VOLUME FOR THE TREES THAT THEY DO PLANT TO BE ABLE TO REACH THEIR MAXIMUM POTENTIAL.
AND THAT'S KIND OF THE THEORY OF THAT ENTIRE SECTION.
UM, WHAT WAS NEXT? UH, AND THAT WAS REALLY THE EXTENT OF IT.
UH, AGAIN, WE JUST ADDED THE DEFINITIONS THAT WERE IN THERE, UM, AND THEN SEAN WAS KIND ENOUGH TO GO THROUGH AND, AND MAKE IT ALL FLOW A LITTLE BIT BETTER, AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE CATCH THAT, THAT SPELLING MISTAKE.
AND THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE.
SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL HAVE.
I THINK, I THINK YOU DID A GREAT JOB.
UM, AND I PARTICULARLY LIKE HOW ON PAGE TWO, ITEM FOUR YOU WORKED IN EVAPOTRANSPIRATION.
UM, BECAUSE ANY DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDES THAT IT, IT HAS TO BE A PLUS.
SO, AND I DO APPRECIATE THE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY WORKING IN THE DEFINITIONS, UM, INTO THE DOCUMENT INSTEAD OF HAVING, HAVING TO CONSTANTLY GO BACK AND FORTH, BACK AND FORTH.
I WISH, I WISH IT WAS THAT WAY THROUGHOUT ALL OF OUR DOCUMENTS.
THAT MAKES IT MUCH EASIER TO USE.
UM, I I WILL ADD REALLY QUICK.
THE SECTION UNDER SECTION NUMBER THREE, UH, EXCUSE ME.
IS IT THREE ON YOURS? IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE RED LINE VERSION, IT'S NUMBER THREE.
UH, NUMBER TWO, THERE'S A, WE HAD A PUBLIC ART COMPONENT IN THERE AND WE JUST MISSED THAT WHEN WE WERE DOING OUR EDIT.
THAT IS, WE WERE GONNA TAKE THAT PIECE OF IT OUT.
IT'S VERY, VERY HARD TO QUANTIFY HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT.
SO WE TOOK THAT PUBLIC ART COMPONENT OUT.
THAT WON'T BE IN THE, THE FINAL FINAL.
AND, AND OUR THOUGHT ON THAT WAS NUMBER, I THINK IT'S THE NEW NUMBER SIX, IT WAS NUMBER SEVEN.
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DEVELOPER AND APPLICANT TO PROPOSE PROPOSED OTHER, UM, ENHANCEMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION THAT MEET, UM, THE GUIDELINES AND, AND AS IT'S REFERENCED BELOW THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN TRAILS AND BIKE BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO KEEP IN THE CULTURAL ARTS MASTER PLAN REFERENCE.
BUT IT WAS JUST A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO QUANTIFY THAT AS, AS MATT SAID, BUT IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE THAT WE WOULDN'T CONSIDER, UM, SOME SORT OF PUBLIC ART OR MURAL OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
IT WAS JUST KIND OF HARD TO QUITE QUANTIFY THE NEXUS, UM, RIGHT.
AND THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT DOES SEEM TO FOCUS MORE ON GREEN GREENERY PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TRAILS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO THAT WAS THE THOUGHT KINDA BEHIND THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M HAPPY WITH THIS.
NO, IF YOU'RE READY TO HAVE IT.
UH, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ALSO, IN THIS FINAL VERSION CAUGHT THERE WAS EVER, AND IT SHOULD BE EVER, I THINK THAT WAS CAUGHT AS WELL IN A FEW PLACES.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FROM THE VERSION YOU RECEIVED EARLIER? YES.
YEAH, I THINK I CAUGHT ONE OF THOSE, BUT I'LL REREAD EVERYTHING.
I THINK THERE WAS ONE OR TWO OF THOSE INSTANCES I CAUGHT IT SAID EVER.
AND IT SHOULD BE EVERY GOT IT.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WITH THE EDITS, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DOCUMENT? MOVE TO MOTION IN A SECOND.
THEN WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DOCUMENT AS MODIFIED PER OUR DISCUSSION NOW AND READY TO PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL.
THEN THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION IS RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPING STANDARDS.
WE, UM, KICKED OFF THIS ITEM, UM, AT THE LAST MEETING AND WE'VE BROUGHT BACK A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION PER THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST.
UM, WE'VE, WE'VE PUT TOGETHER SOME INFORMATION AS FAR AS, UM, OR GATHERED SOME INFORMATION AS FAR AS WHAT A FEW OTHER CITIES IN THE REGION, UH, HOW THEY DO OR, OR IN MOST CASES, UM, DON'T ADDRESS
UM, SO WE'LL WALK THROUGH THAT.
WE PUT TOGETHER A FEW PROS AND CONS, UH, TO KIND OF TALK THROUGH.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS ANOTHER REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE.
THERE WAS A, THERE WAS A QUICK, UM, LEGAL QUESTION WHICH WE'LL FOLLOW UP ON.
I SPOKE WITH MR. ROTON LAST WEEK.
SO, UM, JUST A LITTLE FRAMEWORK OF
[00:15:01]
WHAT WE HAVE TO PRESENT.BUT JUST AS A BRIEF REMINDER, UH, CURRENTLY IN THE GDC FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND DUPLEX YARDS, UM, ADJACENTS TO STREETS MUST BE PLANTED WITH A SOLID COVERING OF TURF.
UM, WE'VE, UM, INTERPRETED THAT AS, AS LIVING TURF.
THERE'S OTHER REFERENCES IN THE GDC, UM, THAT KINDA REFER TO LIVING TURF AND, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN INTERPRETED.
UM, IS, IS, UM, ACTUAL GRASS LIVING GRASS.
SO JUST TO WALK THROUGH WHAT A FEW OTHER CITIES IN THE DFW REGION, HOW THEY HANDLE IT.
A LOT OF THIS IS, UM, JUST QUOTING, LITERALLY EMAILS BACK FROM THEIR STAFF, UM, VERSUS TRYING TO DECIPHER THEIR CODE OF, SOME OF THEM WERE KIND ENOUGH TO QUICKLY RESPOND BACK AND JUST GIVE THEM US A QUICK AND DIRECT ANSWER.
UM, THE PLAINTIFF PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF NOTED THAT OUR LANGUAGE FOR SINGLE FAMILY IS NOT VERY STRONG, UNFORTUNATELY, AND IS SILENT ON TURF.
UH, BUT WE HAVE BY POLICY ENCOURAGED ZERO ESCAPING AND PROHIBITED ARTIFICIAL TURF.
UM, WE PLAN TO OVERHAUL OUR ORDINANCE THIS YEAR AND WE'LL TACKLE THE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AS PART OF THAT.
UM, SO THEY ENCOURAGE ZERO ESCAPING, BUT, BUT THEY, THEY DO NOT ALLOW ARTIFICIAL TURF.
I WON'T READ THROUGH ALL OF WHAT DENTON DOES, BUT TO SUMMARIZE WHAT, HOW THEY DO IT, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A 30% LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT, UM, FOR SINGLE FAMILY, UH, HOMES AND DUPLEXES AND TOWN HOMES.
SO THE, UM, THEY WILL ACTUALLY ALLOW AND CONSIDER, UH, ARTIFICIAL TURF GRASS, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS THAT 30% OF LANDSCAPED AREA.
SO IT WOULD JUST BE OUTSIDE THAT FOR, FOR FRONT YARDS.
BUT THEY, THEY NOTED SOMETHING SIMILAR AS PLANO AND THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT THEIR ORDINANCE AND, AND POLICIES, UH, IN THE FUTURE, NEAR FUTURE, PERHAPS THEY WERE NOTED THAT WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT ALLOWING FOR AN INCENTIVIZING ZERO ESCAPING OR SMART SCAPING IN MORE CONTEXT TO AID IN THE CITY'S WATER OF CONSERVATION GOALS.
BUT THAT IS STILL IN PRELIMINARY PHASES.
UM, ALAN, THEY SENT BACK A PRETTY, UH, SHORT RESPONSE.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE ACTUALLY HAVE ANYTHING IN OUR CODE THAT REQUIRES SOD OR PROHIBITS ARTIFICIAL TURF, UM, ETTE.
UM, THEY, UM, THEY DON'T, THEY HAVE A SIMILAR REQUIREMENT AS A, AS AS GARLAND.
AND IF THEY REQUIRE YOUR TWO TREES FOR SINGLE AND SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, THEY HAVE THAT.
BUT IS, IT DOESN'T REFERENCE GRASS IS BASICALLY THE SHORT STORY OF IT.
UM, SO THEY, UM, THEY, THEY ALLOW TURF FOR THE, THE NEW DIRECTOR.
THEY HAVE NOTED THAT THEY WILL ALLOW TURF, THEY'LL CONSIDER AN ALLOW ARTIFICIAL TURF THAT IS, UM, AND THEY DO CONSIDER IT, OR MOST ARTIFICIAL GRASS AS PERMEABLE.
SO THEY, THEY ALSO NOTED THAT IT WOULDN'T, UM, COUNT TOWARDS THE MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE.
AND THEN MESQUITE, I WASN'T ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ANYONE FROM MESQUITE, AT LEAST NOT YET.
BUT, UM, IT APPEARS THAT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, UH, YEAH, AS I UNDERLINED HERE, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND AGRICULTURAL USES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, BUT DUPLEXES HAVE A SIMILAR REQUIREMENT, UM, IN THAT, UH, DUPLEXES SHALL PROVIDE PERMANENT TURF GRASS AND OR GROUND COVER, UM, ESTABLISHED IN ALL YARDS AS WELL AS THE ONE SHADE TREE OR GREEN TREE.
SIMILAR, NOT TOO FAR FROM GARLAND'S REQUIREMENT.
UM, SO WE PUT TOGETHER A FEW PROS AND CONS.
UM, AGAIN, THIS LIST CAN BUILD, AND THIS CAN BE PART OF A CONVERSATION, BUT THESE ARE A FEW THAT WE CAME UP WITH, UH, TO START WITH THE PROS OF, UH, TO BE CLEAR, THE PROS AND CONS OF ACTUALLY AMENDING THE GDC TO ALLOW FOR OTHER, UM, ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING, UM, ZERO ESCAPING ARTIFICIAL TURF, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SOME PROS TOWARDS DOING THAT, UH, INCLUDE OF COURSE WATER CONSERVATION, ESPECIALLY DURING THE SUMMER AND TIMES OF DROUGHT.
UM, AND THEN ANOTHER PRO BEING, UM, THAT PROVIDES SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR GARLAND RESIDENTS WHEN, UM, LANDSCAPING THEIR YARD AND SOME CONS.
AND WHILE IT MAY HAVE MORE THAN THE PROS, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY BY DESIGN OR NECESSARILY STAFF RECOMMENDING AGAINST IT.
IT'S JUST SOME OTHER NOTES, THINGS THAT WE CAME UP WITH THAT CAME TO MIND.
UM, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO REGULATE AND CODIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURALIZED LANDSCAPES WITH FLOWERS, WILD FLOWERS AND NATIVE GRASSES VERSUS WEEDS.
SOME FOLKS WILL CALL THINGS WEEDS THAT OTHERS WILL CALL.
NO, THAT'S, THAT'S A NATURAL GRASS, THAT'S A NATURAL FLOWER AND WHATNOT.
UM, OF COURSE IT, IT, YOU KNOW, MAY LEAD TO AN INCONSISTENT LOOK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS WITH DIFFERENT LOOKING FRONT YARDS.
UM, WE WOULD PROBABLY, THE REALITY IS WE WOULD LIKELY TO BE TO RECEIVE SOME COMPLAINTS FROM, FROM SOME NEIGHBORS.
UM, AND THEN THIS, THIS LAST ONE WE'RE, NO ONE IN THIS ROOM IS BY ANY MEANS AN EXPERT IN ANY OF THIS, BUT IT'S JUST THINGS.
AND THERE'S STUDIES OUT THERE AND, AND WE HAVE COME ACROSS THINGS WHERE IT, IT MAY BE THERE, THERE MAY BE CHEMICALS IN ARTIFICIAL TURF THAT, YOU KNOW, GET INTO RUNOFF.
UM, UM, ALSO DIFFERENT ARTIFICIAL TURF PRODUCTS HAVE A WIDE VARIETY OF INFILL, UH, THAT RANGES ANYWHERE FROM RECYCLED TIRE, UH, RUBBER QUART SAND, ET CETERA.
UM, THAT REQUIRES MAINTENANCE AND, AND CAN WASH
[00:20:01]
AWAY INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM.UM, SO JUST SOME, SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER THERE.
UM, AND THEN FINALLY, JUST THE, I BELIEVE A LEGAL QUESTION CAME UP LAST TIME AS FAR AS, UM, PREEMPTION.
THERE WAS ALSO A BILL LAST YEAR THAT WAS PROPOSED, UH, REGARDING URBAN GARDEN OR URBAN GARDENS AND THE CITIES, CITIES NOT BEING ABLE TO REGULATE THOSE.
UM, THAT BILL, AS I UNDERSTAND, DID NOT PASS ACTUALLY.
UM, AND AS FAR AS PREEMPTION GOES, UM, REALLY IF WE WERE TO MAKE A CHANGE, THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE PROVIDING MORE FLEXIBILITY IN LESSENING THE RESTRICTIONS.
SO WE DIDN'T REALLY SEE A, A CONFLICT THERE.
UM, BUT WITH THAT COMMITTEE, WE'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO Y'ALL AND OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION.
UM, YEAH, ABOUT THE ARTIFICIAL TURF.
THIS WAS AN INTERESTING THING AND PARKS DEPARTMENT PROBABLY HAS MORE ON THIS, BUT WHEN WE WERE CREATING THE DOG PARK, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION AMONG CITIZENS ABOUT, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO, UH, ROTATE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE LIVING TURF THERE ABOUT, UM, ARTIFICIAL TURF THAT SOME OTHER DOG PARKS USE, ARTIFICIAL TURF, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
AND, UM, HUGE OCEAN OF, UM, RESPONSES FROM A LOT OF CITIZENS WHO HAD GONE INTO A DEEP DIVE ON THAT.
AND IT WAS THE VERY THINGS YOU LISTED UP THERE, CHEMICALS, RUNOFF GETTING, YOU KNOW, INTO THE STORM DRAINS, UM, THAT AFTER, AFTER A VERY FEW YEARS IN TEXAS SUN, IT LOOKS LIKE GARBAGE.
AND EVEN THE HIGH QUALITY ONES THAT ARE REALLY BEAUTIFUL TO START.
UM, AND ONCE IT'S THERE, YOU KNOW, WHO'S, WHO'S SUPPOSED TO GO OUT THERE AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, LAST WEEK IT LOOKED OKAY, BUT THIS WEEK IT'S REALLY GONE DOWNHILL AND NEED TO RIP THIS OUT AND REPLACE IT ANYWAY.
I AM NOT A FAN OF ARTIFICIAL TURF.
I AM PARTICULARLY NOT IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, SO I I'M, I'M FINE WITH US JUST SAYING LIVING, YOU KNOW, PLANT LIFE IS GOOD FOR THE AIR, IT'S GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.
I WOULD JUST RATHER STAY AWAY FROM ARTIFICIAL STUFF.
UM, AND I HAVE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF CITIZENS, EVEN SINCE WE STARTED THIS DISCUSSION FAIRLY RECENTLY, UM, COMPLAINING ABOUT A NEIGHBOR ONE DRAGGED ME OVER AND I ACTUALLY TOOK PICTURES OF THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO HIM THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WILD FLOWERS AND BUTTERFLY GARDENS, AND IT LOOKS LIKE A TANGLED MESS.
AND HE SAID, WE DEAL WITH THIS ALL THE TIME.
THEY KEEP CLAIMING IT'S WONDERFUL, BUT YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
UM, SO THE INCONSISTENT LOOK WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND WE'RE ALREADY RECEIVING COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS AND IF WE MAKE THIS A JUST A, A WHOLE OPEN DOOR, UM, I WOULD HATE TO BE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THAT.
UM, I THINK STAFF WOULD HATE US.
UM, AND ALL THESE CONS I, I AGREE WITH THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE DIFFICULTIES.
THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD LIKE, IF WE CAN FIND A WAY TO, UM, DO SOME KIND OF A HYBRID, I WOULD LIKE TO NOT ONLY ALLOW BUT INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO USE WATER CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES TO USE AT LEAST A, ENABLE THEM TO USE AT LEAST A PORTION OF THEIR YARD IF IT'S NEATLY DEFINED FOR A BUTTERFLY GARDEN OR ONE OF THESE OTHER THINGS.
I JUST, I, I'M AFRAID IF WE MAKE A LARGE MOVE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE UPSET WITH US ALL, ALL ACROSS THE CITY.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN THE, UM, THESE WILD WILDFLOWER GARDENS AND THEY ARE, THEY'RE A MESS.
I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THE ARTIFICIAL TURF.
I'VE SEEN THEM IN YARDS BEFORE AND I THINK THEY LOOK GREAT.
UM, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I WOULD, I WOULD BE FOR US ALLOWING ARTIFICIAL TURF IN YARDS, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT SOMETHING, NOT A HILL I'M GONNA DIE ON.
I DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH, THAT MUCH LOVE FOR IT.
I JUST, I JUST DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST IT.
UM, THE OVERGROWN NATIVE GRASSES AND OVERGROWN BUTTERFLY GARDENS AND ALL THAT.
I THINK THAT'S JUST A, JUST A MESS.
AND WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO MAINTAIN, WE NEED TO REGULATE THAT.
AND I'M, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING, ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE? UH, WHO I BELIEVE COUNCIL LADY LUCK BROUGHT THIS UP.
[00:25:01]
I DON'T, I DON'T QUITE KNOW MORE THE HISTORY OF WHY OR, OR WAS THERE AN ISSUE SHE WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS IN US LOOKING AT THIS.BUT I'M REALLY NOT FOR ADDING MORE REGULATIONS TO THIS.
I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY NEED MORE, YOU KNOW, TELLING PEOPLE YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING HERE IN THE PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN.
UH, UH, IF THAT'S WHERE I KIND OF STAND ON IT.
AND BRITA, SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.
BUT, UM, THE REQUIREMENT CURRENTLY IS IS YARDS ADJACENT TO THE STREET.
SO FOLKS COULD HAVE ARTIFICIAL TURF IN THE BACKYARDS AND OTHER AREAS OF THE YARD.
IS THAT CORRECT? IF, I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN THEY COME TO US WITH
I MEAN, SO THE REQUIREMENT IS YARDS ADJACENT TO STREETS, HAVE TO HAVE TURF YEAH.
AND THEY HAVE TO BE IRRIGATED.
SO THOSE, UM, WHEN COUNCILWOMAN LUCK BROUGHT THIS UP, IT WAS, WHY DO WE MAKE PEOPLE HAVE IRRIGATION AS A STANDARD? BECAUSE YOU CAN DO NICE LANDSCAPING WITHOUT THEORETICALLY MM-HMM.
AND A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH HOW WELL IT'S MAINTAINED AND IF IT NEEDS WATER, GETTING IT WATER.
AND UM, I THINK SOMEONE HAD COME TO HER BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO DO A KIND OF A NATURALIZED, UM, LIKE THE ENTIRE SIDE NEXT TO A STREET AND DO SOMETHING NATURALIZED.
THERE'S ALSO THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, URBAN AGRICULTURE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND YOU KNOW, IT'S A LOT OF THOSE DEPENDS ON HOW WELL IT'S DONE, YOU KNOW HOW IT LOOKS.
SOMETIMES IT CAN LOOK REALLY AWESOME AND SOMETIMES IT CAN LOOK UNKEPT.
SO HOW TO INCORPORATE MORE FLEXIBILITY, I THINK WAS THE GOAL WITH, YOU KNOW, IS IRRIGATION REQUIRED.
I THINK THOSE WERE THE TWO QUESTIONS THAT WERE ON HER MIND.
SO ARE WE LOOKING AT THE RIGHT ISSUE THEN? IS THAT, SHOULD IT BE AN IRRIGATION, WHETHER IRRIGATION REQUIRED? 'CAUSE I SEE PLENTY OF PEOPLE STANDING WITH A HOSE IN THEIR FRONT YARDS.
AND THEORETICALLY THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT IF WE HAVE AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM INSTALLED AND MAYBE IT'S BROKEN OR SOMETHING, BUT I'M NOT GONNA TELL 'EM THEY CAN'T HOLD A HOSE OUT IN THEIR FRONT YARD EITHER AND IRRIGATE THE FRONT YARD IF THEY WANT TO OR PUT A, YOU KNOW, SPRAYER OUT MANUALLY OPERATED WITH A HOSE OR SOMETHING.
BUT I THINK THEY GO HAND IN HAND.
'CAUSE WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TURF IS REQUIRED ENTRIES, BUT ONLY, AND ONLY TURF REALLY IS THE ONLY THING SPELLED OUT.
DO THEY, DOES, UM, WELL TWO THINGS.
THEY FIND TURF AND THEN IN MY YARD I HAVE NOT TURF UNDER A BIG TREE WHERE YOU CAN'T GROW GRASS ANYWAY BECAUSE, SO
THERE'S SOME, THERE'S SOME GAPS.
AND SO IT'S, DO WE MAKE CHANGES AND IF SO, HOW DO WE, WHAT, WHERE DO WE GO WITH IT? MM-HMM.
AND THEN THE REST OF IT YOU CAN MAKE CHOICES.
IRRIGATION REQUIRED OR NOT REQUIRED.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE GET MORE CHOICE IF YOU DON'T REQUIRE IT.
BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ENSURE IT GETS INSTALLED AT THE BEGINNING, MAYBE THERE'S MORE LIKELIHOOD THINGS WILL LIVE.
I MEAN THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS LIKE THAT TOO THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER.
PEOPLE COULD ALSO JUST TURN THEIR SPRINKLERS OFF.
I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING CONTROLLING PEOPLE HOW PEOPLE ACTUALLY USE THEIR IRRIGATION SYSTEM, EXCEPT THAT THINGS HAVE TO REMAIN LIVING THEORETICALLY.
SO WHAT, WHAT DO WE SAY? SORRY? OH, I'M SORRY.
DO WE SAY ABOUT GRASS HEIGHT? 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT'S A PLANE I GET FREQUENTLY IN LOTS THAT 12 INCHES, 12 INCHES, 12 INCHES WEEDS UNDER 32 CITY ORS.
BUT KEEP IN MIND THERE ARE ACTUALLY DECORATIVE GRASSES THAT ARE FOUR FIVE.
SO THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, MORE LIKE SHRUBS, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
UM, IT, IT IS IN THAT SECTION, I BELIEVE THIS IS UNDER GENERAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, GENERAL LANDSCAPING STANDARDS.
UM, BUT THE IRRIGATION REQUIRED, OF COURSE THAT'S CLARIFIES THAT IT'S REQUIRED.
HOWEVER, UM, IT, IT DOESN'T PROVISION THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR MAY WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND ACCEPT AN ALTERNATIVE IRRIGATION OR DEVICE IF ONE OF THE, ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY TO A DEVELOPMENT SITE.
UM, IF ATTRACTIVE AND HARDY PEST RESISTANT AND DISEASE RESISTANT AS ZERO ESCAPE PLANTING MATERIALS ARE USED.
UH, EVEN MOATS AND PARENTHESES TECHNIQUES ARE ENCOURAGED BY THE CITY IF DESIGNED AND SUFFICIENTLY MAINTAINED, OR IF THE AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPED AREA AND MATERIALS IS VERY LIMITED AND THE LANDSCAPED AREA IS LOCATED FURTHER THAN 200 FEET FROM WATER SOURCE OR METER.
IS THAT FOR COMMERCIAL THOUGH? NON RESIDENTIAL? I KNOW THIS, I DON'T BELIEVE THIS HAS EVER BEEN A REQUEST FOR RESIDENTIAL.
[00:30:01]
BUT IT'S IN GENERAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS, RESIDENTIAL STARTS YEAH.FOR RESIDENTIAL STARTS AT, CORRECT.
SO I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD EXCLUDE RESIDENTIAL IF SOMEONE, IT'S A, IT'S A RARELY USED REQUEST.
I I, I KNOW A CHURCH CAME TO ME PROBABLY A YEAR OR TWO AGO THAT HAD A SYSTEM OR A ISSUE WITH THEIR IRRIGATION SYSTEM, BUT IT, IT HAD NEVER REALLY BEEN A PROBLEM ON KEEPING THEIR TREES AND WHATNOT ALIVE OUT THERE.
IT, THEY HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR SEVERAL DECADES ACTUALLY.
SO, UM, IT'S BEEN A PRETTY RARE REQUEST, BUT IT IS THERE.
AND I, I SUPPOSE THAT IS, UM, AVAILABLE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS FOR RESIDENTIAL IF, UM, THAT KIND OF ADDRESSES MORE THE IRRIGATION SIDE OF THINGS.
UM, I KNOW, YES, SAMANTHA ONCE HAS BEEN ONCE OR TWICE WHERE SHE SENT SOME FOLKS UP UPSTAIRS.
UM, WHEN THIS HAS COME UP, IT'S JUST, IT'S PRETTY RARE.
BUT
I KNOW LOOKING AT NOW, I MEAN LOOKING DEEPER INTO THIS 200 FEET FROM A WATER SOURCE METER, I DO PROJECTS FREQUENTLY THAT ARE MORE THAN 200 FEET AWAY.
WE DO LARGE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT MIGHT BE THOUSANDS OF FEET LONG AND YOU HAVE ONE METER THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S IRRIGATED AROUND THE WHOLE BUILDING, WHICH YOU GET, YOU'RE VERY FAR FROM A METER ACCORDING TO THIS.
YOU COULD THEORETICALLY NOT HAVE TO DO IRRIGATION IF YOU HAD THAT SITUATION.
BUT, SO IT'S, I GUESS WE'RE ALL OVER THE PLACE KIND OF IN OUR REGULATIONS HERE.
UM, COMMITTEE THOUGHTS, SHOULD WE LOOK INTO THIS DEEPER, TRY TO CLEAN IT UP, GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS, OR LEAVE IT STATUS QUO OR WHAT'S THE PLEASURE? HMM.
UM, WELL I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.
UM, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WATERING THEIR LAWN WITH A HOSE.
DO WE KNOW WHAT DATE WE PUT IN THE IRRIGATION REQUIREMENT? WELL, THE GDC WAS ADOPTED IN MAY OF 2020, EXCUSE ME, 2015.
UM, SO I, I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK AND SEE IF THIS A SIMILAR PROVISION WAS IN THE PREVIOUS CODE, BUT IF THIS WAS ADOPTED WITH THE GDC ADOPTED ADOPTION, THEN THAT WAS 2015.
SO WE GOT ABOUT EIGHT YEARS PLENTY OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE GONNA BE BEFORE THIS.
UM, YEAH, 'CAUSE I MEAN, ESPECIALLY IF YOU GO BACK TO BEFORE THE EARLY NINETIES, IT WAS NOT THE STANDARD TO BUILD IN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. SO PROBABLY A LARGE PORTION OF OUR CITY'S NOT IRRIGATED.
I'D BE APTT TO JUST LEAVE IT ALONE.
WHAT'S A DATE FOR OUR FUTURE GDC REVISION? DO WE HAVE ANY PLAN ON COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THIS? I KNOW YOU MENTIONED ONE OF THE CITIES YOU TALKED TO SAID THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT THAT POSSIBLY IN THE FUTURE.
DO WE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHEN WE MAY DO THE SAME? UM, ONLY REASON I ASK IS 'CAUSE THIS COULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY, THAT COMMITTEE, WHOEVER CAN LOOK AT AND SEE.
WELL, AND I KNOW WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF CHANGES WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD ALREADY.
AND BESIDES ONES THAT JUST COME OUTTA COMMITTEE, UM, WE, WE HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST OF, OF THINGS KIND OF CLEANUP RELATED THINGS THAT, THAT BRITA AND I WILL BRING FORWARD AT A FUTURE DATE.
UM, BUT BEYOND THAT, UM, PROBABLY FROM A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY STANDPOINT, USUALLY THAT'S DRIVEN BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND OF COURSE WE'RE, WE'RE LAUNCHING THAT PROCESS, THE CONFERENCE PLAN UPDATE.
SO THAT'S USUALLY THE, THE STANDARD KIND OF PLANNING PROCESS COMP PLAN.
AND THEN IF THAT HAS CERTAIN POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, UM, THAT AFFECT A DEVELOPMENT CODE, THAT'S HOW THAT USUALLY COMES OUT.
SO THE GDC ACTUALLY DID, IT WAS ADOPTED AS A DIRECT RECOMMENDATION PER ENVISION GARLAND.
IT, IT WAS ABOUT TWO OR THREE YEARS FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF VISION ENVISION GARLAND.
SO WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M KIND OF HEARING FROM THE COMMITTEE IS THAT WE DO HAVE AN OPTION FOR ZERO ESCAPING IF THEY WANT IN THERE.
THERE'S NO REAL APPETITE TO KIND OF ADJUST ANYTHING RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT, UNLESS THERE'S A MAJOR ISSUE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS.
SO I'M FINE IF THE COMMITTEE WISHES TO JUST KEEP IT AS IS.
THEN WE'LL KEEP IT AS WE APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION THEN.
DO WE NEED TO ACT ON THAT OFFICIALLY WITH A MOTION? SO THEN WE WILL DO WE NEED A MOTION TO, WELL, WHY DON'T WE DO IT REPORT OUT.
SO THEN A MOTION TO REPORT OUT TO THE COMMITTEE.
HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO REPORT WITH NO CHANGES ON THIS ITEM.
THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.