Return
MINUTES
The Development Services Committee of the City of Garland convened in regular session at 4:00 p.m. on Monday, October 17, 2022, in the Work Session Room, 200 North Fifth Street, Garland, Texas, with the following members:
Present:
Dylan Hedrick, Chair
Jeff Bass, Council Member
Deborah Morris, Council Member
Staff Present:
Jud Red, Assistant City Manager
Brian England, City Attorney
Will Guerin, Planning Director
Brita Van Horne, Building Official
Eric Lovett, Fire Assistant Chief
Courtney Vanover, Recording Secretary
1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
Approval of the Minutes of the September 19, 2022 meeting.
Motion was made by Council Member Morris to approve the minutes as presented and seconded by Chair Hedrick. Motion carried unanimously.
2.
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
a.
Public Comment
Persons who wish to address the Committee on any item on the agenda are allowed three minutes to speak. Testimony may be held until the item is considered or given at the beginning of any DSC meeting. Invited testimony may also occur any time, subject to a request of the member of the Committee and approval of the chair
.
b.
Downtown Automotive Overlay District Review
Chair Hedrick opened up the meeting and Brita Van Horne, Building Official provided documents to the Board regarding follow-up items in reference to Downtown Automotive Overlay District Review.
There was discussion between the Committee and Staff.
The Committee recommended the following:
Grant existing uses SUP's, making it clear in the granting of the SUP, they will be amortized out after a 20-year period
Businesses that are actively operating currently in automotive that expanded without permission will be granted the SUP for the expansion for only 20 years
Amend the Downtown Auto Overlay of the GDC to Prohibit the Automotive Use except by SUP that was issued on or before the effective date of January 1, 2023
The Committee requested that Staff provide a final document to review the language at the November meeting before presenting to Council.
c.
Fire Sprinkler Requirements for Buildings
Brita Van Horne, Building Official and Eric Lovett, Fire Assistant Chief provided a presentation regarding follow-up items for Fire Sprinkler Requirements in Buildings.
There was discussion between the Committee and Staff.
Council Member Morris made a motion to move back to Option B with 6,000 square feet, seconded by Council Member Bass. Motion passed with Chair Hedrick in opposition.
The Committee will report this item to Council.
d.
Amending Screening Requirements Next to Commercial Uses or Arterial Roadways
Mr. Guerin provided a presentation regarding follow-up items in reference to other cities Screening Requirements.
The presentation covered requirements for:
Rowlett - Non-Residential adjacent to SF
Masonry Wall or Living Screen Required for Commercial
Masonry Required for Industrial & Utility Uses
No Screening Required for MF
Rowlett - SF Along Thoroughfares
Masonry wall required
Plano - Non-Residential Adjacent to SF
Masonry Wall Required
P&Z May Consider Living Screen by Variance
Plano - SF Along Thoroughfares
Exact requirements depend on situation* P&Z Commission make decision on Wrought Iron Option
Richardson - Non-Residential Adjacent to SF
Masonry Wall Required
Richardson - SF Along Thoroughfares
Masonry Wall or Living Screen Required
Wrought OK only on limited basis - to view landscape features or common areas
Garland - Non-Residential Adjacent to SF
Options
Masonry Wall
Ornamental Fence with Columns & Landscaping
Earthen Berm / Living Screen
Alternative Screening Options
Garland - SF Along Thoroughfares
Options
Masonry Wall
Ornamental Fence w/ Columns & Landscaping
There was discussion between Committee and Staff.
The Committee recommended a provision be added removing wrought iron fencing along thoroughfares and additionally have wording addressing the existing construction with similar material.
e.
Review of GDC Tree Mitigation Requirements
Will Guerin, Planning Director provided a presentation regarding the Review of GDC Tree Mitigation Requirements.
The Purpose 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 are removed for the development and redevelopment of lands.
Tree Mitigation Requirements
$150 per caliper inch removed and not re-planted
Trees 6” and above are protected
Ratios depend on size of tree and species type
Reforestation and tree management fund 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
Tree Management Plan required.
Exceptions for dead/unhealthy trees and trees in the right-of-way.
Audit Recommendations
Create standardized form or template in calculating/verifying tree mitigation fees
Oversight of fees assessed and collected
City Administration determination on over/underpayments
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 location
Re-evaluate Tables 1 through 9 to provide more clarity as to the classification of vegetation to be protected, preserved, mitigated, planted, and planted off-site
GDC items needing clarification
“Other tree species not listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2” follow 0.25:1 mitigation rate
Table 4-3 (“Trees & Shrubs”): Should Eastern Red Cedars count towards mitigation?
Off-site tree credits
Do we want to allow off-site tree plantings, in lieu-of re-planting on-site or paying into the tree mitigation fund?
If so, in Garland only?
Note: Off-site tree plantings is difficult to administer and track, as observed in Fee Audit
30% limitation on tree credits: “Existing large canopy trees and healthy, mature ornamental trees must be preserved wherever possible. Any tree listed within Table 4-1 or 4-2 in Section 4.48 that is preserved on a site and is six caliper inches or greater will be credited toward meeting up to thirty percent of the tree requirements of any provision of this Article 3 for that area within which they are located, according to the following Table 4-8."
Alternative Compliance / Development Agreements
The City of Carrollton was used as an example:
Eastern Red Cedars are considered “Medium Trees” (25-40 feet) and are protected (require mitigation)
When trees cannot be re-planted on-site, Carrollton allows re-planting of trees in the public right-of-way or on public parkland, “irrigated private open space”, or paying into the tree mitigation fund
Applicability for sites not in the development process
The City of Arlington was used as an example:
Eastern Red Cedars are a protected tree per Arlington’s UDC
Arlington does not allow off-site tree plantings to count towards mitigation. Purpose of tree mitigation fund is to plant trees in City ROW and public parkland
There was discussion between the Committee and Staff.
The Committee requested this item be placed on the November agenda for further discussion with the Parks Department.
3.
ADJOURN
There being no further business to come before the Development Services Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m.
CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS
/s/ Dylan Hedrick, Chair
/s/ Courtney Vanover, Recording Secretary
AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2024 Destiny Software Inc.
All Rights Reserved.