HomeMy WebLinkAboutADD - 16 September Agenda Questions and Responses ADD - 16 September Agenda Questions and Responses smartsheet
M _J Question/Comment Staff Res
9/15/2025 Brian Beck Public Hearing A 24-2622 Finance/Parks Does the budget as written include elements associated with the Downtown Master Plan and Aquatics There is no funding in the FY 2025-2026 budget for any work on the Civic Center Pool that was recommended in the
Master Plan that would continue down the path to removal of the Civic Center Pool? Downtown Master Plan.
However,the Aquatics Master Plan did recommend a comprehensive site analysis and life cycle plan for the pool.This
project,a result of a two-minute pitch,received the highest cumulative priority ranking for one-time funding from the
City Council during the August 9 Budget Workshop.If funds become available from operating or completed project
savings,the site analysis and life cycle plan will be funded.
9/15/2025 Brian Beck Public Hearing A 24-2622 Finance/Parks Does the budget as written include all CPI adjusted maintenance required at Clear Creek,including those The FY 25-26 Budget includes approximately$370,000 for Clear Creek to cover both operational needs and ground
elements specified in our USACE lease agreements,and sufficient staff FTE to fulfill those maintenance,which we anticipate meeting all of obligations.
requirements?
9/15/2025 Brian Beck Public Hearing B AESA25-0001c Environmental Services This proposal reads like a compliance-minimized,footprint-maximized industrial sprawl through an ESA Development meets DDC requirements.Zoning of subject property is General Office.Adjacent properties are Mixed-
corridor. Use Regional(shopping centers),Public Facilities(water plant and power plant)and Planned Development-Mixed Use
Regional.
9/15/2025 Brian Beck Public Hearing B AESA25-0001c Environmental Services The proposal and related concept plan seem to call for basically removing the bulk of that parcel's Fire lane crossing and stormwater outfall impacts are proposed to be offset with privet removal to improve functionality
4 canopy,expanding fragmentation of the remaining treed segments,building a bridge and utility of remaining Riparian Buffer and Floodplain ESA,additionally project is proposing preservation of Cross Timbers
infrastructure over a waterway/floodway,seemingly with the justification to remove privet from the region Upland Habitat ESA on east edge that is depicted as less than 10 contiguous acres on the official ESA map and to
preserve a tree stand at the northwest.
5 9/15/2025 Brian Beck Public Hearing B AESA25-0001c Environmental Services Was a development alternative ever considered that preserved/replanted canopy or avoided bisecting Staff is not aware of an alternative submitted for development review.The fire lane crossing minimizes fragmentation
the ESA? as it is proposed adjacent to the gas utility line previously cleared along northern edge of property.
9/15/2025 Brian Beck Public Hearing B AESA25-0001c Environmental Services Why is no tree replanting proposed—especially for species like post oak and pecan? The applicant reports that 8.5%of trees in Riparian and Floodplain ESAs are removed and remaining trees are at
6 density of 80 stems per acre for trees 6"DBH or larger.Instead of planting small trees,the applicant is preserving
existing tree stand in northwest corner of property.
7 9/15/2025 Brian Beck Public Hearing B AESA25-0001c Environmental Services Can the privet removal be guaranteed to meet reestablishment benchmarks after 3 years without Proposed plan calls for planting of native grasses and wildflowers to fill understory niche.The DDC requires the 3-year
supplemental planting? monitoring period is to address native vegetation establishment and the monitoring of invasive species removal.
9/15/2025 Brian Beck Public Hearing B AESA25-0001c Environmental Services Is the 34.2%Cross Timbers retention contiguous and functional as habitat—or just a residual patch? The Denton Development Code(9.2)defines Upland Habitat or Cross Timbers Upland Habitat as contiguous areas of
ten acres or larger.The official ESA map does not depict Cross Timber Upland Habitat ESA on the adjacent parcel
8 resulting in Cross Timbers on this property being less than 10 acres,and therefore would not require preservation.
Aerial photography indicates the contiguous area of unstudied potential habitat not on the official ESA map may
approach 13 acres.
9 9/15/2025 Brian Beck Public Hearing B AESA25-0001c Environmental Services What is the net reduction in ecosystem services(carbon,cooling,infiltration,etc.)from this development? Current Denton Development Code does not require the applicant to provide ecosystem service calculations.The
Alternative ESA is focused on habitat and post construction water quality.
10 9/15/2025 Brian Beck Public Hearing B AESA25-0001c Environmental Services What downstream stormwater impacts are modeled given the loss of vegetation near Pecan Creek Downstream Assessment is conducted after the Alternative ESA in the development process.
tributary?
11 9/15/2025 Brian Beck Public Hearing tc
MPA24-0003 Development Services Will the safety-based changes reduce the ability of the city to obtain safety-related funding or require No,it will not.
safety-related development restrictions?
Exported on September 16,2025 8:32:08 AM PDT Page 1 of 1