Oct 12, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2016-10-12 5:00 PM

meeting our work session meeting for October the 12th. This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I'm gonna call our meeting to order at 505 and we've got a number of announcements and we're gonna start with that I'll turn that over to Shondria to make the announcements before we move into the clarification of agenda items. Good evening I'm Sh andrian Jarvis with the development review well I'm the DRC administrator with the development services department. The first announcement that we have is we sent out a notice earlier today about a joint P&Z work session but there were two dates identified December 13th around from about 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. January 9th which would be a luncheon and then we've added another date as a possibility January 10th which would also be a luncheon so just if you could email your availability or preference for each of the meetings that would be great. Okay the second item I have a long list so the second item is the Texas APA conference we have two spots available for commissioners if you want to attend the dates are from November 1st to November 3rd and it'll be at the San Antonio Hyatt Hotel Texas the American Planning Association and they'll have a short course for commissioners if anybody's interested yes and then Ryan Mangita will probably want to talk about the neighborhood empowerment summit that's happening this weekend on the 15th. Hopefully you all have received some notification regarding the neighborhood empowerment summit it's this Saturday from 901 it's an opportunity for us to share our programs the city's programs with the neighborhoods that we have here in Den to help you know keep them going so that's something that if you all are able to attend are available I hope to see you there on Saturday. It is this Saturday October 15th from a 9 to 1 and it's at the MLK junior Recreation Center. And Ron did you want to talk about this flyer? Also there's a lot of stuff going on this week this Thursday Roman McAllen our historic preservation officer has put together a session for a individual from the Texas Commission to come out and speak to individuals that are interested in learning more about tax incentives that is available if those properties are eligible or qualify for that type of incentive program. So something to come in and listen and learn more about those incentives. Okay thanks. And then lastly I wanted to welcome Joanne Wilk erson I'm sorry I messed up your name. She is joining us as a planning supervisor in the long-range section of planning. She's working with Ron in this group. She comes to Denton with the wealth of knowledge from Dallas and we are very excited to have her here. And that's it. Great. You can get with Devon on all the announcements. There's a bunch of them. Thank you for the update with all the announcements and things coming up. That's going to move us to our first item here in our work session which is clarification of agenda items and I'll turn that over to you for presentation. Okay we'll go through the plats. Does anybody have any specific question on the plats? Any concerns about those? Okay. Commissioner back. Thank you. On PP 16-01A I guess we probably have to have the map up there but I'm not sure how that that track gets access. There's a railroad track there and then it's doesn't seem to be anything coming in. I'll invite Mike Bell. Okay. I'll be happy to answer that. Maybe it's easier if I pull it up on our maps here to show you the crossing over the railroad. Which item are you? A on consent agenda item. PP 16-01A. Well of course this is going to be slow but if you refer to the the backup the plat itself there is a little road in the southeast corner that follows the railroad tracks and then it cuts across to Country Club Road. It has access on Country Club Road, the very southeast corner. Okay. This is going to load for us. And this area is for single-family homes? This is actually owned by the city of didn't. It's going to be the Hickory Creek wastewater detention facility. It's come before the this Commission before with a specific use permit in 2014 and so this is the plat to make that happen. Let's see if I can find it here for you. So this is the property and there's a small little sliver right here that follows the railroad tracks and actually has access on Country Club. Is this a gravel road? Correct. Okay is that going to be improved? PS would you like to answer that? PS. Long time no see. We purchased the whole tract. Let's change my glasses here. I'm PS Arora, you know with the water department. I oversee the wastewater and drainage functions and this is a tract we had purchased all the way to Country Club Road and the part we are plotting is on the west side of the railroad track. We purchased also this part of the access from the property owner so we own this part of the road and yes we will as part of the agreement with the property owner we are going to improve it so they will always have access to their property even though we own it so that's part of the agreement we have with them. Will this be the only means of egress and ingress? Yes sir this would be because we can't get access over the railroad track to get to the site and that so that's where we went in and we purchased this part from the property owner. This is not a problem for like the fire department or anything? No sir. There is nothing you know it will be a ground storage tank. Oh it's a store? Okay. A ground storage tank and with an underground pump station with a little bit electrical but really not nothing major in terms of fire. Okay thanks. Anything else? Okay. Any more questions on flex? Not on that. Okay. Not on A. On B. FP-21, FP-1621? Right. We will have Mike Bell come back up. Okay. Commissioner back. Thank you chair. Sorry. Go ahead. This one area this is phase one I think of this. Correct. Is that is it gonna be commercial or residential? This is commercial. This is commercial. Okay. It's actually between phase one phase one's what you see here and to the west of that is phase two. Phase two will be all residential. This corner down at the very south end is actually a zone for residential but that'll be the detention pond that serves this entire Sherman Crossing development. Okay. Do we know what kind of commercial enterprises will be in there? Not yet. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any more questions on flats? Okay. We'll go to the items for individual consideration. The first item is PZ 16164. This is the consideration and appointment of the vice-chair position. So we're gonna need a vice-chair so we have. Sorry. Commissioner back. I'd like to nominate Devin Taylor for vice-chair. Commissioner Hussman. I'm gonna second if there's other I mean so I don't know if there's other names coming out but if not I'm gonna second. We will take a first and second. I guess will we do a motion here or or first or second in a motion and vote in chamber? Because it's on for individual consideration and chambers will do it in there. Okay. So right now we'll just take nominations. Is there anybody else who would like to make a nomination that may get a second in our council chambers meeting? We can discuss all that at this time. No? Okay. The only nominee that's come forward at least in work session would be Devin Taylor with the first and the second so we'll look for that in our council chambers meeting. Okay and then the next item is SP 1602. This is the razor-wrench multifamily site plan and I invite Mike Bell back to the podium again. All right this one should look familiar. At last meeting we you know considered the recommendation on the design standards that went to council yesterday and was approved. They are in effect exactly as you saw them and so this is the actually for the site plan for the multifamily project and this will be considered by all for approval and if approved here it's done it doesn't go to council. The request is for a site plan again it's in the south mixed-use district of razor ranch and it's three components a site plan a landscape plan and elevations. The property is shown here in yellow is going to run the middle of the razor ranch south side and on that zoning plan we saw last time roughly here. This is where Heritage Trail has been built along by Wynko and that will extend all the way to the south to scripture so it has furniture on Heritage Trail. This is a little flipped north is towards me just just kind of walk you through the site. There are five buildings up to here that are going to contain 300 units. There are a number of gar ages accessory garages and then there are three kind of amenity open space recreation areas on either side. To orient you to kind of what's happening in razor to the north here's Wynko on this lot down here is the convention center and this is the the back parking lot for the movie theater. This is the landscape plan it complies with the code you'll see street trees and screening for all the parking lots along all the private drives. And then for elevations they don't show up too well in a PowerPoint so I'm gonna go ahead and pull them up in the PDF. Sorry Commissioner Beck I was watching the presentation. Thank you Chair this is the only question I have and I asked you this over the phone did you find out looking at the left elevation that's the end of the apartment. Look like you got four distinct units there. Is that all one apartment running across there? I didn't find the answer but I asked the applicant to come prepared to answer that. Before I go through this I just want to show you. Commissioner Hushbuth. Sorry I thought you were. No problem. I'll let you finish. No go ahead please. Okay can we go back to the slide with the buildings that you're highlighting. Oh yes. I'm sorry. So give me a do you have an idea traffic pattern wise what do we what's the flow there so if it feeds it's feeding in the Heritage Trail primarily how many lanes is that key give me just kind of a day in the life of getting in and out of there. Sure so Heritage Trails four lanes divided roadway and they have they're gonna have an inter dedicated left turn lane into the side here so this will be a median opening and then so that that will be the most the traffic coming in from Heritage Trail. There are also two secondary access points along this private drive and it's the private drive that separates the town center and the movie theater from Winko and in the apartments. This is more of a secondary private street internal driveway you're used to seeing any type of mall development. Okay no no no cause for concern I mean I don't know that we have much say so in it I'm just curious if you've if with that amount of traffic coming in with the with the residents with the movies that you know so you have these large surges every two hours let's say if the movie theater is looking out just have we considered that and we're comfortable with. Yes we have with every with every side plan our engineering department does request traffic generation and they analyze that and determine if we need more turn lanes or wider roads or whatever it may be and I don't have the specifics on that but they did give the okay and I know that they check that every time on every request. Okay thank you. If you'd like more information I could probably have something for you in regular session. No no that'll be great thank you. One more question Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair. Kind of expanding on the traffic pattern heritage heritage Boulevard is that the name of the ? Heritage trail. Heritage trail. That's being is that an arterial is it like a six lane? Yes it is excuse me it's six lane arterial. Yes. Okay and so I guess this is this is the best overall south of 380 site plan right now I think we have is that is that true? Correct yeah. What is the in the in the small site plan it shows a private road that looks like it's like a 30 or 40 foot private road two lane along the south end of the property that crosses Heritage Trail. Correct. Will that go ahead and connect on to Bonnie Bray? It will so what you'll have is this will be Linden will connect all the way and it'll be public until it hits Heritage Trail once it crosses Heritage Trail the West it'll become a private street. The same thing with Crescent. Crescent will actually dead end into Heritage Trail and then you'll have Panhandle you can kind of see the outline of where Panhandle is gonna be right through here. Okay so are those are those is there a better site plan that shows I've seen the concept plans that show some roads but I don't think any of them showed Linden and Crescent really. Is there a current plan for the layout of roads and in relation to these zoning categories or whatever they're called the use categories over here? Yeah there sure is a lot it's just conceptual at this point some of them are pad sides so I can show it to you but don't don't be too married to the site plan. Okay. So I'll be sure to show that to you in the regular session if you'd like to see that. Okay and I also was curious it was hard I was having trouble seeing on the site plan so this is immediately next to the Winko right and it's like back back fence to the Winko. There is a private street between them. Yes it is. And is there a good pedestrian access to the north? I was trying to see if there's like is that like an eight-foot sidewalk would be along the arter ial is that is that accurate or? It's a five-foot sidewalk along the arterial and do you know the sidewalks on the private street side? I have to get back to you on that one I don't know for sure. Okay because I do imagine if you're a hundred feet from the grocery store you're probably gonna walk at least for small small errands like you need you know it's probably almost as fast as going to the garage and the car out and driving over. So I just wanted to make sure that that's that's included in this. We did and when we looked at the site plan we we showed it in conjunction with the cross from the town center there 's an opening basically between the movie theater and the town center that corresponds to the north side of this property so this is where that private drive is and kind of that's where the opening is in the town center between the movie theater. And so could you just put the cursor where roughly where the movie theater is I don't remember exactly. Roughly in here. Right there okay and then the plaza is just a little bit further west of the movie theater? It's kind of roughly in this area. Okay a little bit further north northwest. Okay thank you. Commissioner Rossell. I think this is thank you as good a time and screens as any desk a couple questions. Heritage Trail haven't driven on it is it is that left map up to date? Is it is it? This is the most recent Google map. What so I guess my question is is Heritage Trail going to be continued if so is that the city going to be expanded or is this complex going to be required to do some of that improvement? The developer for Razor Ranch is building the street all the way down to Scripture. Okay and that will be done before construction? Construction should start here in the next couple months or they're ready to go I think as soon as we can get approval of the plans I'll be building that road. Okay and then secondarily that you brought up the point that Crescent was coming in a dead end. Does that align with the entrance to the apartments or what is the impact of that street coming into the apartment area right there? Well let me let me clarify I think I misspoke just a bit. The plan is for Crescent to end in the park and it may or may not cross the park to hit Heritage Trail. Okay. That's still to be determined. Gotcha thank you. Commissioner Hesbeth. So just one question and you this I may be getting ahead of myself but in all of this the Crescent and Linden extensions if you will is going to be after Bonnie Bray's Wadden? Because I couldn't imagine. The Bonnie Bray is a city project so these will be happening as the developers ready to build. I don't think they're necessarily timed or one's waiting on the other unless early you have any other information on that. Hey Earl. Earl. I'm getting elbowed over here. I can't see you on television. Sorry Earl Esquire engineering. Chances are the extension of Linden and Pan handle and Crescent will occur before the Wadding and Bonnie Bray. Right now the city is trying to widen Bonnie Bray south of the highway. That's the first phase. The second phase is everything north of the highway to I believe 380 and we haven't even started design on that portion as well at all. I think we have sch ematics but no our construction plan designs. So my thought is cost wise is there a way to structure that so that we're not recreating the will I guess? I don't know. I'm just that's my concern that you would be duplicating that do duplicating efforts so if you have to go back in and tear out if we have a developer willing to build something I'd like that to remain static versus the city come in and tear it out once we widen the street and then we end up paying for it. It almost defeats the purpose of having a developer pay for the street. Yeah it's more it's a timing issue. I agree with that. However we just don't have any grading information on how Bonnie Bray is going to be designed so you know there might be some instances where we may have to tear out portions of linden crescent or panhandle into the razor range development to make the grades work depending on how Bonnie Bray is graded. Okay thank you . Commissioner Taylor. Earl before you leave. So I believe the the northern part of razor ranch they've already built their roads out on to onto Bonnie Bray and they you can see where they end the curb about usually there's like a curb about 20 feet away from where Bonnie Bray is and there's like a little extension of pavement where they're basically planning for where we think Bonnie Bray is gonna go right and like they're not gonna they're not gonna build some fancy sidewalks that connect to the existing street knowing the existing street is then gonna move back 15 or 20 feet right? That's correct. Is it I don't know if it's possible zoom in on that little spot I can see you're putting the mouse on the location. So when the razor ranch development on the north side came in they dedicated the remainder of the right away for Bonnie Bray so they and I believe they built the sidewalk within their property in an easement so that in the future the city didn't have to rip up that sidewalk. Now it does kind of taper back into the right away at where we cross the drive because you don't want to have your sidewalk crossing too far into the side. And if you go safety purposes and could you go a little bit further north to the next crossing? And then you could see where it tapers back in. Yeah and they already have like some kind of skirting there for where they I'm sure that was where they expect the road to be or you know maybe there'll be maybe 20 feet of concrete that gets cut out but it's not like okay. You're talking about this widened section here. Yeah. To be honest with you I do not know why they did that. So I guess I just want to say like this they're obviously you're working with them as well as you can to kind of give them what what the current plans are so they don't have to do too much or you don't have to do too much rework right? I think the intention I think when they came in I believe the intention was that the sidewalk was gonna taper in and tie in at these points but due to safety reasons we haven't moved it back but I think at that point they I think the driveway was in first before the sidewalk came in and I think when they built the driveway first they anticipated sidewalk crossing to be there. All right thank you. All right if there's anything else I'll jump right back in the elevations. Continue please thank you. Before I really go through these I want to I'll go through this building first because it's in color. So this is the building on the west side it is the the large building that surrounds the pool and you can see the stone and the color choices that they use somewhat reflect the razor ranch general color scheme and palette. They do comply with all the architectural requirements that were approved yesterday and that you all saw and then I wanted to point out the accessory garages also are architecturally compatible with the main structures so that they'll be really nice-looking little garages. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Mike are these the hard copies you gave us at last meeting you had said something on our yes on the dais that that was this correct okay thank you. That's really elevations I'm happy to go through in more detail. There are four criteria in the razor ranch overlay district for approval of site plans I've outlined those in your backup as well. Happy to go through them if you wish but we've determined that it meets all those requirements and we'll be recommending approval. Any other questions for Mike on this one? Thank you Mike. Okay we'll skip the next two plots unless there's any questions and then go to the zoning case and I'll ask Mike Bell to come back for the podium for Z 1619. One second let me grab my notes. Before I begin I do want to point out the two handouts that I gave that I left on your chair before the meeting started. This request is a two-parter it's a rezoning request for about two acres from NR3 district to the NRP 12 district. The purpose of this is to facilitate the new construction of fire station 4 the city of Denton. The second part of this is they're requesting a mixed-use residential protection overlay that would restrict all the use of the property back to its current zoning of NR3 with the exception of community service which is what a fire station falls under. So essentially an NR3 district with the exception that it allows this community service use. So the property is a triangular property here it's at the corner of Sherman Drive and Kings Row in the northeast part of the city. The existing fire station number four is located on the south side of Kings Row. The inevitable question is what happens to fire station the existing fire station four? I did speak with the assistant fire chief today to verify that the plan is to keep that building for storage eventually remodel it. Those are the current plans. Just to clarify Mike but it will stay under control of the city? That's correct that's the intention for right now. The existing zoning is a neighborhood residential 3 district that's a single family district three units per acre and again they're proposing an army 12 with an overlay. The future land use map is low residential which supports single-family up to 40 units an acre which with this overlay is what this would be. To kind of highlight the uses that are permitted with this change again the only changes here in yellow at the community service goes from not permitted to permitted. Community service is any civic governmental use, libraries, fire stations, things like that. I have heard from a number of neighbors who are concerned not necessarily with the new fire station but they were concerned about what happens to the old fire station location. So what happens to the existing station and will it be sold? I've already answered that but they do plan to keep the building used for storage but there is always a possibility that they sell it. That is the truth. City Council could choose to do to go otherwise with that property so it could be it could be sold in the future . If it was sold with today's request when support to the south corner being rez oned in the future. So the concern is that the city sells and a private developer comes in and says well there's an army 12 across the street that means that I should be able to get an army 12 here. I think that's a very valid concern on its face. When you really dig down into it and we do the analysis we'll see it's really not an army 12 on this corner it's an R3 that allows fire stations. But how would y'all know that as commissioners when you get your back up? We're proposing us a change in our zoning map symbology and what it'll be is what you're used to seeing on the left is how it shows up. You'd see an army 12 you would never know there was an overlay unless we told you. On the right what you'll now begin to see is this kind of hatch pattern and we may change the symbology a bit but something to the effect of on the zoning map you'll see something on there that lets you know there's a condition of the zoning there's an overlay on the zoning there's something unique about it it's not a standard in army 12 or whatever district that it may be. So that in the future if these planners aren't here or this commission turns over they'll know to look for that. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. So where the existing fire station is now is in R3? Correct. Okay. Sure. In the past we've talked about these overlays that we were putting on zoning and you know we cannot have conditional zoning but the council has already approved a an overlay for mixed-use residential type arrangements so we're able to use that we've gone ahead and changed our postings in the paper where we're allowed to do a more restrictive use so you can move forward tonight on that if you wish. You might ask why can't we do this in other locations the reason is this mixed-use protection overlay is specific in our code to the NR districts so you know we've had other cases even the recent past why we can't limit all visas down it's just for NR districts. I was just getting ready to ask that question. Yes as I thought you might so just keep keep keep an eye out for that that hatching so that y'all will now know in the future it's just to help us when staff looks at it we'll go and identify everything and make sure that there's no conditions but to make it easier for y'all and the council and the developer who comes and looks at our zoning maps know that there's something there. So just to follow up on your point this is a tool that we can use in in our zoning areas only. Correct . So that's across the board citywide we can this may come up again and that would be an option as a condition that this board can use in these instances but it wouldn't be in some of the other zoning categories commercial and some of the things that may come before us that overlay is not an option for us to use and I understand incorrectly what we're doing. That is correct and with the caveat there are certain things that you can limit with this overlay. Increased setbacks, increased building materials and then use standards and use restrictions which is what we're doing here use restriction . Okay. Great thank you. And then option number two this has been brought up in the subcommittee for the city initiated rezonings is the idea of a government zoning district being created that allows just government uses. I bring this up because it did come up in the subcommittee and Mr. Crossman who you have the email from he was very concerned about this and I discussed him I told him it's not a guarantee but something we're working on but he wanted to urge that if that can't happen to move forward so I want to put that on the record. Is he concerned about it on the old building so his concern or the new? He's concerned that this would open it up the old station to be rezoned for commercials and I heard that from a number of neighbors as well. Okay. So the idea being if we create this zoning district government zoning those are on the subcommittee please remember that to include this site is what he's asking for. Got you. And we did notice per state law we received one in opposition one in favor that's the email and notice that you've received back and staff will be recommending approval. I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions for Mike? Thank you. Okay the next item is a rezoning request along Crossford Road and I will invite Julie Wyatt up. Good evening I'm Julie Wyatt. This request before you is Z 1624 Ranchview Specialty Hospital initial zoning. The request is to consider a recommendation regarding an initial zoning district designation of RCCN on approximately a third of an acre. This property may look familiar to you. We did we did look at a zoning case on this a few meetings back. The subject property is right here in yellow and it is generally located on the north side of Crawford Road approximately 675 feet from the I-35W on ramp . The current zoning is RD5X and that is a place holding zoning designation that we give to properties that are recently annexed. So when the applicant came forward to the city earlier this year they proposed a specialty hospital that would include three tracts. This tract that the case that y'all saw earlier, this tract that's RCCN here and then this small tract here. This small tract was in the county and so through our discussions with them and and how it should move forward in development we came to an agreement that really that should probably be annexed just so that there are consistent regulations throughout the development. So they went through that annex ation process through voluntary annexation and that was approved in September of this year and so at that time it received that RD5X zoning designation. So that's our place holding zoning designation but it mimics the RD5, it's a rural residential zoning district within the city of Denton. It mostly has residential uses or rural type uses and a minimum of five acres. So obviously this this piece of property which is smaller than five acres doesn't doesn't meet the minimum regulations for this but there is adjacent RCCN zoning which is part of this proposed development. There's Country Lakes West here. This is actually ETJ, this is in the extraterritorial jurisdiction, it's not a part of the city of Denton and then across the highway is Hunter Ranch MPC. More specifically with this Hunter Ranch MPC this is more of a moderate density and commercial zoning in this area. So we looked at the future land use designation and it shows low density residential and as we talked about on the previous zoning designation this RCCN really doesn't fit that that rural residential zoning or future land use designation. The intent of that is to have one to four dwelling units per acre in a suburban type development pattern. When we look at the location of this property on an arterial and and close to highway with that type of access and visibility residential development probably isn't gonna happen here. It's it's more appropriate for commercial type development. So we looked and we're like oh this this future land use designation doesn't really fit this request so we want to take a deeper look at this request. So we looked further in the comprehensive plan and we looked at the preferred growth concept. This document was prepared with community involvement when they updated the comprehensive plan they had community meetings that the the participants said where do we want development within the city of Denton and they came they agreed upon this compact purposeful growth clustered around distinct locations and I know it's kind of hard to see but down here is the Crawford Road and I-35W intersection. So this was one of those areas that was determined that it development should really happen here and in this instance that it was determined a moderate density residential or moderate density development and that included moderate density residential uses, employment uses, and commercial uses and and the uses embedded in the in the RCCN do fit this this moderate density preferred growth . So the considerations we looked at was that future residential development at Robeson Ranch and then Hunter Ranch MPC, the Country Lakes, this is going to induce more demand for retail and services in this area. The requested RCCN is a logical extension of that existing zoning pattern and although it doesn't conform to the future land use map it does conform to the preferred growth concept and that we want commercial development at these intersections of highways and arterials and that commercial and office development really should be clustered in these areas as distinct centers and then transition to to the low density uses toward Country Lakes and in the Robeson Ranch area. Notification was sent out. We received no response letters and so based upon these considerations and and the Denton plan we do recommend approval and I'll stand for any questions. Thank you Julie. So we have one more this is a plan development amendment for Robeson Ranch PD 16-7. All right so we're gonna stay in the general area of the city of Denton. So this is this is a plan development amendment for Robeson Ranch. The request is to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a detailed plan amendment for Robeson Ranch and what they're wanting to do is blend the residential uses and we'll go into that and explain that further throughout the development. So the subject property is located north of Robeson Ranch. It is west of I-35W probably familiar with where Robeson Ranch is. Some background on the plan development it's PD 173. It was developed under the 1991 Denton development or Denton development code sorry and PDs under under the 91 code had they were kind of a two-part process. The first part was a concept plan that was the general guidelines and land uses. Robeson Ranch was approved in 1999. The concept plan was and their purpose statement emphasized flexibility in a variety of housing options for an adult community. So that was that was their purpose and intent and that's reflected in the residential land uses that they approved. Single-family luxury, single family Premier and single-family Casita were all had the same permitted uses. They were single-family detached dwellings as well as some religious institutions, golf courses, public infrastructure , fire stations, those sorts of things that you would need for a residential development. The differences between these residential land uses was the lot size and then the minimum building square foot. So they were they were comparable in terms of uses but but the sizes were different. Single-family Villa permitted two family attached dwellings so it's it's different in the permitted uses and then it also has differences in minimum lot size and square footage and then multifamily allowed for multifamily development as well as some recreational facilities nursing homes so and in libraries so some some different permitted uses. That was all in the concept plan. Since 1999 the as the project has evolved there have been detailed plans that have been approved. A detailed plan is the final step of a PD and it it parses out the details of the development and in terms of ropes and ranch it showed where the golf courses went where the clubhouse was going to go and then it gave specific locations for all of those residential uses and so let's look at that sorry it may be difficult to see but so the traditional lots one of those residential land use categories that's the yellow and you can see the yellow interspersed throughout the development. The gray was the premier lots the blue was the preserve lots and then those were the single-family luxury and then the single-family villa were down in this location so it gave specific locations for all of those residential uses. As the project has moved forward and developed the applicant has has realized it that maybe that mix or those specific locations of those residential uses didn't provide them with the flexibility that they needed to continue developing. So they are they have a proposal for a detail plan amendment which would permit those residential land use categories of the single-family luxury, single-family premier, the single- family casita, and the single-family villa within all areas designated as residential. For the single-family villa they're proposing a maximum of 1,200 dwelling units and then this does not this this request does not permit multifamily that if they did want to come back for the MF2 they would they would have to come back with another detailed plan amendment this doesn't allow them to put multifamily to within those residential areas that that would have to come back. This request does not increase the number of dwelling units it or increase the density it really and I'm gonna use Commissioner Beck's word it integrates it integrates the residential uses so and reallocates them throughout the development. Yes sir. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Okay we talked about this over the phone too so when you say integrate though it's not like you're just gonna have a hodgepodge there's still gonna be some sectioning off. Well that is my understanding of how it will work in practice. This zoning so there's there's I guess there's two elements the zoning would allow that because the zoning says that those would allow one lot to be duplex and one lot to be the single- family it would allow the mixing in that in those terms it's not as specific that specific. Did I say that right? Did that make sense? Okay but in practice in my discussions with the applicant because those villas that the the duplex the two- family product has an additional additional HOA because they have total exterior maintenance those in practice will be grouped together in specific locations because they have that additional HOA on top of them. Did that did that make it? It's not like they'll be stuck in a corner somewhere they'll get a it'll still intermingle. There'll be intermingled throughout it we don't quite know how it's gonna work in or how it's gonna look in the final design but but this is so now instead of all of the different colors all the yellow and the gray and the blue and the brown for residential that has been flattened out to just yellow and so all those four residential unit dwelling residential use categories could be permitted in all yellow areas so that's their proposal. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair. Julie you mentioned it's not increasing the proposal is not increasing the total number of units is it oh is it increasing the total villa units? It is it is if you'll look back at the original proposal this is how many villa units that they that they had. My conversations with the applicant is that those sold out really fast and so they want flexibility to add more of those so yes it does increase the number to 1,200. What was the original number? It was something like 60 it was 60. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you Chair. My concern is that in the areas where you currently have the Premier Lots say off of Michelle Way that have already been built that they bought those with the understanding of what was going in next door to them so to speak and now they're asking to change it to where it could drastically change what's going in next door . Well is that correct? It could change the residential use category product yes and staff did look at that and because all of these uses were permitted within the concept plan that this was intended to be kind of a mixed-use housing that that was one of the the criteria we looked at for approval and we felt like because we're not really expanding the types of uses these would all be the uses that were approved with the original concept plan. So is that all right so. Hold on. Commissioner Tyler. Thank you Chair. So could we go back to the proposed yeah this map so it indicates lots but those lots would change so you're not you know or are you gonna put a duplex I guess on a single on the single lots basically or are they going to redraw them? No and they wouldn't redraw these lots we do have a running tally of the number of lots within Robeson Ranch and they're they're separated out into units so they can change the density of one area as long as the total density stays the same so this does show lots but it's really more schematic at this point it would when they come in for platting as long as they maintain the the maximum density and that number of lots then this won't drive exactly where those lots are placed it's not dimensioned out necessarily. So for example like unit 10 I think actually just we might already approved unit 10. Yes right here. Yeah maybe the one like unit 18 next to it or whatever that would be that would potentially be replanted to smaller or when it comes to platting it will be smaller lots potentially? It could be and as long as we keep that that running total to make sure they maintain that total maximum density. Is there any reason not to go ahead and preserve the categories of the already plotted areas? They're not gonna probably replat those right? And they would I mean yes I wouldn't imagine that they would replat those that the applicants here and they could probably talk about how or the applicant will be here this evening they could talk about how they're gonna move forward with this proposal but yes we have 10.1 and 10.2 here that has been recently plotted this 18.2a has been plotted 18.1 is currently being plotted in this area and then actually they are they're wanting to plat this area in that sort of villa type development in this area right here so that plat if if this is approved would move forward with that villa product but they haven't given me an indication that they would replat the existing platted lots to the. So the reason I bring this up is it seems like it might it might lend or you know bring a little sense of security to people who are in the existing homes to know that their neighborhood is will be protected at whatever density it currently is and whatever size restrictions that currently are there they're not going to have you know a du plex going next door right existing unit sure kind of wonder if that might and you know what about a third of this is built so a third of this would be categor ized you know thank you. I'm gonna make some comments too I'm somewhat serious in the same concerns Commissioner Taylor does I understand some master plan community but this if I understood you correctly that you can have different house types on the same lot is very different than our typical subdivision requirements in the city of Denton so I mean we have in our three in our six you can 't do duplexes next to a single-family home what sounds like we're if I understand you correctly that's what they're asking the ability to do they may not do it in practice but we're giving them the ability to do that if they so chose to do them I understand incorrectly anything that hasn't been platted any part that's moving forward yes they could because this permits them to to blend and to mix and integrate those those uses as long as they stay within the density yes I'm gonna need to think about that a little bit more Commissioner Beck thank you chair so you mentioned a while ago that the single- family villa is what they want to increase to 1200 yes and yet the number of units is not going to change so that means some are going to decrease then yes we 're looking at decreasing they haven't given us an indication on how they 'll move forward with that okay Commissioner Hesbeth so just thinking out loud and and thank you chair and I'd like to get your insight from the building perspective so if I think out loud the areas is grown quite a bit right so when they get started you're probably getting the house in there 150 200 K now you're looking at 400 K to get in there and so then you have an opportunity for if you go with the villa I'm assuming it's a little cheaper product so you can get in the neighborhood for less than 400 K and there's a high demand to get into the neighborhood I want to get in the neighborhood so I just got to go get older faster it's a great neighborhood but but that being said I think we're where I'd like your insight is so if you're keeping the number if you have this running tally you have to manage that new growth right and manage those people that are coming in and it's a great at a value you know but then that leaves you a whole bunch of open space and then there's materials so you want to build like houses next to each other I'm assuming for simplicity of you know construction and you got to manage the running tally you end up with a big field at the end of it if you don't do it right you know so what my question is what is kind of what is the number when you're building to make it efficient's the wrong word but you know to make sense right if you if I have a town home and I have homes what number is it efficient to do just one of each next to each other or in a mass if I'm building them in mass and especially she's saying going you know 1200 so you mean you got to put them together I'm just curious if that won't take care of itself in the fact that the building and to keep it efficient we've got a cluster them to make it worthwhile and so that's why I just thinking out loud I don't know how that works if you 're asking I wouldn't know how to how they would manage their business and how that would work mine just comes back to kind of fundamental concern it's it's almost like this is in opposition to where our Commission normally works we're always usually very concerned about what somebody can do on an individual piece of property and the request is to kind of the owner can do kind of whatever they want to do within these certain parameters they get to decide per se versus it's a very specific use and I'm just having a little trouble we're not trouble I just need a little more time to process that because that is very different than what we normally do and we see zoning cases and platting and those types of issues that come before our Commission did you have something else for I recognize Commissioner Solomon my concern is that they are actually marketed as what they call lock and leave they're designed for people who don't really live there full-time they may be snowbirds people of that nature and so when you start interspersing those people or transitioning those people into regular neighborhoods you're interrupting what the neighborhood is supposed to be about and that is being a neighborhood so that's my concern the other is that when you're talking about the fact that they have an HOA all that means is that they get billed a certain amount at their address they have somebody that is hired to come by and mow and take care of the yard they don't have to be in a cluster of 20 because they're in an HOA they just simply get billed differently and they have different maintenance crews that come by and so I 'm afraid that when you're looking at being able to intersperse those duplexes is what I call them in and amongst regular neighborhood type setting is really taking away from what everybody has bought out there for and so I guess I'm concerned with what you're saying as far as why can't they go ahead and say here's the area where we want these lock and leaves to be so that people who buy the homes around it know that they're going to be people who aren't there all the time and because it could devalue the other people's properties if we now have a bunch of duplexes in a neighborhood that's surrounded by single-family homes and and they said the lock and leave to me as well and they also because I they had a neighborhood meeting and I went to that and and what they did talk about there was also another side to that is the aging in place and so we looked at that as well to allow somebody who doesn't want to maintain a yard anymore to move to those villas so they didn't have to have it out the maintenance so yeah I they said that same so I think they're probably those two types of people that would want to use this product so yeah I would agree with you yeah that I know we've asked you a lot of questions have you pretty well covered kind of the basics of what this is going to be because I think we're running out of time and I think one of the things is we may want to have this discussion in our sure in our public meeting rather than it's all right here and I know we're short on time is there something else that we've got on this before we break for food no you did receive the option or the responses the opposition in favorable letters and neutral letters so there were quite a few but yes yes well we had to cut it off at noon because we got them all day as of noon we had 13 in opposition 22 in favor 8 neutral and those are the percentages so pretty evenly split okay thank you Julie yeah all right it is 6 o 3 and we're going to take a short recess and come back for our staff report on our notification procedure thank you going to reconvene our work session at 610 and I think our next item is going to be notifications yes we'll invite Cindy Jackson there maybe you can hear me better okay some of you may recall the work session presentation that was given to you back in April regarding the possible public hearing notification process improvements staff at that time kind of gave you a history of public notifications in the city when where we are now how we got there and took some feedback from the Commission regarding ideas on how to improve the the practice since that time we 've taken into consideration the feedback we got as well as the research we did on best practices for public notification it's not like the keyboards in the way okay just to give you a brief refresher on the requirements our public notice notifications for public hearings is based on the requirement in Texas local government code section 211 - 007 requires published notice of the hearing in the official newspaper in our case the Denton record Chronicle before the 15th day before the date of the hearing and written notice is sent out to property owners located within 200 feet of the subject site before the tenth day of the hearing these are sent required to be sent via regular mail the practices that we've been following are based on ordinance number 99 - 029 since the presentation was made to you in April we have learned that the code on which we base our notification practices was actually repealed in 2002 with the approval of the Denton Development Code the 2002 code requires the city to comply with Texas with Texas local government code 211 which I just explained to you with the previous slide I'm going to tell you about a little bit about the differences between the two the repealed ordinance 99 - 029 requires public notice of the scheduled public hearing in the newspaper of record Denton record Chronicle it requires a legal notice of the public hearing be sent to property owners located within 200 feet of the site via certified mail not regular mail as required by the Texas local government code and it has these additional requirements a courtesy notice sent to the other scheduled meeting sent to all residents who are living within 500 feet of the subject site sent via regular mail and a posted notice in the form of a sign posted actually on the subject property giving notice of the public hearing that's for the 200 foot notice the 500 foot notice goes to the residents located within the area some issues that we have with the current notification process are actually the same issues which brought about the requirement for the certified mail number one the property owners aren't picking up their certified notices at the post office we receive probably at least 50 percent wouldn't you say of the notices that we send out via certified mail back labeled not picked up property owners that do pick them up at the post office are kind of angry by the fact that they have to drive to the post office to get their notice and they have called staff and made their feelings known about this the excessive cost of certified mailings for larger notification areas for cases that for example take place in a residential neighborhood where you've got a lot of small lots that are surrounding the site or in the case of ropes and ranch they had to notify the entire PD area that in the past fiscal year the cost of mailing the certified notices this is now as of August 31st has has cost thirty four thousand six hundred and sixty nine dollars and we're expecting to that to go up by approximately twenty thousand dollars when we add in September because of that ropes and ranch mailing the differences between the cost of a certified letter versus the cost of a regularly posted letter using our mail service is is significant the certified mail cost five seventy seven per piece and the to send the same notice via regular mail is two forty two per piece now after perceiving there was an issue staff went ahead and did some research into surrounding areas thank you chair how much for regular mail to 242 okay isn't it just a like a one or two sheet thing that's going out to its two sheets color and it's okay okay you're talking about the whole problem we're not talking about just the mailing anyway we went ahead and we we we surveyed surrounding cities to see what their their practices are to try to determine what best practices are I've got the table here is also in an exhibit in your staff report the to break it down into the simplest terms all of the city surveyed send out their public hearing notices via regular mail not certified mail two cities Fort Worth and Plano do send out courtesy notices and all but one city which is Fort Worth requires the applicant to purchase post maintain and remove the sign that gets posted on the subject site the proposed revisions that we have worked out based on your comments and and the best practices are first of all per the requirements of section 211 07 of the Texas local government code we're proposing to mail out the notices the 200 foot notices via regular mail and not certified mail I understand that some commissioners were concerned about keeping track of which ones were we were returned and that's a very easy thing to do because we we receive any anything that that is not mailed incorrectly for instance they say is returned to return to sender or not at this address we get those back and we can keep track of which ones were returned the courtesy notices instead of sending regular letters out to the 500 foot radius what we 're proposing is to send out postcards to these these people there would be regular four by six post cards and that way they can see more readily what the the postcard is for and and hopefully pay a bit more attention to it we did look into the suggestion to have it printed on the envelope public hearing notice for the the 200 foot notices however at this time our mailing service is not able to do that another revision that we're proposing is to enlarge the minimum sign to size to four by four current dimensions of the signs that are posted are two by three and our research we saw all but one city actually uses the four by four signs and the one city that doesn't is Lewisville and their sign is three by four will be requiring the app as I noted that will be requiring the applicant to purchase post maintain and remove the notification sign from the site they will have to sign an affidavit stating that the sign was actually posted on the site by a certain date and then they will have to sign an affid avit stating the sign was removed within X number of days from the subject site after the public hearing we as I noted we can track the public notices and courtesy notices that are returned to the Sullivan excuse me what is the requirement for where the sign is placed versus the property that's being in question it has to be placed on the property facing the street and right now we only place one sign on the property and we make sure it's visible and not obstruct ed by any foliage or trees things like that thank you did I hear another question okay and finally we are proposing to create a link on the planning division web page which will be dedicated to public hearing notices so it will be easier for the public to find these notices on our website that concludes my presentation and I'll stand for any questions Commissioner back thank you chair I like the recommendations I think these are the good changes a couple questions here on your recommendations you say you'll track public notices and courtesy notices if they don't get mailed up come back to you are we putting like a self-addressed stamp envelope in there form to send that back to us where are you talking about for if they send it right send it well that's that's something that hasn't been discussed but that's something we can discuss okay because yeah I've got to go through the bubble and buy a stamp actually that we would do that courtesy for more likely get something back so consider that if you will and the create a link on the planning division web page I like that idea and I was just curious and maybe this isn't something we can discuss now can we do this for all City Council Board and Commission meetings where it gives anybody who's interested in following what's going on in city the city government they go on and sign on on line they get to select which the City Council and then which Commission's sign up for it and then when those meetings are held we send notices out to them online is that something well well that's something that we have is that beyond our scope right here I think I think it might be right now we are required by the local government code to send out the notices via the certified tax rule and if we do that way we don't have a way to track in Cindy I just want to interject any substantial changes that we do to the notification process is going to require City Council yes right so these the Cindy 's outlined are just sort of procedural items but anything else would likely need a City Council action so we're gonna today we're gonna essentially decide what we like and send it on to the City Council we're just here now a recommendation to City Council as to whether or not you think that this is viable okay okay then one last thing on the cost for signs in the proposed practice there's a $75 charge there but if the applicant is responsible for that how is that figure how does that $75 right now that's going to be rolled into it that's going to be part of the $220 notification fee that we already charge so in the 220s will be as it stands right now the $220 notification fee will also cover the cost of the sign but that's not a cost to the city is it if the applicant has to put the sign up themselves it's an act applicant puts the sign up himself that just means we don't use staff time to put the sign up that's what I'm trying to figure the $75 charge here I'm trying to figure okay I'm on exhibit four okay and we're looking at current practice and proposed practice on the proposed practice or current practice cities putting up the sign proposed practice the we're saying that the applicant has to put their own sign up perhaps you can answer that question right I think you are correct Commissioner Beck that the applicant we're responsible for that and so that cost would be on the applicant okay so that's not be part of so that $232 total then we just subtract 75 correct that would be that would be just a now just an example of what that would be okay so we're even cheaper going forward again right that's a dependent on the assumptions that we had there you know it could be more it could be less but overall the applicant will be responsible for signs for general okay Commissioner Roselle thank you I've actually Mr. Beck led right into some of my line of thinking thinking I'm trying to understand the efficiency of them putting up a sign versus city put up a sign currently if I understand it's correctly the city has a standard template sign that staff goes out and puts on the property after hearing staff goes and takes it back is that correct and the new proposed is they create their own sign is there a template they based off of well again we haven't come to the point net yet where we're going to just we don't know we decide if they're going to make their go to a sign company the signs that the the cities that I surveyed they all had it had a form a template form for the applicant that the applicant would then take to certain sign companies that the city had made arrangements with to make this sign for a certain cost and they would have it made at this point we haven't got that far so we assume that if other cities do it's for this situation they go out they get a sign made they go put in the property they come to city to sign an affidavit saying they've done that and then after the hearing they then have to come back and sign an affidavit that the sign that's been removed exactly I guess it goes back to the efficiency if the Steve didn't has a an understanding with a sign company is it maybe more efficient for the city just calling that sign company here's the details go put the sign and put it in because I'm just wondering how many times are we tracking down an applicant to get the affidav it signed when the city could just put it up knew exactly where it was had control over that and then brought it back down you bring up a good point and looking at other cities that practice has been something that we were reviewing and that's one reason why we made that recommendation we myself included aren't really purview to if those affidavits have to be you know brought in or if they were just to be mailed in or you know photos it'd be a little bit a little bit easier process again other cities have done it we can certainly follow up with them and see how if it's been more efficient for them versus posting it themselves yeah I guess my initial thought on this is if it's not a massive change or Delta inefficiency then the city still having control over it seems to be a better option that we know the exact signs to be placed we can put it where we want we get it put it up where we need to be instead of hoping that they're not finding a loophole of where to place it oddly on the property or anything like that so those are my initial thoughts thank you that's a good point Commissioner Tyler thank you chair I had a couple of questions regarding cost I don't know who would be more appropriate to answer and and also the sign so in this example so is the notification fee charged to the applicant yes when they submit an application that requires a public hearing an automatic $220 is assessed as part of their review fee just $220 period correct so we don't know how much it's gonna cost in the end but that's that's the bond that's the maximum minimum that we we charge applicants so in the example of the the recent Robson ranch change you probably sent 2,000 certified letters 1600 I saw yeah 1600 letters and you charge $220 to do that correct okay so I was under the impression that the mailing fees were actually billed back to the app I see maybe maybe we actually pay for that mailing for Robson because of the large amounts I stand corrected because of that large amount we asked the applicant pay for that but that was like that was almost like a courtesy could you write versus yeah there could have been yeah but otherwise if if it the cost for a mailing did exceed exceed 220 the city would only pay the rest of that and so and in the proposed method they'll still pay the 220 and then they'll the applicant will also be responsible for a sign or look at like a $75 credit for the sign I'm trying to understand the sign if if we were to have the applicant do do it they know there would be there would be no credit in that example they would still be responsible for the the sign posting and cost and all that if the fee was to be over 220 of course we'd still be responsible for the rest if it was less than that 220 would still would be within our budget so I do I think in general the proposals sound good I like getting rid of the certified mail it's it's maybe nice to a nice thought to have a signature but it does make it a lot harder to pick up your mail people people won 't receive the messages in time you know a lot of them get returned so forth and so on cuts the cost in half sure her mailing the the sign our current sign posting is not very effective it's a little poster board sized piece of plastic with a sharpie right like it's a you know a couple of lines and written in in sharpie what the case is and you know I've been in a lot of cities where the developers are required to post signs and a lot of times they're big they're like eight by eight right manager and they have a lot of detail and usually they actually use it as an as an opportunity to kind of advertise their project and then they have a whole bunch of legalese meeting the legal requirements that's all forthright we looked at city of McK inney and they they actually as we see indicated to have a template of what needs to be there the size the the font size all that how it's how it's st aked and all that the one company I did call me that's where the $75 came up I asked them how much it would cost for that sign and I don't know if it included the stake itself but they quoted $75 so that would be roughly what that would be for the applicant if they were to post something in our city and I think another version another reason why it might be beneficial to have the applicant in control of the sign is in a lot of cases it's a green field and it just that's put at the edge of the property with a little some legs and feet sometimes it's set in the ground sometimes it's attached to a construction fence attached to an existing building you know things like that I think there are a lot of different complexities where allowing the applicants to post put it how they want to do it as long as it does meet visibility requirements right and you know I think we do need to solve the problem of the small unreadable sign and that's the main goal is to have a better efficient effective notification process and larger signs I believe accomplished that and if we can get said applicant to do something to that effect I think would be better off and one one final comment the sign placement as I'm expecting you probably will have some rule every 400 feet of frontage or every 200 feet of front age or something like that we discussed that internally you know of a corner lot you know we would prefer it to be on both sides of the street if it's a large track of land maybe a linear distance you know separation so that you know we don't miss it and this would just be an administrative change since it isn't in ordinance right now correct but we would still need to move forward at the anything that would relate to cost we would have to bring forward as a an ordinance to update our fees but anything that's procedural we can we can propose and move that forward okay thank you Commissioner Sullivan yeah I received my letter on October 3rd and I noticed at the bottom here it says that the analysis would be posted by the end of the day on the 7 th and the meeting was on the 12th so there's someone who just picked us out of the mail which by the way I'm within the 200 foot buffer and I didn't get a certified letter okay I know other neighbors got both certified and regular mail and nothing on here says please return this if you have an opinion and so I'm concerned that when you look at the you know the 48 or 56 notices that y' all received back how many people didn't know where to get the form I wasn't even told as a commissioner or as a taxpayer that the the public hearing was being made was being held until after the fact in fact I called Manal and she told me about it and so I'm concerned that when they're obviously the city knew that there was a meeting being held since somebody was in attendance I'm concerned that there isn't enough public notice of meetings that are being held in neighborhoods number one for the people who live there and number two for the commissioners who if we want to attend them should be able to be you know to go and attend those meetings that's you should have if you were within the 200 foot buffer you would have received a certified mail you didn't that's what I'm saying that would be me I'm a do-it-yourself kind of guy right and then there is a note and it's very probably not as evident but it does say if you're within turn of foot you would also be receiving a certified letter in that certified letter there is the instructions in how you respond or one provide comments it doesn't say that on here it just says this I'm within 500 feet when I'm looking at the map that's on here I'm actually within the 200 feet buffer yeah and so that's those are my first concerns that this is very pitiful actually the second is I need to bid I guess on the mailing system because to mail a 49 cent letter we're charged we're paying two dollars and forty two cents or two dollars and twenty seven cents there 's not an intern or part-time person who could put those in an envelope and send them out we you know the unfortunately what we put the cost that's associated with that 242 is the actual processing of it printing it how she sees color stuffing and labeling all that stuff is part of that fear I need to be I need to bid on that job next time it comes up because I can do it for a dollar that seems outrageous to me Commissioner Sullivan you can you clarify you said that you received that that letter after the public hearing October 3rd the meeting was October 12 I never knew well the meeting we having today I'm talking about the pub you know the meeting at ropes and ranch we yeah we don't control that understand okay but apparently who wasn't that attended the meeting somebody told us Julie how did you know about the meeting so isn't I mean is that something that we as commissioners should be involved in if you know for these meetings that you know if I want to go to the meeting on Fry Street or you know anything that's going on that it would help I think us have helped me to know what the mood of the people are who go to those meetings since you know when you read in the newspaper it's not always an accurate indication of what went on I'm gonna kick it to Shandrian on that question so I think I'll try to answer it the meeting that you're referring to is the neighborhood meeting that the applicant coordinates and does the notice for that's not actually a requirement we strongly encourage that to happen so we don't really manage that process or really have any control over it the city process that we are involved in right now we do have the control over that so we can do changes to that one well I'm just concerned that when y'all know about those things why not let us know about them so that if we want to go to the meetings again like I know there was a meeting on Fry Street according to the newspaper that was very negative well I don't know that that's just what was reported in the newspaper but I would like to attend so I get my own feeling for what goes on right and I think we have suggestions on how the applicant needs to notify the neighborhood but again because it's not a requirement for them to do so our hands are pretty much tied on that end but if you know about it why don't you let us know about is what I'm asking if y'all know that a meeting is happening why not let us know that a meeting is happening okay let us choose whether we desire to go or not that's all I'm asking that's that's Sharon and I can discuss that further with Manon that's something that we can incorporate if you do get you know is from a applicant to let the Commission know that's something that we can certainly be perfect do Commissioner else next thank you chair I just want to say I'm thrilled that we're having this discussion about improving the notification I know we're out of time clearly by all the discussion it needs further discussion and I would love to see this brought back to be further discussed so thank you for the work you've done I wish we had more time to talk about it because I do have other things to say but I know we're on time okay Commissioner back just real quickly so whenever an applicant has one of these town hall means or neighborhood meeting they are expected to notify the city is that correct is that part of the process we do have recommendations on how to notify the city but it's not because it's not a required meeting there's not you know specific steps that they have to follow okay so probably what we need to change is that process where they should notify the city so if we do any changes I suspect it would be that the neighborhood meeting is required and then we adopt rules for how that meet them even is carried out thank you Commissioner Hesbeth speed round I too would like to discuss more about it I'm out on the certification notice just because the postman doesn't pay attention to what you sign so you could just make a straight line and they're gonna take it and mail it back to you were paying for it I am out on requiring the the city the neighborhood meetings because that's a headache to manage and we have enough headaches and I think there's other ways to poll the neighborhood and the Robeson ranch thing there's something that jumped out at me but I can't remember so when it comes back around I'll have my notes ready so yeah that's a procedural question Commissioner Tyler thank you chair so I'm assuming that we want to move forward on this we've been working on it for most of the year would it be appropriate for us to continue our work session after our public hearing so that the next time we see this we can be voting on it I'll let staff comment on that voting on that is if it's an amendment to the DDC if we bring it forward just as an ordinance only council will see that I guess I guess my point is do we want to have another meeting in four weeks or do we want to just finish it like what would be more appropriate way to handle this to continue this conversation that we're having right now to continue it again this evening like we 've done on some previous meetings rather than doing it at a date in the future okay I'm gonna let staff how much more do you have of your slides well that was it I was done it's more just discussion Commissioner Hesbeth has a question if you need to think about your yeah I mean you can it's not a legal question if you want to come back you can come back if I can if I can interject real quick I know that Commissioner Ellis had some comments if if it's something that Commission would like to do if you can email it to Cindy or I and then maybe we can research if there's something that I think there's some things that I know what we're gonna be looking into is the signposting how how the affidavit is working we can well that's one thing that we're gonna go back and research further if there's something that we can do during the next while we get ready for the next meeting we can certainly do that as well I think Commissioner Hesbeth is next yeah and I remembered so I agree with that that I can email thoughts you know to it and in to the two dollars you got a figure you have even if you mail in bulk you're at 30 cents or so per stamp so that only leaves you a buck and some change to stuff to body envelopes to print and color and it's it's it's it's it's high but it's not high if you think about it because you got to employ someone even when we're not mailing something out they have to sit there and be ready to mail something out they have to track something so when you say you didn't get your mail they can then go in their system their computer system they'll track it by mail but and someone's got to drive it to the post office they they can't get in the wreck if they get in the wreck you got to clean it up off the highway get it back to the post office you know I mean it just there's a lot that happens in life that you got a plan for that we don't think about what I think about but but I'm just saying there's it's not a great rate as far as naturally thinking but in practice it's a headache and and so that cost money. One question and we 're gonna wrap it up Commissioner Rizzo. I don't have a question I was just saying because they saw things that I would like them to bring back I don't feel prepared to go forward with any sort of motion or forward momentum after tonight so my my hope would be they come back in a couple weeks and at that meeting we we create some action. And again just to clarify this is an item for action this is just an item for discussion. It's informational. Yes it's an informational meeting. Once we determine and have our internal meetings and get some feedback from you all then we will decide how we want to present it if we want to go forward with a DDC amendment you'll see it again here if we want to go forward with just an ordinance in front of council then you'll see it on video or in the audience if you come. Great discussion and presentation thank you very much. Thank you. At the conclusion of this item I 'm going to conclude our work session at 644 and we'll reconvene as quick as we can because we are pretty late. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for October the 12th. This meeting was duly posted and we have a quorum present and I'm gonna call our meeting to order at 6 48. Our first time of business tonight will be to stand and give the pledge to the US and Texas flag. For which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. On under Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible. As chair we're going to change our agenda order and we're going to need to move our item 4A up to our first item that we will consider and then we'll get back to our agenda and that's going to be under our individual consideration items it's going to be to consider and appoint a member of the P&Z Commission for a vice chair position. The chair would entertain motion . Commissioner back. I motion that we nominate Devin Taylor for vice chair. Okay . Commissioner Hudspeth. Second. Okay. I have a first and a second to nom inate Commissioner Taylor. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on board. I think you said. Motion carries 7-0. Congratulations. Okay . Back to our agenda. We're going to item 2A which will be to consider our minutes. We'll need to take these in three separate motions. So first item will be our August 10th meeting. Commissioner Taylor. I move approval of the August 10th meeting minutes. Okay. Commissioner back. Okay. I have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. If you're waiting on me I was not. I'm gonna ask for clarification from staff. Yes. Okay. Do we even have four people that were here from the 10th? Well then we'll go ahead and pass it with three. Okay. Just out of imposs ibility. The three that were here are in favor so that's gonna pass. Three to zero. Generally our rules require four. The chair entertain a motion on the September 14th minutes. Commissioner back. I move we approve those minutes. Commissioner Ellis. I'll second that. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries six zero. And chair look for a motion on September the 28th minutes. Commissioner Taylor. I move approval of the September 28th minutes. Okay. Commissioner Rozelle. I second. The first and the second. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries seven zero. That will move us to our consent agenda. Commissioner Rozelle. I move to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Beck. Second. Okay. Have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries seven to zero. That will now move us to our items of individual consideration. We've already taken item 4A. So that will move us to item 4B. I will call on Mike Bell to begin that presentation for us. Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. This is the project number SP 16-2. It's a site plan for Razor Ranch. The request is for a site plan for multifamily development. It's in the south mixed-use district of the Razor Ranch overlay district. The multifamily design guidelines were approved just yesterday at City Council, but every site plan application requires three parts for Razor Ranch. A site plan, a landscape plan, and elevation. So we'll go very quickly through those. The site is located here in yellow on the zoning map for Razor Ranch. You see it's up with this area. Heritage Trail forms the eastern boundary of the property. This is the site plan. I'll walk you through it very quickly. There are five buildings equaling 300 units, a number of accessory garages, and three amenities and open space areas, including a pool. This is a landscape plan. It complies with the landscape requirements for screening street trees and tree canopy coverage. And then to help orient you, based on the work session, I have pulled up the working site overall site plan for the south side of Razor Ranch. This area here, as I said, it's working, so it doesn't even reflect this site plan, but this is the property in question. So you can see there's the town center to the west, movie theater, convention center. To the north of the property is the Winko. To the east of Heritage Trail is a planned park, and obviously the various pad sites along 380. So I hope that helps with the questions from work session on how this is oriented. And then the elevations are also in your backup. I don't have them pulled up on this computer, but I'm happy to go through those if you have any questions on those. There are four criteria for approval, and the Razor Ranch overlay district, again outlined in your backup, staff has analyzed it and determined that they meet all those criteria, and therefore recommends approval. The applicant is here, and I believe they have a quick presentation they'd like to make as well. Commissioner Betten. Thank you, Chair. Quick question. Mike, we briefly discussed Heritage Trail. It was going to be six lanes, and there was like eight foot wide sidewalks, but nothing was mentioned about bike paths or anything. Are we putting bike paths along this route? That I'm not aware of. I'll look back at Earl and see if there's any. You'd like to speak on that? Good evening. Earl Esquire with Engineering. With regard to Heritage Trail, Heritage Trail is a four lane divided roadway with five foot sidewalks on either side. There are no anticipation to install any bike lanes per se along Heritage. Are we going to restrict those walk lanes from bikes riding on them like we do in some areas around town? I'm sorry. Are we going to restrict bikes from riding on those? It'll be shared lanes. Sure. Okay. Thank you. There's no other questions for me. The applicant is here, and I think they have a quick presentation they'd like to make. Okay. That'd be fine. I haven't got any cards from them, but if the applicants here would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Would the applicant like to speak? Okay. Good evening . My name is Austin Bradley with EPC Real Estate Group, the developer for the project. I just want to thank you guys for your consideration tonight. We've been working really closely with city staff and the master developer to come up with what you guys have seen to date. We're really excited about it and what's going on in the razor range development. I don't have a presentation necessarily. Got a few images, but I think you guys have seen those in the work session and prior to today. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you guys have. Got a couple questions for you. Sure. Commissioner Beck. Thanks, Chair. Probably on second thought, the question I had about the design of the apartments. I'll get with the applicant afterwards, and it's not worth mentioning here. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. I have a couple of questions. I noticed there are not any bike racks or bike parking called out on the site plan. We 've, I know that you're under, I believe, an MPC or master plan, so you don 't have to meet our current ordinances, but in our current ordinances, multif amily requires bike parking. Are you planning on putting in anything like that? Absolutely. Yeah. There was three amenity spaces shown on the site plan, two of which would have bike racks, and then we'd have a few bike spaces associated with what we're calling building C. It's that big C-shaped building. So to answer your question, absolutely. And then in the work session, I had a question I don't know if you all watched. Is there, are there pedestrian connections over to the shopping area and over to the grocery store? Yeah, we have sidewalks on all four sides of the site, specifically on the north and the south side. I believe the north is eight foot wide and the south would be five or six foot wide. The intent is not necessarily to bring pedestrians through our site, but absolutely around. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I see no more questions. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. We don't have any cards for anyone else to speak, so. Sorry. You trying to ring in? I got a whole bunch of stuff here on the screen. You have a question or a comment? I do have a question. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you. My name was still up from the last time, so I had to un-ring your ring to get back on the list. Well , there's still one ahead of you too, so it hadn't come off. So go ahead. I did have one question for, I don't know if this would be for you or for Red Development. We had questions about the order of street development. Are you going to build the Olive Heritage Trail or just the portion immediately adjacent to the property? Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Scott Wagner with Red Development, the development representative of Razor Ranch. We are building Olive Heritage Trail eventually, but we are building it in phases. The first phase currently goes from University to the south end of Winko. The next phase will be along the frontage of this project from Heritage to Linden, and then that will turn into the west to the Hotel Convention Center that was approved and under construction six months ago or so. And then the next phase as the property builds out, we would continue that to Scripture. But as of right now, that's not planned or scheduled. And the private roads like the Linden, the public side or the private side, will either of those... What will be built, I guess, at the time that this complex opens? We just pulled a permit. So what's being built for this phase is the same street system that's built for the Hotel Convention Center, and it's basically Heritage to the west. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You have no cards for anyone else wishing to speak, so either a request or a motion at this time. Commissioner Hutsman. I move approval for this item. Commissioner Bec. Okay. I have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0. Good luck with your project. So we'll move us to our item 5, public hearings, this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing for item A, FR 16-0013, and I will call on Julie Wyatt for that presentation. We don't normally have presentations for residential repl ats, but I did hear from the neighborhood adjacent and the residents who received notification, and so I wanted to just talk about this replat in terms of the original plots and then what they're proposing. So this is a residential repl at for the Haddad addition. They're proposing two lots, one being approximately four acres, and this has access to Lawrence Way, and then this lot, approximately two acres, has frontage on Ryan Road. This is a combination of two existing plots that have residential zoning on them, one being the Ryan Road estates and a replat of this lot three here, and then Thetford addition being a replat of this lot right here, which turns into this right here. So that previous lot three from Ryan Road estates takes in that back portion of that lot, and then the leftover here is lot two. So that's the plot. I'll stand for any questions. Got a question. Sure. I didn't think about it in work session. Is there going to be perimeter street paving improvements required along Ryan on this replat? I know there's a right-of-way dedication, but I'm gonna call Earl Escobar. To answer your question, no. They would, now that we have implemented roadway impact fees, they would, we would collect the roadway impact fees at this time. Upon development, there has been no proposed development or no proposed development for this first lot that has frontage on Ryan Road, but regardless we will end up collecting roadway impact fees. I'm still in the old school. I'll get caught up to the new thing then. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you Julie. Again, this is a public hearing. I have no cards appear from anyone wishing to speak. Anyone who would like to speak on this item is welcome to come down. Please state your name and address and then fill out a card. Again, it's public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing on this item and the chair will entertain a motion or discussion. Commissioner Taylor. Commissioner Ellis. I second. Okay, we have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0. This time I'm going to move to item B and I'm going to open the public hearing for FR 16-0014 and I'm going to call on Haley Zagurski for that presentation. All right, good evening. My name is Haley Zagurski with the Planning Department. So this is a replat of Brinker Crossing. It was originally one lot with commercial development. It has Nassar Jewelry Store on the southeast corner and then a strip center on the remainder of the lot and the intent of the replat is just to separate those two lots to allow for new development of that strip center. So if there are any questions, I'd be glad to answer those. See none. Thank you. Again, this is a public hearing. If anyone would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I'll close this public hearing and the chair will entertain a motion or discussion. Commissioner Beck. I move we approve this item. Okay. Commissioner Rossell. I second. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0. We'll move us to our item C and I'm going to open the public hearing for Z-16-0019 and call on Mike Bell for that presentation. The project is for fire station number four. It's kind of a two-part request. The first part is consider a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning the property from an NR3 district to an NRME 12 district. The second part of this request is for a mixed-use residential protection overlay to restrict use of the property to those within any current district and allow community service, which is what a fire station is classified as. Subject property is shown here in yellow. It's at the northeast corner of Sherman Drive and Kings Row. You can see the existing fire station is located on the property to the south. Current zoning is NR3. That's a single-family zoning district that allows up to three units per acre. The proposal is NRME 12 with an overlay, but the effect of that overlay would essentially revert it back to NR3, again just allowing the additional community service use, which is fire stations, libraries, any other civic or governmental building. Feature land use category of this property is low residential. It is a single-family residential area. So with the request reverting it back to NR3, that is consistent with low residential category. A comparison of what the permitted uses would be with the proposal in the middle column. You'll see the existing and on the far right you'll see what's proposed. The only change with this request would be that again, community service goes from not permitted to permitted. Everything else remains exactly the same. So this is not the first zoning case on this property. I have kept in contact with many of the neighbors as they request updates for what's going on, and there are some concerns. Generally I think most everyone was okay with the new fire station on the new location. The main concern is what happens to the old station. So that bears the question, what happens to the existing fire station and will it be sold? I heard that many times. I have verified again with the deputy fire chief today that the fire department plans to keep the building and remodel it and use it for storage of some of their extra apparatus. But ultimately city council may decide to sell it. That is not the plan now, but it's always a possibility in the future. So I also heard if it does get sold, wouldn't today's request, making it an NRME 12 district, support if a private developer purchased the old station lot from the city and wanted to go to NRME 12, wouldn't this allow them to kind of make that argument? I think that's a fairly good point. To kind of address that, the answer is on the face of it, it looks like it's NRME 12. But again with this overlay, we're essentially reverting it back to NR3. Well how do you as a commission know that? How does a developer who's pulling up the zoning map and looking to find places to develop, how do they know that? What we're going to do is add some zoning map symbology. What you see on the left is what you would see currently in your backup or on the zoning map. It just shows NRME 12, you would never know that there's an overlay on it just looking at the map. We're going to add the cross hatch over it that way. Anybody who comes and pulls a zoning map up knows there's something additional on this property. You all can ask the question, what is that? We will tell you that it's essentially NR3. It is not an NRME 12 property. Therefore that does not lend any support towards rezoning the old fire station. And additionally, y'all as a subcommittee or subcommittee of PNZ that has looked at some of the city initiated rezoning has seen the plans for a government only zoning district that is not in place right now. But the plan is to create that and some of the neighbors you have an email from Mr. Crossman requesting that if that moves forward to consider this site to rezone that to governmental entity zoning district in the future if that comes about and urging you to do so. And he did ask me to read it in the record so I'll go ahead and do that now. Go ahead. I wish to express my concern that the zoning changed NRME 12 would allow the old fire station property to be rezoned in the future to the same zoning. I have no opposition to the case, the new fire station, but that the city move forward post-haste and creating a new government only zoning district. Then apply that new zoning to both properties in the near future. So again based on that I think it's highly unlikely that somebody could make a case to come back in the future if for whatever reason the city sells it and make a petition for NRME 12. I don't see how we would support that with this overlay. Again this is a public hearing. We did notify within 200 feet to property owners and 500 feet to the physical addresses of the property. We received one in opposition and one in favor. You receive those both and you're back on. With that staff does recommend approval and I'd be happy to answer any questions. A couple questions. Commissioner Tyler. Thank you chair. Could you just briefly touch on the previous history of rezoning and proposed rezoning for this parcel? To my knowledge there was a case in the 90s to rezone this to retail for a gas station that was denied. Then there was a case just last year I believe to rezone it from NR3 to NR4 and they wanted to do single-family houses with a higher density. I could tell you just from experience and working with that applicant that even single-family is difficult to do on this property because of its shape and getting access. It's on a primary arterial road so access has to come off Kings Row. Ends up being a cul-de-sac and that eats a lot of the property. So it makes it very difficult to develop this even with NR3. So the fire station in our opinion is actually pretty good use. Thank you. Commissioner Rosale. Thank you chair. This is more for clarification. The overlay protection being placed on this you mentioned the work session was for neighborhood residential zoning. Is it for residential or mixed-use zones? Because the first slide you had made it I'm confused at which one we're allowed to going forward apply this protection to. The code provision is under the categories of NR1 through NRMU. 1 2 3 4 5 6 NRMU 12 and NRMU. The way it's written is to put additional restrictions on non-residential or multifamily development to protect neighborhoods. So it's to be on NRMU or NRMU 12 or if there's some instance where NR6s might allow commercial uses you could put it on non-residential and multifamily. So the key is the non- residential part for the protection? Correct. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair and again just to be clear for anybody's concerned who lives in that area and I'm one of them this rezoning change with its overlay will not allow townhomes apartments or anything else down there. This is strictly for the fire station is that correct? It is the purpose of it is for the fire station and allow everything in NR3 that's currently allowed in the current zoning. Town homes was your example that's with an SUP today would be with an SUP tomorrow if this were approved. Okay great thank you. Commissioner Tyler. I can't locate a copy of the actual overlay. Do you is that in the backup somewhere like what lists what is being removed and what's being added? No that's typically dropped in the ordinance that goes to City Council so it'd be in the wording of the ordinance itself. So we just make a recommendation for an overlay that restricts all uses down to NR3 except for community service? Well that's actually the applicants request so I don't think you have to condition that on top of it they 're requesting both the zoning and the overlay. Okay I just kind of expected to see a copy of the overlay shall remove these uses or something like that. Thank you. I'll just make one comment when you if you choose to do a motion to consider both of them then you would have to do the zoning change and then the overlay. Two. No you can make it a condition of the zoning change but make sure that you add both elements into your motion. I see no other any other questions for staff? Thank you Mike. Again this is a public hearing anyone who would like to come forward and speak on this item please do so at this time. You'll need to come up to the mic if you'd like to speak on this item and please state your name and address and after giving your comments we'll need to get a card filled out for me they're available outside the door. All right I did not fill out a card. Okay. My name is Evelyn Mulkeric I do live on Royal Acres which is within the 500 feet. I don't object to the proposal of having a new fire station there but I was expecting more of a forward plan like the exit since it's triangular the exit would probably be right up front to Sherman whereas last year there was a proposal to put in an apartment building a two or two story plantation style whatever and they showed an image an actual draft of what was planned to be put there. We basically the neighborhood pay basically declined that because it did not fit into the neighborhood. This new fire station this this triangular shape there were two houses before the property is well suited for about two or three houses we just didn't want rental units or multifamily units there. We have no from what I understand there were no images there was no draft of what kind of fire station how large of a fire station because the existing one has two fire engines I think and an ambulance maybe that's insufficient and I certainly don't want to get in the way of a new fire station we could certainly use that it's just that I expected more of a planning is it going to be is the exit going to be on Kingsrow or directly on Sherman which is the way the existing fire station is how large is it going to be how many engines do you are you are you expecting to house there and what's going to your previous mention about what's going to happen with the existing building you mentioned storage but there's also a water well there. I'll address the second part first the water is staying as well that's actually a set a different track than the fire station but that's owned by the kind of under ownership of the water department not the fire department that's planning to stay the way it is the reason there's no images with this as opposed to the townhome which was originally proposed was that was a specific use permit they're required to submit those plans with the application with this this is just a straight zoning change there is no site plan attached to that however if you'd like to see it we do have it I'd be happy to share it with you but it's not really a condition of this request. Commissioner Taylor or is still on the board okay yep Commissioner O'Zell nope this willing okay thank you again this is a public hearing anyone else who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time. My name is Dave Schultz I live at 2207 Wellington Drive which is in my backyard that's where I'm at there was what it all is the zoning for I understand the fire station but what else can they put there and is this going to be a two- story I mean I need to know a little bit more before I say okay yeah we're fine with that what is going what can it potentially be other than just oh we might put a fire station okay I'll call a mic bill to answer those questions please sure if the Commission would bear me for just a second I can't pull the plans that seems to be that way. That'd be a great idea yes again at this time I don't have any cards from anybody wishing to speak on this item so if you do wish to speak we will need to get a card filled out from you either before your comments or after so there is a site plan and review by staff now which would follow the zoning case should it be approved and again I want to stress I'm showing this so they have an idea to get some comfort level but this really isn't part of the request so there's not much we can change here tonight but I'd be willing to show it and this is not been approved yet it is subject to change of course we're going to be very slow I'll go ahead and show the elevation since I have those up first oh you do okay so what you see go ahead and orient this north if I can Kings Row on the south Sherman Drive here the parking lot will be right here this is a detention area access for the fire trucks be through here and out onto Sherman there's an accessory parking to the north anything else you want to have a single or two story structure I think that was a question as well my name is Bradley with MJ Thomas engineering part of the design team the tallest part of the building towers 36 feet is one story there's a tower involved in this 36 feet tall Brian if we could we could pull the computer back up these are elevations of what you'll see from Sherman Drive this being the fire b ays obviously and their tower which is typical architecture for a fire station these days need to get the address from the engineer for the engineering firm as well got the name MJ Thomas engineering 3973 West Vickery Boulevard Fort Worth Texas 76107 thank you for that additional information so one story brick building metal roof okay so the tower as you can see the tower on the side it is gonna stand about 36 feet tall and at the bay doors it'll stand 30 feet tall okay and again if anybody from the public would like to come see these after the meeting we'd be happy to show it to them and go through it in more detail okay well I think it helps answer several the questions that have come up does that change your opinion sir okay sure so you'd you'd be in support of this moving forward now okay great thank you very much thank you for bearing with me through that thank you for going to trouble to pull that up for us again this is a public hearing is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item Commissioner Hesford do you have a question I'm sorry I missed your right on the board here no problem Mike is it my question is is it comparable to the station that's going in off of McKinney comparable design I haven't seen those designs I'm sorry okay okay yeah so if just a point just a point if you wanted to see it in practice I don't know that exact address it's off of McKinney mockingbird and McKinney there you go thank you I don't think we have we have one we're trying to clarify up here we had one letter that I haven't read yet that was a post request we've had one citizen that's come forward to speak in opposition Mike do you have any okay will you please come back to the mic okay will you please come back to the mic please this is about the best plan that has been proposed for that property so we're not against it we just wanted to find out how large would it be as the other gentleman had in inquired you know is it a two-story how many engines are going to be housed that kind of thing is the exit going to be towards Sherman or is it towards Kings row what would happen with the existing station okay so that was just a concern a layout type thing but we're definitely not against it okay so are you neutral are you in favor of it with no I'm in favor yeah I'm in favor for like I said this is the best solution so correct well thank you for that we have to keep track with how many people are in support or neutral or opposition as to what type of vote if it's just a simple majority or supermajority I appreciate you clarifying that and sorry if we misinterpreted your comment so I don't see any other requests to speak at this time it is still open for a public hearing and I do have one letter here that I'm going to read in the record as well we have one opposed to this request which is Rudy Gonzalez and so I want to read that into the record as well is a public hearing is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item at this time is Rudy Gonzalez here the president or just have sent in a letter okay seeing no one else wishing to come forward at this time I'm going to close the public hearing and call on Commissioner O'Zell I motion to approve this agenda item okay thank you with I don't know how it has to be worded I move for approval of the zoning change with the overlay added upon the rezoning with a mixed use residential protection overlay that acts as in our three except adding community service it's exactly what you're gonna see right right that 's why that's what it's a great motion Commissioner Hudson second we have a first and a second for approval with conditions on the overlay anyone else wish to speak or comment on this before we take a vote Commissioner Taylor sure we have some technical difficulties over here so I can fill in for a few minutes my father worked at station for for over a decade they used to call it the retirement home because it was a very sleepy neighborhood I think it's kind of picked up in traffic recently and the first time they brought one of the Peterbilt engines out there that the pride of the city and backed it in they knocked the exhaust pipes off because the old station was so small and the doors were so low that the the stacks wouldn't fit in the in the bays so they had to park it on the street for a few weeks until they had the stacks shortened on the truck and I do feel that this is the best plan I've seen on this we've seen townhomes and a re zone with a cul-de-sac trying to cram in houses and it's a hard property to develop but it's a great place for a fire station providing an essential community service this overlay is a little confusing because it looks like NRMU 12 but the overlay knocks it all back down to NR3 on all uses so if it ever stops being a fire station the only thing you do is build houses on third acre lots so for all those reasons I think this is a great idea I would agree Commissioner Tucker's yes we've been here for a while and there have been a lot of things have come forward that the neighborhood has been very opposed to and so it's nice to see something come forward that is an enhancement and protection for the neighborhood and I'll be supporting this motion as well any other comments or feedback before we call for a vote seeing none let's call for a vote on the board motion carries 7-0 that will move us to item D I'm going to open the public hearing for Z 16 - 0 0 2 4 and call on Julie white for that presentation so okay well we'll summarize it here okay the request before you tonight is to consider an initial zoning for a piece of property that was recently annexed into the city they're requesting our CCN which is a logical continuation of the existing zoning pattern that is in that area so I'll stand for any questions staff is recommending approval any questions for staff Commissioner Zill just for my identification is this property going to be combined with the other properties this is gonna be one medical district or is this the same owner that has that entire triangle of land that is the proposal of course you know zoning is is is all of the uses and but the the applicant is intending to move forward with they've been working on a preliminary and final plat and also a site plan for this proposal so if approved you will see a preliminary plat and final plat come forward soon with a with an anchor site for a hospital as well as some pad sites for some medical offices so thank you Julie again this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time seeing none I 'm going to close the public hearing on this item and open the floor for a motion or discussion Commissioner Beck okay I'm over this item great Commissioner Taylor okay we have a first and a second for approval any discussion I call for a vote on the board please motion carries 7-0 we'll move us to item E I'm going to open the public hearing for PDA 16 - 0 0 0 7 and call on Julie white for a presentation okay this time I am going to go through the whole presentation so all right this is PDA 16 7 of Julie Wyatt I have summary slide on that one okay the request before you is to consider a recommendation to City Council regarding a detailed plan amendment for ropes and ranch PD 173 to permit the blending of residential uses the subject property is located on the north side of ropes and ranch Road it is west of I 35 W I'm just some background on planned developments in general and and ropes and ranch specifically PD 173 was developed under the 1991 development code planned developments were a two-step process first the concept plan which was the general general guidelines of the development and also what land uses would have would be permitted ropes and ranch concept plan was approved in 1999 their proposal their intent was to emphasize flexibility and variety of housing options for an adult community and here we can look at the residential uses that were approved through that concept plan there were five single-family luxury single-family premiere and single-family casita all had the same permitted uses the differences in those three residential use categories were the minimum lot sizes as well as the minimum building square feet single-family Villa brought in two family attached dwellings but otherwise kept the same permitted uses and their minimum lot size was was smaller than than the other residential land use categories it also included multifamily to which allowed multifamily dwellings as well as community centers and nursing homes libraries that those sorts of elements so that that those residential land use categories were approved with the concept plan since that was approved a couple of detail plans have have been approved for ropes and ranch the one that's being amended now or proposed to be amended now is the most recent one approved in 2011 that detail plan provided for specific locations for each of the residential land use categories and we'll look at those this this land use plan was included with that detail plan and the yellow depicted the traditional lots the gray depicted the premier lots this light blue depicted the preserve lots and then down here were the the single-family villas those those duplex lots so each each of those uses had a specific location so due to changing market trends and and conditions on the site the applicant is proposing a change to that detail plan that change includes to permit the residential land use categories SFL, SFP, SFC and SFV with on all areas identified as residential use and we'll see that in a map in a second as far as the SFV which is the single- family villa which does permit the two-family attached they are proposing a maximum of 1200 of those throughout the development MF2 this this request does not permit MF2 it doesn't show depict a location for that if they did want to come if they did want to develop that that MF2 residential land use category they would have to do another detail plan amendment to show where that would go and how it how it would develop just to let you know this this request does not increase the total number of dwelling units that were approved with the 2011 detail plan or the maximum density it just reallocates those residential uses and mixes them up within that residential use area and so they're proposing a change in the map that looks like this so the yellow is that residential use area and I know we talked in work session about what's actually developed in in this general area right here there's about a third you know about 1600 homes have been developed out of the proposed you know little six approximately six thousand so so the the remaining residential use categories would be interspersed throughout the the balance of that development so the 1991 code does have the criteria for approval of a detailed plan amendment and staff looked at that the first criteria that it complies with the general concept plan this proposed change does does meet that goal or that criteria that it permits flexibility within the residential land uses it also maintains the overall density and it's not introducing any new residential land use categories it 's just furthering what what was approved with that concept plan the second criteria for approval provides a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that would not adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods or properties outside of the plan once again the proposed modification doesn't alter the permitted land uses or the low density residential land use pattern provides for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic since there is not an increase in the total number of dwelling units there would not by extension necessarily be an increase in traffic and then in substantial compliance with the landscape sign subdivision and other regulations of the city and this proposal is in compliance with that so based upon this criteria staff does the detail plan does meet this criteria for approval there was a notification sent and I know I gave y'all a stack of letters we got quite a few these numbers are from noon today so I know you have more letters in your stack than is actually reflected in this in this presentation but we as of noon we received 13 in opposition 22 in favor and then eight neutral responses so based upon the criteria for approval and and the future land use staff does recommend approval of this request and I'll stand for any questions the applicant is here so he can answer thank you chair I'm just trying to understand the arithmetic here so there are approximately the is the 6,000 the limit or is there actually like some 6,000 in some change it's a good question the original concept plan approved 7,500 homes subsequent detailed plans actually detailed out 6,000 and I don't have the exact number the applicant is here 6,300 or around the 6,000 mark they do have a a provision within the concept plan that allows them to increase the density by 5% without doing a new detail plan or some sort of approval by City Council so they could increase those approved lots that were approved in 2011 up to 5% anything over that would would require approval by City Council I did the math and I don't I didn't write it down but it I think it was around 300 lots that they could go over that what was approved with that 2011 so let's say 6, 600 as maybe that number is approximately 6,600 and 1,600 or so have been built and probably a few hundred more have been detail like detail plans have been finalized and basically been platted so so you've got about 4,500 or 4, 800 potential future lots to be detailed out and these 1,200 new units would be all in those 4,800 future lots yes sir and so I figure that these can be smaller lots like they can they can actually be physically smaller make 3,000 3,000 square feet as opposed to 6 or 4 so in theory they could put more put them closer together yes sir but they could also put one of these villas on an 8,000 square foot there's no reason it doesn't say they have to be on a small lot correct they just have a minimum but even if they put them on the full-size lots in the detail plan they're gonna end up with five hundred and seventy because you're putting two units per lot you're gonna end up with an extra five hundred or so units does that mean they're going to add park space or space out the single family more like make everything lot and a half sized or something the applicant is here and I would call on him to answer how it's actually going to work in practice within their development because because yes this doesn't increase that six thousand so there will have to be a way to work that because they they have a space they're trying to fill so yes he's here is the applicant here would like to come forward and address some of these questions please state your name and address when you get to the mic Mr. Chairman members of the Commission my name is Todd Fitzgerald here representing Robson Ranch my address is 9666 East Riggs Road Sun Lakes Arizona 85248 thank you appreciate your time and hearing us likewise of staff been very helpful working through this really it's a name of flexibility that were before you tonight requesting this change as Julie said not to restate all the same facts but not an increase in density not an additional product type or even a change to what was approved but flexibility to put it in place the real to answer your question more directly is typically our product sizes have been growing over the past say 10 to 15 years lot size although they're approved to be some 80 50 by 80 feet have grown to be 60 by 110 each time and all of our series are growing maybe that's added to the creation of the need for this villa product and how it's being so well received we're seeing that our densities are dropping excuse me are dropping as a result of that lot size increase so I don't see it being a whole bunch of additional land nor units but a matter just blending what's available and how we offer it the trend being and again it's probably state the obvious but a 30 40 year build in our projects tend to see some patterns and what we're really seeking is the ability to react to them and react and get out front far enough to try to try to spot some things coming and make a move in time to be have it available rather than be on our heels so it sounds like what you what you might end up doing is the villas might be on fairly small lots but then the average size of the the SFL SFP FFC might get a little bit bigger basically kind of absorb that extra space that is what has happened correct and the villas also have been we've been offering as a pod kind of a neighborhood within the community itself and with it some open space and some area where the other smaller lots and smaller backyards not maintained the lock and leave has been a big success for us and that's how we've been marketing them but then an open spacing behind it such that there isn't somebody else right there if it was to be put at minimum setback minimum setback they wouldn't be right on top of each other so that's also using up some of that same land if that answer your question yeah and I had there was a few more questions that came up in the work session I guess I 'll go and bring it now the generally in our in in like our standard zoning neighborhood residential type zoning we strongly discourage mixing duplexes just in innate like you will usually have this street over here will be duplexes not a duplex single family duplex you know mixed in in the block right and I think that's one concern that was that was a brought up in the work session this even goes into the already built properties and says that duplexes could go in you know if house burned down or something somebody demolished in theory they could even go in and build the villa in you know in between two existing single-family homes that's that's counter to like I said a lot of our neighborhood residential type zoning where we would have some kind of separation between the the density and if I can speak to that and our goal is the same they don't work well kind of lot by lot but more as a pot in the lot depths and dimensions the rear lot lines would be staggered the streetscape wouldn't look it's better to be planned together and we landscape it together and it's on one system one landscape system that's operated by an HOA and a separate HOA in fact and it has to kind of work the way we've always offered it anyway it has to work as one complete unit community not to not a big house next to a small one if that's you have to kind of sound at what you're saying in terms of the existing plats I would think the plot I'm a bit getting out of my belly wick but excuse me the plot sets out the terms of what would be allowed and what minimums and dimensions would be allowed and I would I would think a villa wouldn't wouldn't be allowed within that unless it was just a smaller house if somebody tore it down and wanted to start again but yeah I believe so you wouldn't be able to cut a lot in half or something like that without if it's been plotted but you could most likely build a if you had a house that burned down or was demolished you could then build one of the villas is that correct a duplex type home anywhere in the yellow maybe Julie can just per the proposal as long as it doesn't exceed that the maximum number of villas of 1200 or 12 villa dwelling units of 1200 they could it could go anywhere within the development for the zoning if I can just tag on to the end of that I think a single villa sometimes there's there's not an ability to get it to two of them together but it'd be enough space for one so it'd be a single lot still called a villa but but not with a common wall I don't think a common wall would be possible in a typical plat with a created lot a single building maybe of that same side with two side setbacks would be provisioned for but I don't see it to be possible to have a duplex that makes sense a couple more questions for you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair good evening there's a lot of talk about the villas obviously because there's a tremendous increase from the original plan obviously you you have seen in demand for this product how is the villa counted as a unit it does have a common wall so it's two residences in in a villa correct to homeowners to a building is that one unit or is it two units - so it's separate separate ownership so it's two units so we are increasing the amount of people if we're increasing the villas so we're not increasing the units but if a villa counts as two units we're definitely increasing the population correct but by not adding for our part by not adding to any of the maximum densities within what was approved I think the number is 6037 of that detail plan and then that five percent slot by not extending that we recognize and acknowledge that we wouldn't be there would be no new people beyond what was provisioned for previously spread around differently and adjusted but not within the community not an increase in density there would not be even with a jump like that actually okay and something you don't have any single vill as around the neighborhood now are they all in clusters now they are yeah we've only ever done on a plot subdivision basis you know one of the unit 47 is a recent one that is all villas in fact the only one today but it's together and with final plat with dedications and spells out the terms of how it will be maintained and how it's different than a typical one and is your future plan to go along with how you've been building them in pods like that accurate yes a separate pod per subdivision that would how many are in a pod and just by phasing that it's not a predetermined amount this is part of the flexibility we're seeking to see if if it continues to be successful and maybe that those pod sizes look one way if it's maybe backs off a little bit a smaller bite would make more sense and we get into this stuff like bouncing the dirt and the roads and the sewer and water and some of the feasible issues that plane of those decisions as well as demand okay thank you thank you follow up on Commissioner Ellis's question if you're changing units we 're looking at the map or the chart we have here essentially a villa is a duplex so you have could have two family units where you would have had a single family unit it's one structure but it's actually for two family units and I understand that correctly basically yes so so you are I think in fact increasing the number of family units that can go out there even though it may be structure wise the same footprint but you have two families in a single residence versus one and they're my understanding her point maybe I'm confusing it Ted that is accurate what you're saying however with the overall looking at a project -wide PD or detail plan basis there would be two of those locally more so but not more than the same 6037 plus or minus anything within a five percent increase but no more beyond that maybe used used more so in one area the other but not for an increase overall we're also seeing him with back to the increase in lot sizes and the north part of the project that hasn't yet been developed is a lot more relief a lot more hilly so to even achieve the as approved lot sizes which are smaller than what we're using now the yields are we're seeing less yield just to just to continue it through our plans in two dimensions look one way but once you get on site it's some other challenges so that's what that's how I mean locally there might be an increase in that there's two side-by-side on what would be one building per se not an overall increase so what your point is is that although commissioners health else's point is correct that you have more density being family units there what you're actually building is the other lots are getting larger and so your point is some things are smaller and more dense but your other products are actually getting larger and less dense and so in your opinion it ends up being essentially the same density overall on a project basis but individually in small areas you may have areas that are way more dense than what was originally proposed and you may have some areas that are less dense because of the increase in the loss size that a fair characterization of what you're describing yes sir that's essentially correct the other the addition of open space within the villa units is the other thing that would offset that slightly from looking at minimum lot sizes and if a minimum was 30 feet wide by 100 feet depth those are the two rigid dimensions our width has got to be 45 wide it just felt better it meets for better straight scene and still sticking with 100 feet because that's a rigid requirement so it's already quite a bit larger in size and then additional open space within the unit that somehow offsets those numbers additionally okay several more questions here Commissioner Sullivan yes my concern is that this is a master plan development as they call it and yet I don't see where it's being planned so that everybody knows what it is they're buying into nobody knows where those villas are going to be so that when they buy their lot and right now they're saying that the build out is about 12 months so within that 12 month period all of a sudden y'all could decide let's put in a row of duplexes in the same neighborhood in the same on the same street so that the people who bought a year ago they don't know what's going to be going in there and I think that's a cause of concern you're talking about the size of lots increasing in fact originally when you go through and you look at some of the older homes that are out there those are on much larger lots than the houses that have been built in the last year mine being one of them my lot is much smaller than the lots on the on the east side of ropes and I call big ed road ropes and boulevard and so that I'm concerned that that when you start looking at the lot sizes and what you're going to be putting there if you said earlier that behind the villas would be green spaces and so forth I'm already seeing roads that are being cut through so that I don't understand how you're going to be able to carve out the green spaces in an area where there may have been houses planned to begin with you know decide to change it to a villa and so I'm just I'm just I'm concerned that people are they're not going to know what they're buying into and and I don't know why y'all can't just say well in this area we're going to have you know villas here or over here or at least the possibility of villas being in this area or that area so that if somebody says I don't want to take the chance they buy a lot that's a little bit further away than and where you know where y'all might be having the option of putting a villa a couple of thoughts thanks for the comments I'm a bit confused in terms of the lot sizes I'm not sure how old your the light you bought was but I'm comparing it to what was approved the concept plan and then the minimums every product has exceeded that maybe maybe you bought after that happened my point was that the original density provision for was a bit the basis of it was those smaller lot sizes that we've not held to does that answer that I'm ten feet from my neighbor and I know a lot of people over there that are 20 feet from their neighbor or 30 feet from their neighbor so that the lot the lots are smaller now than what they were I guess the only way could explain is a possible market twist and turn that that was an effort out of marketing bigger lots at the time where it was coming from I'm just saying that that if if it's a master plan development then plan it for the future so people know when they buy what is going to be in and around them you know it's it's like somebody building a house and they have this great green space behind them not knowing that that's FM 2499 and so all of a sudden they have a major thoroughfare coming in behind and so the same thing here is if they think it's a single-family development all of a sudden down the street there may be duplexes the lock and leaves where maybe people aren't there half half of the year and so that's not the same type of a neighbor as a regular neighborhood understood that's that's my concern I guess to our end and that's a concern of ours as well and at the time of contract signing there's a quite a bit of disclosure and paperwork and here's what's coming up and I believe within that outlines the flexibility within the PD and and the need to react to these kind of changes and and it's probably amplified more so I'm going to say 40 years not knowing the real answer but with that kind of duration I think this probably is an example of us trying to say this is it this one here will do and then and that will get us there realizing now fast forward 10-15 years that it's just not and we're seeing these demands and in order to avoid the same fate where we would go and pick another spot or two and find out that another twist took us into larger areas or golf courses or something else that left this thing as an island that we can't achieve or two points of access or there isn't sewer locally those are the kind of constraints I guess that we're focused on with this request but but in terms of planning it out the pod by pod basis is how we address that and then try to avoid any of those scenarios where someone wasn't where or didn't didn't know what was coming thank you Commissioner Roselle thank you for being here I have a couple thoughts as well as hopefully a question that you might be able to provide some insight to first I appreciate you talking about the flexibility and the market needs for that and and because when I looked at a map of yellow it it definitely was intimidating just think that there's going to be a free-for -all but if I understand this correctly there's 6037 units yes there will never be more that's a cap right it is but for a potential for five percent density increase so so they're there besides the five percent there's not gonna be an increase in units families or whatever I know that was the point earlier but there's going to be six thousand ish units how that's divided up is obviously the question when I was reading through a lot of these letters which I appreciate those sitting them in it's very helpful for us it seemed like there's three if I could categorize the oppositions there was kind of three things that I felt was repeating one was a basic sense of ropes are yeah ropes and ranches kind of autonomy and controlled to do as you wish there's I can sort of that there's concern of aesthetics in terms of what a villa looks like cosmetically and the third one is what we've been talking about is density I've heard in work session and then tonight you mentioned the idea of lock and leave can can you help me walk through the habits of that potential demographic are they solely buying or predominantly buying the villas and then in terms of density are they not there half the year would is the traffic of those individuals compensated by them just not being there I'm trying to understand how villas actually play into density if they're these lock and leave type clients can you help me out with their patterns I guess the the shortest answer is we're still learning having done one unit of 63 maybe we spotted a few patterns and then we're still trying we're eager to see if that's going to continue or not whether it's someone part-time resident snowbird or what have you maybe a widow someone that doesn't one partner the other passes and home maintenance becomes an issue and then this type of product will lend itself more to that kind of scenario now honestly I don't I don't really have any rigid answer in terms of what percentage if there are any patterns that are so defined but we're seeing in terms of the density I don't think we've had any that are so high just because of the usual planning constraints where they just don't have enough room for so many lots before you run out of street and then add an open space behind them that it I guess it made sound uglier than I think it is in practice how it plays out and how it really feels like a nice neighborhood we're proud of it we've gotten a lot of positive feedback the street scene is it looks good it's there's no question though there are several different lines of product we offer and there's everybody likes something different and that's what we're trying to fander to so continuing with that and I appreciate that the candidness I just didn't know if there's when you're doing marketing campaigns this lock and leave there's actually like this half and half or they come down here for three months they leave for three months during our terrible summers or however that worked I didn't know that one of the things that was brought up by Commissioner Ellis and Commissioner Sullivan as well as some of the letters that we received was this idea of your freedom to build ad hoc wherever whenever and the the I guess the insecurity of someone purchasing a lot putting their harder money to build and then across the street is one of these pods that pop up is there any mechanism to provide or let them know lead time or that purchase say in a radius that the plans going forward I'm trying to understand if there's a way to protect some of the residents going forward because I'm generally in favor of the flexibility I think that that resonates with me but I also understand the concern of this unknown in terms of protecting the asset that they're invested in so have you thought about that is there any options on the table for that we have and in addition to the same type of packet we want to circulate up front to say that these are in master plan community together with flexibility together with different amenities and all the kind of things that come with that back to the pod by pod bases we wouldn't want to do on one side of the street or other and when we built the street we wouldn't be able to stub in sewer services because they're different lot sizes it kind of lends itself to closing in a bank of streets and together with the doubly loaded streets so there would be the rear of someone's lot together with the open space that we've been building into this product just to provide for the aesthetics and the liv ability of it we think that affords some of that kind of protection just by design and together we want to make sure the same thing that it's clear everyone knows what they're getting there's no surprises in thank you thank you hope answer that thank you chair thank you come down speaking it's been very informative let me ask you a question I asked in the working session and the staff thought should be better prepared to answer obviously market conditions dictate that 1200 villa units are a popular way to go what the market turns to you obviously to keep the same number of units though that means these bigger units will have to decrease so what is the market trend which one are we looking at decreasing there can you if I understand you right I think almost all of our other offerings have grown in size that's something that's been happening I would say over the last maybe ten some years after the downturn I think after that probably yeah there was a general upsizing so I think that's taken place and probably we're a bit behind the eight ball and coming in to fill what's called void for lack of a better explanation so you say percentage wise you would probably all the units would continue to grow you wouldn't have to decrease some of the bigger units so you can get those 1200 billas I don't foresee it okay I think it'd be nice to achieve the full six thousand and thirty seven I think we 're gonna have a hard time doing it that's nice to have that there once again in the name of flexibility in the name of reacting to 15 years down the roads twists and turns that we aren't thinking about today like to think we can get out front of them all but it just doesn't work that way okay thank you thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair a couple more questions how many villas are there currently 63 63 total that's right now and and we 've been focused on villas with this amendment are there are there other parameters you're for your other product are there other increase in numbers or was this just zeroing in on increasing the amount of villas because you've maxed out accurate right current yeah okay this is strictly in order to allow more villas and the flexibility to place villas okay there was some of those flexibilities written in the PD and I believe in the 2011 detail plan amendment I think this the unit 47 I'm a bit speaking off the cuff unit 47 I believe was slated for mf2 and during that process was changed and labeled as villas yeah I think our understanding was that residential was residential and then that's why there wasn't a big need to place it around but that's you're saying it really doesn't plan this discussion that's what really the whole point of our request before you is the desire for more villas because of the market need that you're saying thank you understood thank you thanks I have a couple comments and questions I want to echo Commissioner Taylor's concerns is one of the concerns I had in work session is what you're asking is very contrary to what our normal zoning procedure is in the city of Denton I'm somewhat uncomfortable with just saying you guys can go do kind of wherever versus the plan that it's here and here and defined areas because that's essentially how the rest of the planning is done in our city understand you're an NPC and you're your own kind of area but we have citizens that are in there that have made purchases based on the map and the areas have been designated just like we do in other parts of our city I'm uncomfortable with that I understand the flexibility I'm very familiar with construction and development business understand things change and as such I think the developer comes forward and says we've had some changes and I need to make change we do that see that with Robson Ranch I mean a raise the ranch several times has come before us with things have happened and we need to make changes and my preference would be if those things happen to come back and we'll address what those are versus just kind of a free-for-all you can kind of design it and go as you like and we don't have to come back to PNC so so that's one comment do you have a response to somewhat allay my concern about turning that over to you all versus how we typically do things with this area is in our three or in our six or duplexes or whatever those are and if you want to change it you come before PNC and ask for zoning change fair concern I understand where you're coming from I guess our challenge and I don't want to keep repeating the same issue but in terms of we'll just say the numbers 4500 lots left to develop they would be in effect our kind of final plotting at the remaining 4500 to where we're electing what's going to go where and and firming up those kind of decisions which is a bit of what has us in the position we're in does it back to the flexibility being a need is a big part of that our concern after strengthening the community as a whole and really it needs to win as a community and work together and the HOA the residents all of it comes together as one group and we're more concerned about that than any if that I don't know if that does anything to address your concerns but the strength of the community is paramount and us moving through it counting on word of mouth advertising and continuing to build it up and fill all the different levels at home buyer and all of our residents specific needs and needs over time sometimes that means a large place up front and some 10 15 years later a downgrade to something they can stay in place carry on the same golf games and friends and all within the community kind of an agent place set up that allows everybody to stay put has been a big part of the success of this product and the feedback we 're getting on it well that addresses your question but - well I guess let me give some feedback so you're about 15 years roughly in the project yes sir there but and how many units do you have so far I think the numbers about 1800 okay so a little over a hundred a year and you've got 4500 units to go so you guys quite a while we may see at this rate so you know I guess my point is that I understand things can change we're not talking about that your project is going to be built out of the next four or five years and I understand there's a time and money that's spent to come before the Commission and go with the city but that's not what your development is you're looking at the next probably 30 45 years at least to have this built out and it almost feels like the request is we just want to kind of be one and done and we can do kind of whatever versus 10 years from now hey things have changed and we need to come back and talk about what the new market conditions are and my thought is if we approve it the way that it is you probably don't kind of have to come back to talk to P&Z about what some of the new ideas and some flexibilities that you need and you have that basically now granted in this request that you're doing is that a fair characterization of what you're asking avoiding or essentially rezoning is is what we are hoping to do and that is accurate how the time it takes us I guess to react to spot a market demand make sure it's real it's not a blip in the radar react to it get things in place get a design get get the approvals get constructed though our concern and what we've seen in the past while is that we did the 63 we had and they were a huge hit and then just the time it takes us to get it this way back up is is what we're trying to trunc ate so that's timing and your points are are not inaccurate but we're that's our desire but you can continue doing the bill is now correct no sir you can only do 63 period thank you that that's that's what we're before you that's our limitation and requests continue to come in and we're just seeing a lot of positive feedback for it and we're eager to try to meet that market demand okay Commissioner Sullivan thank you for your answers thank you sir just to make a point house on countryside built in 2002 which I think was the 14th house built was on 11,536 square feet of lot my house built in 2015 was 8,750 so it's quite a bit of difference in size and this was built during the time when obviously the market was very strong and so my concern is if you've downsized the lots from 2002 to 2015 what are you going to do from 2015 to 2020 especially when you can put villas whenever wherever you want to put them at some point in the future so that's that's where my concern is the way the lot sizes have changed they've not gotten larger they've gotten smaller appreciate that net with that not knowing what lot that is you referring to that between thousand five oh nine countryside well I mean with that the street slopes in it whether there's some kind of grade that has to be picked up my comment was strictly related to what's the minimums that were approved that we far exceeded that when I say they've gotten bigger they absolutely have from what was approved every one of those dimensions probably by 10 feet that's what I was referring to I'm sure there's several that are pie shaped at the end of a cul-de-sac or again there's a lot of grades so we have to take up slope and still have a buildable envelope that's going to be a large lot but again not not knowing that specific lot overall they have gotten larger of all the sizes including the villa in fact I don't see any other questions I appreciate your time and a lot of time you've given us and a lot of information so thank you very much thank you very much for your help and likewise the staff appreciate a lot this is a public hearing I do not have any cards wishing to speak at this time I do want to let you know that we had a packet that we were given and just in a quick count by staff we have 29 letters in favor 10 that are neutral and 19 that are opposed and if you'd like to speak we'd be happy for you to come up speak give your name address and present a card but I'm not going to go through and call each person in this stack so if you've sent in a letter great and we appreciate that we've read through them and reviewed them if you would like to speak we would like to have a card from you to come forward first of all I don't know how many of these were mailed out we never got orders my neighbors didn't get theirs we're only down the block we couldn't we couldn't register our complaint we don't want to do it okay as far as building these units they're building two units on one lot you're getting two prices for a house you're getting $303 you're getting $600,000 a house you're paying two HOA fees they're looking at the money into it they're not looking at what you're doing for us believe me we do not want them in our neighborhood they can have a certain section they can put them if they want to put them out there our house we bought it in 14 has gone up $59,000 for base house so they're making money off the houses we do not want these in our neighborhood and they're getting two HOA for each home for each home now instead of one HOA they're getting two and the HOA fees we're paying for the maintenance on the golf course is about four million dollars a year we're paying for all this over costs in a restaurant which is another I don't know 1.5 million dollars that we shouldn't be paying but we're paying it because they have a good little hold on us and we do not want to see any more of this crap going on with the stuff they're going to do this favor not doing us a favor believe me I'll fill a card out thank you for your comments I do want to say that we we will be entering all of these into the record so thank you for everyone who is sent in a letter and anyone else who would like to speak please come forward at this time and give us your name and address Dave Everly I live at 8 800 Maryland Court Robeson Ranch we've been there five years I work for the city of Denton when I was in school here I was city secretary at Carrollton I've never seen a planning and zoning request like this heard of it ever my concern is your concern if it's a mixed-use request you got a duplex which are joined at the garage there's two garages together and they can be in one lot then you've got a single family then you got another duplex I don't think if people understood that which by the way we got this letter and it said nothing we had no idea what all this was going on and we're in part of that 200 feet there that shows down at the bottom of this so fortunately unless somebody tears down a house we won't have a duplex across the street from us currently they're in pods like he said and that looks really nice people that want those fine the retired people most of them stay there year-round as I do we do travel a lot but we stay there year round I would think if you keep these in pods like 63 they 're right there now that would be really acceptable with everybody but if you start putting them side by side and I just don't see how it's going to work and it's gonna they're selling a hundred houses a year about building from scratch and if you start doubling that and doubling that they're already built they're building new tennis courts new driveways for look off cards so they 're expecting a lot of people there right now I would just say if you pass something that groups these things in the clusters that would be acceptable with most everybody but if you just go mixed use and by my understanding mixed use is one here single-family here a duplex there I couldn't vote for that and you can say I didn't check no in that box okay good evening my name is Alan Shig I live at 9101 Compton Street which is part of Robson Ranch I've been a resident out there about five years now my hearing is sort of broken my mind sort of thinks in the simple concepts so I might have missed some of the pertinent facts that were delivered here today now that probably is not gonna well I may come across as being ignorant with some of the things I said because of those factors there but my main point is just it's just an irritant I think I'm just really irritated about this first of all the density issue I just don't know how that density can remain the same from you know what it was to what is proposed now I know the the developers probably not under any obligation to advise the residents everything that they're doing but just this process almost seems like it's been been done in a vacuum I mean I got this here week to ten days ago probably and then I did not fill out any kind of form because this wasn't included in the notice I received initially I just received this by certified certified letter I think it was Friday or Saturday and it would just been so nice if there would have been some kind of inclusive you know on a part of the residents out there there's a lot of communications that goes on and Robson ranch but this I never heard about it now I was gone a little bit in the summer so maybe I missed out on some of this but if they were just been even even in last week if we had just got some kind of notice that something was going on but nothing was sent out if there had been some kind of advisory this is what we want to do would like to do this would just like to let you know so it's an irritant on my part and that probably will not sway a decision process in any way but I just want to let you know that there there are some concerned people living out there thank you for your time have a question for you before you go Commissioner Hussman thank you I just wanted to make sure you knew the notices that you received or so so that's not that's not ropes and rinse that's the city of Denton so I just don't want you to put your your your frustration or concern about notice on that particular item on them that that's our responsibility and we're making improvements every day but that is we'll have to shoulder that thank you Commissioner I think I understood that but it's just that I wish we did something internally something internally and like I say they may not be obligated to do that but wish we would have been thank you thank you for your comments and I'll file a card I did go to the sales office and I said what is this all about and they showed me a little map down below the dog park and said we're taking this piece of land and we want to increase the density from 34 to 36 that's all it's all about and so when my husband said come today I thought okay we're just gonna come in here and what we heard today was not what we were told when I went to the sales office just this last week asking for a clarification on this point so I do feel like it would be nice if there was a more detailed master plan and that it was more forthcoming to those of us who are living there and who are buying into there to know what is actually happening because I do know that where the villas are the people that live there are enjoying those very much they were very desirable they sold out very fast and I can see where that concept would be a good concept but I was a little bit shocked tonight when I heard 1,200 homes it really was a surprise to me because I was told there was being in this increased density of two more homes in that area thank you for your comments and this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak please come forward this time and give your name and address and then fill out a card for us when you can before you leave Cindy Whitten 104 13 Belvedere Drive and I'd like to state I'm in opposition of this and the reason why is because if I understand everything correctly tonight there's not a specific area identified that these would be built in for future homeowners that would be buying the sales office cannot or chooses not to disclose certain information when we bought in 2013 we looked at a particular house that was across from a field that had yet to be developed specifically asked because we were interested in that house when they thought that development would begin and when there would be houses and the sales office told us that there was no way to tell us when that development would start within a nine to twelve month period that development was started and we probably would have chosen that house had we known that those that we weren't going to be staring at an empty field for much time we like that house better than we like the one that we purchased but the sales office isn't forthcoming on information to future homeowners having to do with the development that's going on so to ask to just be able to put that anywhere within their map that zone jello is objectionable to me thank you for your comments I'm Barbara Hodges and I own a home at ropes and ranch and I just had a dress please I'm sorry will you give us your address please oh 9600 Rosewood Drive Denton Texas in the woods so they call it everything ends with a wood I've lived there for ten years my husband and I moved in there and four years ago he passed away and that home is too big for me to maintain by myself I want I want a villa so bad I can 't stand it and my there's none available my sister is in the same position she moved in four years ago her husband just passed away and she has a bigger home than I do much bigger it's on the other side and so she and I are two wid ows and we really we want to live together in the same under the same roof they 're very nicely done very well kept you there are restrictions to what you can do I don't know what people are afraid of I really don't I mean building them all over the place I don't like that either but the way that it is set up right now is wonderful and you have your own your own set of neighbors anyway that's all I had to say I'm for them thank you thank you for your comment well I'll tell you what I have a question for you learn I learned this trick not too long ago you were going to help me with a question what was your question going to be so why I understand that the villas are very desirable my objection is to not having specific locations and identify if they were more in pods rather than if they were yes yes I think that there 's a need for the villas to you know as the as the baby boomers get older and we see an influx of people into these type of neighborhood master plan communities I think that that's very good my objection is not identifying where they're going to be so that the homeowner the future home owner has a choice as to what lot he may want to buy or those of us that have existing homes know how we're going to be affected by these I don't have an objection to the the villas themselves just to not having specific specific identified areas and that being specifically requested I have one follow-up question okay thank you again this is a public hearing anyone else that would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time and if you all will if you haven't had an opportunity to fill out a card I think staff has come around and passing cards please fill out a card for us my name is Fred Palmer I live in 9613 Lindenwood trail and just doing the numbers and and again the villas are great and they fit a purpose and that sort of thing but right now there's 63 out of 1800 homes if you do 1200 more out of 4800 homes that's 25% so there's got to be some controls I'm in favor of the villas but there's got to be some controls now they go in okay thank you sir Mike Weaver 9612 Applewood trail I appreciate the mailing that you guys did to inform us of what was happening but in my mind what I received by snail mail and certified mail it was completely unintelligible we couldn't tell what was going on what was the purpose of the meeting it did board did filter through on the homeowners and I'm sorry the message board at ropes and Rick that it was about the villas but if you guys could do a better job of communicating the specific issues that would be great thank you sir again this is a public hearing anyone else who would like to speak please come forward at this time okay we're going to close the public hearing on this item and I'll open the floor up for discussion and a motion I'm gonna recognize Commissioner Hesworth I believe you had a question for the applicant yes okay thank you the applicant please come forward again please and I'm sorry give me your name one more time Todd Fitzger ald Todd thank you so do you have an understanding given given the feedback we've received verbally and written do you are you comfortable giving me a number of pods that make it financial and financially feasible for you to commit to so for example if you're given permission to build pods but they have to be in a segment number of XYZ are you comfortable or are you able to give a number or I mean I understand if you're not I'm just curious what that number would be I would be apprehensive just for the physical constraints and the ability to whatever the number might be then to go put one in place and it happens that there's grading issues or a triangular piece because of a wash and what have you that it'd be very hard to determine you know a pod unit of some amount of homes that would I guess secure the ability to continue with this product and continue to move it forward more than I would be apprehensive I'm preference would be to be able to use do the land planning and not be the the one example that's kind of adjacent to unit 47 right now was I forget who brought it up but it is accurate it's not many more units realize there but it's just an effort to get more of them there and that was a very it's just a strange piece of ground and it's limited by a wash on one side and a street in a dog park and I think that's going to become fairly common that just the real world is going to be some other constraints that would be very hard to plan up against especially if success continues the ability to take a big bite or a small bite or two different pods but there's their access and sewer and all the other issues that that we need to address at the same time for that reason be our preference to not have to pin down a location or account understanding the constraints and then the concerns that have been raised with the home side by side within the same pod or the same subdivision where we can understand that and that's not something that's not how we've tried to market in order do we plan to but I don't know if that answers your question many but yes it does it candidly you know there's the buttons they only give us two they give us a yes and a no yes and so understanding your your parameters I am limited as well and so I'm trying to forge middle ground that would obviously require more planning more commitment on because I understand that at a very small level the limitations of building and clusters so and so on so forth but at the same time trying to find a middle ground someplace so no that it may you answered my question perfectly just trying to to help can I follow up to that absolutely to that end if there to be some kind of a stipulation that need to be contained within a pod and not a one-off and some other standalone unit would that suffice to any end to provide some more structure some some increased stability I'm one of seven but I'll tell you I'll tell you from my one yes because you know I'm balancing residents versus understanding you you 're you're producing a superior product everyone gets that you know and the neighborhood is is is thriving because of your sensitivity to your product and and having the ear to the to your to your your customers so having that same ear yes I mean for me just me personally yes because that then allows some visibility and some peace of mind that we're not just gonna have a vacant lot that this will fit their type approach and doesn't give a carte blanche 15-year blank check you know and also for me it helps because I think this body changes right so I'd like to try to provide some reciprocate so supply supply some stability for you and your partners as you go forward and we turn limit off and new people come on you have something in place that allows you to continue to adjust to your to your needs again as a as a credit or as a just recognizing the good work that you do and that that Robson ranch is is focused on and doing great things hopefully in that area so thank you for that yes sir that certainly would be something that to whatever end it provides additional protection or be labeled maybe as a final plat comes into that end it gets the label and that that's what allows those lots to be used for real as opposed to some of the other ones externally it's probably half a thought but some along those lines would be preferential in terms of limiting it as opposed to pick an actual geographic locations without the background and the grading and the drainage and all the other information thank you again you might want to take a seat close by I don't know no stay there Commissioner Beck I've got a full board and I didn't know if they want to ask you a question or not okay following the same lines Commissioner Hudson was talking about you know finding some middle ground here the 1200 number you put up there on the bill is is that something you see that's viable not viable I'm sorry but that is is is realistic is that just a number thrown out there the demand for 1200 is it actually there could a lesser number be presented it's not based on any solid math okay again we're having one in our hip pocket that we're kind of learning this product and even once that happened market trends being what they are you can turn that math upside down and there wasn't any solid number crunching that landed on that number it's somewhat arbitrary but to try to be safe to try to avoid understand market trends too but based on what I'm hearing a lot tonight you know there and I really fully respect the idea of flexibility here I'm pretty much for it but I'm concerned too that not enough information has been shared with everyone that has to live with this and the idea of probably setting aside some areas where these pods can be contained as making that a stip ulation this probably would be a good idea but I think it would it would come off better too if there was probably a better public hearing on this with the Robeson Ranch residents out there so they could get a better grasp of this I think you've got a good idea I think your head and hearts in the right place but they haven't got enough information yet to realize that and it would behoove you as a developer to share that with them so going forward would you consider opening this debate back up with the residents out there with an understanding that maybe we can't set some areas aside for these little pods for the the bills because there's obviously demand for them too we had made some effort to put up a posting and into Holst a neighborhood meeting apologies if that I think that message didn't get to everybody we certainly understand the one who have involvement all the residents as much as we can okay okay thank you sir thank you thank you chair to I guess continue this because I'm not sure I heard the answer I think the big scary part is going from 63 villas to this large number and and where did that number come from honestly it's fairly arbitrary we 're looking at some ratios and what's remaining and a safe number that we thought we avoid another miss and revisiting this down the road was the extent of the man and I mean I think that is the stumbling block is just that large increase and then without a definite plan of where you know nobody wants to see property value decrease obviously and and that's not your goal and I know that the community is beautiful and developing the community further is best for all we need to continue going forward in ropes and ranch I mean it's it 's a great plan it at the aging in place concept is a wonderful concept and yes you need more than 63 villas out there definitely the scary part is is just throwing out this amendment without parameters and going from 63 and in the mind of residents who are there who have invested a great deal of money to this 1200 number of where they don't know where they're going to be so I'm trying to wrap my head around allowing you to to get this amendment passed and want you to continue developing as you have the superior product that is there it's just that that's the stumbling block certainly for those opposed and and it's a stumbling block for me as well without knowing where these units are really going to be placed and the amount does scare me at this moment of development is probably not a whole lot to address it but in terms of the 2500 2700 acres that is remaining and the fact that the original concept plan and the previous detail plan or the current detail plan shows a lot counted that achieved only that six thousand and thirty seven the if even if all 1200 were implemented and put in place I don't see where I would have exceeded the I guess our what we're going to continue to to try to relate is that the density not increasing even if it did increase I guess it would be would have a bunch of undeveloped land at the end which is not something we want we need the continuity their lively road is a north limit and need to have some spine roads and continuous development that we would continue to spread out and take full advantage of the land maintain the beauty of the land and maximize the views and there are plenty within our game plan that would always be something that we definitely rolled into any regardless of the ratios or whether the market trend changes again or continues full on thank you commissioner time thank you chair excuse me so I personally I'm not too concerned about I think the 1200 number comes out if it's around 25 or 30 percent I think there I 've seen especially in well-designed communities 30 or 35 percent kind of higher density duplex can work really well so I don't think as so the parameters of keeping the same number of units on the entire development and having up to 1200 of you know of this type of unit sounds good to me but I do come back to this planning the letting the neighbors know what's coming giving protections to the people that are already there so I don't feel comfortable supporting this as it is but I do want I think that I don't want to make you come back necessarily and rezone regularly but if we had so if we have we have total development you know six thousand and 1200 and then we say per unit there will be a Mac you know you know restrictions on how a pod could would be like pods will only face each other on the street like they won't have houses on one side of the street and you know single-family on one side and duplexes on the other side of the street facing each other and you'll have minimum of 20 unit units of the duplexes and a maximum of 80 or you know if we can't if you came up with a set of guidelines for how you generally would design pods and then those pods were approved at the platting like whenever you come in with a unit so this unit 's gonna be all single-family this unit's gonna have one pod it's gonna be an 80 unit pod and it's gonna have 40 single-family you know and then and then at platting you know if we could something along those lines where it isn't you flying out here every six months for a new rezone for another 40 acres or whatever but there is still some control and some stability and then all of the existing already built areas if we just left those in their current categories I mean it doesn't really affect y'all you know building new homes but then it gives you know a sense of security to the people that already there that their use their zoning isn't changing kind of out from under them so that's that's me kind of spitballing a middle ground but you would have to work with city staff and develop what that would look like would you be comfortable with said I don't think you're gonna get approval would you be comfortable with tabling for four or six weeks and coming back with a proposal that had a little more structure in it as a alternatively would it be possible to come up with stipulations that would set out something like that a pod I 've been using the term pod but really to be final plat and again with the villas especially with a separate HOA all the tracks and all the declarations are mapped out at that stage if it to be a stipulation to say it has to be per final plat identified as villas and platter pod or both if it's to use interchangeably and set it whatever those those limitations need to be that there couldn't be across the street from each other together with a plat by plat basis on a villa so I would generally be amenable to that but I would worry that if we're writing it up here right now we're gonna overlook something and there 's gonna be you know it's gonna make something unbuildable or you know so I think it would it would be better if I think we let staff review you know kind of sit down and make sure that all the t's across the eyes are dotted so to speak but I think that's that's basically what I'm what I'd be proposing is like at the plat phase there'd be some kind of approval and then the other question I guess would be for staff would this Commission have the ability to go no- go at the point of plat final planning on a unit I'm gonna call on legal because we've had a little back and forth here about zoning and platting and so I'm gonna ask Jennifer to the platting without the basic legal requirements or structure within the PD then we would not have the discretion to deny it so we would have to amend the PD we would have to work could we could we add so we're am ending the PD now could we amend the PD to have additional restrictions that if these restrictions aren't met would be grounds for denial absolutely because the PDs are different animals so you have wide authority on reducing the number making it a clustered planning or the placement so or you can recommend that he come back because you had mentioned something about keeping the existing homes in the same zoning structure and he can bring a plan back and we can table it for next time because if you do go forward here and if it is denied and you choose to go to council that will require a supermajority vote and so I 'm not I'm not sure you won't be able to bring it back again if council denies it for one year so this is something you need to consider our preference would be to map at the stipulations understanding that there's a lot of moving parts and maybe that's it's too much to do in one meeting tonight I mean if there's a list of those issues that we can work out quickly and then and hopefully be back in front of you all very soon that's our overwhelming preference again to announce the obvious and the interest in moving forward but if we can come up with a handful of what would create that kind of confidence I guess knowing how much is going to be enough to create that's going to be the battle but but for a handful of controls that built in and would be part of this detail plan amendment so what in itself on the zoning level protection so I think I'm sorry I just want to mention that another option would be to just give the requirements or sort of outline exactly what we're looking for and delegate it to staff to make sure that the plan is compliant before taking it to council as your recommendation so I think I think I've thrown out my kind of my few that I've thought of on the spot up here so I don't know if the rest of the Commission would weigh in on what they think about something like that thank you thank you for your comments that I think we're going to do that and try if possible to move this forward this even I would agree that in the past it has not gone well when we add a little bit here from the dais I think it's always best to get back to staff and with the applicant and then bring something either back or taking on to City Council with those things addressed versus us trying to add limit here so I would concur with that Commissioner Roselle thank you and I appreciate that conversation some of what y'all have just been talking about and I might negate some of the points are down but for the purpose of this conversation I was just going to throw out my thoughts some of them concur with you some of them do not so in the past we actually recently had this where we tabled something because we didn't want to get we didn't want to mess it up and I think in the PD or the MPC case we I feel more comfortable with a broader stroke in terms of limits just because of the flexibility we have so so my thoughts and what I wasn't saying I'll go ahead and say now is to motion approval for this and I had I came up with three conditions that I would be okay seeing one would be to reduce the overall number so 1200 to 600 cut in half off the top to reassure some of the residents that there's not going to be a flood of villas the next couple years the second is to require cluster development so there's not a one-off house or Villa put in place or in the current homes there's a fire something not have a Villa put back into an empty lot and the third is to require some sort of buffer in between the clustered villas and the the current homes so that there is either it 's a street buffer or how it may work out so that there is another protection because I'm certainly hearing the concerns of the citizens that I've heard about not wanting them or their fears about it but I've also heard only compliments about the development and it sounds like some people actually want to get into Villa really soon and so I'm hearing that I'm hearing that as well and so for those reasons I would like to see this move forward and if there 's a way that so at 600 there would be if this is a booming thing he would have to come back to get to get more they would have to come back to get more and so it kind of puts a stopgap measure in the pace of these being built but also addresses in my estimation to make sure they're in clusters with a buffer alleviates some of the fear of this interspersed meant or blending that I 've heard and so I would be in favor of going ahead and move this forward and it sounds like we could put conditions that staff could verify before council votes on it which if there is a way to make sure we have our ducks in room we vote I'm for that so that's that's where I am I'd like to see this move forward if it's all possible Commissioner back thank you chair and I agree with Commissioner Roselle I think those are three grand ideas but I still would prefer to table it mainly just to give at least the residents out there time to hear a little bit more on that I don't see is there any reason why we can 't get back on this in four to six weeks table it for now and get back on it four to six weeks given the developer time to meet this crime the criteria that we set forth to work with the staff and also give residents an opportunity to you know express our concerns more fully and get a better understanding what's going to be happening here we certainly want to work with the residents and inform all of our residents and let them know what's going on we in the interest of continuing forward we would very much appreciate additional controls put in place and move forward and also we do that and work with staff ahead of council and have another maybe community meeting and get more word around the to our residents in the meantime would be our vast preference okay if there's a way to head in that direction then I would move that we do table the item for four to six weeks and let's consider these stipulations get the staff to work on it and at least open an opportunity for the developer and the residents out of ropes and ranch to discuss this a little bit more thoroughly what sorry can I say one more thing would be possible to include that as one of the conditions rather than table it have a vote include additional some kind of additional step to be taken ahead of council in order to have a vote tonight and move ahead with additional community involvement motion would be to table it for now and work through it I'm sorry is that to table indefinitely or let's let's set a time frame in as quickly as possible yeah we have we have a motion on the floor now to table for four weeks four weeks that restating your motion correctly yes okay we have a motion for table for four weeks Commissioner Taylor reflected on the board yes second okay so to comment I I know that you're in hurry and I know that you need to get going and there's a financial incentive and you know and just in there are a lot of reasons why that you want to move forward as quickly as possible I just worry about being able to get everything bundled together between now and City Council I'd like us to have one more look at it and I'd like it to be completely finished before it you know before it leaves here or at least two very minor details that will be corrected before City Council and I think we are looking at a to define how a neighborhood like facing buffers you know is a street of buffers an alley of buffers back fence is that acceptable you know those kinds of things I I think it would be more appropriate for us to see it so that's why I second we have a first and a second any Commissioner husband so on the discussion side of things four weeks puts you into Thanksgiving and I just I don't think that's very considerate I think staff is fully capable and brings us quality analysis and data each and every week so for me personally I think it's to define these two three bullet points I think Commissioner Taylor had some numbers that fit the 50 80 range and then that allows Todd to go back to his his chain of command if you will or his his co-workers and develop a plan works and it's efficient and staff can meet with them daily can meet with them send emails back and forth without having to worry about notifications and postings and it just really adds an extra layer that probably slows a project more than helps let me call on staff and ask them what they feel like their capability is to get their hands around this and get and get it put in a format to bring it back sure and and just as a point for the record the next P&Z meeting within the four-week period would be November 9th after the four week period would be November 9th that would be the fourth week we don't meet on the 16th and then it's Thanksgiving calendar I can't hear you what early December and maybe do a special called but if I recall when we set our P&Z calendar we skipped the meeting before Thanksgiving we could certainly do a special call if that's what we needed to do to deal with this issue and anything else that came forward we have November 9th we have November 30th and December 14th I think maybe a little bit too fast I'm thinking early December just because we have the move to deal with it is true we are moving offices yeah if I may Commissioner Husband yeah I it adds an extra layer that we don't need I mean as far as the the the ability for them to talk every day and get meetings done every day and emails every day versus having a post a meeting come back here I think is is cumbersome unnecessarily I mean we'll see we'll see how the vote shakes out it'll be interesting okay I understand okay so what I heard from staff is four weeks is gonna be tough for them but that's the motion that we have and so we we have a first and a second and have it on the board Commissioner Sullivan we voting to table or we voting for somebody to come back at a later date it's a it's a motion for postponement until November the 9th and let me just make the comment I'm all in favor of the villains I think they're great but I would I'm not gonna be comfortable with anything less than where are they gonna be so that future people know exactly what they're buying into the idea that it's 600 somewhere personally it's not gonna fly I think that we need to know we know where the golf course is gonna be and it all has drainage and everything along with it so I think that asking for detailed where are these places gonna be is the minimum so just FYI guess Commissioner back thank you chair so am I hearing staff right then that four weeks is not gonna be enough time and I maybe need to change my motion and properly vet that change okay how much time is sufficient step staff is moving to a new location that's I think Chandrion has a December and the only meeting we have is December 14th I believe December the rest of it because of the holiday has been canceled okay so we're looking at December 14th is that correct yes I have November 9th November 30th and December 14th is that correct so it's thanks getting you know I'm trying to compromise here could we do it on the 30th is that is that a stretch I mean we have a motion we have a second can we vote on that before give for we get too far I mean we're comparing schedules we're changing the date we're you know bouncing around new dates my mind but I'm just trying to firm up my motion but it's already been seconded we have a friendly amendment that's what I was getting ready to give you the opportunities is to make sure that staff could get this done so we don't have to continue it again so when I was trying to get some feedback as to when this could get done so I make a motion we tell you well this until November 30th and we've got a first and a second for the 30th of November the night so November the 30th it is that's first a second yes okay Commissioner Taylor did so I'm a comment my concern is very similar to Commissioner Taylor's it's the mix-mash without some definition I think that gives a lot of the homeowners some certainty and I think the Villa product is a great product it's obviously been received well it's just the carte blanche you can kind of do whatever you want to do is where I have a problem with it so whether that's having to go to the extreme of actually designating it and do not the design work or whether it's done with some parameters which I think is a good suggestion that's the direction that I would be in favor of to try to provide additional villas and yet provide existing residents some comfort that it's not gonna be right next door and some of that so I hope that gives you some direction from I guess each Commissioner here on what they're looking for I personally am okay in moving this forward with some of those criteria I don't know if that can get worked out between now and when it would go before City Council or not when would this one is this currently scheduled to go before City Council okay well we have a first and a second on the board it looks like Commissioner Rizzo this clarification it's on the agenda for City Council number first is that correct yes sir can it be can that agenda item be bumped two weeks if they if staff and applicant needed more time potentially we would just have to republish it it would have to be rep ublished yes thank you okay so nobody else on more any other discussion before I call for a vote on the board seeing no call for a vote on the board and the motion is going to be to continue to a date certain of November the 30th and if that motion fails and we will look for a new motion to look at moving on to some direction to City Council motion carries four three to continue to November the 30th well thank you everybody for a very good discussion on this item and all the folks that have come out this evening and provided some input and our hope is a commission here over the next several weeks that some of the concerns can get addressed and then this can be brought back before us again you bet thank you that will move us to our final item this evening our project matrix and concluding items does anybody have any requests for the matrix update none that Commissioner Ellis I do and I don't know if this is for the matrix or if this is maybe just for me sitting new here but it was on my mind since last meeting I want to be briefed on how this city determines if a traffic study is needed okay is there a way to to to maybe have that discussion we actually do have requirements and if Earl do you have a second to come and address the question we can't do that because it's not currently on the agenda okay so we we can get you that information but let's do this let's put it on the request and then after me you can get with Earl and if by chance he can address your question individually then we'll just say it's taken care of and if not then we'll do a full presentation at work session that'd be satisfactory okay any other items for the matrix I just have a comment I had to ask for a update on the Luke 28 and I 35 project with text on and I really appreciated the timeliness of the report that was sent out to update us and the only follow-up that I would have to that would be on May Hill to find out if there is any work that's planned or currently going on with the overpass at May Hill being that 2499 is currently being extended into that and looks like we're just moving Luke 288 just down one little farther south and if may Hill can get on the radar so it's not a it's the next bottleneck in the city for the foresee able future okay thank you I really appreciate the report okay thank you anybody else okay with that I'm going to close our meeting at 908 thank you everyone