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