Jul 11, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-07-11 5:00 PM

planning and zoning Commission work session for July the 11 th 2018. This meeting's been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 502. Our first order of business will be to receive clarification of agenda items. So our first questions will be or comments will be on any of the minutes the 13th or the 27th. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair. So the item that we are looking at tonight that was continued that was that was continued on the applicant's behalf not on a vote from it was on a vote but applicants request. They are here with the signal. Okay anybody else on the minutes? Okay move us to the consent agenda any questions on the consent agenda? Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Who's doing? Haley? Is this yours? Is this yours? The Razor Ranch? The from what I can see the Google map is that a retention area just I guess it'd be close to Bonnie Bray and be kind of like the southeast corner. Those look like retention ponds. Yes that's a series of retention p onds that was developed as part of the Razor Ranch marketplace that's also intended to have capacity for this development. Okay so they're gonna feed into it too right? That's correct. Okay thank you. Do we have other questions you want make a presentation on this or I'm sorry we were doing a sidebar on a question here on the agenda. That's right I'd be happy to do a brief walk through on the plat if that would be helpful for anyone or? I'm sorry I didn't hear your question we got talking so much did you get your question answered? Okay okay any on item C on our consent agenda? Nobody? Commissioner Beck? Just the typo probably and this has happened the same time mentions that the track we're talking about is on the east side of 35 and I think it means west side and hopefully everything else indicate. There's approximately 20.9 acres side of journey located on the east side of Interstate Highway 35. You are correct and that is a typo on my part. Was there anything else on that plot I'd be happy to pull it up? Okay that'll move us on to our items for individual consideration and I'll call on Julie Wyatt for presentation of that. Good evening. Good evening. All right this isn't a project type that we see very often so Richard wanted me to do just a quick presentation just to go over some of the parameters. This is a plat extension PE 18.1 symbiosis edition. So the subject property is there in yellow it is located on the west side of Johnson Street. It is south of East Collins Street and just to orient you Dallas Drive is right here so. So a plot was approved on the lot and on July 13th of 2016 it was for a multifamily development. As part of the review there were perimeter street improvements that were required storm drain extension and then also a sidewalk and now the applicant is moving forward or asking for a plat extension. So sub chapter 16 of the Denton Development Code states that final plots are null and void after two years if they aren't filed of record. However it does provide for a provision that the Planning and Zoning Commission can approve an extension of that plat for good cause. According to the applicant some of the construction costs associated with those public improvements that were required as a result of that final plat exceeded that projected budget so they did not move forward with the filing of the plat and the development contracts. However the the property owner feels like the the economics of the project have changed a little bit. Now increasing the feasibility the viability of the project and would like to extend that plat. Staff reviewed the request for the extension and determined that the delay warrants a six month extension and if if you do approve that plat extension as proposed the plat would become null and void as of December 11th of this year. So I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. Julie what what items what what criteria were you guys looking at that you felt like it was justified for an extension? We felt like well we talked with engineering about what the public improvements would be associated with it and those are the public improvements that were required in 2016 are consistent with what would be required today. The uses that that are permitted on the side it's in a DCG zoning district are consistent with what was approved in 2016 and we understand that that public infrastructure costs can add to the development costs of a site and we felt like a six month extension was appropriate in this instance. So that was really our analysis point. Does the does the owner and the applicant were they set I guess not that was the developer and the owner separate were they different at the time of application? I believe they are the same and the owner is will be here tonight so he'll be able to answer. So the owner is the developer and there it wasn't like they lost the developer in the interim or something like that. I don't know all of those specifics regarding the project but like I said. You discussed a six month extension and that was enough time for the owner. Well I have let them know that we are proposing a six month extension I didn't hear that that they were not amenable to that so so it might be something you'd want to ask. I haven't heard back from them regarding that though. That it Commissioner? Yes. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Hi Julie. I guess it kind of goes along to that line. Do you know did they offer what might hit they're doing in the next six months to be able to get this done? Six months is just not a lot of time in that world of getting. You know they have not given any indication about when we would receive any development contracts or how far in advance. You know we wanted to make sure that that time was limited so if there were any public improvements that would be different that we would capture that those requirements. So we wanted to keep it really narrow and targeted but I haven't talked with them regarding what what their timelines are in terms of that the future development. Good. Thank you. Quick question. And it's just a one time extension request that can be done on a plot? Well the code doesn't really let me get the code is it doesn't give a number of times but it does state that it has to be for good cause so so I don't know if that limits it to one. Legal may want to weigh in on that one but. We've done multiples before. Well that may be. I think the important thing to recognize here is that it's it's not only the development that's being proposed here but also the vesting of permit rights that is potentially impacted by the existence of this plat and that it may possibly not extending it could pave the way for other proposals or what have you. The only thing I don't know that I have anything you know valid to offer as far as how many times it could be extended but I did want to point out on the agenda information sheets that there were three options listed there is a fourth one which is to deny and just for the sake of completeness. Commissioner Sanchez. It was pretty much what you were asking about how many extensions you could get or if there's a limit on that and also when you're giving an extension you gave it six months I mean is that like a minimum or is there can you go up to a year or or is that based on what is that based on. It's that this body's discretion so if y'all wanted to approve a different amount yours it is the approval would be would be up to you and and before regular session I'll look through the code and see if I can get an answer for you regarding the numbers of extensions that would be permitted. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Yeah again along with what everybody else is saying here I am curious to see if by giving the six months extension are we actually going to be seeing some movement towards this but I guess my question would be who and how is anybody hurt if we don't approve this extension or is there an answer that is that something I should probably wait and ask at the public hearing. I don't know I may not know the answer regarding from the perspective of the developer regarding your question but I think legal brought up a really good point and that you know we are under a Denton Development Code update and there is a plat is a vesting document and there may be new development standards associated with the with the update of the Denton Development Code and that you know an expiration or extending that plat would it would extend potentially the vesting of any current development standards. Did I say that correctly? Yeah well and I have one other observation too you know I am looking at the code here which is 35 16 12 2 F as in Frank and it's talking about if it's not filed in the appropriate records of Denton County within two years of its approval that seems to that it will expire unless extended that seems to imply that everything short of the the filing or at least a good portion of the thing short of filing may have been accomplished that you extend this just so that they don't lose that right in the interim you know where there's been not a whole lot of progress that that might be something that would be regarded as a dormant project under state law anyway I don 't know if that anyone's looked at that or not but I think that one of the key considerations be what kind of progress has been made is it only this is it only this period of time that's standing in the way and or is it the the failure to proceed. Thank you. Well I'm gonna chime in and ask I guess kind of what's some of the other Commissioners if we can go even more than six months my recollection is we've had a number of these over the years and they've been six months and then they come back and so I don't know if it's possible maybe we can talk about that or y'all can research and see if we could do 12 months I think another dis-observation for this area town I can see where there might be more concerns about the development standards if it was on Dallas Drive or on 35 a very high-profile area where it is over there up against the railroad tracks and it'd be great if somebody would build something new over there in that area and maybe be an impetus for some redevelopment in that area because it is a not a lot going on over there so it'd be nice to maybe do some research and see if we can go a longer time and hopefully somebody has the opportunity to get all the other ducks in a row that they need to be able to to move it forward because if it does expire I'm familiar with how long it takes and how costly it is to get a new plat back you have to a lot of work this would be my thoughts to throw in on that particular item anybody else have further questions on them on this item before we move on to our next section that will move us to our public hearing section and this is Cindy Jackson. Good evening let me go ahead and pull up my presentation. Are we on the S Drive or the O Drive? There it is. Okay this request this is a request for an initial zoning designation on to NR6 on attractive land as you can see here the site is approximately 73.47 acres and it is currently zone RD5X the site was actually annexed into the city recently at the beginning of the year they are proposing NR 6 with the intent to develop a single-family subdivision with a density of 4. 7 dwelling units per acre current zoning RD5X and the proposed zoning is NR6 now you'll note that the site does not have frontage on Sherman Drive this area right here that is zone NR4 is actually going to be part of the single- family subdivision and when it is all plotted together into one subdivision the overall density will be 4.3 dwelling units per acre. The site is designated rural areas on the future land use map the site is located at the edge of the urban areas that are located to the south of the loop and when the future land use map map was first approved a few years ago wasn't anticipated that we would be seeing development in this part of the city so soon so actually we 've had developers inquiring about these areas developing these areas so you 'll be seeing a few more of these probably. When a rezoning request does not conform to the future land use designation for the site the DDC adds additional criteria for the evaluation in section 35 3 3 b3 as noted in your backup the site complies with the additional criteria but in my presentation that follows I will hit up some high points. The site is has probably 2,803 linear feet of frontage on Long Road which is a collector roadway which you can see here and then Sherman Drive is an arterial roadway. Moderate density residential neighborhoods as proposed along the collector and arterial roadways are appropriate. Long Drive and Sherman Drive will provide adequate visibility and access. The improvements recommended for the intersection of excuse me I got ahead of myself we had a TIA the applicant do a TIA for this side a traffic impact analysis because of the size of the subdivision we have an expected 3729 daily trips from this particular project. The TI recommendations are to of construction of street A which is the first street into the subdivision off of Long it's located approximately right here. To allow for a dedicated left and right turn lanes construction of a northbound dedicated left turn lane and construction of a southbound dedicated right turn lane along Sherman and signalization of the intersection for the service roads at the loop 28 and East Sherman Drive intersection. These improvements which are recommended will be achieved through the use of roadway impact fees paid by developments which would utilize the intersections. The amount of the impact fee is determined by using a proportionality calculation based on the number of lots and projected trips of each development. At this time there are no city funds available for these improvements and they haven't been programmed into the capital improvements plan. Commissioner Roseau. It sounded like street A is coming off of Long yes but one of the recommendations was street a turn from Sherman on to street A yes but doesn't hit Sherman. There's well it will see it left. I think maybe Cindy misspoke and when you said street a off of Long I think it come right I think I was talking about the street that was going to be right here. Okay that's more clear thank you and we were requiring the turn lines here and here. Commissioner Ellis. I will go ahead and change that. Thank you chair. Cindy my concern comes with what you just quoted which was at this time there are no city funds available for these improvements. That's right. So how do we make this a priority? I mean how can I know how long it takes to get on capital improvements and whatnot and this is a lot of daily trips and sure it is and we have there's a lot of improvement needed yes and yes at this time there is no plan is concerning. We have been meeting with the engineering director as well as the assistant city manager over engineering and we are working with them on that. Right now the way these things are going to be constructed is by proportionality fees and impact fees from the developments that are going we that will be going in along this area. And I understand that my question is you're gonna it's gonna take time to collect fees. Mm-hmm. So then what is the plan what is a projected time frame do we have one? Right now there's not a projected time frame. I think part of the issue that that's sort of plagued this area is it's there was never really any traffic data that the city had collected to really show that what would what would tip that impact over really lessening that level of service to the road where it's un bearable. It's almost like the we were kind of talking a couple things on chicken versus the egg. Now we have the development now it's eminent that it's gonna happen and I think that's where we're now working with engineering in fact where we sort of reconstitute the entire transportation model for the city where we're through RGIS we're sort of plugging this in early so rather than kind of do this let's wait and see approach we can start to identify early on while they're starting to gear up for capital improvement projects we now have that data kind of those those projections are able to be forecasted much sooner than in the past where we've waited we've waited till the end if that makes any sense. It does make sense so calculating it is good so doing it is another thing so is there a plan then for also moving along further than we have in yes I don't know exactly what when that will be I do know that this project in in addition to a number of other projects within this area I mean a lot of yeah I think at one point we're counting around 3, 000 residential units on that north side it's will be sooner than later I can't say it's budgeted for you know CIP project in fiscal year 20 right now but I know I know that they are relooking at all of that. They're realizing that what we did a few years ago with the future land use plan and the mobility plan it didn't anticipate any of this to be honest with you we didn't think we'd be looking at development in this area for at least another decade so continue if I could chime in well I'm glad you're looking at it now because it absolutely is an area that is going to get developed and needs to get developed I mean that started a long time ago up there and part of that issue you know when that when that first mobility plan was done and the impact fee analysis again it bases off of the future land use map I think we might have talked about this at one of the development review code committee meetings so that that was current kind of the basis for the future trips well if it's future land use is is rural it's not generating a whole lot and so in the grand scheme of things you know what's there to plan if this is if this is a rural area interestingly our comp plan allows obviously if it's not consistent with the comp plan we can still approve it provided it addresses those kind of impacts and so that's where we're starting to just kind of re-looking at all of this that's why we have the TIA now rather than later so we can start to identify what these what these impacts are going to be and and the the improvements that are required by the TIA will help alleviate some of these these issues for this subdivision and as we go on other subdivisions will have to do the TIA too and and make improvements. I'm gonna pause and chime in on a couple things so what we're talking about is something we talked about in our last meeting when we look at these areas and further to the north about what the land use is going to be yes then it drives what the traffic counts are going to be which then helps us plan better versus we'll deal with it when it comes up yes and we find ourselves continually in these issues not only on this side of town but in other parts of town where there's not planning farther down the road and going ahead and setting things up so that the traffic analysis are all those things are already set up and already done and ready to go and then we know what we're going to get into so we'll just chime in that we talked about that last meeting and I'm just going to echo that again tonight. Secondly what is the the current level of service on that road? The level of service at rush hour is F. Okay so to what Commissioner Ellis is talking about is if I recall the way the traffic impact fees are is if the level of services D are going to drop to a D those improvements have to be made with the traffic impact fees not that the city collects those funds and then decides at some point in the future when those funds will be spent as if it's a D or going to be a D or worse those fees have to be collected and the improvements have to go in in that area at that time. Exactly and and we actually had no idea what the situation was out there until we got this TIA in because we haven't had any development significant development out there to require a TIA until now. Okay so when depending on where this goes this evening if it is approved and those traffic impact fees come in those have to be spent then to do the improvements in this area at the time of development not collecting the fees and holding on and at some point in the future the city will decide to do those they have to be put in because of the level of service is that correct? I believe that is correct. Okay just a couple points to throw out for clarification. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. In regards to these impact fees then if there's going to be other developments are going to be developing north of that up along 423 does that mean that this subdiv ision is going to be paying for the majority of the improvements? No. How does that all work just just for my own ignorance? Actually what we have is a proportionality formula and the proportionality formula is based on the number of dwelling units and the number of projected trips and the type of street that that there are along and that they they have a way of calculating out what the report what their impact would be. The city puts on the CIP and then they complete it and then as future developments come in because this one's there we have to build it because of the F rating. As future developments come in they they collect the other money that needs to be made back up. Got it. Okay just wanted to make sure this applicant wasn't being screwed. Commissioner Back. Thank you Chair. I'm just becoming aware that that Street A is actually extending through that NR2 zone to hit Sherman so that's not part of the property that 's going to be developed so is that going to be the city? Oh it is. Yes it is. As I mentioned previously right here this NR2 zoning right here will be ultimately part of this subdiv ision it will all be platted together the preliminary plat is in your packet and they will have an overall density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. Okay so we 'll be looking at single-family residential in that little stretch there which is okay because one of the things we were talking about in the past is considering rezoning too and looks like they're they're moving ahead there where that that stretch of Sherman Drive in my opinion you know it should be a suburban corridor. So I kind of caught off guard that we're gonna go ahead and extend the residential out there on a primary arterial which in my opinion is impract ical it just does create problems with traffic so but again we'll address that later in the public being as far we do need to reconsider zoning future land use changes to that area out there in my opinion and rezoning before we get you know into some more of this. Right we realize that. Okay thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Question back on the level of service letter so does the TIA change that from a current F to how does that get changed to prioritize those needs? What was the question? How does how do the improvements change the level of service? It goes up to a level. I believe chair mentioned at a certain letter the improvements have to be made. Currently you said it's an F so when is it getting changed to warrant those improvements ? Well with the improvements it'll be a D. After the improvements are made? Yes after the improvement. Right. It goes from an F up to a D which is? At what point? After the improvements to the road are made? Okay. And if I may clarify the turn lanes that they're talking about that that's what they're talking about bringing the level of service up. Yeah. And then I think there's talk in there also about signaling at some point at look 288. There it is. Yeah right the turn lanes will help tremendously because people turning left would would block up the entire street right now. Like Friday Night Football game or something if you ever go out there but. Yeah. Where did I leave off? Okay. Okay the surrounding land uses for the subject site includes single-family residences all along here and there's quite a few down along here. Agricultural uses, open pasture as well as the institutional uses on the south side of Long Road. So single-family would would be compatible in the area. There is significant single-family in the area at this time. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. For my own notification what is an improved pasture versus a non-improved pasture? Well you know that's a good question and we got that we got that actually from DCAD. Okay. And I tried to find what an improved pasture is. I could not find that. My thought is maybe it's got a dirt road going through it and it's used for agriculture you know crop land or pasture for animals. Something like that. Cool thank you. Other question while we're on this with compatibility with the NR6 zone proposal what buffers need to be created when we're up against something like that CH Collins and all that right there? Well actually because of the fact that it's across the street. No buffer. No buffers. Okay. No. Has the I know and I know the zoning stage is not plotting but the other site plan I should say. The is the applicant discussed any type of way of deterring light sound all that stuff in regards to this project? Well I'll let the applicant answer that one. Okay thank you. I do want to note that there is ESA in this area right here and the applicant is planning to preserve all of the ESA that's in the area. It's got a couple of site constraints which which are calling for that NR6. It's the ESA here plus they have an overhead power line that goes straight through the middle bisecting the site so that they have to keep certain amount away from those I think 17 feet from the edge. So they're accommodating all that as well. Continue Commissioner Schmitt. Thank you Chair. That brings up another point then so the ESA we talked about a couple months ago but I can't remember the direct term for it but we had a project I remember was off Ryan Road where they're gonna preserve a lot of the ESA and they're gonna condense down to having I guess basically smaller smaller plats there I guess smaller lots. That's what they were. Thank you very much. Small lots and therefore it's gonna have a higher density there but we take over the entire plat there it still has a spread it evens out because there's certain areas that's left behind. That's right. So does that mean since they're reserving that that really they are gonna have more like an NR6 style type lots then? Yes. Okay because they're reserving the ESA. It 's what we call cluster zoning. Cluster zoning. Cluster site design rather and where you cluster the houses together so that they preserve certain special features of the land. So the applicant's arguments then that might be like well you know we're doing NR6 even though we really rather do NR4 because we're really gonna have a 4.7 or 4.3. Well no you're actually gonna have more like NR6 because you're gonna be doing essentially cluster zoning. There lots are gonna be smaller for the cluster. Yeah. However their overall the overall density of the entire subdivision where you include the NR4 will be 4.3. Okay. That's all. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. I have one other concern related to traffic. Long Road I believe connects on the west there to Stewart Road. Correct. So that's gonna be a good outlet for that subdivision. Yes we did how but Long Road is scheduled to be revised and connect straight across here in the future. So but they did look at that as well. Possibly the living and lying in the way of Long Road itself. Well not with this particular subdivision. Development must comply with all ESA tree preservation, buffer screening, tree canopy and lighting conditions and both water and wastewater service are available to the site from Long Road. We sent out public notifications on June 10th. Within 200 feet we sent three certified mailing notices and within 500 feet we sent three as well. Due to the large size of the ownership parcels here there aren't very many owners. We received no response in opposition and one response from the property to the north in favor which comprises 23% of the land within the 200 foot buffer. Staff recommends approval of this request with the following recommendations. We recommend that the overlay be placed on the site and the use of the property be restricted to single-family detached housing at a maximum density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre . For the remainder of our recommendations Jerry Drake the City Attorney will be crafting and wordsmithing a type of recommendation that will be applied to the general development plan. We're going to require a general development plan for this so that we can time the provision of the roadway improvements. Can I speak to that a little bit? Yeah and as Cindy and the staff did a great job of putting this together and they sent over a draft with these recommendations on it. The concern that we had for the overlay conditions BC and D is they're somewhat unusual as zoning conditions. They're really more development standards and so what we were recommending would be a better alternative you know as far as legal compliance would be to possibly substitute a requirement of pursuing the general development plan which is required by the code already just because of the size of it and the necessity of off-site improvements and to pursue the very same issues via the GDP process and upon final planning anyway. So it's just a rewording of the same thing to reflect what our actual practice would be to address this through the planning process. So I guess the recommendation would be for to restrict the use and density of the site and a general development plan. Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair. When I read the recommendations that's the first thing I thought why are we putting BC and D on a zoning case it seems extremely odd. It also seems like those are things the city should be dealing with in terms of if we have impact fees that are based on regions and we know developments coming in why are we putting the onus on the developer to make sure the timing of that is all right. This the developers are contributing the cost dedicated southbound turn lane where's the signal the signal I'd be the developer saw it contribute to the cost of signal lights isn't that assumed in the impact fees that that's where the money would go towards because the TIA. Not necessarily this is all the result of the traffic impact analysis if we had not had the traffic impact analysis we would not know a signal was required there. But why I understand that but why are we defining it for them to specifically do aren't are they not contributing the impact fees for the road. They will be. And the impact fees should be going towards theoretically a signal light is that also correct? That's right. So why are we putting any condition on the property of things that should be happening already? We were trying to ensure that they would happen we've had situations in the past where we've had these requirements for impact fees and payment for signal lights and such and it didn't happen yet based on the way it was plotted in the past so we were trying to ensure that this would happen. Okay not in agreement with the BC and D conditions but secondly I lost my turn of thought guys and I was gonna be a good one too. Yeah I'll come back. Absolutely. I just wanted to also explain a little bit with respect to this you know one of the main criteria when we review these rezoning is to make sure that there's adequate public facilities right and so putting this amount of development how can we know if the adequate facilities are really there and so that's why that TIA was required. While the conditions were on there again they are going to be based when that proportionality study is done at time of platyp and so it more or less was like a heads-up hey this is coming down the pike but also we are we did look at this in order for us to support it the public you know it's again it's a chicken versus the egg so yes we can support it if the public facilities are addressed they'll be addressed by this although this can't get discussed until the time of platyp and so that's really got you. I remembered what I was gonna say and it is in line with kind of what you're saying this is attached now to the zoning we just saw on the individual considerations of plat that fell through if this developer was to resell and someone else bought it regardless of what density they're gonna put on it they would have to contribute to a signal light at that intersection of I'm okay. Well based based on what they're doing based on what they're doing it depends on if what they're proposing warrants the signal light. Well the recommendation says they shall contribute to the signal light now the amount might change but they will be contributing regardless of what happens that property into perpetuity. Oh I see what you're saying yeah yeah it would be based on proportionality and it would be based on what they were planning to do with the property. Well it's not based on what they're doing with the property that is not in the recommendation so if they were to put a one big if someone was to resell it put a big ranch on it proportionality would be one or two roads but that owner of that property would still be required based on this recommendation to pay for part of that signal light. Right I think that's why these generally aren't attached to zoning cases which goes back to my original confusion of why we're doing that. Well like Richard said we wanted to ensure that the infrastructure would be available since that is a requirement for rezoning. If it is just going to be a ranch again that would be when it gets platted it would just be restricted to that so if it's only going to generate five or ten trips because it's one single-family home then it probably wouldn't have they wouldn't have to comply with these but if they were going to develop at that maximum density then then it would kick in so again it's it's once you once you trigger sort of that that trip threshold where you're going to reduce the level of service below you know if it's going to an F- then you're gonna you're gonna have to contribute your proportionality to it whether you do the full number of units or you do two. I think I understand what you're saying but that's maybe the words with it needs to happen then because that's not articulated in this recommendation. Yeah and that will happen prior before it goes to City Council. Yeah it's the recommendation is not to have BC and D written at in that fashion the recommendation is to have A and then to have a second condition that points out the requirement for the general development plan that would base the they would base the level of contribution upon the proportionality study to be done at the time during the planning process. The the issue by referencing the general development plan is they're going to have to do it anyway just due to the size of the property. It's presumed that that's going to be a necessary component . In addition the fact that there are already identified off-site improvements that is that triggers a general development plan as well and it's it seems likely that this could be a phased development and so sometimes you have to say well which which final plat phase are we talking about for doing this. That's what the general development plan does and that's part of the whole purpose of it. So the the proposal that I suggested is to remove BC and D and to reference the necessity of going through the general development plan process to identify you know what what is going to be needed as far as any kind of contribution. That way if it's a farm or if it's something else and they go through a planning process that that's different from what you see here in these exhibits in the backup then that will take that into consideration as well. But even if it is a farm if it's going to be planted it's going to require the GDP just because of the size. The mere fact that it's 70 acres is going is greater than 20 acres which is the threshold for requiring a GDP. Right and when you when we go out for the public hearing these will be changed it's just I hadn't had an opportunity to change the recommendations after since finding out about this new requirement. I hit her with this today. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair. Okay so to clarify this ideally if we're recommending approval it would be with a not BC and D but adding a general B being a general development plan. Yeah that will incorporate the elements of BC and D as appropriate. Commissioner back. I'm sorry I'm a little confused too and you mentioned if we're gonna approve this zone change to an NR6 how can we come in and build a farm later? Am I missing something there? Agricultural uses are allowed in that district. Okay but we're talking about this area that we're gonna rezone. You're rezoning it and what you've got is a maximum density you can go below it. Okay. It was a hypothetical sorry. Okay I understand. I thought that the fact that it was an NR6 would even limit it from okay gotcha thank you. That concludes my presentation. That was a good move on your part. I have a question on the 4.7 is that something the applicants agreed to or is that something staff is? The applicants has agreed to it. Okay. That is actually the zone the density that they're proposing. Well I'm just looking at it if for some reason it doesn't move forward they've put a limitation somebody has to come back if they wanted to do townhomes for example because if it is zoned an NR6 then all that property that's underneath the high lines and underneath or in the ESA is effectively taken out of the mix so it's really only the developable land versus areas that are in easements and ESAs that they can't get a density transfer on those. So I'm just curious if they were amenable to that or not. Well we didn't discuss density transfer to be honest with you. Okay. What we discussed was what they wanted to do on the site. Sure. Which was the NR7 excuse me NR6 with 4.7 density preserving all of the ESA and clustering the houses so that they avoid the ESA and the overhead wires. In any future developer would have to do the same thing. Yes. It's just a matter of if somebody had a different vision for that area the density then is capped with this. That's correct. Overlaying. Okay. Commissioner San chez. Yeah I was looking at where it says background it talks about where it's the developers talks about a 384 lot single-family subdivision and I and then that was a question I had is then if you go to the first page we're talking about he first submitted for 384 lot single-family then we're talking about 395 so that's my question was the 395 would include the NR4. Okay but you had a larger right take a look at take a look at the the preliminary plat okay that is in your packet okay. City can you pop the zoning map? This is the zoning map right here the entire site including everything. Yeah so so they're their ownership if you look at where it has the current the brown the that brown strip just to the east or to the right is also owned by them and so what happened when this property was annexed it that first I think what is it 500 feet was annexed and then assigned to zoning and so it already a portion of their property is already zoned right right right and so the back part they're going for NR6 right and that's where you see that those additional units so I think the it actually overall it's a little bit less than the 4.7 it's 4.3 4.3 when you factor in the site to the east component of the site to these right this this was strip annexed I I think it was back in the 80s so by the city and this type of annexation is no longer permitted anymore but it's a way of extending your your extraterritorial jurisdiction and we it's we can't do it anymore and actually you can see why we were left to deal with the aftermath it's I still don't get it because it says on the background it says the applicant and then it gives his name is requesting approval of initial zoning designation of NR6 which is that section right there pursuit to the development site with a 384 not single family units but then oh okay so you're adding the other yeah okay okay okay any other questions commissioner Ellis thank you just real quick Cindy I know in your analysis it said that the in lieu of a neighborhood meeting which doesn't make sense that he was gonna talk to the surrounding landowners yes did the offer any outcome of that oh yes everybody was in full favor of it and one of them actually sent in a letter saying they were yeah he was because there's only three we didn't see the point of a neighborhood meeting any other questions for Cindy thank you Cindy thank you that will take care of all of our items on our work session agenda so with that we will close our work session at 553 and we'll reconvene in council chambers at 630 good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning Commission meeting for July 11th 2018 this meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present at this time I will ask that we all stand and give the pledge to us and the Texas flag and I'm gonna call us to order at 630 next order of business will be to consider approval of our planning and zoning Commission me minutes would chair entertain a motion for these two items individually Commissioner Roselle I move approval of the June 13th minutes Commissioner Beck second okay I have a first and a second for approval any further discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board and I'll abstain I was absent on this one that motion is going to carry five zero Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I move approval of the June 27th minutes okay Commissioner Roselle second okay we have a first and a second for approval any discussion or comments seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion is going to carry five zero we'll move us to our consent agenda Commissioner Smith motion to approve okay Commissioner Rose lle second okay we have a first and a second for approval any discussion or questions seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motions can carry six to zero move us to our items for individual consideration call on Julie Wyatt for presentation good evening I'm Julie Wyatt and I am presenting PE 18 one symbiosis edition to you so the subject property is located adjacent to Johnson Street just west of it it is south of East Collins and in the vicinity is Dallas Drive a plot was proved approved for this site in on July 13th of 2016 as part of the review of that plot it included some public improvements including perimeter street improvements some storm drain extensions as well as a sidewalk and today they are asking for an extension of that plot it's lot one block one of the symbiosis edition so under sub chapter 16 of the Denton Development Code final plots expire after two years if they are not filed of record with Denton County however sub chapter 16 also has a provision that the Planning and Zoning Commission can grant an extension if there is good cause according to the applicant though the construction costs associated with those public improvements that were required exceeded the projected budget and therefore it stalled the project and the plot was never filed so at this time the owner is asking a request an ex for an extension of the existing plot because he believes that some economic factors have changed and so that the feasibility of the project is now the project is more feasible so so he is asking for that extension we have reviewed the request for the extension and determined that the delay that was created for the public improvements war rants an extension there was some question in the in the work session regarding the criteria the the numbers of extensions that could be granted and then for the the duration of the extensions and so we looked at the code and we talked the code says an extension so to me that reads that that per the code one extension should be granted so we tried to come up with some ideas because I know the discussion was centered around with six months enough time for the applicant to move forward with those public improvements and those development contracts associated with it so so one idea is to approve a plot extension for six months with an option to to have another extension if they have made progress toward those development contracts and moving toward that that that filing of the plot so that's one option that you could approve the plot extension with the option for an additional extension this body could also approve a plot extension for a year or any timeline that that you see fit so those are kind of your options or or deny so those are the options before you I'll stand for any questions and I believe a representative of the applicant is here and he can answer any questions you have a couple questions questioner Ozel thank you chair the expiration for this is this Friday yes sir for clarification this our vote is the final doesn't go to council correct correct okay thanks Commissioner Beck thank you chair okay the six month extension are we going to establish criteria then for things that have to be done during that extension before we can extend it another six months okay you said if after the six months they need another extension we could do that based on what development some criteria that have to me well and and it is it is ultimately up to you but there you could put in that approval that there had to there would need to be progress made toward the development contracts associated with the public improvement so the typical development process within the city of Denton is once the plot is approved they have to work with our engineering and legal department to get development contracts signed as well as a fiscal surety and so if that is something that could be put it as a condition that progress would be neat would need to be made toward completing those items so it's moving toward the filing of the plates of impetus form right because at this time they have not submitted any development contracts they haven't moved forward with any of those requirements all right thank you sure don 't see any other questions for you thank you Julie might want to stay close this is a item for individual consideration so if there is someone who would like to speak on this item you're welcome to come forward at this time if you'll give us your name and address and if you haven't already filled out a card if you'll fill out a card before you leave we'd appreciate it I have not filled out a card but I will great my name is Jim Dewey with JDJR engineers I'm the engineer of record for this project I'm here tonight on behalf of the property owner and develop developer he does own all the property he has intentions of developing it when we came through a couple of years ago several requirements came up through the approval process that quite frankly we weren't expecting I 'm sure you all for me with this area of town it is an area that would be great for redevelopment and I think this project would be a win for the city as well as that area as a redevelopment some of these old houses into my student housing but the things that came up that were unexpected where we had to improve a portion of the street street out there Johnson Road is just an asphalt drive we're having to put in part of the concrete and carbon gutter on our side just for the piece in front of us with no idea how long other pieces will be there in addition to that we required there's no existing storm drain system out there and so we're required to do stormwater detention which we did a design for stormwater detention and let it back out into the bar ditch along the street but the Ditten code requires if you do detention there has to be an underground outlet you can't just release it back into the street since there's no storm drain system there we had to do it's four or five hundred feet of storm drain existing down Johnson to the north to an existing system and the only place that could be put was down the middle of the street so in addition to the cost of installing that storm drain system there's a cost of repairing the street as you go and for a project of this size that is a very significant both of those factors are very significant to the budget so quite frankly the owner put it off for a little while thinking even and then try to sell the property as an approved project and not build it himself but he was not successful he does intend to build it he wants to build it he's in the process of obtaining financing and he wants to move forward we were thinking that basically the the extension only gives us till December which at this point is really only five months it's not really even a six month extension so we were hoping for some type of either a longer extension or some type of automatic renewal like Julie said that maybe we can show that we've made some progress we're open to either one we would prefer a 12 month extension if that's something that the Commission doesn't feel is appropriate we can certainly live with the six month extension but we would like an opportunity to have what has been told to us is because of the code unless y'all specifically stip ulate we only get one extension and so that's really pushing it we would take the five month extension if that's all we can get but it would be nice to have at least a method to extend it at least one more time up to six months so I'd respectfully request that this Commission somehow grant us a little longer than five months I'd be glad to answer you have answer any of the questions you have regarding this project do you have a question so far on the board Commissioner Smith sure I didn't catch you last time mr. Dewey D EWI gotcha mr. Dewey you are the engineer correct you said yes sir okay money not an object if you started the project tomorrow had everything you need what timeline would you have to have to be able to get everything done to get this project done to where you can submit the plat or submit the okay the only thing needed the plat has been approved it hasn't been recorded right to file the plat we have to have development contracts in and then all the fees that are due to impact and there's those are quite substantial so we don't really have to have started construction as much as they have to know the projects going forward and fund all the upfront fees so there's no no actual physical changes need to happen to the property as of right now that's correct so what financing has been done so far I am not the owner I know that he is actively pursuing that at this moment he thinks he can get it done by the end of the year okay but that's pushing it okay what would the owner do if this does expire if the plat expires then the project is dead and and to develop it a new plat would have to come back before this Commission so you would you would expect to hold it he wouldn't sell it as an improved project he would cancel as a project he wouldn 't even sell just for the raw land he would just hold it that would be my best guess okay thank you a couple more questions now Commissioner Beck thank you chair mr. Dewey thank you for your presentation I'd like to see that area developed too for the reasons I think we all agree that this is a primary that needs to be developed it's been lingering too long I guess and I think I'm hearing this from you if you had enough time you may be even more than this extension allows that you would be moving forward with that sounds like apartment units yes okay so the only thing that would probably hold you up would be lack of financing minutes that's correct as far as time goes okay okay thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair hi mr. Dewey do you have any development contracts in place currently he has obtained bids for everything he does not have any contracts in place these have to be for all the public improvements they have to be contracts through the city and three-way contracts that process is not started he is he has gotten contractor bids he knows what it's going to cost to build this project of course he's owns the property sure he's going to put in a little bit of money but he needs financing for the balance of the project and that based on these off-site improvements to most lenders it looks a little high because we're not just developing our own property but as I discussed we're doing some off-site public improvements that was required for plan approval and so it's been a little more difficult now quite frankly I'm just telling you what he told me you know he kind of put it off for 12 months of our two years trying to sell it we did have a couple of interested parties call us interested in buying it those fell through probably for the same reason he has no desire to own this property forever he would like to build the project and move on so he has told me he has all intentions of building his way out of this project it will be a nice project once it's in I think it'll be successful I just he's got to finish financing but he is working on it hard now continue sure thank you so I guess just so I understand maybe the background so he didn't really strive to get financing at the beginning after he realized what it was going to cost he my understanding is he did and was having problems due to the cost of the project okay so then went to focus on selling it and now is back to refocused on financing and yes ma'am understood thank you Commissioner Smith thank you chair mr. do with in your experience as being an engineer on these types of product projects the timeline for someone to get financing for this type project how long I think that process would take oh it can vary from a few weeks to a few months you feel like six months is too short of time I think well if we hit you know six months from today is into January I know that's that I was actually asked that stuff about that so but because you're right it was pushing it I mean he has told me that if that's the only extension we get he will do his best to make that to make that deadline okay because he doesn't want it to expire and us to have to start over now as he has intentions of building it but it is a very aggressive timeline to get this all completed so as soon as he has financing he's able to file his plat yes okay understood but staff Julie if we can have you come back up here for one second did we did we do bad maths on this one did we move to Colorado and forgot how to add it's okay so I apologize yes that was that was my mistake January okay no more thank you Commissioner back thank you chair mr. Dewey on financing have you looked at all your options in other words is it are you looking for private financing or have you considered HUD to be completely honest with you I'm an engineer okay so you don't know you couldn't I have not been involved in the financing I am relaying he was supposed to be here tonight and answer these questions unfortunately he hasn't showed up yet but I am simply telling what he's told me okay I am sure that it's all private finance okay thank you this is an item for individual consideration if there's anyone else who would like to speak on this item you're welcome to at this time that floor is open for this further discussion or a motion Commissioner Smith I make a motion to adopt the PE but with a six month to January 11th 2018 and the option for a renewal of another six month period and if I can make it on the record I think that in this motion I would really want to see the owner one show up to his own item and two if he doesn't get financing in six months we better have a really good reason of why not so that is my motion okay Commissioner Beck I concur with everything that Commissioner Smith just point out so I second okay I have a first and a second for approval of the extension for six months with a six month option for a possible second any further discussion Commissioner Ellis thank you chair quick question is there a cost to requesting the extension of a plat I think it might be $250 maybe I have to look at the fee this I think the first one we've ever we've ever done I just don't recall the fee off the top my head Karen our planning tech is nodding it's 250 so we have a motion and a second on the floor any further discussion okay let's call for a vote on board much is going to carry six to zero that will move us to our luck with your project that will move us to our public hearing section this evening at this time I'm open the public hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 2 8 C and we'll call on Cindy Jackson for presentation thank you okay Z 17 - 0 0 2 8 is a request for to assign an initial zoning designation of neighborhood residential 6 and our 6 to approximately 73.47 acres with the intention to develop a single-family subdiv ision subdivision is proposed to have an over have a density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre in the sex in the subject area current zoning is already 5x which is the zoning that we give the holding zoning we give to newly annexed properties the site was annexed into the city in approximately January and here you see the site as proposed with the NR six zoning the subject site is designated rural areas on the future land use map it's located at the edge of the developed area of the city on the north side of the loop developers have recently been inquiring regarding the future development of land located in this area so we expect to see more development in this area when a rezoning request does not conform to this future land use designation as this one does not the DDC provides additional criteria in subsection 35 3 3b 3 as noted in your backup the site complies with the additional criteria and I will in my presentation hit on some highlights per the mobility plan the site has 2800 and three linear square feet of frontage on long road which is a collector roadway and when the entire site is subdivided and includes the property along Sherman it will also have frontage along Sherman which is a arterial moderate density moderate density single family is a good location a good use in this location it's appropriate along collectors and arterials long road and Sherman Road will provide adequate visibility and access based on the the size of the site and the number of projected home sites the city required a traffic impact analysis to ensure the infrastructure will be provided the TI recommendations are the construction of a street a which is a long long road with two egress lanes to allow for dedicated right and left turn lanes construction of a north bound dedicated left turn lane and construction of a southbound dedicated left turn lane along Sherman Road and signalization of the intersection of the service roads for loop 288 and East Sherman the improvements recommended will be achieved through the use of roadway impact fees paid by developments which would utilize the intersections the amount of the impact fee is determined by a proportionality study which will be completed at plat ting at this time the proportionality fee is actually based on the number of projected trips based on the number of single-family homes that are anticipated as well as the designation of the adjacent roadways with regards to compatibility the subject site is surrounded by why is it doing that it's surrounded by already 5x to the north then our four to the east and our three to the south these are institutional uses and then we've got in our six single- family down here and in our four single-family over here the site is compatible with both the the current development as well as the anticipated development in the area the development when we'll have to comply with all of the ESA tree preservation buffer screening tree canopy and lighting requirements and both water and wastewater are available to the site from Long Road staff sent out public notifications on June 10th within 200 feet we sent three certified notices and within 500 feet we also sent three courtesy notices the response we received one response in favor of the site located on the north side of the subject property representing 23% of the land located within the 200 foot buffer staff recommends approval of this request with the following recommendations the planning and zoning Commission in the City Council place an overlay on the subject site with the following conditions the use of the property is restricted to single-family detached housing at a maximum density of four point seven dwelling units per acre pursuant to DDC 35 1610 a general development plan will be required to ensure that adequate public facilities to support the development will be provided in a manner proportionate to the impacts of the development at the proper phases of development including but not limited to the Dell developer will contribute to the cost of signal lights at the intersection of Sherman Drive Long Road and Sherman Drive and loop 288 mount to be based on proportionality northbound left turn lane and southbound right turn lane deceleration lanes will be provided along Sherman the developer will contribute to the cost of a dedicated right turn lane at the intersection of Sherman Road and loop 2288 amount based on proportionality that concludes my presentation and the applicant is present if you have questions got some questions Commissioner Beck thank you chair Cindy the recommendation that a traffic signal light be provided at long road in Sherman now that wasn't the result of the TIA was it no that was not the TIA that was that was something that staff anticipates will be required at plotting and I agree I agree okay I just wanted to know if there was a distinction okay thank you so any other question on the plat since the ISD is the property owner to the north they have a common area it's common area e - - it's a 20-foot strip there I assume that's being proposed for maybe like a future walking trail or connection to this school property I'm not sure what that is for to be honest with you okay I can see if I can find out maybe the engineer applicant can speak for that for us okay any other questions for Cindy thank you thank you do have two cards I wish you to speak and I don't know who would like to go first I have a card for Justin Bono and a card for Brent Murphy so I don't know who would like to come first if you'll give your name and address for us please sure yeah thank you mr. chairman is Justin Bono with ask for development my address is 92 19 Arbor Trail Drive Brent Murphy with Kim Lee Horn is here as well if there are any technical questions that we may decide that he is he is better to answer so if you don't mind I have a short presentation that I'll go through that hopefully addresses many of your questions and then we'll be glad to stand for questions thereafter so as Cindy represented we have 91 acres total under contract from the property owner located at the northwest corner of Sherman and long this zoning case covers approximately 73 and a half acres which we annex through a case we filed back in January 2018 the 17 and a half acres that is currently zoned in our for that front Sherman Drive and 428 are not included in this zoning case and not planned for rezoning the property and I have a exhibit on the next page that will help illustrate a lot of this but the property as you will see is impacted by existing power lines and a gas line and 125 foot of total combined easement advice and that bis ects the track and their two ESA areas on site as well as you've heard we have completed a traffic impact analysis that we spent two or three months going back and forth with the city on in advance of this zoning hearing and have included those recommendations into our cost structure for the project so here you see the site Sherman here long along the south side you see the existing in our four zoning track power line easement purple gas line easement in yellow the site that we are is in reddish orange I guess is what that is that we're asking for the nr6 zoning on tonight see the two ESA areas to the north I think it's important to understand that obviously we we cannot impact this hundred and twenty five foot strip which significantly impacts development we are planning a sidewalk system through there to help with some connectivity on the side but obviously won't get any lot yield from that section furthermore we're not we have not filed an alternative ESA plan so we plan to preserve those ESA areas on site which by doing so actually also retains the majority of the trees on the site as well so we're anticipating development here where we meet the tree tree mitigation requirements all through preservation without without need for mitigation fees furthermore as as miss Jackson represented the property owner to the north has filed a petition or filed a letter in support of our case we've been coordinating with them on street stubs for future connectivity of our site to their future site to the north and then largely they were in support due to the fact that we were preserving this southern tips of this ESA area which feed into a creek basin through their through their property so they were excited to hear that that habitat and those areas were all going to stay in place so our case tonight is as I mentioned we were going to leave the onside ESA areas intact not filing for an alternative E SA which preserves the majority of the trees this is actually also consistent with conservation development as envisioned by the current Dent on plan and then the but with the ESA preservation the existing power and gas lines and us keeping the NR4 along 428 it requires NR6 zoning to yield feasible density for a single-family residential subdivision we have filed a preliminary plat concurrent with zoning as requested by staff back in December or January as a good-faith gesture to demonstrate our intended project density which is where many of these which is where the cap density and the single -family detached requirements have come from we've agreed to cap the density on this zone tract at 4.7 units per acre as you heard from Miss Jackson the work session when you combine that with the NR4 section along Long Road our overall density is approximately 4.3 units per acre on this site we have agreed to only single family detached construction even though NR6 would allow for some attached construction we've specifically agreed to that condition as you've seen and then we understand the impact fee ordinance that proportion ality our proportional share through impact fees will help fund some of these regional transportation projects so in summary as you've seen we have support supported this case from the neighboring property owner I will also tell you we've had several meetings with DISD since we are adjacent to them we 're coordinating an easement agreement with them to the north to your question that strip that you saw in the preliminary pat plat we're putting a sidewalk in there to connect to what is ultimately hopefully going to be a future school site there to avoid having to go out along 428 to then access that site also there's a water stub in that site to the DISD site through that through that strip as well I mentioned the conservation development piece as we cons erving the ESA areas we filed a preliminary plat as well to be able to demonstrate the density that that we're asking for and that is now entering its third round of reviews with the city and should come to you all soon so in our six is really required on this parcel given the site constraints to achieve feasible density on the project but we've also been willing to agree to additional conditions to make the project more risk more restrictive so respectfully request approval per staff recommendation although I will add one caveat we learned about the general development plan requirement as we arrived this evening you know as I mentioned we filed a preliminary plat on this project in January I think it's our case is actually PP 18001 which was the I guess that means the first plat in the door for the year we are on our third round of views in fact I just paid another $1,250 fee on that today we have no problems with any of the requirements for the proportionality the traffic requirements we would just ask that we'd be able to address those items through our preliminary plat that we've spent eight months going back and forth with the city and paid and have a substantial investment in without going back to the drawing board to file a general development plan that that accomplishes the same thing we're fine including any other requirements of the general development plan in that plat so that so that we get to the same place but would ask that we 'd be able to do that through that Avenue if that's the if that's the way you all choose to choose to proceed so with that appreciate your your attention and would be glad to stand for any questions and again my engineers here if we need to bring up the technical guru for anything so thank you I have a question I've got a couple other here on the board just to clarify did you say today's the first day that y'all have had the general development agreement brought to your attention yes we learned about that this evening and as you may know the subdivision code at the time of application calls for the city to direct you to either file a general development plan or to file a preliminary plat and we've obviously were directed to file a preliminary plat which is why we've been processing that for you know going on eight months now so yeah okay so after eight months today first time that's correct okay Commissioner Beck thank you chair mr. Bono is yes sir thank you very much for your presentation and I'm really kind of excited about this development I like the idea that we're preserving all not only preserving all the trees but we're gonna get a bunch of added as you develop this thing so that's one of the few times I've seen where we had a net positive result of gaining some trees in the city my concern as we move forward I'm on a sub committee that's rewriting the didn't development code and we're looking at zone changes they're differing in the way they are now and my vision for that strip of Sherman Drive as part of the mobility plan it's going to be widened to four lanes so it's gonna be a busy primary arterial much more so than it is now that having a residential area that close to primary arterial is not always practical but it can be done I didn't see anything on your preliminary plat is there any plan to create some kind of buffer there sound buffer like a stone fence or something along Sherman Drive to kind of offset the fact that it is so close yes so we are planning a didn't a masonry wall all along Sherman and wrapping the corner along a food along long I don't tell you whether it's six or eight I can't remember per the plans but certainly that is there and you know we understood that with that there was some reasoning for the in our for density in our for existing in our for zoning which is why we tried to concentrate our greater density to the center of the project away from away from Sherman so well it is our hope at least my focus is going to be as as part of that subcommittee is to see that strip along Sherman Drive zone some what's called a suburban corridor so there'll be some mixed use in there so I was hoping we could do that before we got into some original but that's fine I think these neighbors will welcome some other uses on some other portions of Sherman Drive in the area I would think so okay thank you so much thank you mr. Smith thank you chair do you guys to plan to develop this in phases or do it all one time right now it's planned for two phases which is shown that's how it's shown on our current preliminary plat draft it's in let's see understood and then I think you did answer the second ago but you guys do plan to do some sort of buffer to walk out noise and light pollution from yeah there is of course we have long road that separates us from from that we have a masonry wall along along there as well we'll have you know landscape perimeter around there as well so yeah no no no separation there for sure now as this is a closer development so as it's being developed that way yes and overall with the essays and everything else included it's 4.7 but in reality when you when you just hone in on just the actual developed area where you're gonna be building homes you think it's gonna be more like six units per acre right around there you know honestly I haven't separately calculated you know the individual pods I would assume so I will tell you that I mean we've been following the city's rewrite of the development code and the lot widths that we're planning on our plat are consistent with I think it's an R3 I mean I'm gonna forget the codes but the R3 zoning that's on the draft map for this site is consistent with what's what's on what's on our plat as well so I think even transitioning to you know where the zoning is projected to go out there it's consistent with what's included in that draft at least at this stage I know there's a lot of work left so the last thing you did say was about the general development plan rather you wanted to do it for the preliminary plot instead through the portion ality of doing the traffic impact and all that right I mean we are back these we're just concerned about a blanket requirement for a general development plan that that would require us to rewind the clock which has already been a very long clock in fact we had to annex this property of I've been working on this just now getting to zoning and I've had it under contract for a year so so if to rewind that clock is concerning have no problem with any of the requirements themselves would just either want to relabel our existing preliminary plan as a general development plan and roll in those requirements or address those requirements on the plat that we've you know we're down to the wire on on getting getting to PNC in the next few meetings can I ask staff and legal to address that then Cindy still here can can can we I know we just talked about this during work session Jerry that we just added this in you know can we do this the plenary plotting rather than having a drill general development plan well as I read the code the general development plan is required regardless so I mean even if this weren't a part of the ordinance that 's that's what the section says is that is that you do this so is nothing that this body says or incorporates into a recommendation is going to alter the the wording of the code I'll put it that way right we did not require a general development plat because well we didn't realize that it was actually required for this site and I've been here about ten years next week and we've never done a develop general development plat for a single-family residential subdiv ision and that's only because this is this such a high TIA but a high trip area from the CIA that was conducted and there's such low development of that row those two roads now it's never been has never happened exactly exactly so this this the applicant found out just literally ten minutes after I found out that we needed to do this so and it came from from legal so is there anything we can do to alleviate the pain point of the eight months of preliminary plotting they've been working on well what I suggested to the applicant is they pretty much got the GDP already done with their preliminary plat they just need to turn off a few layers and then turn it in and then we can try to get it on the same docket as as their preliminary plat get it all approved at the same time okay thank you I think Richard had a couple things you wanted to just wanted to point out a couple things I think part of the part of the issue again goes back to the convoluted nature of the code when you look at the section on general development plan it talks about it shall be determined a pre-application whether a general development plan or preliminary plat is required but then it goes further down it's well generally it's required when and so I think again I don't know when the PDM occurred I know it was at some time in the past but again part part of it is these this sort of convoluted nature and decisions that were made for whatever reason at such time but we're here where we are now just to give you the context of the general development plan if you recall we we had brought one forward back in March I believe it was the March 21st agenda this was related to actually one of the plats that was approved tonight with respect to razor East so that was it is on consent but to give you sort of that context it was one that we looked at back on March I believe March 21st of this year and if I may let me just step in it's it I want to assure everyone that the legal department was lying in wait waiting to ambush somebody on the last day this was a situation where we got access to the proposed draft ordinance that was sent over to us this week and it's not because it wasn't sent to us beforehand is it I didn't have access to it because of a software issue but it was sent to us early in July I believe it was and and after our last postponement of the public hearing so upon reviewing that and my earliest opportunity identified that issue and and and tried to bring it to the staff's attention as quickly as I could okay any other comments from staff or I'll recognize Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I had a few issues with BC and D and work session and they have exploded into much more greater concerns than confusions and I have a lot of notes here but what concerns me as I don't know where to begin let me let me just start here with asking legal you said you looked at a proposed draft ordinance is that not the ordinance that's in place right now draft meaning not approved no it won't be approved until you make your recommendation to council and council considers so the ordinance of this application not like yes yes yes no we we looked at a proposed draft ordinance it had the that had the overlay recommendations that you have your backup I received the backup Monday and and so I mean it was right around the same time I started reviewing this and saw that there was an issue got you and then Richard said this GDP is generally required when dot dot dot if it's generally required when can there not be opportunities in which it's not required like who's at what discretion is generally required I understand you said that the code is convoluted how are we coming to such a definitive response that another plat has to be a plan has to be done if it's generally required if you want to live 35 1610 B you'd like I could show you the language here where the general is located here it doesn't answer your question directly but so I'm wondering of those three items that trigger a general development plan which one was not able to be recognized in January the way I'm bringing it seems that number one was we knew is over 20 acres we knew is gonna be developed in phases and we knew that it would require off-site drainage it doesn't look like it was triggered by a TIA I guess what the root of this is just to understand I feel the frustration that I can only imagine they have I don't want to project frustration but the dollar cost to get to this point and the city didn't realize they needed a GDP just gonna step in I just mentioned to Richard I think maybe what might be prudent at this time is let's take a recess maybe five ten minute recess and let's give legal a second to do the research and maybe do a little discussion here and then we 'll come back and quit shooting from the hip and let's see if we can gather some facts so the chair is going to call a recess at 720 and we'll try to reconvene at 730 so I can go ahead and start we're going to count down okay we're all ready to go in the back and so at 732 we will reconvene and we will continue where we left off in our public hearing section this item is still open and I don't have any speakers I think we were going to look for some clarification of the overlay and the requirements and I don't know if staff would like me to state that or if staff would like to state that and she had paid the big bucks yeah so revise the recommendation one prior to that just want to make again make the affirmative finding that in order for the project to meet the public facility element or criteria there are certain transportation improvements that are required those are included as part of the current recommendation items B C and D what our recommendation is we're still making that finding that those items be addressed at the proper time of platting but revising the condition of a recommendation of approval and so that the only condition would be that the use of the properties restricted to single-family detached housing at a maximum density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre if that makes sense so we're going to deal with the zoning part of those requirements in the zoning case and then the B C and D items that have to do with transportation will then be dealt with between now and when this comes back before this Commission for that plan correct okay I think that hopefully will clear up everything for the Commission and hopefully for the applicant so I do have we are still open and we still have a applicant here that would like to speak so I'm gonna call on Brent Murphy you're good okay so this is a public hearing is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item seeing none we'll close the public hearing and I'll open the floor for discussion or motions Commissioner Roz elle I move for approval of Z 17 - 0 0 2 8 C with the amended recommendations that we include a density restriction of a maximum of 2 4.7 dwelling per acre okay Commissioner Smith I second that motion okay I have a first and a second for approval with the one condition on the density of 4.7 any other questions or discussion on this item okay I'll make a general statement and we will call for a vote I think that's a good move I think add some clarity and clarification for you all and hopefully gives you a little bit of time between this evening and when you come back for plat to have some further discussion with staff and get all that worked out and I think that's a proper way for us to move forward and proceed and so thank you staff for the guidance and the flexibility on that and so at this time I will call for a vote on the board and the motion is for approval that motion is going to carry six to zero good luck with your project that concludes our public hearing section that will move us on to our project matrix this evening Commissioner Beck again just want to keep raising the issue of getting a work session scheduled where we're addressing zone changes obviously this this particular item raises that important even more so so has there been any activity in that direction as far as establishing the work session where we can address specific zone changes that I mentioned last pins me Richard I will get that scheduled I have I have not to be on I have not I have not scheduled it yet since the since the last and I understand you're busy man I'm just gonna be a squeaky wheel that's okay that's no that's that 's fine it's fine okay thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I'm gonna be a squeaky wheel too back in January I brought up the traffic engineering discussion so I would like to try to move that up with all of today's discussion I think it's super important that we have that as you stated earlier sooner than later as a discussion thank you okay anybody else okay with that we will close our meeting this evening at 737 thank you everyone you