1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,839 planning and zoning Commission work session for July the 11 2 00:00:03,839 --> 00:00:05,799 th 2018. This 3 00:00:05,799 --> 00:00:08,929 meeting's been duly posted and we do have a quorum present 4 00:00:08,929 --> 00:00:10,000 and I will call us 5 00:00:10,000 --> 00:00:14,929 to order at 502. Our first order of business will be to 6 00:00:14,929 --> 00:00:15,279 receive 7 00:00:15,279 --> 00:00:20,899 clarification of agenda items. So our first questions will 8 00:00:20,899 --> 00:00:21,839 be or comments 9 00:00:21,839 --> 00:00:28,839 will be on any of the minutes the 13th or the 27th. 10 00:00:28,839 --> 00:00:32,159 Commissioner Smith. Thank you 11 00:00:32,159 --> 00:00:36,460 chair. So the item that we are looking at tonight that was 12 00:00:36,460 --> 00:00:37,359 continued that was 13 00:00:37,359 --> 00:00:41,009 that was continued on the applicant's behalf not on a vote 14 00:00:41,009 --> 00:00:42,320 from it was on a 15 00:00:42,320 --> 00:00:49,560 vote but applicants request. They are here with the signal. 16 00:00:50,960 --> 00:00:58,320 Okay anybody else on the minutes? Okay move us to the 17 00:00:58,320 --> 00:00:59,520 consent agenda any 18 00:00:59,520 --> 00:01:02,799 questions on the consent agenda? 19 00:01:04,159 --> 00:01:11,840 Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Who's doing? Haley? Is 20 00:01:11,840 --> 00:01:14,560 this yours? Is this yours? The Razor Ranch? 21 00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:20,420 The from what I can see the Google map is that a retention 22 00:01:20,420 --> 00:01:22,480 area just I guess 23 00:01:22,480 --> 00:01:26,189 it'd be close to Bonnie Bray and be kind of like the 24 00:01:26,189 --> 00:01:28,840 southeast corner. Those look 25 00:01:28,840 --> 00:01:31,939 like retention ponds. Yes that's a series of retention p 26 00:01:31,939 --> 00:01:32,480 onds that was 27 00:01:32,480 --> 00:01:35,090 developed as part of the Razor Ranch marketplace that's 28 00:01:35,090 --> 00:01:36,040 also intended to have 29 00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:38,310 capacity for this development. Okay so they're gonna feed 30 00:01:38,310 --> 00:01:39,000 into it too right? 31 00:01:39,000 --> 00:01:49,959 That's correct. Okay thank you. Do we have other questions 32 00:01:49,959 --> 00:01:50,319 you want make a 33 00:01:50,319 --> 00:01:53,209 presentation on this or I'm sorry we were doing a sidebar 34 00:01:53,209 --> 00:01:54,200 on a question here 35 00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:57,879 on the agenda. That's right I'd be happy to do a brief walk 36 00:01:57,879 --> 00:01:58,519 through on the plat if 37 00:01:58,519 --> 00:02:02,790 that would be helpful for anyone or? I'm sorry I didn't 38 00:02:02,790 --> 00:02:04,560 hear your question we 39 00:02:04,560 --> 00:02:09,439 got talking so much did you get your question answered? 40 00:02:09,439 --> 00:02:18,159 Okay okay any on item 41 00:02:18,159 --> 00:02:22,280 C on our consent agenda? 42 00:02:32,360 --> 00:02:38,840 Nobody? Commissioner Beck? Just the typo probably and this 43 00:02:38,840 --> 00:02:39,439 has happened the 44 00:02:39,439 --> 00:02:43,030 same time mentions that the track we're talking about is on 45 00:02:43,030 --> 00:02:44,580 the east side of 35 46 00:02:44,580 --> 00:02:47,580 and I think it means west side and hopefully everything 47 00:02:47,580 --> 00:02:49,400 else indicate. There's 48 00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:52,639 approximately 20.9 acres side of journey located on the 49 00:02:52,639 --> 00:02:53,439 east side of 50 00:02:53,439 --> 00:02:57,800 Interstate Highway 35. You are correct and that is a typo 51 00:02:57,800 --> 00:02:59,439 on my part. 52 00:03:02,439 --> 00:03:09,370 Was there anything else on that plot I'd be happy to pull 53 00:03:09,370 --> 00:03:14,120 it up? Okay that'll move 54 00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:18,879 us on to our items for individual consideration and I'll 55 00:03:18,879 --> 00:03:20,080 call on Julie 56 00:03:20,080 --> 00:03:30,800 Wyatt for presentation of that. Good evening. Good evening. 57 00:03:33,360 --> 00:03:36,319 All right this isn't a project type that we see very often 58 00:03:36,319 --> 00:03:38,439 so Richard wanted me 59 00:03:38,439 --> 00:03:41,360 to do just a quick presentation just to go over some of the 60 00:03:41,360 --> 00:03:42,719 parameters. This is a 61 00:03:42,719 --> 00:03:48,050 plat extension PE 18.1 symbiosis edition. So the subject 62 00:03:48,050 --> 00:03:49,639 property is there in 63 00:03:49,639 --> 00:03:52,990 yellow it is located on the west side of Johnson Street. It 64 00:03:52,990 --> 00:03:53,960 is south of East 65 00:03:53,960 --> 00:03:59,030 Collins Street and just to orient you Dallas Drive is right 66 00:03:59,030 --> 00:04:00,360 here so. So a 67 00:04:00,360 --> 00:04:04,129 plot was approved on the lot and on July 13th of 2016 it 68 00:04:04,129 --> 00:04:05,360 was for a multifamily 69 00:04:05,360 --> 00:04:08,330 development. As part of the review there were perimeter 70 00:04:08,330 --> 00:04:09,479 street improvements that 71 00:04:09,479 --> 00:04:12,919 were required storm drain extension and then also a 72 00:04:12,919 --> 00:04:14,479 sidewalk and now the 73 00:04:14,479 --> 00:04:19,519 applicant is moving forward or asking for a plat extension. 74 00:04:19,519 --> 00:04:21,879 So sub chapter 16 of 75 00:04:21,879 --> 00:04:25,259 the Denton Development Code states that final plots are 76 00:04:25,259 --> 00:04:26,839 null and void after two 77 00:04:26,839 --> 00:04:30,319 years if they aren't filed of record. However it does 78 00:04:30,319 --> 00:04:31,920 provide for a provision 79 00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:34,730 that the Planning and Zoning Commission can approve an 80 00:04:34,730 --> 00:04:36,040 extension of that plat 81 00:04:36,040 --> 00:04:39,670 for good cause. According to the applicant some of the 82 00:04:39,670 --> 00:04:40,680 construction costs 83 00:04:40,680 --> 00:04:43,149 associated with those public improvements that were 84 00:04:43,149 --> 00:04:43,800 required as a 85 00:04:43,800 --> 00:04:47,759 result of that final plat exceeded that projected budget so 86 00:04:47,759 --> 00:04:48,920 they did not move 87 00:04:48,920 --> 00:04:51,259 forward with the filing of the plat and the development 88 00:04:51,259 --> 00:04:53,480 contracts. However the 89 00:04:53,480 --> 00:04:56,959 the property owner feels like the the economics of the 90 00:04:56,959 --> 00:04:58,399 project have changed a 91 00:04:58,399 --> 00:05:03,029 little bit. Now increasing the feasibility the viability of 92 00:05:03,029 --> 00:05:03,199 the 93 00:05:03,199 --> 00:05:07,350 project and would like to extend that plat. Staff reviewed 94 00:05:07,350 --> 00:05:08,519 the request for the 95 00:05:08,519 --> 00:05:12,480 extension and determined that the delay warrants a six 96 00:05:12,480 --> 00:05:14,399 month extension and if if 97 00:05:14,399 --> 00:05:18,550 you do approve that plat extension as proposed the plat 98 00:05:18,550 --> 00:05:20,120 would become null and 99 00:05:20,120 --> 00:05:23,589 void as of December 11th of this year. So I'll stand for 100 00:05:23,589 --> 00:05:24,639 any questions. 101 00:05:24,639 --> 00:05:28,439 Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. Julie what what items 102 00:05:28,439 --> 00:05:30,000 what what criteria were 103 00:05:30,000 --> 00:05:32,149 you guys looking at that you felt like it was justified for 104 00:05:32,149 --> 00:05:33,319 an extension? We 105 00:05:33,319 --> 00:05:36,110 felt like well we talked with engineering about what the 106 00:05:36,110 --> 00:05:36,360 public 107 00:05:36,360 --> 00:05:39,600 improvements would be associated with it and those are the 108 00:05:39,600 --> 00:05:40,560 public improvements 109 00:05:40,560 --> 00:05:43,199 that were required in 2016 are consistent with what would 110 00:05:43,199 --> 00:05:43,720 be required 111 00:05:43,720 --> 00:05:47,870 today. The uses that that are permitted on the side it's in 112 00:05:47,870 --> 00:05:48,680 a DCG zoning 113 00:05:48,680 --> 00:05:52,209 district are consistent with what was approved in 2016 and 114 00:05:52,209 --> 00:05:53,240 we understand that 115 00:05:53,240 --> 00:05:57,699 that public infrastructure costs can add to the development 116 00:05:57,699 --> 00:05:59,079 costs of a site and we 117 00:05:59,079 --> 00:06:01,870 felt like a six month extension was appropriate in this 118 00:06:01,870 --> 00:06:03,720 instance. So that 119 00:06:03,720 --> 00:06:08,509 was really our analysis point. Does the does the owner and 120 00:06:08,509 --> 00:06:09,439 the applicant were 121 00:06:09,439 --> 00:06:12,230 they set I guess not that was the developer and the owner 122 00:06:12,230 --> 00:06:13,019 separate were 123 00:06:13,019 --> 00:06:15,810 they different at the time of application? I believe they 124 00:06:15,810 --> 00:06:16,360 are the same 125 00:06:16,360 --> 00:06:19,560 and the owner is will be here tonight so he'll be able to 126 00:06:19,560 --> 00:06:21,120 answer. So the owner is 127 00:06:21,120 --> 00:06:23,160 the developer and there it wasn't like they lost the 128 00:06:23,160 --> 00:06:24,160 developer in the interim 129 00:06:24,160 --> 00:06:27,439 or something like that. I don't know all of those specifics 130 00:06:27,439 --> 00:06:28,399 regarding the project 131 00:06:28,399 --> 00:06:31,660 but like I said. You discussed a six month extension and 132 00:06:31,660 --> 00:06:32,720 that was enough time for 133 00:06:32,720 --> 00:06:36,550 the owner. Well I have let them know that we are proposing 134 00:06:36,550 --> 00:06:37,680 a six month extension I 135 00:06:37,680 --> 00:06:42,410 didn't hear that that they were not amenable to that so so 136 00:06:42,410 --> 00:06:43,300 it might be 137 00:06:43,300 --> 00:06:45,490 something you'd want to ask. I haven't heard back from them 138 00:06:45,490 --> 00:06:48,319 regarding that though. 139 00:06:49,639 --> 00:06:54,439 That it Commissioner? Yes. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you 140 00:06:54,439 --> 00:06:56,259 chair. Hi Julie. I guess 141 00:06:56,259 --> 00:06:59,490 it kind of goes along to that line. Do you know did they 142 00:06:59,490 --> 00:07:00,800 offer what might hit 143 00:07:00,800 --> 00:07:03,009 they're doing in the next six months to be able to get this 144 00:07:03,009 --> 00:07:04,000 done? Six months is 145 00:07:04,000 --> 00:07:07,240 just not a lot of time in that world of getting. You know 146 00:07:07,240 --> 00:07:08,759 they have not given any 147 00:07:08,759 --> 00:07:12,310 indication about when we would receive any development 148 00:07:12,310 --> 00:07:13,920 contracts or how far in 149 00:07:13,920 --> 00:07:16,829 advance. You know we wanted to make sure that that time was 150 00:07:16,829 --> 00:07:17,759 limited so if there 151 00:07:17,759 --> 00:07:20,259 were any public improvements that would be different that 152 00:07:20,259 --> 00:07:21,759 we would capture that 153 00:07:21,759 --> 00:07:25,910 those requirements. So we wanted to keep it really narrow 154 00:07:25,910 --> 00:07:27,240 and targeted but I 155 00:07:27,240 --> 00:07:30,699 haven't talked with them regarding what what their 156 00:07:30,699 --> 00:07:32,480 timelines are in terms of 157 00:07:32,480 --> 00:07:35,279 that the future development. 158 00:07:35,279 --> 00:07:38,910 Good. Thank you. Quick question. And it's just a one time 159 00:07:38,910 --> 00:07:41,079 extension request that can be done on a plot? 160 00:07:41,079 --> 00:07:45,569 Well the code doesn't really let me get the code is it 161 00:07:45,569 --> 00:07:47,879 doesn't give a number of 162 00:07:47,879 --> 00:07:52,050 times but it does state that it has to be for good cause so 163 00:07:52,050 --> 00:07:52,959 so I don't know if 164 00:07:52,959 --> 00:07:55,569 that limits it to one. Legal may want to weigh in on that 165 00:07:55,569 --> 00:07:59,519 one but. We've done multiples before. 166 00:07:59,519 --> 00:08:06,079 Well that may be. I think the important thing to recognize 167 00:08:06,079 --> 00:08:07,120 here is that 168 00:08:07,120 --> 00:08:10,610 it's it's not only the development that's being proposed 169 00:08:10,610 --> 00:08:11,720 here but also the 170 00:08:11,720 --> 00:08:15,550 vesting of permit rights that is potentially impacted by 171 00:08:15,550 --> 00:08:16,839 the existence of 172 00:08:16,839 --> 00:08:25,399 this plat and that it may possibly not extending it could 173 00:08:25,399 --> 00:08:25,920 pave the way for 174 00:08:25,920 --> 00:08:30,829 other proposals or what have you. The only thing I don't 175 00:08:30,829 --> 00:08:32,000 know that I have 176 00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:34,789 anything you know valid to offer as far as how many times 177 00:08:34,789 --> 00:08:35,799 it could be extended 178 00:08:35,799 --> 00:08:39,529 but I did want to point out on the agenda information 179 00:08:39,529 --> 00:08:40,919 sheets that there 180 00:08:40,919 --> 00:08:43,879 were three options listed there is a fourth one which is to 181 00:08:43,879 --> 00:08:45,740 deny and just for 182 00:08:45,740 --> 00:08:48,740 the sake of completeness. 183 00:08:50,320 --> 00:08:53,110 Commissioner Sanchez. It was pretty much what you were 184 00:08:53,110 --> 00:08:54,080 asking about how many 185 00:08:54,080 --> 00:08:57,779 extensions you could get or if there's a limit on that and 186 00:08:57,779 --> 00:08:59,279 also when you're 187 00:08:59,279 --> 00:09:02,700 giving an extension you gave it six months I mean is that 188 00:09:02,700 --> 00:09:03,759 like a minimum or 189 00:09:03,759 --> 00:09:06,860 is there can you go up to a year or or is that based on 190 00:09:06,860 --> 00:09:08,159 what is that based on. 191 00:09:08,159 --> 00:09:12,120 It's that this body's discretion so if y'all wanted to 192 00:09:12,120 --> 00:09:13,679 approve a different 193 00:09:13,679 --> 00:09:18,440 amount yours it is the approval would be would be up to you 194 00:09:18,440 --> 00:09:19,919 and and before 195 00:09:19,919 --> 00:09:22,500 regular session I'll look through the code and see if I can 196 00:09:22,500 --> 00:09:23,799 get an answer for 197 00:09:23,799 --> 00:09:27,090 you regarding the numbers of extensions that would be 198 00:09:27,090 --> 00:09:28,720 permitted. Commissioner 199 00:09:28,720 --> 00:09:32,279 Beck. Thank you chair. Yeah again along with what everybody 200 00:09:32,279 --> 00:09:33,080 else is saying here 201 00:09:33,080 --> 00:09:37,039 I am curious to see if by giving the six months extension 202 00:09:37,039 --> 00:09:38,000 are we actually going 203 00:09:38,000 --> 00:09:41,159 to be seeing some movement towards this but I guess my 204 00:09:41,159 --> 00:09:43,679 question would be who and 205 00:09:43,679 --> 00:09:49,309 how is anybody hurt if we don't approve this extension or 206 00:09:49,309 --> 00:09:49,840 is there an answer 207 00:09:49,840 --> 00:09:52,740 that is that something I should probably wait and ask at 208 00:09:52,740 --> 00:09:54,200 the public hearing. I 209 00:09:54,200 --> 00:09:58,450 don't know I may not know the answer regarding from the 210 00:09:58,450 --> 00:10:00,080 perspective of the 211 00:10:00,080 --> 00:10:04,809 developer regarding your question but I think legal brought 212 00:10:04,809 --> 00:10:05,559 up a really good 213 00:10:05,559 --> 00:10:08,929 point and that you know we are under a Denton Development 214 00:10:08,929 --> 00:10:10,759 Code update and there 215 00:10:10,759 --> 00:10:13,740 is a plat is a vesting document and there may be new 216 00:10:13,740 --> 00:10:15,279 development standards 217 00:10:15,279 --> 00:10:18,580 associated with the with the update of the Denton 218 00:10:18,580 --> 00:10:21,440 Development Code and that you 219 00:10:21,440 --> 00:10:25,190 know an expiration or extending that plat would it would 220 00:10:25,190 --> 00:10:26,480 extend potentially 221 00:10:26,480 --> 00:10:29,879 the vesting of any current development standards. Did I say 222 00:10:29,879 --> 00:10:31,000 that correctly? Yeah 223 00:10:31,000 --> 00:10:34,269 well and I have one other observation too you know I am 224 00:10:34,269 --> 00:10:35,559 looking at the code 225 00:10:35,559 --> 00:10:41,480 here which is 35 16 12 2 F as in Frank and it's talking 226 00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:43,120 about if it's not 227 00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:45,559 filed in the appropriate records of Denton County within 228 00:10:45,559 --> 00:10:46,279 two years of its 229 00:10:46,279 --> 00:10:51,789 approval that seems to that it will expire unless extended 230 00:10:51,789 --> 00:10:52,639 that seems to 231 00:10:52,639 --> 00:10:59,120 imply that everything short of the the filing or at least a 232 00:10:59,120 --> 00:11:00,279 good portion of the 233 00:11:00,279 --> 00:11:05,159 thing short of filing may have been accomplished that you 234 00:11:05,159 --> 00:11:06,399 extend this just 235 00:11:06,399 --> 00:11:10,470 so that they don't lose that right in the interim you know 236 00:11:10,470 --> 00:11:12,240 where there's been 237 00:11:12,240 --> 00:11:16,610 not a whole lot of progress that that might be something 238 00:11:16,610 --> 00:11:17,720 that would be 239 00:11:17,720 --> 00:11:21,399 regarded as a dormant project under state law anyway I don 240 00:11:21,399 --> 00:11:22,120 't know if that 241 00:11:22,120 --> 00:11:27,190 anyone's looked at that or not but I think that one of the 242 00:11:27,190 --> 00:11:28,279 key considerations 243 00:11:28,279 --> 00:11:32,649 be what kind of progress has been made is it only this is 244 00:11:32,649 --> 00:11:34,200 it only this period 245 00:11:34,200 --> 00:11:40,480 of time that's standing in the way and or is it the the 246 00:11:40,480 --> 00:11:42,919 failure to proceed. 247 00:11:42,919 --> 00:11:48,860 Thank you. Well I'm gonna chime in and ask I guess kind of 248 00:11:48,860 --> 00:11:49,879 what's some of the other 249 00:11:49,879 --> 00:11:52,879 Commissioners if we can go even more than six months my 250 00:11:52,879 --> 00:11:54,720 recollection is we've 251 00:11:54,720 --> 00:11:57,940 had a number of these over the years and they've been six 252 00:11:57,940 --> 00:11:59,159 months and then they 253 00:11:59,159 --> 00:12:02,659 come back and so I don't know if it's possible maybe we can 254 00:12:02,659 --> 00:12:04,120 talk about that or 255 00:12:04,120 --> 00:12:06,960 y'all can research and see if we could do 12 months I think 256 00:12:06,960 --> 00:12:07,679 another 257 00:12:07,679 --> 00:12:11,440 dis-observation for this area town I can see where there 258 00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:12,879 might be more concerns 259 00:12:12,879 --> 00:12:17,720 about the development standards if it was on Dallas Drive 260 00:12:17,720 --> 00:12:19,200 or on 35 a very 261 00:12:19,200 --> 00:12:22,509 high-profile area where it is over there up against the 262 00:12:22,509 --> 00:12:25,120 railroad tracks and it'd 263 00:12:25,120 --> 00:12:28,980 be great if somebody would build something new over there 264 00:12:28,980 --> 00:12:29,720 in that area 265 00:12:29,720 --> 00:12:33,149 and maybe be an impetus for some redevelopment in that area 266 00:12:33,149 --> 00:12:35,600 because it is a 267 00:12:35,600 --> 00:12:39,559 not a lot going on over there so it'd be nice to maybe do 268 00:12:39,559 --> 00:12:41,080 some research and see 269 00:12:41,080 --> 00:12:43,870 if we can go a longer time and hopefully somebody has the 270 00:12:43,870 --> 00:12:44,879 opportunity to get all 271 00:12:44,879 --> 00:12:47,299 the other ducks in a row that they need to be able to to 272 00:12:47,299 --> 00:12:48,320 move it forward because 273 00:12:48,320 --> 00:12:53,200 if it does expire I'm familiar with how long it takes and 274 00:12:53,200 --> 00:12:54,559 how costly it is to 275 00:12:54,559 --> 00:12:59,809 get a new plat back you have to a lot of work this would be 276 00:12:59,809 --> 00:13:01,240 my thoughts to throw 277 00:13:01,240 --> 00:13:06,000 in on that particular item anybody else have further 278 00:13:06,000 --> 00:13:07,519 questions on them on this 279 00:13:07,519 --> 00:13:15,389 item before we move on to our next section that will move 280 00:13:15,389 --> 00:13:17,320 us to our public 281 00:13:17,320 --> 00:13:25,200 hearing section and this is Cindy Jackson. 282 00:13:45,000 --> 00:13:51,720 Good evening let me go ahead and pull up my presentation. 283 00:13:58,039 --> 00:14:05,720 Are we on the S Drive or the O Drive? There it is. 284 00:14:12,440 --> 00:14:19,019 Okay this request this is a request for an initial zoning 285 00:14:19,019 --> 00:14:24,320 designation on to NR6 286 00:14:24,320 --> 00:14:27,789 on attractive land as you can see here the site is 287 00:14:27,789 --> 00:14:30,080 approximately 73.47 acres 288 00:14:30,080 --> 00:14:35,120 and it is currently zone RD5X the site was actually annexed 289 00:14:35,120 --> 00:14:36,480 into the city 290 00:14:36,480 --> 00:14:44,190 recently at the beginning of the year they are proposing NR 291 00:14:44,190 --> 00:14:47,320 6 with the intent 292 00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:52,059 to develop a single-family subdivision with a density of 4. 293 00:14:52,059 --> 00:14:53,240 7 dwelling units per 294 00:14:53,240 --> 00:15:01,240 acre current zoning RD5X and the proposed zoning is NR6 now 295 00:15:01,240 --> 00:15:01,759 you'll note 296 00:15:01,759 --> 00:15:07,899 that the site does not have frontage on Sherman Drive this 297 00:15:07,899 --> 00:15:09,639 area right here that 298 00:15:09,639 --> 00:15:13,629 is zone NR4 is actually going to be part of the single- 299 00:15:13,629 --> 00:15:14,759 family subdivision and 300 00:15:14,759 --> 00:15:17,940 when it is all plotted together into one subdivision the 301 00:15:17,940 --> 00:15:19,399 overall density will be 302 00:15:19,399 --> 00:15:27,590 4.3 dwelling units per acre. The site is designated rural 303 00:15:27,590 --> 00:15:28,919 areas on the future 304 00:15:28,919 --> 00:15:33,230 land use map the site is located at the edge of the urban 305 00:15:33,230 --> 00:15:34,759 areas that are located 306 00:15:34,759 --> 00:15:40,529 to the south of the loop and when the future land use map 307 00:15:40,529 --> 00:15:41,399 map was first 308 00:15:41,399 --> 00:15:45,080 approved a few years ago wasn't anticipated that we would 309 00:15:45,080 --> 00:15:45,519 be seeing 310 00:15:45,519 --> 00:15:50,299 development in this part of the city so soon so actually we 311 00:15:50,299 --> 00:15:51,919 've had developers 312 00:15:51,919 --> 00:15:57,779 inquiring about these areas developing these areas so you 313 00:15:57,779 --> 00:15:58,720 'll be seeing a few 314 00:15:58,720 --> 00:16:03,870 more of these probably. When a rezoning request does not 315 00:16:03,870 --> 00:16:05,159 conform to the future 316 00:16:05,159 --> 00:16:09,330 land use designation for the site the DDC adds additional 317 00:16:09,330 --> 00:16:10,360 criteria for the 318 00:16:10,360 --> 00:16:17,370 evaluation in section 35 3 3 b3 as noted in your backup the 319 00:16:17,370 --> 00:16:18,320 site complies with 320 00:16:18,320 --> 00:16:21,450 the additional criteria but in my presentation that follows 321 00:16:21,450 --> 00:16:22,120 I will hit up 322 00:16:22,120 --> 00:16:31,309 some high points. The site is has probably 2,803 linear 323 00:16:31,309 --> 00:16:31,639 feet of 324 00:16:31,639 --> 00:16:34,889 frontage on Long Road which is a collector roadway which 325 00:16:34,889 --> 00:16:36,200 you can see here 326 00:16:36,200 --> 00:16:41,529 and then Sherman Drive is an arterial roadway. Moderate 327 00:16:41,529 --> 00:16:42,720 density residential 328 00:16:42,720 --> 00:16:46,730 neighborhoods as proposed along the collector and arterial 329 00:16:46,730 --> 00:16:47,519 roadways are 330 00:16:47,519 --> 00:16:50,860 appropriate. Long Drive and Sherman Drive will provide 331 00:16:50,860 --> 00:16:52,320 adequate visibility and 332 00:16:52,320 --> 00:16:59,100 access. The improvements recommended for the intersection 333 00:16:59,100 --> 00:17:00,919 of excuse me I got ahead 334 00:17:00,919 --> 00:17:06,799 of myself we had a TIA the applicant do a TIA for this side 335 00:17:06,799 --> 00:17:07,640 a traffic impact 336 00:17:07,640 --> 00:17:11,789 analysis because of the size of the subdivision we have an 337 00:17:11,789 --> 00:17:14,160 expected 3729 338 00:17:14,160 --> 00:17:18,150 daily trips from this particular project. The TI 339 00:17:18,150 --> 00:17:20,279 recommendations are to of 340 00:17:20,279 --> 00:17:26,140 construction of street A which is the first street into the 341 00:17:26,140 --> 00:17:27,599 subdivision off of 342 00:17:27,599 --> 00:17:33,720 Long it's located approximately right here. To allow for a 343 00:17:33,720 --> 00:17:35,599 dedicated left and 344 00:17:35,599 --> 00:17:39,000 right turn lanes construction of a northbound dedicated 345 00:17:39,000 --> 00:17:40,000 left turn lane and 346 00:17:40,000 --> 00:17:43,519 construction of a southbound dedicated right turn lane 347 00:17:43,519 --> 00:17:45,599 along Sherman and 348 00:17:45,599 --> 00:17:49,019 signalization of the intersection for the service roads at 349 00:17:49,019 --> 00:17:50,319 the loop 28 and East 350 00:17:50,319 --> 00:17:54,279 Sherman Drive intersection. These improvements which are 351 00:17:54,279 --> 00:17:55,119 recommended will 352 00:17:55,119 --> 00:17:59,319 be achieved through the use of roadway impact fees paid by 353 00:17:59,319 --> 00:18:00,079 developments which 354 00:18:00,079 --> 00:18:03,519 would utilize the intersections. The amount of the impact 355 00:18:03,519 --> 00:18:04,599 fee is determined 356 00:18:04,599 --> 00:18:08,400 by using a proportionality calculation based on the number 357 00:18:08,400 --> 00:18:09,319 of lots and 358 00:18:09,319 --> 00:18:13,119 projected trips of each development. At this time there are 359 00:18:13,119 --> 00:18:14,000 no city funds 360 00:18:14,000 --> 00:18:16,240 available for these improvements and they haven't been 361 00:18:16,240 --> 00:18:17,119 programmed into the 362 00:18:17,119 --> 00:18:23,839 capital improvements plan. Commissioner Roseau. It sounded 363 00:18:23,839 --> 00:18:24,519 like street A is 364 00:18:24,519 --> 00:18:28,529 coming off of Long yes but one of the recommendations was 365 00:18:28,529 --> 00:18:30,880 street a turn from 366 00:18:30,880 --> 00:18:36,740 Sherman on to street A yes but doesn't hit Sherman. There's 367 00:18:36,740 --> 00:18:39,000 well it will 368 00:18:39,000 --> 00:18:43,730 see it left. I think maybe Cindy misspoke and when you said 369 00:18:43,730 --> 00:18:45,000 street a off of Long I 370 00:18:45,000 --> 00:18:46,930 think it come right I think I was talking about the street 371 00:18:46,930 --> 00:18:47,400 that was going 372 00:18:47,400 --> 00:18:51,440 to be right here. Okay that's more clear thank you and we 373 00:18:51,440 --> 00:18:52,240 were requiring the 374 00:18:52,240 --> 00:18:58,589 turn lines here and here. Commissioner Ellis. I will go 375 00:18:58,589 --> 00:19:01,519 ahead and change that. Thank you chair. Cindy my 376 00:19:01,519 --> 00:19:04,480 concern comes with what you just quoted which was at this 377 00:19:04,480 --> 00:19:05,519 time there are no city 378 00:19:05,519 --> 00:19:08,619 funds available for these improvements. That's right. So 379 00:19:08,619 --> 00:19:09,599 how do we make this a 380 00:19:09,599 --> 00:19:14,900 priority? I mean how can I know how long it takes to get on 381 00:19:14,900 --> 00:19:15,839 capital improvements 382 00:19:15,839 --> 00:19:19,450 and whatnot and this is a lot of daily trips and sure it is 383 00:19:19,450 --> 00:19:20,519 and we have there's 384 00:19:20,519 --> 00:19:25,349 a lot of improvement needed yes and yes at this time there 385 00:19:25,349 --> 00:19:26,599 is no plan is 386 00:19:26,599 --> 00:19:30,880 concerning. We have been meeting with the engineering 387 00:19:30,880 --> 00:19:32,559 director as well as the 388 00:19:32,559 --> 00:19:36,099 assistant city manager over engineering and we are working 389 00:19:36,099 --> 00:19:37,160 with them on that. 390 00:19:37,160 --> 00:19:42,240 Right now the way these things are going to be constructed 391 00:19:42,240 --> 00:19:42,759 is by 392 00:19:42,759 --> 00:19:46,720 proportionality fees and impact fees from the developments 393 00:19:46,720 --> 00:19:47,680 that are going we 394 00:19:47,680 --> 00:19:53,990 that will be going in along this area. And I understand 395 00:19:53,990 --> 00:19:56,160 that my question is 396 00:19:56,160 --> 00:20:00,000 you're gonna it's gonna take time to collect fees. Mm-hmm. 397 00:20:00,000 --> 00:20:01,920 So then what is the 398 00:20:01,920 --> 00:20:06,900 plan what is a projected time frame do we have one? Right 399 00:20:06,900 --> 00:20:08,000 now there's not a 400 00:20:08,000 --> 00:20:10,799 projected time frame. I think part of the issue that that's 401 00:20:10,799 --> 00:20:12,000 sort of plagued 402 00:20:12,000 --> 00:20:15,619 this area is it's there was never really any traffic data 403 00:20:15,619 --> 00:20:16,720 that the city had 404 00:20:16,720 --> 00:20:20,450 collected to really show that what would what would tip 405 00:20:20,450 --> 00:20:23,160 that impact over really 406 00:20:23,160 --> 00:20:26,500 lessening that level of service to the road where it's un 407 00:20:26,500 --> 00:20:28,720 bearable. It's almost 408 00:20:28,720 --> 00:20:31,599 like the we were kind of talking a couple things on chicken 409 00:20:31,599 --> 00:20:32,359 versus the egg. 410 00:20:32,359 --> 00:20:35,690 Now we have the development now it's eminent that it's 411 00:20:35,690 --> 00:20:37,119 gonna happen and I 412 00:20:37,119 --> 00:20:40,599 think that's where we're now working with engineering in 413 00:20:40,599 --> 00:20:42,440 fact where we sort 414 00:20:42,440 --> 00:20:45,759 of reconstitute the entire transportation model for the 415 00:20:45,759 --> 00:20:46,319 city where 416 00:20:46,319 --> 00:20:49,779 we're through RGIS we're sort of plugging this in early so 417 00:20:49,779 --> 00:20:50,480 rather than 418 00:20:50,480 --> 00:20:53,410 kind of do this let's wait and see approach we can start to 419 00:20:53,410 --> 00:20:54,720 identify early 420 00:20:54,720 --> 00:20:57,519 on while they're starting to gear up for capital 421 00:20:57,519 --> 00:20:59,400 improvement projects we now have 422 00:20:59,400 --> 00:21:02,190 that data kind of those those projections are able to be 423 00:21:02,190 --> 00:21:02,920 forecasted 424 00:21:02,920 --> 00:21:06,319 much sooner than in the past where we've waited we've 425 00:21:06,319 --> 00:21:08,579 waited till the end if that 426 00:21:08,579 --> 00:21:14,440 makes any sense. It does make sense so calculating it is 427 00:21:14,440 --> 00:21:15,759 good so doing it is 428 00:21:15,759 --> 00:21:20,000 another thing so is there a plan then for also moving along 429 00:21:20,000 --> 00:21:21,000 further than we 430 00:21:21,000 --> 00:21:26,789 have in yes I don't know exactly what when that will be I 431 00:21:26,789 --> 00:21:29,039 do know that this 432 00:21:29,039 --> 00:21:32,500 project in in addition to a number of other projects within 433 00:21:32,500 --> 00:21:34,200 this area I mean a 434 00:21:34,200 --> 00:21:38,430 lot of yeah I think at one point we're counting around 3, 435 00:21:38,430 --> 00:21:39,839 000 residential units 436 00:21:39,839 --> 00:21:46,119 on that north side it's will be sooner than later I can't 437 00:21:46,119 --> 00:21:46,839 say it's budgeted for 438 00:21:46,839 --> 00:21:51,890 you know CIP project in fiscal year 20 right now but I know 439 00:21:51,890 --> 00:21:53,200 I know that they 440 00:21:53,200 --> 00:21:58,329 are relooking at all of that. They're realizing that what 441 00:21:58,329 --> 00:21:59,200 we did a few years 442 00:21:59,200 --> 00:22:03,210 ago with the future land use plan and the mobility plan it 443 00:22:03,210 --> 00:22:04,880 didn't anticipate 444 00:22:04,880 --> 00:22:08,029 any of this to be honest with you we didn't think we'd be 445 00:22:08,029 --> 00:22:08,680 looking at 446 00:22:08,680 --> 00:22:16,200 development in this area for at least another decade so 447 00:22:16,880 --> 00:22:19,019 continue if I could chime in well I'm glad you're looking 448 00:22:19,019 --> 00:22:20,000 at it now because it 449 00:22:20,000 --> 00:22:22,970 absolutely is an area that is going to get developed and 450 00:22:22,970 --> 00:22:24,240 needs to get developed 451 00:22:24,240 --> 00:22:30,630 I mean that started a long time ago up there and part of 452 00:22:30,630 --> 00:22:33,079 that issue you know 453 00:22:33,079 --> 00:22:36,390 when that when that first mobility plan was done and the 454 00:22:36,390 --> 00:22:37,680 impact fee analysis 455 00:22:37,680 --> 00:22:40,470 again it bases off of the future land use map I think we 456 00:22:40,470 --> 00:22:41,319 might have talked 457 00:22:41,319 --> 00:22:46,519 about this at one of the development review code committee 458 00:22:46,519 --> 00:22:47,680 meetings so that 459 00:22:47,680 --> 00:22:50,950 that was current kind of the basis for the future trips 460 00:22:50,950 --> 00:22:52,319 well if it's future 461 00:22:52,319 --> 00:22:57,049 land use is is rural it's not generating a whole lot and so 462 00:22:57,049 --> 00:22:57,880 in the grand scheme 463 00:22:57,880 --> 00:23:01,329 of things you know what's there to plan if this is if this 464 00:23:01,329 --> 00:23:02,960 is a rural area 465 00:23:02,960 --> 00:23:05,930 interestingly our comp plan allows obviously if it's not 466 00:23:05,930 --> 00:23:06,960 consistent with the 467 00:23:06,960 --> 00:23:10,319 comp plan we can still approve it provided it addresses 468 00:23:10,319 --> 00:23:11,200 those kind of 469 00:23:11,200 --> 00:23:14,150 impacts and so that's where we're starting to just kind of 470 00:23:14,150 --> 00:23:14,960 re-looking at 471 00:23:14,960 --> 00:23:18,920 all of this that's why we have the TIA now rather than 472 00:23:18,920 --> 00:23:21,079 later so we can start 473 00:23:21,079 --> 00:23:23,400 to identify what these what these impacts are going to be 474 00:23:23,400 --> 00:23:24,359 and and the 475 00:23:24,359 --> 00:23:27,759 the improvements that are required by the TIA will help 476 00:23:27,759 --> 00:23:29,240 alleviate some of 477 00:23:29,240 --> 00:23:33,039 these these issues for this subdivision and as we go on 478 00:23:33,039 --> 00:23:34,920 other subdivisions will 479 00:23:34,920 --> 00:23:39,920 have to do the TIA too and and make improvements. I'm gonna 480 00:23:39,920 --> 00:23:41,319 pause and chime 481 00:23:41,319 --> 00:23:45,720 in on a couple things so what we're talking about is 482 00:23:45,720 --> 00:23:46,599 something we talked 483 00:23:46,599 --> 00:23:49,569 about in our last meeting when we look at these areas and 484 00:23:49,569 --> 00:23:50,759 further to the north 485 00:23:50,759 --> 00:23:55,670 about what the land use is going to be yes then it drives 486 00:23:55,670 --> 00:23:57,160 what the traffic 487 00:23:57,160 --> 00:24:00,400 counts are going to be which then helps us plan better 488 00:24:00,400 --> 00:24:01,960 versus we'll deal with it 489 00:24:01,960 --> 00:24:06,359 when it comes up yes and we find ourselves continually in 490 00:24:06,359 --> 00:24:06,759 these issues 491 00:24:06,759 --> 00:24:11,829 not only on this side of town but in other parts of town 492 00:24:11,829 --> 00:24:13,680 where there's not 493 00:24:13,799 --> 00:24:17,140 planning farther down the road and going ahead and setting 494 00:24:17,140 --> 00:24:18,960 things up so that the 495 00:24:18,960 --> 00:24:21,859 traffic analysis are all those things are already set up 496 00:24:21,859 --> 00:24:22,799 and already done and 497 00:24:22,799 --> 00:24:25,589 ready to go and then we know what we're going to get into 498 00:24:25,589 --> 00:24:26,839 so we'll just chime in 499 00:24:26,839 --> 00:24:29,329 that we talked about that last meeting and I'm just going 500 00:24:29,329 --> 00:24:30,240 to echo that again 501 00:24:30,240 --> 00:24:37,170 tonight. Secondly what is the the current level of service 502 00:24:37,170 --> 00:24:38,640 on that road? The level 503 00:24:38,640 --> 00:24:47,640 of service at rush hour is F. Okay so to what Commissioner 504 00:24:47,640 --> 00:24:48,759 Ellis is talking about 505 00:24:48,759 --> 00:24:52,390 is if I recall the way the traffic impact fees are is if 506 00:24:52,390 --> 00:24:53,319 the level of 507 00:24:53,319 --> 00:24:57,650 services D are going to drop to a D those improvements have 508 00:24:57,650 --> 00:24:58,799 to be made with 509 00:24:58,799 --> 00:25:02,839 the traffic impact fees not that the city collects those 510 00:25:02,839 --> 00:25:03,920 funds and then 511 00:25:03,920 --> 00:25:07,880 decides at some point in the future when those funds will 512 00:25:07,880 --> 00:25:09,200 be spent as if it's a 513 00:25:09,200 --> 00:25:12,430 D or going to be a D or worse those fees have to be 514 00:25:12,430 --> 00:25:13,599 collected and the 515 00:25:13,599 --> 00:25:16,420 improvements have to go in in that area at that time. 516 00:25:16,420 --> 00:25:17,759 Exactly and and we actually 517 00:25:17,759 --> 00:25:21,500 had no idea what the situation was out there until we got 518 00:25:21,500 --> 00:25:22,799 this TIA in because 519 00:25:22,799 --> 00:25:25,740 we haven't had any development significant development out 520 00:25:25,740 --> 00:25:26,920 there to 521 00:25:26,920 --> 00:25:31,650 require a TIA until now. Okay so when depending on where 522 00:25:31,650 --> 00:25:32,599 this goes this evening 523 00:25:32,599 --> 00:25:36,359 if it is approved and those traffic impact fees come in 524 00:25:36,359 --> 00:25:37,440 those have to be 525 00:25:37,440 --> 00:25:40,480 spent then to do the improvements in this area at the time 526 00:25:40,480 --> 00:25:41,559 of development not 527 00:25:41,559 --> 00:25:44,740 collecting the fees and holding on and at some point in the 528 00:25:44,740 --> 00:25:45,839 future the city 529 00:25:45,839 --> 00:25:49,079 will decide to do those they have to be put in because of 530 00:25:49,079 --> 00:25:50,559 the level of service is 531 00:25:50,559 --> 00:25:55,599 that correct? I believe that is correct. Okay just a couple 532 00:25:55,599 --> 00:25:56,400 points to throw out 533 00:25:56,400 --> 00:26:00,160 for clarification. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. In 534 00:26:00,160 --> 00:26:01,240 regards to these impact fees 535 00:26:01,240 --> 00:26:02,930 then if there's going to be other developments are going to 536 00:26:02,930 --> 00:26:03,480 be developing 537 00:26:03,480 --> 00:26:07,039 north of that up along 423 does that mean that this subdiv 538 00:26:07,039 --> 00:26:07,799 ision is going to be 539 00:26:07,799 --> 00:26:11,279 paying for the majority of the improvements? No. How does 540 00:26:11,279 --> 00:26:12,480 that all work just 541 00:26:12,480 --> 00:26:14,990 just for my own ignorance? Actually what we have is a 542 00:26:14,990 --> 00:26:17,160 proportionality formula and 543 00:26:17,160 --> 00:26:21,980 the proportionality formula is based on the number of 544 00:26:21,980 --> 00:26:24,319 dwelling units and the 545 00:26:24,319 --> 00:26:28,599 number of projected trips and the type of street that that 546 00:26:28,599 --> 00:26:29,759 there are along and 547 00:26:29,759 --> 00:26:33,220 that they they have a way of calculating out what the 548 00:26:33,220 --> 00:26:33,799 report what their impact 549 00:26:33,799 --> 00:26:36,400 would be. The city puts on the CIP and then they complete 550 00:26:36,400 --> 00:26:38,039 it and then as future 551 00:26:38,039 --> 00:26:39,960 developments come in because this one's there we have to 552 00:26:39,960 --> 00:26:40,799 build it because of the 553 00:26:40,799 --> 00:26:43,589 F rating. As future developments come in they they collect 554 00:26:43,589 --> 00:26:44,440 the other money that 555 00:26:44,440 --> 00:26:47,960 needs to be made back up. Got it. Okay just wanted to make 556 00:26:47,960 --> 00:26:48,680 sure this 557 00:26:48,680 --> 00:26:57,390 applicant wasn't being screwed. Commissioner Back. Thank 558 00:26:57,390 --> 00:26:59,960 you Chair. I'm 559 00:26:59,960 --> 00:27:03,289 just becoming aware that that Street A is actually 560 00:27:03,289 --> 00:27:04,940 extending through that NR2 561 00:27:04,940 --> 00:27:08,369 zone to hit Sherman so that's not part of the property that 562 00:27:08,369 --> 00:27:09,240 's going to be 563 00:27:09,240 --> 00:27:12,230 developed so is that going to be the city? Oh it is. Yes it 564 00:27:12,230 --> 00:27:17,720 is. As I mentioned previously right here this NR2 565 00:27:17,720 --> 00:27:21,009 zoning right here will be ultimately part of this subdiv 566 00:27:21,009 --> 00:27:22,200 ision it will all be 567 00:27:22,200 --> 00:27:26,349 platted together the preliminary plat is in your packet and 568 00:27:26,349 --> 00:27:28,240 they will have an 569 00:27:28,240 --> 00:27:33,119 overall density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. Okay so we 570 00:27:33,119 --> 00:27:34,319 'll be looking at 571 00:27:34,319 --> 00:27:37,460 single-family residential in that little stretch there 572 00:27:37,460 --> 00:27:39,240 which is okay because one 573 00:27:39,240 --> 00:27:41,630 of the things we were talking about in the past is 574 00:27:41,630 --> 00:27:44,200 considering rezoning too and 575 00:27:44,200 --> 00:27:48,029 looks like they're they're moving ahead there where that 576 00:27:48,029 --> 00:27:49,160 that stretch of 577 00:27:49,160 --> 00:27:51,710 Sherman Drive in my opinion you know it should be a 578 00:27:51,710 --> 00:27:56,160 suburban corridor. So I kind 579 00:27:56,160 --> 00:27:58,109 of caught off guard that we're gonna go ahead and extend 580 00:27:58,109 --> 00:27:58,960 the residential out 581 00:27:58,960 --> 00:28:04,309 there on a primary arterial which in my opinion is impract 582 00:28:04,309 --> 00:28:05,720 ical it just does 583 00:28:05,720 --> 00:28:10,019 create problems with traffic so but again we'll address 584 00:28:10,019 --> 00:28:11,319 that later in the 585 00:28:11,319 --> 00:28:15,619 public being as far we do need to reconsider zoning future 586 00:28:15,619 --> 00:28:16,079 land use 587 00:28:16,079 --> 00:28:19,210 changes to that area out there in my opinion and rezoning 588 00:28:19,210 --> 00:28:20,039 before we get you 589 00:28:20,039 --> 00:28:25,079 know into some more of this. Right we realize that. Okay 590 00:28:25,079 --> 00:28:27,799 thank you. 591 00:28:28,599 --> 00:28:32,339 Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Question back on the 592 00:28:32,339 --> 00:28:33,599 level of service 593 00:28:33,599 --> 00:28:38,339 letter so does the TIA change that from a current F to how 594 00:28:38,339 --> 00:28:39,720 does that get changed 595 00:28:39,720 --> 00:28:46,650 to prioritize those needs? What was the question? How does 596 00:28:46,650 --> 00:28:48,440 how do the improvements 597 00:28:48,440 --> 00:28:54,470 change the level of service? It goes up to a level. I 598 00:28:54,470 --> 00:28:56,920 believe chair mentioned at 599 00:28:56,920 --> 00:29:00,740 a certain letter the improvements have to be made. 600 00:29:00,740 --> 00:29:04,119 Currently you said it's an F 601 00:29:04,119 --> 00:29:08,450 so when is it getting changed to warrant those improvements 602 00:29:08,450 --> 00:29:09,720 ? Well with the 603 00:29:09,720 --> 00:29:13,869 improvements it'll be a D. After the improvements are made? 604 00:29:13,869 --> 00:29:14,759 Yes after the 605 00:29:14,759 --> 00:29:21,880 improvement. Right. It goes from an F up to a D which is? 606 00:29:21,880 --> 00:29:26,960 At what point? After the 607 00:29:26,960 --> 00:29:33,269 improvements to the road are made? Okay. And if I may 608 00:29:33,269 --> 00:29:35,359 clarify the turn lanes that 609 00:29:35,359 --> 00:29:37,660 they're talking about that that's what they're talking 610 00:29:37,660 --> 00:29:38,759 about bringing the level 611 00:29:38,759 --> 00:29:42,720 of service up. Yeah. And then I think there's talk in there 612 00:29:42,720 --> 00:29:43,920 also about 613 00:29:43,920 --> 00:29:47,940 signaling at some point at look 288. There it is. Yeah 614 00:29:47,940 --> 00:29:49,160 right the turn lanes 615 00:29:49,160 --> 00:29:53,759 will help tremendously because people turning left would 616 00:29:53,759 --> 00:29:54,839 would block up the 617 00:29:54,839 --> 00:29:59,319 entire street right now. Like Friday Night Football game or 618 00:29:59,319 --> 00:29:59,799 something if you 619 00:29:59,799 --> 00:30:03,119 ever go out there but. Yeah. 620 00:30:06,119 --> 00:30:13,049 Where did I leave off? Okay. Okay the surrounding land uses 621 00:30:13,049 --> 00:30:14,039 for the subject 622 00:30:14,039 --> 00:30:19,900 site includes single-family residences all along here and 623 00:30:19,900 --> 00:30:22,839 there's quite a few 624 00:30:22,839 --> 00:30:31,200 down along here. Agricultural uses, open pasture as well as 625 00:30:31,200 --> 00:30:33,240 the institutional 626 00:30:33,240 --> 00:30:38,190 uses on the south side of Long Road. So single-family would 627 00:30:38,190 --> 00:30:39,599 would be compatible 628 00:30:39,599 --> 00:30:42,849 in the area. There is significant single-family in the area 629 00:30:42,849 --> 00:30:44,319 at this time. 630 00:30:44,319 --> 00:30:46,799 Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. For my own 631 00:30:46,799 --> 00:30:48,640 notification what is an improved 632 00:30:48,640 --> 00:30:51,509 pasture versus a non-improved pasture? Well you know that's 633 00:30:51,509 --> 00:30:52,960 a good question and we got that 634 00:30:52,960 --> 00:30:57,690 we got that actually from DCAD. Okay. And I tried to find 635 00:30:57,690 --> 00:30:59,240 what an improved pasture 636 00:30:59,240 --> 00:31:04,259 is. I could not find that. My thought is maybe it's got a 637 00:31:04,259 --> 00:31:05,519 dirt road going through 638 00:31:05,519 --> 00:31:11,839 it and it's used for agriculture you know crop land or 639 00:31:11,839 --> 00:31:13,480 pasture for animals. 640 00:31:13,480 --> 00:31:16,519 Something like that. Cool thank you. Other question while 641 00:31:16,519 --> 00:31:17,119 we're on this with 642 00:31:17,119 --> 00:31:25,480 compatibility with the NR6 zone proposal what buffers need 643 00:31:25,480 --> 00:31:25,640 to be 644 00:31:25,640 --> 00:31:27,890 created when we're up against something like that CH 645 00:31:27,890 --> 00:31:29,079 Collins and all that right 646 00:31:29,079 --> 00:31:33,039 there? Well actually because of the fact that it's across 647 00:31:33,039 --> 00:31:34,240 the street. No buffer. 648 00:31:34,240 --> 00:31:39,470 No buffers. Okay. No. Has the I know and I know the zoning 649 00:31:39,470 --> 00:31:40,440 stage is not plotting 650 00:31:40,440 --> 00:31:44,849 but the other site plan I should say. The is the applicant 651 00:31:44,849 --> 00:31:46,720 discussed any type of 652 00:31:46,720 --> 00:31:50,160 way of deterring light sound all that stuff in regards to 653 00:31:50,160 --> 00:31:51,519 this project? Well I'll 654 00:31:51,519 --> 00:31:55,089 let the applicant answer that one. Okay thank you. I do 655 00:31:55,089 --> 00:31:56,720 want to note that there 656 00:31:56,720 --> 00:32:02,579 is ESA in this area right here and the applicant is 657 00:32:02,579 --> 00:32:04,920 planning to preserve all 658 00:32:04,920 --> 00:32:09,519 of the ESA that's in the area. It's got a couple of site 659 00:32:09,519 --> 00:32:10,579 constraints which which 660 00:32:10,579 --> 00:32:13,740 are calling for that NR6. It's the ESA here plus they have 661 00:32:13,740 --> 00:32:15,079 an overhead power 662 00:32:15,079 --> 00:32:18,599 line that goes straight through the middle bisecting the 663 00:32:18,599 --> 00:32:19,720 site so that they 664 00:32:19,720 --> 00:32:23,880 have to keep certain amount away from those I think 17 feet 665 00:32:23,880 --> 00:32:26,440 from the edge. So 666 00:32:26,440 --> 00:32:30,400 they're accommodating all that as well. Continue 667 00:32:30,400 --> 00:32:31,640 Commissioner Schmitt. Thank you 668 00:32:31,640 --> 00:32:35,789 Chair. That brings up another point then so the ESA we 669 00:32:35,789 --> 00:32:37,039 talked about a 670 00:32:37,039 --> 00:32:40,440 couple months ago but I can't remember the direct term for 671 00:32:40,440 --> 00:32:42,079 it but we had a 672 00:32:42,079 --> 00:32:44,430 project I remember was off Ryan Road where they're gonna 673 00:32:44,430 --> 00:32:45,200 preserve a lot of 674 00:32:45,200 --> 00:32:48,490 the ESA and they're gonna condense down to having I guess 675 00:32:48,490 --> 00:32:49,759 basically smaller 676 00:32:49,759 --> 00:32:54,250 smaller plats there I guess smaller lots. That's what they 677 00:32:54,250 --> 00:32:55,160 were. Thank you very much. 678 00:32:55,160 --> 00:32:59,230 Small lots and therefore it's gonna have a higher density 679 00:32:59,230 --> 00:33:00,920 there but we take over 680 00:33:00,920 --> 00:33:05,000 the entire plat there it still has a spread it evens out 681 00:33:05,000 --> 00:33:05,359 because there's 682 00:33:05,359 --> 00:33:07,509 certain areas that's left behind. That's right. So does 683 00:33:07,509 --> 00:33:08,400 that mean since they're 684 00:33:08,400 --> 00:33:11,710 reserving that that really they are gonna have more like an 685 00:33:11,710 --> 00:33:12,839 NR6 style type 686 00:33:12,839 --> 00:33:17,079 lots then? Yes. Okay because they're reserving the ESA. It 687 00:33:17,079 --> 00:33:19,160 's what we call cluster zoning. Cluster zoning. 688 00:33:19,160 --> 00:33:23,799 Cluster site design rather and where you cluster the houses 689 00:33:23,799 --> 00:33:27,450 together so that they preserve certain special features of 690 00:33:27,450 --> 00:33:28,359 the land. So the 691 00:33:28,359 --> 00:33:30,900 applicant's arguments then that might be like well you know 692 00:33:30,900 --> 00:33:32,200 we're doing NR6 693 00:33:32,200 --> 00:33:34,990 even though we really rather do NR4 because we're really 694 00:33:34,990 --> 00:33:36,599 gonna have a 4.7 or 4.3. 695 00:33:36,599 --> 00:33:38,920 Well no you're actually gonna have more like NR6 because 696 00:33:38,920 --> 00:33:39,759 you're gonna be doing 697 00:33:39,759 --> 00:33:42,730 essentially cluster zoning. There lots are gonna be smaller 698 00:33:42,730 --> 00:33:43,440 for the cluster. 699 00:33:43,440 --> 00:33:46,680 Yeah. However their overall the overall density of the 700 00:33:46,680 --> 00:33:47,799 entire subdivision where 701 00:33:47,799 --> 00:33:54,079 you include the NR4 will be 4.3. Okay. That's all. Thank 702 00:33:54,079 --> 00:33:55,119 you. Commissioner Beck. 703 00:33:55,119 --> 00:33:58,559 Thank you chair. I have one other concern related to 704 00:33:58,559 --> 00:34:00,279 traffic. Long Road I believe 705 00:34:00,279 --> 00:34:06,140 connects on the west there to Stewart Road. Correct. So 706 00:34:06,140 --> 00:34:07,519 that's gonna be a good 707 00:34:07,519 --> 00:34:11,320 outlet for that subdivision. 708 00:34:14,639 --> 00:34:20,559 Yes we did how but Long Road is scheduled to be revised and 709 00:34:20,559 --> 00:34:21,039 connect 710 00:34:21,039 --> 00:34:27,380 straight across here in the future. So but they did look at 711 00:34:27,380 --> 00:34:28,880 that as well. 712 00:34:31,000 --> 00:34:34,289 Possibly the living and lying in the way of Long Road 713 00:34:34,289 --> 00:34:35,480 itself. 714 00:34:35,480 --> 00:34:40,840 Well not with this particular subdivision. 715 00:34:48,119 --> 00:34:49,420 Development must comply with all ESA tree preservation, 716 00:34:49,420 --> 00:34:53,159 buffer screening, tree 717 00:34:53,159 --> 00:34:56,119 canopy and lighting conditions and both water and 718 00:34:56,119 --> 00:34:57,599 wastewater service are 719 00:34:57,599 --> 00:35:03,460 available to the site from Long Road. We sent out public 720 00:35:03,460 --> 00:35:04,719 notifications on June 721 00:35:04,719 --> 00:35:09,440 10th. Within 200 feet we sent three certified mailing 722 00:35:09,440 --> 00:35:12,239 notices and within 500 723 00:35:12,239 --> 00:35:15,869 feet we sent three as well. Due to the large size of the 724 00:35:15,869 --> 00:35:17,159 ownership parcels 725 00:35:17,159 --> 00:35:21,659 here there aren't very many owners. We received no response 726 00:35:21,659 --> 00:35:22,880 in opposition and 727 00:35:22,880 --> 00:35:26,610 one response from the property to the north in favor which 728 00:35:26,610 --> 00:35:28,400 comprises 23% of 729 00:35:28,400 --> 00:35:33,599 the land within the 200 foot buffer. Staff recommends 730 00:35:33,599 --> 00:35:35,519 approval of this request 731 00:35:35,519 --> 00:35:39,059 with the following recommendations. We recommend that the 732 00:35:39,059 --> 00:35:40,360 overlay be placed on 733 00:35:40,360 --> 00:35:42,969 the site and the use of the property be restricted to 734 00:35:42,969 --> 00:35:44,199 single-family detached 735 00:35:44,199 --> 00:35:47,510 housing at a maximum density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre 736 00:35:47,510 --> 00:35:48,880 . For the remainder 737 00:35:48,880 --> 00:35:54,280 of our recommendations Jerry Drake the City Attorney will 738 00:35:54,280 --> 00:35:56,559 be crafting and 739 00:35:56,559 --> 00:36:01,630 wordsmithing a type of recommendation that will be applied 740 00:36:01,630 --> 00:36:03,760 to the general 741 00:36:03,760 --> 00:36:06,099 development plan. We're going to require a general 742 00:36:06,099 --> 00:36:07,440 development plan for this so 743 00:36:07,440 --> 00:36:14,360 that we can time the provision of the roadway improvements. 744 00:36:14,360 --> 00:36:19,260 Can I speak to that a little bit? Yeah and as Cindy and the 745 00:36:19,260 --> 00:36:21,599 staff did a great job of putting this 746 00:36:21,599 --> 00:36:25,570 together and they sent over a draft with these 747 00:36:25,570 --> 00:36:28,199 recommendations on it. The 748 00:36:28,199 --> 00:36:33,679 concern that we had for the overlay conditions BC and D is 749 00:36:33,679 --> 00:36:34,360 they're 750 00:36:34,360 --> 00:36:39,119 somewhat unusual as zoning conditions. They're really more 751 00:36:39,119 --> 00:36:39,679 development 752 00:36:39,679 --> 00:36:45,539 standards and so what we were recommending would be a 753 00:36:45,539 --> 00:36:46,280 better 754 00:36:46,280 --> 00:36:53,000 alternative you know as far as legal compliance would be to 755 00:36:53,000 --> 00:36:54,039 possibly 756 00:36:54,039 --> 00:37:00,559 substitute a requirement of pursuing the general 757 00:37:00,559 --> 00:37:01,840 development plan which is 758 00:37:01,840 --> 00:37:06,559 required by the code already just because of the size of it 759 00:37:06,559 --> 00:37:07,480 and the 760 00:37:07,480 --> 00:37:12,940 necessity of off-site improvements and to pursue the very 761 00:37:12,940 --> 00:37:15,219 same issues via the 762 00:37:15,219 --> 00:37:20,119 GDP process and upon final planning anyway. So it's just a 763 00:37:20,119 --> 00:37:21,119 rewording of the 764 00:37:21,119 --> 00:37:25,849 same thing to reflect what our actual practice would be to 765 00:37:25,849 --> 00:37:27,000 address this 766 00:37:27,000 --> 00:37:31,909 through the planning process. So I guess the recommendation 767 00:37:31,909 --> 00:37:33,800 would be for to 768 00:37:33,800 --> 00:37:39,769 restrict the use and density of the site and a general 769 00:37:39,769 --> 00:37:41,519 development plan. 770 00:37:41,519 --> 00:37:44,130 Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair. When I read the 771 00:37:44,130 --> 00:37:44,920 recommendations that's the 772 00:37:44,920 --> 00:37:47,460 first thing I thought why are we putting BC and D on a 773 00:37:47,460 --> 00:37:48,559 zoning case it seems 774 00:37:48,559 --> 00:37:52,840 extremely odd. It also seems like those are things the city 775 00:37:52,840 --> 00:37:53,760 should be dealing 776 00:37:53,760 --> 00:37:56,780 with in terms of if we have impact fees that are based on 777 00:37:56,780 --> 00:37:57,960 regions and we know 778 00:37:57,960 --> 00:38:01,679 developments coming in why are we putting the onus on the 779 00:38:01,679 --> 00:38:02,920 developer to 780 00:38:02,920 --> 00:38:05,710 make sure the timing of that is all right. This the 781 00:38:05,710 --> 00:38:06,880 developers are contributing 782 00:38:06,880 --> 00:38:11,360 the cost dedicated southbound turn lane where's the signal 783 00:38:11,360 --> 00:38:12,880 the signal I'd be the 784 00:38:12,880 --> 00:38:15,079 developer saw it contribute to the cost of signal lights 785 00:38:15,079 --> 00:38:16,079 isn't that assumed in 786 00:38:16,079 --> 00:38:17,980 the impact fees that that's where the money would go 787 00:38:17,980 --> 00:38:19,039 towards because the TIA. 788 00:38:19,039 --> 00:38:23,389 Not necessarily this is all the result of the traffic 789 00:38:23,389 --> 00:38:24,559 impact analysis if we 790 00:38:24,559 --> 00:38:27,349 had not had the traffic impact analysis we would not know a 791 00:38:27,349 --> 00:38:28,239 signal was required 792 00:38:28,239 --> 00:38:32,969 there. But why I understand that but why are we defining it 793 00:38:32,969 --> 00:38:33,880 for them to 794 00:38:33,880 --> 00:38:36,789 specifically do aren't are they not contributing the impact 795 00:38:36,789 --> 00:38:37,400 fees for the 796 00:38:37,400 --> 00:38:41,639 road. They will be. And the impact fees should be going 797 00:38:41,639 --> 00:38:43,199 towards theoretically a 798 00:38:43,199 --> 00:38:46,769 signal light is that also correct? That's right. So why are 799 00:38:46,769 --> 00:38:47,320 we putting any 800 00:38:47,320 --> 00:38:49,679 condition on the property of things that should be 801 00:38:49,679 --> 00:38:51,440 happening already? We were 802 00:38:51,440 --> 00:38:55,190 trying to ensure that they would happen we've had 803 00:38:55,190 --> 00:38:57,559 situations in the past where 804 00:38:57,559 --> 00:39:03,420 we've had these requirements for impact fees and payment 805 00:39:03,420 --> 00:39:04,559 for signal lights and 806 00:39:04,559 --> 00:39:06,769 such and it didn't happen yet based on the way it was 807 00:39:06,769 --> 00:39:08,639 plotted in the past so 808 00:39:08,639 --> 00:39:15,849 we were trying to ensure that this would happen. Okay not 809 00:39:15,849 --> 00:39:17,679 in agreement with the BC 810 00:39:17,679 --> 00:39:23,639 and D conditions but secondly I lost my turn of thought 811 00:39:23,639 --> 00:39:25,199 guys and I was gonna be a 812 00:39:25,199 --> 00:39:34,679 good one too. Yeah I'll come back. Absolutely. I just 813 00:39:34,679 --> 00:39:37,150 wanted to also explain a little bit with respect to this 814 00:39:37,150 --> 00:39:39,519 you know one of the main criteria when we 815 00:39:39,519 --> 00:39:42,619 review these rezoning is to make sure that there's adequate 816 00:39:42,619 --> 00:39:43,559 public facilities 817 00:39:43,559 --> 00:39:47,289 right and so putting this amount of development how can we 818 00:39:47,289 --> 00:39:48,000 know if the 819 00:39:48,000 --> 00:39:51,679 adequate facilities are really there and so that's why that 820 00:39:51,679 --> 00:39:53,119 TIA was required. 821 00:39:53,119 --> 00:39:56,309 While the conditions were on there again they are going to 822 00:39:56,309 --> 00:39:57,239 be based when that 823 00:39:57,239 --> 00:40:00,500 proportionality study is done at time of platyp and so it 824 00:40:00,500 --> 00:40:01,440 more or less was like a 825 00:40:01,440 --> 00:40:05,480 heads-up hey this is coming down the pike but also we are 826 00:40:05,480 --> 00:40:06,280 we did look at this 827 00:40:06,280 --> 00:40:09,159 in order for us to support it the public you know it's 828 00:40:09,159 --> 00:40:10,559 again it's a chicken 829 00:40:10,559 --> 00:40:13,349 versus the egg so yes we can support it if the public 830 00:40:13,349 --> 00:40:14,639 facilities are addressed 831 00:40:14,639 --> 00:40:17,429 they'll be addressed by this although this can't get 832 00:40:17,429 --> 00:40:18,679 discussed until the time 833 00:40:18,679 --> 00:40:22,829 of platyp and so that's really got you. I remembered what I 834 00:40:22,829 --> 00:40:23,800 was gonna say and it is 835 00:40:23,800 --> 00:40:27,239 in line with kind of what you're saying this is attached 836 00:40:27,239 --> 00:40:28,880 now to the zoning we 837 00:40:28,880 --> 00:40:31,079 just saw on the individual considerations of plat that fell 838 00:40:31,079 --> 00:40:31,659 through if this 839 00:40:31,659 --> 00:40:35,360 developer was to resell and someone else bought it 840 00:40:35,360 --> 00:40:37,280 regardless of what density 841 00:40:37,280 --> 00:40:39,400 they're gonna put on it they would have to contribute to a 842 00:40:39,400 --> 00:40:40,159 signal light at that 843 00:40:40,159 --> 00:40:46,639 intersection of I'm okay. Well based based on what they're 844 00:40:46,639 --> 00:40:47,559 doing based on 845 00:40:47,559 --> 00:40:52,000 what they're doing it depends on if what they're proposing 846 00:40:52,000 --> 00:40:53,360 warrants the signal 847 00:40:53,360 --> 00:40:57,829 light. Well the recommendation says they shall contribute 848 00:40:57,829 --> 00:40:58,840 to the signal light now 849 00:40:58,840 --> 00:41:01,630 the amount might change but they will be contributing 850 00:41:01,630 --> 00:41:02,760 regardless of what happens 851 00:41:02,760 --> 00:41:05,260 that property into perpetuity. Oh I see what you're saying 852 00:41:05,260 --> 00:41:06,920 yeah yeah it would be based on 853 00:41:06,920 --> 00:41:09,219 proportionality and it would be based on what they were 854 00:41:09,219 --> 00:41:10,159 planning to do with the 855 00:41:10,159 --> 00:41:13,650 property. Well it's not based on what they're doing with 856 00:41:13,650 --> 00:41:16,760 the property that is 857 00:41:16,760 --> 00:41:21,079 not in the recommendation so if they were to put a one big 858 00:41:21,079 --> 00:41:21,639 if someone was to 859 00:41:21,639 --> 00:41:24,219 resell it put a big ranch on it proportionality would be 860 00:41:24,219 --> 00:41:24,760 one or two 861 00:41:24,760 --> 00:41:27,099 roads but that owner of that property would still be 862 00:41:27,099 --> 00:41:28,199 required based on this 863 00:41:28,199 --> 00:41:31,800 recommendation to pay for part of that signal light. Right 864 00:41:31,800 --> 00:41:32,719 I think that's why 865 00:41:32,719 --> 00:41:35,219 these generally aren't attached to zoning cases which goes 866 00:41:35,219 --> 00:41:35,679 back to my 867 00:41:35,679 --> 00:41:39,440 original confusion of why we're doing that. Well like 868 00:41:39,440 --> 00:41:41,079 Richard said we wanted to 869 00:41:41,079 --> 00:41:45,269 ensure that the infrastructure would be available since 870 00:41:45,269 --> 00:41:46,679 that is a requirement 871 00:41:46,679 --> 00:41:54,480 for rezoning. If it is just going to be a ranch again that 872 00:41:54,480 --> 00:41:55,800 would be when it gets 873 00:41:55,800 --> 00:41:59,159 platted it would just be restricted to that so if it's only 874 00:41:59,159 --> 00:42:00,239 going to generate 875 00:42:00,239 --> 00:42:04,010 five or ten trips because it's one single-family home then 876 00:42:04,010 --> 00:42:04,679 it probably 877 00:42:04,679 --> 00:42:07,579 wouldn't have they wouldn't have to comply with these but 878 00:42:07,579 --> 00:42:08,599 if they were going 879 00:42:08,599 --> 00:42:11,989 to develop at that maximum density then then it would kick 880 00:42:11,989 --> 00:42:13,239 in so again it's it's 881 00:42:13,239 --> 00:42:16,619 once you once you trigger sort of that that trip threshold 882 00:42:16,619 --> 00:42:17,920 where you're going to 883 00:42:17,920 --> 00:42:21,420 reduce the level of service below you know if it's going to 884 00:42:21,420 --> 00:42:22,559 an F- then 885 00:42:22,559 --> 00:42:25,090 you're gonna you're gonna have to contribute your 886 00:42:25,090 --> 00:42:26,320 proportionality to it 887 00:42:26,320 --> 00:42:29,449 whether you do the full number of units or you do two. I 888 00:42:29,449 --> 00:42:31,039 think I understand what 889 00:42:31,039 --> 00:42:34,659 you're saying but that's maybe the words with it needs to 890 00:42:34,659 --> 00:42:35,679 happen then because 891 00:42:35,679 --> 00:42:38,190 that's not articulated in this recommendation. Yeah and 892 00:42:38,190 --> 00:42:39,239 that will happen 893 00:42:39,239 --> 00:42:43,059 prior before it goes to City Council. Yeah it's the 894 00:42:43,059 --> 00:42:45,119 recommendation is not to 895 00:42:45,119 --> 00:42:49,639 have BC and D written at in that fashion the recommendation 896 00:42:49,639 --> 00:42:51,320 is to have A and 897 00:42:51,320 --> 00:42:55,159 then to have a second condition that points out the 898 00:42:55,159 --> 00:42:56,800 requirement for the 899 00:42:56,800 --> 00:43:02,230 general development plan that would base the they would 900 00:43:02,230 --> 00:43:03,280 base the level of 901 00:43:03,280 --> 00:43:06,570 contribution upon the proportionality study to be done at 902 00:43:06,570 --> 00:43:07,840 the time during the 903 00:43:07,840 --> 00:43:12,079 planning process. The the issue by referencing the general 904 00:43:12,079 --> 00:43:12,760 development plan 905 00:43:12,760 --> 00:43:16,050 is they're going to have to do it anyway just due to the 906 00:43:16,050 --> 00:43:17,360 size of the property. 907 00:43:17,360 --> 00:43:20,150 It's presumed that that's going to be a necessary component 908 00:43:20,150 --> 00:43:22,679 . In addition the 909 00:43:22,679 --> 00:43:26,030 fact that there are already identified off-site 910 00:43:26,030 --> 00:43:27,400 improvements that is that 911 00:43:27,400 --> 00:43:31,159 triggers a general development plan as well and it's it 912 00:43:31,159 --> 00:43:33,639 seems likely that this 913 00:43:33,639 --> 00:43:37,599 could be a phased development and so sometimes you have to 914 00:43:37,599 --> 00:43:38,599 say well which 915 00:43:38,599 --> 00:43:42,840 which final plat phase are we talking about for doing this. 916 00:43:42,840 --> 00:43:43,599 That's what the 917 00:43:43,599 --> 00:43:46,760 general development plan does and that's part of the whole 918 00:43:46,760 --> 00:43:48,239 purpose of it. So the 919 00:43:48,239 --> 00:43:53,119 the proposal that I suggested is to remove BC and D and to 920 00:43:53,119 --> 00:43:54,400 reference the 921 00:43:54,400 --> 00:43:58,360 necessity of going through the general development plan 922 00:43:58,360 --> 00:44:00,719 process to identify you 923 00:44:00,719 --> 00:44:03,849 know what what is going to be needed as far as any kind of 924 00:44:03,849 --> 00:44:05,519 contribution. That way 925 00:44:05,519 --> 00:44:07,820 if it's a farm or if it's something else and they go 926 00:44:07,820 --> 00:44:09,360 through a planning process 927 00:44:09,360 --> 00:44:12,659 that that's different from what you see here in these 928 00:44:12,659 --> 00:44:14,159 exhibits in the backup 929 00:44:14,159 --> 00:44:17,980 then that will take that into consideration as well. But 930 00:44:17,980 --> 00:44:18,760 even if it is a 931 00:44:18,760 --> 00:44:21,860 farm if it's going to be planted it's going to require the 932 00:44:21,860 --> 00:44:22,719 GDP just because of 933 00:44:22,719 --> 00:44:26,760 the size. The mere fact that it's 70 acres is going is 934 00:44:26,760 --> 00:44:28,480 greater than 20 acres 935 00:44:28,480 --> 00:44:35,019 which is the threshold for requiring a GDP. Right and when 936 00:44:35,019 --> 00:44:36,480 you when we go out 937 00:44:36,480 --> 00:44:39,400 for the public hearing these will be changed it's just I 938 00:44:39,400 --> 00:44:40,400 hadn't had an 939 00:44:40,400 --> 00:44:43,579 opportunity to change the recommendations after since 940 00:44:43,579 --> 00:44:44,440 finding out 941 00:44:44,440 --> 00:44:50,599 about this new requirement. I hit her with this today. 942 00:44:50,599 --> 00:44:50,760 Thank you. 943 00:44:51,159 --> 00:44:55,230 Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair. Okay so to clarify 944 00:44:55,230 --> 00:44:58,360 this ideally if we're 945 00:44:58,360 --> 00:45:04,679 recommending approval it would be with a not BC and D but 946 00:45:04,679 --> 00:45:08,079 adding a general B 947 00:45:08,079 --> 00:45:11,110 being a general development plan. Yeah that will 948 00:45:11,110 --> 00:45:12,639 incorporate the elements of 949 00:45:12,639 --> 00:45:16,199 BC and D as appropriate. 950 00:45:17,440 --> 00:45:20,440 Commissioner back. I'm sorry I'm a little confused too and 951 00:45:20,440 --> 00:45:21,400 you mentioned if we're 952 00:45:21,400 --> 00:45:26,349 gonna approve this zone change to an NR6 how can we come in 953 00:45:26,349 --> 00:45:27,159 and build a farm 954 00:45:27,159 --> 00:45:32,949 later? Am I missing something there? Agricultural uses are 955 00:45:32,949 --> 00:45:33,559 allowed in that 956 00:45:33,559 --> 00:45:36,980 district. Okay but we're talking about this area that we're 957 00:45:36,980 --> 00:45:38,280 gonna rezone. You're 958 00:45:38,280 --> 00:45:42,320 rezoning it and what you've got is a maximum density you 959 00:45:42,320 --> 00:45:43,079 can go below it. 960 00:45:43,079 --> 00:45:48,639 Okay. It was a hypothetical sorry. Okay I understand. I 961 00:45:48,639 --> 00:45:50,159 thought that the fact that 962 00:45:50,159 --> 00:45:54,650 it was an NR6 would even limit it from okay gotcha thank 963 00:45:54,650 --> 00:45:55,559 you. 964 00:45:57,159 --> 00:46:02,230 That concludes my presentation. That was a good move on 965 00:46:02,230 --> 00:46:09,639 your part. I have a question on the 4.7 966 00:46:09,639 --> 00:46:11,889 is that something the applicants agreed to or is that 967 00:46:11,889 --> 00:46:14,440 something staff is? The 968 00:46:14,440 --> 00:46:18,590 applicants has agreed to it. Okay. That is actually the 969 00:46:18,590 --> 00:46:19,679 zone the density that 970 00:46:19,679 --> 00:46:24,849 they're proposing. Well I'm just looking at it if for some 971 00:46:24,849 --> 00:46:26,480 reason it doesn't move 972 00:46:26,480 --> 00:46:30,239 forward they've put a limitation somebody has to come back 973 00:46:30,239 --> 00:46:31,239 if they wanted 974 00:46:31,239 --> 00:46:36,280 to do townhomes for example because if it is zoned an NR6 975 00:46:36,280 --> 00:46:37,199 then all that 976 00:46:37,199 --> 00:46:41,429 property that's underneath the high lines and underneath or 977 00:46:41,429 --> 00:46:42,519 in the ESA is 978 00:46:42,519 --> 00:46:46,349 effectively taken out of the mix so it's really only the 979 00:46:46,349 --> 00:46:47,880 developable land versus 980 00:46:47,880 --> 00:46:52,159 areas that are in easements and ESAs that they can't get a 981 00:46:52,159 --> 00:46:53,559 density transfer on 982 00:46:53,559 --> 00:46:59,050 those. So I'm just curious if they were amenable to that or 983 00:46:59,050 --> 00:47:01,000 not. Well we didn't 984 00:47:01,000 --> 00:47:04,179 discuss density transfer to be honest with you. Okay. What 985 00:47:04,179 --> 00:47:05,559 we discussed was what 986 00:47:05,559 --> 00:47:11,920 they wanted to do on the site. Sure. Which was the NR7 987 00:47:11,920 --> 00:47:18,639 excuse me NR6 with 4.7 density preserving all of the ESA 988 00:47:18,639 --> 00:47:20,320 and clustering 989 00:47:20,320 --> 00:47:25,119 the houses so that they avoid the ESA and the overhead 990 00:47:25,119 --> 00:47:27,039 wires. In any future 991 00:47:27,039 --> 00:47:29,829 developer would have to do the same thing. Yes. It's just a 992 00:47:29,829 --> 00:47:30,280 matter of if 993 00:47:30,280 --> 00:47:33,940 somebody had a different vision for that area the density 994 00:47:33,940 --> 00:47:35,579 then is capped with 995 00:47:35,579 --> 00:47:43,369 this. That's correct. Overlaying. Okay. Commissioner San 996 00:47:43,369 --> 00:47:44,840 chez. Yeah I was looking 997 00:47:44,840 --> 00:47:50,699 at where it says background it talks about where it's the 998 00:47:50,699 --> 00:47:52,519 developers talks 999 00:47:52,519 --> 00:47:57,320 about a 384 lot single-family subdivision and I and then 1000 00:47:57,320 --> 00:47:58,000 that was a 1001 00:47:58,000 --> 00:48:00,789 question I had is then if you go to the first page we're 1002 00:48:00,789 --> 00:48:02,079 talking about he first 1003 00:48:02,079 --> 00:48:07,690 submitted for 384 lot single-family then we're talking 1004 00:48:07,690 --> 00:48:10,119 about 395 so that's my 1005 00:48:10,119 --> 00:48:18,250 question was the 395 would include the NR4. Okay but you 1006 00:48:18,250 --> 00:48:19,400 had a larger right 1007 00:48:19,400 --> 00:48:24,130 take a look at take a look at the the preliminary plat okay 1008 00:48:24,130 --> 00:48:25,400 that is in your 1009 00:48:25,400 --> 00:48:31,280 packet okay. City can you pop the zoning map? 1010 00:48:32,960 --> 00:48:38,840 This is the zoning map right here the entire site including 1011 00:48:38,840 --> 00:48:39,920 everything. Yeah so 1012 00:48:39,920 --> 00:48:43,880 so they're their ownership if you look at where it has the 1013 00:48:43,880 --> 00:48:45,039 current the brown 1014 00:48:45,039 --> 00:48:48,309 the that brown strip just to the east or to the right is 1015 00:48:48,309 --> 00:48:50,119 also owned by them and 1016 00:48:50,119 --> 00:48:54,110 so what happened when this property was annexed it that 1017 00:48:54,110 --> 00:48:55,320 first I think what is it 1018 00:48:55,320 --> 00:49:00,050 500 feet was annexed and then assigned to zoning and so it 1019 00:49:00,050 --> 00:49:01,639 already a portion of 1020 00:49:01,639 --> 00:49:04,429 their property is already zoned right right right and so 1021 00:49:04,429 --> 00:49:06,000 the back part they're 1022 00:49:06,000 --> 00:49:09,349 going for NR6 right and that's where you see that those 1023 00:49:09,349 --> 00:49:10,619 additional units so I 1024 00:49:10,619 --> 00:49:14,250 think the it actually overall it's a little bit less than 1025 00:49:14,250 --> 00:49:16,159 the 4.7 it's 4.3 1026 00:49:16,159 --> 00:49:21,949 4.3 when you factor in the site to the east component of 1027 00:49:21,949 --> 00:49:23,239 the site to these 1028 00:49:23,239 --> 00:49:28,530 right this this was strip annexed I I think it was back in 1029 00:49:28,530 --> 00:49:31,519 the 80s so by the 1030 00:49:31,519 --> 00:49:34,409 city and this type of annexation is no longer permitted 1031 00:49:34,409 --> 00:49:35,639 anymore but it's a way 1032 00:49:35,639 --> 00:49:42,119 of extending your your extraterritorial jurisdiction and we 1033 00:49:42,119 --> 00:49:43,440 it's we can't do it 1034 00:49:43,440 --> 00:49:47,590 anymore and actually you can see why we were left to deal 1035 00:49:47,590 --> 00:49:49,039 with the aftermath 1036 00:49:51,639 --> 00:49:56,619 it's I still don't get it because it says on the background 1037 00:49:56,619 --> 00:49:57,199 it says the 1038 00:49:57,199 --> 00:50:00,860 applicant and then it gives his name is requesting approval 1039 00:50:00,860 --> 00:50:02,039 of initial zoning 1040 00:50:02,039 --> 00:50:05,639 designation of NR6 which is that section right there 1041 00:50:05,639 --> 00:50:07,159 pursuit to the development 1042 00:50:07,159 --> 00:50:15,599 site with a 384 not single family units but then oh okay so 1043 00:50:15,599 --> 00:50:16,320 you're adding the 1044 00:50:16,320 --> 00:50:28,349 other yeah okay okay okay any other questions commissioner 1045 00:50:28,349 --> 00:50:29,199 Ellis thank you 1046 00:50:29,199 --> 00:50:32,739 just real quick Cindy I know in your analysis it said that 1047 00:50:32,739 --> 00:50:33,719 the in lieu of a 1048 00:50:33,719 --> 00:50:35,710 neighborhood meeting which doesn't make sense that he was 1049 00:50:35,710 --> 00:50:36,360 gonna talk to the 1050 00:50:36,360 --> 00:50:40,610 surrounding landowners yes did the offer any outcome of 1051 00:50:40,610 --> 00:50:42,199 that oh yes everybody 1052 00:50:42,199 --> 00:50:46,360 was in full favor of it and one of them actually sent in a 1053 00:50:46,360 --> 00:50:47,360 letter saying they 1054 00:50:47,360 --> 00:50:52,230 were yeah he was because there's only three we didn't see 1055 00:50:52,230 --> 00:50:52,880 the point of a 1056 00:50:52,880 --> 00:51:00,840 neighborhood meeting any other questions for Cindy thank 1057 00:51:00,840 --> 00:51:03,719 you Cindy thank you 1058 00:51:10,440 --> 00:51:16,300 that will take care of all of our items on our work session 1059 00:51:16,300 --> 00:51:19,880 agenda so with that 1060 00:51:19,880 --> 00:51:24,780 we will close our work session at 553 and we'll reconvene 1061 00:51:24,780 --> 00:51:26,159 in council chambers 1062 00:51:26,159 --> 00:51:29,199 at 630 1063 00:51:37,360 --> 00:51:38,360 good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and 1064 00:51:38,360 --> 00:51:41,400 zoning Commission 1065 00:51:41,400 --> 00:51:46,440 meeting for July 11th 2018 this meeting has been duly 1066 00:51:46,440 --> 00:51:47,679 posted and we do have a 1067 00:51:47,679 --> 00:51:50,699 quorum present at this time I will ask that we all stand 1068 00:51:50,699 --> 00:51:52,079 and give the pledge to 1069 00:51:52,079 --> 00:51:57,480 us and the Texas flag and I'm gonna call us to order at 630 1070 00:52:17,679 --> 00:52:38,489 next order of business will be to consider approval of our 1071 00:52:38,489 --> 00:52:39,159 planning and 1072 00:52:39,159 --> 00:52:43,760 zoning Commission me minutes would chair entertain a motion 1073 00:52:43,760 --> 00:52:44,840 for these two items 1074 00:52:44,840 --> 00:52:48,199 individually Commissioner Roselle I move approval of the 1075 00:52:48,199 --> 00:52:49,719 June 13th minutes 1076 00:52:49,719 --> 00:52:54,469 Commissioner Beck second okay I have a first and a second 1077 00:52:54,469 --> 00:52:55,320 for approval any 1078 00:52:55,320 --> 00:53:00,050 further discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the 1079 00:53:00,050 --> 00:53:00,840 board and I'll 1080 00:53:00,840 --> 00:53:04,719 abstain I was absent on this one 1081 00:53:13,360 --> 00:53:18,239 that motion is going to carry five zero 1082 00:53:19,880 --> 00:53:23,639 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I move approval of the 1083 00:53:23,639 --> 00:53:25,000 June 27th minutes 1084 00:53:25,000 --> 00:53:29,280 okay Commissioner Roselle second okay we have a first and a 1085 00:53:29,280 --> 00:53:30,440 second for approval 1086 00:53:30,440 --> 00:53:35,510 any discussion or comments seeing none I'll call for a vote 1087 00:53:35,510 --> 00:53:38,679 on the board 1088 00:53:43,360 --> 00:53:54,920 motion is going to carry five zero we'll move us to our 1089 00:53:54,920 --> 00:53:58,280 consent agenda 1090 00:54:00,679 --> 00:54:04,639 Commissioner Smith motion to approve okay Commissioner Rose 1091 00:54:04,639 --> 00:54:06,320 lle second okay we 1092 00:54:06,320 --> 00:54:12,099 have a first and a second for approval any discussion or 1093 00:54:12,099 --> 00:54:13,880 questions seeing none 1094 00:54:13,880 --> 00:54:17,039 I'll call for a vote on the board 1095 00:54:23,280 --> 00:54:27,329 motions can carry six to zero move us to our items for 1096 00:54:27,329 --> 00:54:29,760 individual 1097 00:54:29,760 --> 00:54:36,880 consideration call on Julie Wyatt for presentation 1098 00:54:51,159 --> 00:54:55,679 good evening I'm Julie Wyatt and I am presenting PE 18 one 1099 00:54:55,679 --> 00:54:57,079 symbiosis edition 1100 00:54:57,079 --> 00:55:01,809 to you so the subject property is located adjacent to 1101 00:55:01,809 --> 00:55:02,719 Johnson Street just 1102 00:55:02,719 --> 00:55:06,869 west of it it is south of East Collins and in the vicinity 1103 00:55:06,869 --> 00:55:08,360 is Dallas Drive a 1104 00:55:08,360 --> 00:55:13,420 plot was proved approved for this site in on July 13th of 1105 00:55:13,420 --> 00:55:15,719 2016 as part of the 1106 00:55:15,719 --> 00:55:19,550 review of that plot it included some public improvements 1107 00:55:19,550 --> 00:55:20,400 including perimeter 1108 00:55:20,400 --> 00:55:24,010 street improvements some storm drain extensions as well as 1109 00:55:24,010 --> 00:55:25,599 a sidewalk and 1110 00:55:25,599 --> 00:55:28,469 today they are asking for an extension of that plot it's 1111 00:55:28,469 --> 00:55:29,559 lot one block one of 1112 00:55:29,559 --> 00:55:35,420 the symbiosis edition so under sub chapter 16 of the Denton 1113 00:55:35,420 --> 00:55:35,880 Development 1114 00:55:35,880 --> 00:55:39,739 Code final plots expire after two years if they are not 1115 00:55:39,739 --> 00:55:40,760 filed of record with 1116 00:55:40,760 --> 00:55:44,909 Denton County however sub chapter 16 also has a provision 1117 00:55:44,909 --> 00:55:45,960 that the Planning 1118 00:55:45,960 --> 00:55:50,110 and Zoning Commission can grant an extension if there is 1119 00:55:50,110 --> 00:55:50,960 good cause 1120 00:55:50,960 --> 00:55:53,750 according to the applicant though the construction costs 1121 00:55:53,750 --> 00:55:54,519 associated with those 1122 00:55:54,519 --> 00:55:57,309 public improvements that were required exceeded the 1123 00:55:57,309 --> 00:55:58,360 projected budget and 1124 00:55:58,360 --> 00:56:01,150 therefore it stalled the project and the plot was never 1125 00:56:01,150 --> 00:56:03,039 filed so at this time the 1126 00:56:03,039 --> 00:56:06,389 owner is asking a request an ex for an extension of the 1127 00:56:06,389 --> 00:56:07,840 existing plot because he 1128 00:56:07,840 --> 00:56:10,309 believes that some economic factors have changed and so 1129 00:56:10,309 --> 00:56:11,360 that the feasibility of 1130 00:56:11,360 --> 00:56:18,000 the project is now the project is more feasible so so he is 1131 00:56:18,000 --> 00:56:18,559 asking for that 1132 00:56:18,559 --> 00:56:22,400 extension we have reviewed the request for the extension 1133 00:56:22,400 --> 00:56:23,280 and determined that 1134 00:56:23,280 --> 00:56:27,840 the delay that was created for the public improvements war 1135 00:56:27,840 --> 00:56:28,239 rants an 1136 00:56:28,239 --> 00:56:31,969 extension there was some question in the in the work 1137 00:56:31,969 --> 00:56:33,679 session regarding the 1138 00:56:33,679 --> 00:56:36,659 criteria the the numbers of extensions that could be 1139 00:56:36,659 --> 00:56:38,280 granted and then for the 1140 00:56:38,280 --> 00:56:41,909 the duration of the extensions and so we looked at the code 1141 00:56:41,909 --> 00:56:43,760 and we talked the 1142 00:56:43,760 --> 00:56:47,909 code says an extension so to me that reads that that per 1143 00:56:47,909 --> 00:56:48,920 the code one 1144 00:56:48,920 --> 00:56:51,530 extension should be granted so we tried to come up with 1145 00:56:51,530 --> 00:56:52,599 some ideas because I 1146 00:56:52,599 --> 00:56:56,900 know the discussion was centered around with six months 1147 00:56:56,900 --> 00:56:57,880 enough time for the 1148 00:56:57,880 --> 00:57:01,840 applicant to move forward with those public improvements 1149 00:57:01,840 --> 00:57:02,079 and those 1150 00:57:02,079 --> 00:57:06,829 development contracts associated with it so so one idea is 1151 00:57:06,829 --> 00:57:08,679 to approve a plot 1152 00:57:08,679 --> 00:57:13,699 extension for six months with an option to to have another 1153 00:57:13,699 --> 00:57:15,079 extension if they 1154 00:57:15,079 --> 00:57:17,869 have made progress toward those development contracts and 1155 00:57:17,869 --> 00:57:18,639 moving toward 1156 00:57:18,639 --> 00:57:25,139 that that that filing of the plot so that's one option that 1157 00:57:25,139 --> 00:57:25,519 you could 1158 00:57:25,519 --> 00:57:28,650 approve the plot extension with the option for an 1159 00:57:28,650 --> 00:57:30,920 additional extension this 1160 00:57:30,920 --> 00:57:34,989 body could also approve a plot extension for a year or any 1161 00:57:34,989 --> 00:57:36,280 timeline that that you 1162 00:57:36,280 --> 00:57:41,050 see fit so those are kind of your options or or deny so 1163 00:57:41,050 --> 00:57:42,000 those are the 1164 00:57:42,000 --> 00:57:44,219 options before you I'll stand for any questions and I 1165 00:57:44,219 --> 00:57:45,320 believe a representative 1166 00:57:45,320 --> 00:57:48,420 of the applicant is here and he can answer any questions 1167 00:57:48,420 --> 00:57:50,119 you have a couple 1168 00:57:50,119 --> 00:57:53,320 questions questioner Ozel thank you chair the expiration 1169 00:57:53,320 --> 00:57:54,519 for this is this 1170 00:57:54,519 --> 00:57:58,239 Friday yes sir for clarification this our vote is the final 1171 00:57:58,239 --> 00:57:58,639 doesn't go to 1172 00:57:58,639 --> 00:58:02,400 council correct correct okay thanks 1173 00:58:03,320 --> 00:58:16,360 Commissioner Beck thank you chair okay the six month 1174 00:58:16,360 --> 00:58:18,719 extension are we going to 1175 00:58:18,719 --> 00:58:22,880 establish criteria then for things that have to be done 1176 00:58:22,880 --> 00:58:24,440 during that extension 1177 00:58:24,440 --> 00:58:30,480 before we can extend it another six months okay you said if 1178 00:58:30,480 --> 00:58:31,440 after the six 1179 00:58:31,440 --> 00:58:34,230 months they need another extension we could do that based 1180 00:58:34,230 --> 00:58:35,440 on what development 1181 00:58:35,440 --> 00:58:38,840 some criteria that have to me well and and it is it is 1182 00:58:38,840 --> 00:58:41,039 ultimately up to you but 1183 00:58:41,039 --> 00:58:43,969 there you could put in that approval that there had to 1184 00:58:43,969 --> 00:58:45,440 there would need to be 1185 00:58:45,440 --> 00:58:49,269 progress made toward the development contracts associated 1186 00:58:49,269 --> 00:58:50,280 with the public 1187 00:58:50,280 --> 00:58:53,699 improvement so the typical development process within the 1188 00:58:53,699 --> 00:58:54,440 city of Denton is 1189 00:58:54,440 --> 00:58:57,579 once the plot is approved they have to work with our 1190 00:58:57,579 --> 00:58:58,679 engineering and legal 1191 00:58:58,679 --> 00:59:02,300 department to get development contracts signed as well as a 1192 00:59:02,300 --> 00:59:04,000 fiscal surety and so 1193 00:59:04,000 --> 00:59:07,699 if that is something that could be put it as a condition 1194 00:59:07,699 --> 00:59:09,360 that progress would be 1195 00:59:09,360 --> 00:59:13,559 neat would need to be made toward completing those items so 1196 00:59:13,559 --> 00:59:14,480 it's moving 1197 00:59:14,480 --> 00:59:17,269 toward the filing of the plates of impetus form right 1198 00:59:17,269 --> 00:59:18,239 because at this time 1199 00:59:18,239 --> 00:59:21,210 they have not submitted any development contracts they 1200 00:59:21,210 --> 00:59:22,199 haven't moved forward 1201 00:59:22,199 --> 00:59:29,469 with any of those requirements all right thank you sure don 1202 00:59:29,469 --> 00:59:30,000 't see any other 1203 00:59:30,000 --> 00:59:34,349 questions for you thank you Julie might want to stay close 1204 00:59:34,349 --> 00:59:36,440 this is a item for 1205 00:59:36,440 --> 00:59:38,900 individual consideration so if there is someone who would 1206 00:59:38,900 --> 00:59:39,760 like to speak on this 1207 00:59:39,760 --> 00:59:43,019 item you're welcome to come forward at this time if you'll 1208 00:59:43,019 --> 00:59:44,199 give us your name 1209 00:59:44,199 --> 00:59:46,719 and address and if you haven't already filled out a card if 1210 00:59:46,719 --> 00:59:47,519 you'll fill out a 1211 00:59:47,519 --> 00:59:50,579 card before you leave we'd appreciate it I have not filled 1212 00:59:50,579 --> 00:59:51,119 out a card but I will great my 1213 00:59:51,119 --> 00:59:54,219 name is Jim Dewey with JDJR engineers I'm the engineer of 1214 00:59:54,219 --> 00:59:54,840 record for this 1215 00:59:54,840 --> 00:59:57,260 project I'm here tonight on behalf of the property owner 1216 00:59:57,260 --> 00:59:57,760 and develop 1217 00:59:57,760 --> 01:00:02,039 developer he does own all the property he has intentions of 1218 01:00:02,039 --> 01:00:02,920 developing it when 1219 01:00:02,920 --> 01:00:06,239 we came through a couple of years ago several requirements 1220 01:00:06,239 --> 01:00:07,360 came up through the 1221 01:00:07,360 --> 01:00:11,679 approval process that quite frankly we weren't expecting I 1222 01:00:11,679 --> 01:00:12,840 'm sure you all for 1223 01:00:12,840 --> 01:00:15,940 me with this area of town it is an area that would be great 1224 01:00:15,940 --> 01:00:16,440 for redevelopment 1225 01:00:16,440 --> 01:00:20,510 and I think this project would be a win for the city as 1226 01:00:20,510 --> 01:00:22,559 well as that area as a 1227 01:00:22,559 --> 01:00:25,889 redevelopment some of these old houses into my student 1228 01:00:25,889 --> 01:00:27,360 housing but the things 1229 01:00:27,360 --> 01:00:30,929 that came up that were unexpected where we had to improve a 1230 01:00:30,929 --> 01:00:31,880 portion of the 1231 01:00:31,880 --> 01:00:34,760 street street out there Johnson Road is just an asphalt 1232 01:00:34,760 --> 01:00:35,960 drive we're having to 1233 01:00:35,960 --> 01:00:40,280 put in part of the concrete and carbon gutter on our side 1234 01:00:40,280 --> 01:00:41,880 just for the piece in 1235 01:00:41,880 --> 01:00:45,630 front of us with no idea how long other pieces will be 1236 01:00:45,630 --> 01:00:48,599 there in addition to that 1237 01:00:48,599 --> 01:00:51,969 we required there's no existing storm drain system out 1238 01:00:51,969 --> 01:00:53,119 there and so we're 1239 01:00:53,119 --> 01:00:57,079 required to do stormwater detention which we did a design 1240 01:00:57,079 --> 01:00:58,199 for stormwater 1241 01:00:58,199 --> 01:01:01,019 detention and let it back out into the bar ditch along the 1242 01:01:01,019 --> 01:01:02,320 street but the Ditten 1243 01:01:02,320 --> 01:01:05,420 code requires if you do detention there has to be an 1244 01:01:05,420 --> 01:01:07,280 underground outlet you 1245 01:01:07,280 --> 01:01:11,340 can't just release it back into the street since there's no 1246 01:01:11,340 --> 01:01:12,280 storm drain 1247 01:01:12,280 --> 01:01:16,809 system there we had to do it's four or five hundred feet of 1248 01:01:16,809 --> 01:01:17,679 storm drain 1249 01:01:17,679 --> 01:01:21,440 existing down Johnson to the north to an existing system 1250 01:01:21,440 --> 01:01:22,960 and the only place that 1251 01:01:22,960 --> 01:01:26,559 could be put was down the middle of the street so in 1252 01:01:26,559 --> 01:01:27,679 addition to the cost of 1253 01:01:27,679 --> 01:01:29,960 installing that storm drain system there's a cost of 1254 01:01:29,960 --> 01:01:30,960 repairing the street 1255 01:01:30,960 --> 01:01:35,289 as you go and for a project of this size that is a very 1256 01:01:35,289 --> 01:01:37,260 significant both of those 1257 01:01:37,260 --> 01:01:41,840 factors are very significant to the budget so quite frankly 1258 01:01:41,840 --> 01:01:43,239 the owner put it 1259 01:01:43,239 --> 01:01:45,659 off for a little while thinking even and then try to sell 1260 01:01:45,659 --> 01:01:46,519 the property as an 1261 01:01:46,519 --> 01:01:49,789 approved project and not build it himself but he was not 1262 01:01:49,789 --> 01:01:51,559 successful he does intend 1263 01:01:51,559 --> 01:01:54,000 to build it he wants to build it he's in the process of 1264 01:01:54,000 --> 01:01:55,239 obtaining financing and 1265 01:01:55,239 --> 01:02:00,280 he wants to move forward we were thinking that basically 1266 01:02:00,280 --> 01:02:01,440 the the extension 1267 01:02:01,440 --> 01:02:04,539 only gives us till December which at this point is really 1268 01:02:04,539 --> 01:02:05,519 only five months 1269 01:02:05,519 --> 01:02:10,010 it's not really even a six month extension so we were 1270 01:02:10,010 --> 01:02:11,420 hoping for some 1271 01:02:11,420 --> 01:02:15,869 type of either a longer extension or some type of automatic 1272 01:02:15,869 --> 01:02:17,719 renewal like Julie 1273 01:02:17,719 --> 01:02:20,639 said that maybe we can show that we've made some progress 1274 01:02:20,639 --> 01:02:21,719 we're open to either 1275 01:02:21,719 --> 01:02:25,869 one we would prefer a 12 month extension if that's 1276 01:02:25,869 --> 01:02:27,360 something that the 1277 01:02:27,360 --> 01:02:30,150 Commission doesn't feel is appropriate we can certainly 1278 01:02:30,150 --> 01:02:31,320 live with the six month 1279 01:02:31,320 --> 01:02:35,039 extension but we would like an opportunity to have what has 1280 01:02:35,039 --> 01:02:35,840 been told to 1281 01:02:35,840 --> 01:02:39,619 us is because of the code unless y'all specifically stip 1282 01:02:39,619 --> 01:02:41,480 ulate we only get one 1283 01:02:41,480 --> 01:02:46,449 extension and so that's really pushing it we would take the 1284 01:02:46,449 --> 01:02:48,000 five month extension 1285 01:02:48,000 --> 01:02:51,099 if that's all we can get but it would be nice to have at 1286 01:02:51,099 --> 01:02:52,039 least a method to 1287 01:02:52,039 --> 01:02:55,610 extend it at least one more time up to six months so I'd 1288 01:02:55,610 --> 01:02:57,360 respectfully request 1289 01:02:57,360 --> 01:03:02,269 that this Commission somehow grant us a little longer than 1290 01:03:02,269 --> 01:03:03,960 five months I'd be 1291 01:03:03,960 --> 01:03:06,219 glad to answer you have answer any of the questions you 1292 01:03:06,219 --> 01:03:07,000 have regarding this 1293 01:03:07,000 --> 01:03:09,239 project do you have a question so far on the board 1294 01:03:09,239 --> 01:03:10,599 Commissioner Smith sure I 1295 01:03:10,599 --> 01:03:15,400 didn't catch you last time mr. Dewey D EWI gotcha mr. Dewey 1296 01:03:15,400 --> 01:03:15,880 you are the 1297 01:03:15,880 --> 01:03:19,920 engineer correct you said yes sir okay money not an object 1298 01:03:19,920 --> 01:03:20,800 if you started the 1299 01:03:20,800 --> 01:03:24,119 project tomorrow had everything you need what timeline 1300 01:03:24,119 --> 01:03:25,559 would you have to have to 1301 01:03:25,559 --> 01:03:28,349 be able to get everything done to get this project done to 1302 01:03:28,349 --> 01:03:28,880 where you can 1303 01:03:28,880 --> 01:03:31,670 submit the plat or submit the okay the only thing needed 1304 01:03:31,670 --> 01:03:32,280 the plat has been 1305 01:03:32,280 --> 01:03:36,869 approved it hasn't been recorded right to file the plat we 1306 01:03:36,869 --> 01:03:37,440 have to have 1307 01:03:37,440 --> 01:03:41,199 development contracts in and then all the fees that are due 1308 01:03:41,199 --> 01:03:42,760 to impact and 1309 01:03:42,760 --> 01:03:45,579 there's those are quite substantial so we don't really have 1310 01:03:45,579 --> 01:03:46,400 to have started 1311 01:03:46,400 --> 01:03:48,909 construction as much as they have to know the projects 1312 01:03:48,909 --> 01:03:50,119 going forward and fund 1313 01:03:50,119 --> 01:03:53,400 all the upfront fees so there's no no actual physical 1314 01:03:53,400 --> 01:03:54,320 changes need to happen 1315 01:03:54,320 --> 01:03:56,510 to the property as of right now that's correct so what 1316 01:03:56,510 --> 01:03:57,639 financing has been done 1317 01:03:57,639 --> 01:04:01,239 so far I am not the owner I know that he is actively 1318 01:04:01,239 --> 01:04:03,320 pursuing that at this moment 1319 01:04:03,320 --> 01:04:06,639 he thinks he can get it done by the end of the year okay 1320 01:04:06,639 --> 01:04:08,519 but that's pushing it 1321 01:04:08,519 --> 01:04:12,980 okay what would the owner do if this does expire if the 1322 01:04:12,980 --> 01:04:14,760 plat expires then the 1323 01:04:14,760 --> 01:04:18,309 project is dead and and to develop it a new plat would have 1324 01:04:18,309 --> 01:04:19,360 to come back before 1325 01:04:19,360 --> 01:04:23,789 this Commission so you would you would expect to hold it he 1326 01:04:23,789 --> 01:04:25,159 wouldn't sell it as 1327 01:04:25,159 --> 01:04:28,199 an improved project he would cancel as a project he wouldn 1328 01:04:28,199 --> 01:04:28,760 't even sell just for 1329 01:04:28,760 --> 01:04:33,420 the raw land he would just hold it that would be my best 1330 01:04:33,420 --> 01:04:37,039 guess okay thank you a 1331 01:04:37,039 --> 01:04:40,599 couple more questions now Commissioner Beck thank you chair 1332 01:04:40,599 --> 01:04:41,559 mr. Dewey thank you 1333 01:04:41,559 --> 01:04:45,360 for your presentation I'd like to see that area developed 1334 01:04:45,360 --> 01:04:46,360 too for the reasons 1335 01:04:46,360 --> 01:04:48,800 I think we all agree that this is a primary that needs to 1336 01:04:48,800 --> 01:04:49,719 be developed it's 1337 01:04:49,719 --> 01:04:54,469 been lingering too long I guess and I think I'm hearing 1338 01:04:54,469 --> 01:04:55,760 this from you if you 1339 01:04:55,760 --> 01:05:00,219 had enough time you may be even more than this extension 1340 01:05:00,219 --> 01:05:01,679 allows that you 1341 01:05:01,679 --> 01:05:05,690 would be moving forward with that sounds like apartment 1342 01:05:05,690 --> 01:05:10,360 units yes okay so the 1343 01:05:10,360 --> 01:05:14,239 only thing that would probably hold you up would be lack of 1344 01:05:14,239 --> 01:05:15,679 financing minutes 1345 01:05:15,679 --> 01:05:21,539 that's correct as far as time goes okay okay thank you 1346 01:05:21,539 --> 01:05:23,000 Commissioner Ellis thank 1347 01:05:23,000 --> 01:05:25,880 you chair hi mr. Dewey do you have any development 1348 01:05:25,880 --> 01:05:27,320 contracts in place currently 1349 01:05:27,320 --> 01:05:32,039 he has obtained bids for everything he does not have any 1350 01:05:32,039 --> 01:05:33,719 contracts in place 1351 01:05:33,719 --> 01:05:36,159 these have to be for all the public improvements they have 1352 01:05:36,159 --> 01:05:36,920 to be contracts 1353 01:05:36,920 --> 01:05:39,519 through the city and three-way contracts that process is 1354 01:05:39,519 --> 01:05:42,039 not started he is he has 1355 01:05:42,039 --> 01:05:46,679 gotten contractor bids he knows what it's going to cost to 1356 01:05:46,679 --> 01:05:47,559 build this project 1357 01:05:47,559 --> 01:05:50,650 of course he's owns the property sure he's going to put in 1358 01:05:50,650 --> 01:05:51,480 a little bit of 1359 01:05:51,480 --> 01:05:54,269 money but he needs financing for the balance of the project 1360 01:05:54,269 --> 01:05:56,119 and that based on 1361 01:05:56,119 --> 01:05:59,969 these off-site improvements to most lenders it looks a 1362 01:05:59,969 --> 01:06:01,920 little high because 1363 01:06:01,920 --> 01:06:03,820 we're not just developing our own property but as I 1364 01:06:03,820 --> 01:06:04,760 discussed we're doing 1365 01:06:04,760 --> 01:06:08,199 some off-site public improvements that was required for 1366 01:06:08,199 --> 01:06:10,159 plan approval and so 1367 01:06:10,159 --> 01:06:13,119 it's been a little more difficult now quite frankly I'm 1368 01:06:13,119 --> 01:06:14,360 just telling you what 1369 01:06:14,360 --> 01:06:18,429 he told me you know he kind of put it off for 12 months of 1370 01:06:18,429 --> 01:06:19,079 our two years 1371 01:06:19,079 --> 01:06:21,869 trying to sell it we did have a couple of interested 1372 01:06:21,869 --> 01:06:23,440 parties call us interested 1373 01:06:23,440 --> 01:06:26,780 in buying it those fell through probably for the same 1374 01:06:26,780 --> 01:06:28,719 reason he has no desire to 1375 01:06:28,719 --> 01:06:31,869 own this property forever he would like to build the 1376 01:06:31,869 --> 01:06:34,599 project and move on so he 1377 01:06:34,599 --> 01:06:37,219 has told me he has all intentions of building his way out 1378 01:06:37,219 --> 01:06:38,519 of this project it 1379 01:06:38,519 --> 01:06:41,409 will be a nice project once it's in I think it'll be 1380 01:06:41,409 --> 01:06:43,920 successful I just he's 1381 01:06:43,920 --> 01:06:48,320 got to finish financing but he is working on it hard now 1382 01:06:48,320 --> 01:06:49,800 continue sure 1383 01:06:49,800 --> 01:06:53,280 thank you so I guess just so I understand maybe the 1384 01:06:53,280 --> 01:06:54,039 background so he 1385 01:06:54,039 --> 01:06:58,079 didn't really strive to get financing at the beginning 1386 01:06:58,079 --> 01:06:59,639 after he realized what it 1387 01:06:59,639 --> 01:07:02,800 was going to cost he my understanding is he did and was 1388 01:07:02,800 --> 01:07:03,960 having problems due to 1389 01:07:03,960 --> 01:07:07,340 the cost of the project okay so then went to focus on 1390 01:07:07,340 --> 01:07:09,079 selling it and now is 1391 01:07:09,079 --> 01:07:12,519 back to refocused on financing and yes ma'am understood 1392 01:07:12,519 --> 01:07:15,039 thank you 1393 01:07:16,400 --> 01:07:20,550 Commissioner Smith thank you chair mr. do with in your 1394 01:07:20,550 --> 01:07:21,519 experience as being an 1395 01:07:21,519 --> 01:07:24,670 engineer on these types of product projects the timeline 1396 01:07:24,670 --> 01:07:25,679 for someone to get 1397 01:07:25,679 --> 01:07:28,219 financing for this type project how long I think that 1398 01:07:28,219 --> 01:07:30,239 process would take oh it 1399 01:07:30,239 --> 01:07:33,340 can vary from a few weeks to a few months you feel like six 1400 01:07:33,340 --> 01:07:34,400 months is too 1401 01:07:34,400 --> 01:07:38,480 short of time I think well if we hit you know six months 1402 01:07:38,480 --> 01:07:39,320 from today is into 1403 01:07:39,320 --> 01:07:43,199 January I know that's that I was actually asked that stuff 1404 01:07:43,199 --> 01:07:43,360 about that so 1405 01:07:43,360 --> 01:07:47,219 but because you're right it was pushing it I mean he has 1406 01:07:47,219 --> 01:07:48,239 told me that if that's 1407 01:07:48,239 --> 01:07:51,030 the only extension we get he will do his best to make that 1408 01:07:51,030 --> 01:07:52,519 to make that deadline 1409 01:07:52,519 --> 01:07:56,230 okay because he doesn't want it to expire and us to have to 1410 01:07:56,230 --> 01:07:56,920 start over now 1411 01:07:56,920 --> 01:08:00,050 as he has intentions of building it but it is a very 1412 01:08:00,050 --> 01:08:01,880 aggressive timeline to get 1413 01:08:01,880 --> 01:08:04,920 this all completed so as soon as he has financing he's able 1414 01:08:04,920 --> 01:08:06,719 to file his plat yes 1415 01:08:06,719 --> 01:08:11,199 okay understood but staff Julie if we can have you come 1416 01:08:11,199 --> 01:08:11,800 back up here for one 1417 01:08:11,800 --> 01:08:18,229 second did we did we do bad maths on this one did we move 1418 01:08:18,229 --> 01:08:19,079 to Colorado and 1419 01:08:19,079 --> 01:08:22,640 forgot how to add it's okay so I apologize yes that was 1420 01:08:22,640 --> 01:08:23,399 that was my 1421 01:08:23,399 --> 01:08:32,079 mistake January okay no more thank you Commissioner back 1422 01:08:32,079 --> 01:08:33,319 thank you chair mr. 1423 01:08:33,319 --> 01:08:38,350 Dewey on financing have you looked at all your options in 1424 01:08:38,350 --> 01:08:39,960 other words is it 1425 01:08:39,960 --> 01:08:42,449 are you looking for private financing or have you 1426 01:08:42,449 --> 01:08:44,399 considered HUD to be completely 1427 01:08:44,399 --> 01:08:48,359 honest with you I'm an engineer okay so you don't know you 1428 01:08:48,359 --> 01:08:49,159 couldn't I have not 1429 01:08:49,159 --> 01:08:52,569 been involved in the financing I am relaying he was 1430 01:08:52,569 --> 01:08:53,760 supposed to be here 1431 01:08:53,760 --> 01:08:56,310 tonight and answer these questions unfortunately he hasn't 1432 01:08:56,310 --> 01:08:57,079 showed up yet but 1433 01:08:57,079 --> 01:09:01,539 I am simply telling what he's told me okay I am sure that 1434 01:09:01,539 --> 01:09:02,840 it's all private 1435 01:09:02,840 --> 01:09:11,079 finance okay thank you this is an item for individual 1436 01:09:11,079 --> 01:09:12,000 consideration if there's 1437 01:09:12,000 --> 01:09:14,609 anyone else who would like to speak on this item you're 1438 01:09:14,609 --> 01:09:17,640 welcome to at this time 1439 01:09:19,720 --> 01:09:26,130 that floor is open for this further discussion or a motion 1440 01:09:26,130 --> 01:09:28,319 Commissioner 1441 01:09:28,319 --> 01:09:34,180 Smith I make a motion to adopt the PE but with a six month 1442 01:09:34,180 --> 01:09:37,920 to January 11th 2018 1443 01:09:37,920 --> 01:09:42,890 and the option for a renewal of another six month period 1444 01:09:42,890 --> 01:09:44,840 and if I can make it on 1445 01:09:44,840 --> 01:09:47,739 the record I think that in this motion I would really want 1446 01:09:47,739 --> 01:09:48,600 to see the owner 1447 01:09:48,600 --> 01:09:53,329 one show up to his own item and two if he doesn't get 1448 01:09:53,329 --> 01:09:55,319 financing in six months 1449 01:09:55,319 --> 01:09:59,720 we better have a really good reason of why not so that is 1450 01:09:59,720 --> 01:10:02,000 my motion okay 1451 01:10:02,000 --> 01:10:05,239 Commissioner Beck I concur with everything that 1452 01:10:05,239 --> 01:10:06,439 Commissioner Smith just 1453 01:10:06,439 --> 01:10:12,560 point out so I second okay I have a first and a second for 1454 01:10:12,560 --> 01:10:13,520 approval of the 1455 01:10:13,520 --> 01:10:17,239 extension for six months with a six month option for a 1456 01:10:17,239 --> 01:10:19,439 possible second any 1457 01:10:19,439 --> 01:10:27,680 further discussion Commissioner Ellis thank you chair quick 1458 01:10:27,680 --> 01:10:28,399 question is there 1459 01:10:28,399 --> 01:10:33,720 a cost to requesting the extension of a plat 1460 01:10:37,760 --> 01:10:48,760 I think it might be $250 maybe I have to look at the fee 1461 01:10:48,760 --> 01:10:50,359 this I think the first 1462 01:10:50,359 --> 01:10:53,500 one we've ever we've ever done I just don't recall the fee 1463 01:10:53,500 --> 01:10:56,479 off the top my head 1464 01:11:04,600 --> 01:11:12,270 Karen our planning tech is nodding it's 250 so we have a 1465 01:11:12,270 --> 01:11:16,880 motion and a second on 1466 01:11:16,880 --> 01:11:21,000 the floor any further discussion 1467 01:11:23,640 --> 01:11:27,840 okay let's call for a vote on board 1468 01:11:34,600 --> 01:11:39,600 much is going to carry six to zero that will move us to our 1469 01:11:39,600 --> 01:11:40,079 luck with your 1470 01:11:40,079 --> 01:11:45,149 project that will move us to our public hearing section 1471 01:11:45,149 --> 01:11:46,680 this evening at this 1472 01:11:46,680 --> 01:11:52,810 time I'm open the public hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 2 8 C and 1473 01:11:52,810 --> 01:11:54,600 we'll call on Cindy 1474 01:11:54,600 --> 01:11:58,159 Jackson for presentation 1475 01:12:00,560 --> 01:12:21,960 thank you okay Z 17 - 0 0 2 8 is a request for to assign an 1476 01:12:21,960 --> 01:12:22,680 initial zoning 1477 01:12:22,680 --> 01:12:27,880 designation of neighborhood residential 6 and our 6 to 1478 01:12:27,880 --> 01:12:30,239 approximately 73.47 1479 01:12:30,239 --> 01:12:33,890 acres with the intention to develop a single-family subdiv 1480 01:12:33,890 --> 01:12:35,359 ision subdivision is 1481 01:12:35,359 --> 01:12:38,800 proposed to have an over have a density of 4.7 dwelling 1482 01:12:38,800 --> 01:12:41,000 units per acre in the 1483 01:12:41,000 --> 01:12:47,279 sex in the subject area current zoning is already 5x which 1484 01:12:47,279 --> 01:12:49,520 is the zoning that 1485 01:12:49,520 --> 01:12:52,350 we give the holding zoning we give to newly annexed 1486 01:12:52,350 --> 01:12:53,800 properties the site was 1487 01:12:53,800 --> 01:12:59,189 annexed into the city in approximately January and here you 1488 01:12:59,189 --> 01:13:00,600 see the site as 1489 01:13:00,600 --> 01:13:07,159 proposed with the NR six zoning the subject site is 1490 01:13:07,159 --> 01:13:10,000 designated rural areas 1491 01:13:10,000 --> 01:13:14,800 on the future land use map it's located at the edge of the 1492 01:13:14,800 --> 01:13:16,520 developed area of the 1493 01:13:16,520 --> 01:13:23,250 city on the north side of the loop developers have recently 1494 01:13:23,250 --> 01:13:24,800 been inquiring 1495 01:13:24,800 --> 01:13:27,779 regarding the future development of land located in this 1496 01:13:27,779 --> 01:13:29,000 area so we expect to see 1497 01:13:29,000 --> 01:13:33,149 more development in this area when a rezoning request does 1498 01:13:33,149 --> 01:13:34,319 not conform to this 1499 01:13:34,319 --> 01:13:37,710 future land use designation as this one does not the DDC 1500 01:13:37,710 --> 01:13:39,640 provides additional 1501 01:13:39,640 --> 01:13:45,949 criteria in subsection 35 3 3b 3 as noted in your backup 1502 01:13:45,949 --> 01:13:47,199 the site complies 1503 01:13:47,199 --> 01:13:50,489 with the additional criteria and I will in my presentation 1504 01:13:50,489 --> 01:13:51,159 hit on some 1505 01:13:51,159 --> 01:14:01,359 highlights per the mobility plan the site has 2800 and 1506 01:14:01,359 --> 01:14:02,960 three linear square feet of 1507 01:14:02,960 --> 01:14:08,300 frontage on long road which is a collector roadway and when 1508 01:14:08,300 --> 01:14:09,680 the entire site 1509 01:14:09,680 --> 01:14:12,779 is subdivided and includes the property along Sherman it 1510 01:14:12,779 --> 01:14:14,199 will also have frontage 1511 01:14:14,199 --> 01:14:20,989 along Sherman which is a arterial moderate density moderate 1512 01:14:20,989 --> 01:14:21,800 density single 1513 01:14:21,800 --> 01:14:26,720 family is a good location a good use in this location it's 1514 01:14:26,720 --> 01:14:27,479 appropriate along 1515 01:14:27,479 --> 01:14:31,800 collectors and arterials long road and Sherman Road will 1516 01:14:31,800 --> 01:14:33,199 provide adequate 1517 01:14:33,199 --> 01:14:40,170 visibility and access based on the the size of the site and 1518 01:14:40,170 --> 01:14:41,119 the number of 1519 01:14:41,119 --> 01:14:46,189 projected home sites the city required a traffic impact 1520 01:14:46,189 --> 01:14:48,279 analysis to ensure the 1521 01:14:48,279 --> 01:14:53,359 infrastructure will be provided the TI recommendations are 1522 01:14:53,359 --> 01:14:54,359 the construction of 1523 01:14:54,359 --> 01:14:59,409 a street a which is a long long road with two egress lanes 1524 01:14:59,409 --> 01:15:00,560 to allow for 1525 01:15:00,560 --> 01:15:03,949 dedicated right and left turn lanes construction of a north 1526 01:15:03,949 --> 01:15:05,039 bound dedicated 1527 01:15:05,039 --> 01:15:07,829 left turn lane and construction of a southbound dedicated 1528 01:15:07,829 --> 01:15:08,560 left turn lane 1529 01:15:08,560 --> 01:15:12,789 along Sherman Road and signalization of the intersection of 1530 01:15:12,789 --> 01:15:14,000 the service roads for 1531 01:15:14,000 --> 01:15:20,329 loop 288 and East Sherman the improvements recommended will 1532 01:15:20,329 --> 01:15:20,680 be 1533 01:15:20,680 --> 01:15:23,470 achieved through the use of roadway impact fees paid by 1534 01:15:23,470 --> 01:15:24,479 developments which 1535 01:15:24,479 --> 01:15:27,729 would utilize the intersections the amount of the impact 1536 01:15:27,729 --> 01:15:28,800 fee is determined 1537 01:15:28,800 --> 01:15:32,760 by a proportionality study which will be completed at plat 1538 01:15:32,760 --> 01:15:38,760 ting at this time the 1539 01:15:38,760 --> 01:15:42,050 proportionality fee is actually based on the number of 1540 01:15:42,050 --> 01:15:43,640 projected trips based on 1541 01:15:43,640 --> 01:15:49,500 the number of single-family homes that are anticipated as 1542 01:15:49,500 --> 01:15:50,600 well as the 1543 01:15:50,600 --> 01:15:58,239 designation of the adjacent roadways with regards to 1544 01:15:58,239 --> 01:16:01,600 compatibility the 1545 01:16:01,600 --> 01:16:08,810 subject site is surrounded by why is it doing that it's 1546 01:16:08,810 --> 01:16:10,720 surrounded by already 5x 1547 01:16:10,720 --> 01:16:16,579 to the north then our four to the east and our three to the 1548 01:16:16,579 --> 01:16:17,439 south these are 1549 01:16:17,439 --> 01:16:21,260 institutional uses and then we've got in our six single- 1550 01:16:21,260 --> 01:16:22,840 family down here and in 1551 01:16:22,840 --> 01:16:29,300 our four single-family over here the site is compatible 1552 01:16:29,300 --> 01:16:30,880 with both the the 1553 01:16:30,880 --> 01:16:35,869 current development as well as the anticipated development 1554 01:16:35,869 --> 01:16:40,159 in the area the 1555 01:16:40,159 --> 01:16:43,670 development when we'll have to comply with all of the ESA 1556 01:16:43,670 --> 01:16:44,960 tree preservation 1557 01:16:44,960 --> 01:16:48,920 buffer screening tree canopy and lighting requirements and 1558 01:16:48,920 --> 01:16:49,880 both water and 1559 01:16:49,880 --> 01:16:55,020 wastewater are available to the site from Long Road staff 1560 01:16:55,020 --> 01:16:56,920 sent out public 1561 01:16:56,920 --> 01:17:01,119 notifications on June 10th within 200 feet we sent three 1562 01:17:01,119 --> 01:17:02,399 certified notices and 1563 01:17:02,399 --> 01:17:06,560 within 500 feet we also sent three courtesy notices the 1564 01:17:06,560 --> 01:17:08,119 response we received 1565 01:17:08,119 --> 01:17:11,689 one response in favor of the site located on the north side 1566 01:17:11,689 --> 01:17:12,520 of the subject 1567 01:17:12,520 --> 01:17:16,220 property representing 23% of the land located within the 1568 01:17:16,220 --> 01:17:19,600 200 foot buffer staff 1569 01:17:19,600 --> 01:17:22,039 recommends approval of this request with the following 1570 01:17:22,039 --> 01:17:23,479 recommendations the 1571 01:17:23,479 --> 01:17:25,850 planning and zoning Commission in the City Council place an 1572 01:17:25,850 --> 01:17:26,479 overlay on the 1573 01:17:26,479 --> 01:17:29,649 subject site with the following conditions the use of the 1574 01:17:29,649 --> 01:17:30,359 property is 1575 01:17:30,359 --> 01:17:33,359 restricted to single-family detached housing at a maximum 1576 01:17:33,359 --> 01:17:34,319 density of four point 1577 01:17:34,319 --> 01:17:39,130 seven dwelling units per acre pursuant to DDC 35 1610 a 1578 01:17:39,130 --> 01:17:40,479 general development plan 1579 01:17:40,479 --> 01:17:43,579 will be required to ensure that adequate public facilities 1580 01:17:43,579 --> 01:17:44,319 to support the 1581 01:17:44,319 --> 01:17:47,170 development will be provided in a manner proportionate to 1582 01:17:47,170 --> 01:17:48,079 the impacts of the 1583 01:17:48,079 --> 01:17:52,260 development at the proper phases of development including 1584 01:17:52,260 --> 01:17:53,960 but not limited to 1585 01:17:53,960 --> 01:17:57,340 the Dell developer will contribute to the cost of signal 1586 01:17:57,340 --> 01:17:58,199 lights at the 1587 01:17:58,199 --> 01:18:01,050 intersection of Sherman Drive Long Road and Sherman Drive 1588 01:18:01,050 --> 01:18:03,039 and loop 288 mount to 1589 01:18:03,039 --> 01:18:07,680 be based on proportionality northbound left turn lane and 1590 01:18:07,680 --> 01:18:08,680 southbound right turn 1591 01:18:08,680 --> 01:18:13,880 lane deceleration lanes will be provided along Sherman the 1592 01:18:13,880 --> 01:18:15,000 developer will 1593 01:18:15,000 --> 01:18:17,390 contribute to the cost of a dedicated right turn lane at 1594 01:18:17,390 --> 01:18:18,399 the intersection of 1595 01:18:18,399 --> 01:18:23,319 Sherman Road and loop 2288 amount based on proportionality 1596 01:18:23,319 --> 01:18:25,399 that concludes my 1597 01:18:25,399 --> 01:18:28,779 presentation and the applicant is present if you have 1598 01:18:28,779 --> 01:18:30,760 questions got some 1599 01:18:30,760 --> 01:18:35,600 questions Commissioner Beck thank you chair Cindy the 1600 01:18:35,600 --> 01:18:36,840 recommendation that a 1601 01:18:36,840 --> 01:18:40,000 traffic signal light be provided at long road in Sherman 1602 01:18:40,000 --> 01:18:41,140 now that wasn't the 1603 01:18:41,140 --> 01:18:45,720 result of the TIA was it no that was not the TIA that was 1604 01:18:45,720 --> 01:18:46,720 that was something that 1605 01:18:46,720 --> 01:18:50,960 staff anticipates will be required at plotting and I agree 1606 01:18:50,960 --> 01:18:51,920 I agree okay I just 1607 01:18:51,920 --> 01:18:55,920 wanted to know if there was a distinction okay thank you 1608 01:18:57,720 --> 01:19:03,500 so any other question on the plat since the ISD is the 1609 01:19:03,500 --> 01:19:04,800 property owner to the 1610 01:19:04,800 --> 01:19:09,340 north they have a common area it's common area e - - it's a 1611 01:19:09,340 --> 01:19:11,560 20-foot strip 1612 01:19:11,560 --> 01:19:14,689 there I assume that's being proposed for maybe like a 1613 01:19:14,689 --> 01:19:16,399 future walking trail or 1614 01:19:16,399 --> 01:19:21,479 connection to this school property I'm not sure what that 1615 01:19:21,479 --> 01:19:22,760 is for to be honest 1616 01:19:22,760 --> 01:19:26,810 with you okay I can see if I can find out maybe the 1617 01:19:26,810 --> 01:19:28,439 engineer applicant can 1618 01:19:28,439 --> 01:19:34,840 speak for that for us okay any other questions for Cindy 1619 01:19:34,840 --> 01:19:36,720 thank you thank you 1620 01:19:36,720 --> 01:19:42,140 do have two cards I wish you to speak and I don't know who 1621 01:19:42,140 --> 01:19:42,640 would like to go 1622 01:19:42,640 --> 01:19:45,840 first I have a card for Justin Bono and a card for Brent 1623 01:19:45,840 --> 01:19:47,000 Murphy so I don't know 1624 01:19:47,000 --> 01:19:50,220 who would like to come first if you'll give your name and 1625 01:19:50,220 --> 01:19:52,079 address for us please 1626 01:19:52,079 --> 01:19:55,699 sure yeah thank you mr. chairman is Justin Bono with ask 1627 01:19:55,699 --> 01:19:56,520 for development my 1628 01:19:56,520 --> 01:20:01,090 address is 92 19 Arbor Trail Drive Brent Murphy with Kim 1629 01:20:01,090 --> 01:20:02,960 Lee Horn is here as well 1630 01:20:02,960 --> 01:20:06,920 if there are any technical questions that we may decide 1631 01:20:06,920 --> 01:20:07,960 that he is he is 1632 01:20:07,960 --> 01:20:11,239 better to answer so if you don't mind I have a short 1633 01:20:11,239 --> 01:20:13,079 presentation that I'll go 1634 01:20:13,079 --> 01:20:17,140 through that hopefully addresses many of your questions and 1635 01:20:17,140 --> 01:20:18,680 then we'll be glad to 1636 01:20:18,680 --> 01:20:29,470 stand for questions thereafter so as Cindy represented we 1637 01:20:29,470 --> 01:20:31,279 have 91 acres total 1638 01:20:31,279 --> 01:20:33,890 under contract from the property owner located at the 1639 01:20:33,890 --> 01:20:34,960 northwest corner of 1640 01:20:34,960 --> 01:20:38,520 Sherman and long this zoning case covers approximately 73 1641 01:20:38,520 --> 01:20:40,079 and a half acres which 1642 01:20:40,079 --> 01:20:44,960 we annex through a case we filed back in January 2018 the 1643 01:20:44,960 --> 01:20:46,520 17 and a half acres 1644 01:20:46,520 --> 01:20:49,710 that is currently zoned in our for that front Sherman Drive 1645 01:20:49,710 --> 01:20:50,960 and 428 are not 1646 01:20:50,960 --> 01:20:55,039 included in this zoning case and not planned for rezoning 1647 01:20:55,039 --> 01:20:56,399 the property and I 1648 01:20:56,399 --> 01:20:59,189 have a exhibit on the next page that will help illustrate a 1649 01:20:59,189 --> 01:20:59,960 lot of this but 1650 01:20:59,960 --> 01:21:04,430 the property as you will see is impacted by existing power 1651 01:21:04,430 --> 01:21:05,960 lines and a gas line 1652 01:21:05,960 --> 01:21:11,010 and 125 foot of total combined easement advice and that bis 1653 01:21:11,010 --> 01:21:11,880 ects the track and 1654 01:21:11,880 --> 01:21:18,720 their two ESA areas on site as well as you've heard we have 1655 01:21:18,720 --> 01:21:19,960 completed a traffic 1656 01:21:19,960 --> 01:21:23,060 impact analysis that we spent two or three months going 1657 01:21:23,060 --> 01:21:24,159 back and forth with 1658 01:21:24,159 --> 01:21:27,319 the city on in advance of this zoning hearing and have 1659 01:21:27,319 --> 01:21:28,319 included those 1660 01:21:28,319 --> 01:21:31,939 recommendations into our cost structure for the project so 1661 01:21:31,939 --> 01:21:34,359 here you see the site 1662 01:21:34,359 --> 01:21:38,319 Sherman here long along the south side you see the existing 1663 01:21:38,319 --> 01:21:39,560 in our four zoning 1664 01:21:39,560 --> 01:21:43,909 track power line easement purple gas line easement in 1665 01:21:43,909 --> 01:21:45,880 yellow the site that we 1666 01:21:45,880 --> 01:21:50,850 are is in reddish orange I guess is what that is that we're 1667 01:21:50,850 --> 01:21:52,159 asking for the nr6 1668 01:21:52,159 --> 01:21:57,229 zoning on tonight see the two ESA areas to the north I 1669 01:21:57,229 --> 01:21:58,720 think it's important to 1670 01:21:58,720 --> 01:22:02,220 understand that obviously we we cannot impact this hundred 1671 01:22:02,220 --> 01:22:03,439 and twenty five foot 1672 01:22:03,439 --> 01:22:08,390 strip which significantly impacts development we are 1673 01:22:08,390 --> 01:22:10,279 planning a sidewalk 1674 01:22:10,279 --> 01:22:13,109 system through there to help with some connectivity on the 1675 01:22:13,109 --> 01:22:14,119 side but obviously 1676 01:22:14,119 --> 01:22:18,640 won't get any lot yield from that section furthermore we're 1677 01:22:18,640 --> 01:22:19,600 not we have 1678 01:22:19,600 --> 01:22:22,939 not filed an alternative ESA plan so we plan to preserve 1679 01:22:22,939 --> 01:22:24,520 those ESA areas on site 1680 01:22:24,520 --> 01:22:28,670 which by doing so actually also retains the majority of the 1681 01:22:28,670 --> 01:22:30,119 trees on the site as 1682 01:22:30,119 --> 01:22:35,119 well so we're anticipating development here where we meet 1683 01:22:35,119 --> 01:22:35,920 the tree tree 1684 01:22:35,920 --> 01:22:40,720 mitigation requirements all through preservation without 1685 01:22:40,720 --> 01:22:42,239 without need for 1686 01:22:42,239 --> 01:22:47,789 mitigation fees furthermore as as miss Jackson represented 1687 01:22:47,789 --> 01:22:48,479 the property owner 1688 01:22:48,479 --> 01:22:51,880 to the north has filed a petition or filed a letter in 1689 01:22:51,880 --> 01:22:53,119 support of our case 1690 01:22:53,119 --> 01:22:56,279 we've been coordinating with them on street stubs for 1691 01:22:56,279 --> 01:22:57,760 future connectivity of 1692 01:22:57,760 --> 01:23:01,810 our site to their future site to the north and then largely 1693 01:23:01,810 --> 01:23:02,720 they were in 1694 01:23:02,720 --> 01:23:05,539 support due to the fact that we were preserving this 1695 01:23:05,539 --> 01:23:07,359 southern tips of this ESA 1696 01:23:07,359 --> 01:23:10,739 area which feed into a creek basin through their through 1697 01:23:10,739 --> 01:23:11,880 their property so 1698 01:23:11,880 --> 01:23:16,029 they were excited to hear that that habitat and those areas 1699 01:23:16,029 --> 01:23:17,000 were all going 1700 01:23:17,000 --> 01:23:23,119 to stay in place so our case tonight is as I mentioned we 1701 01:23:23,119 --> 01:23:23,960 were going to leave 1702 01:23:23,960 --> 01:23:28,510 the onside ESA areas intact not filing for an alternative E 1703 01:23:28,510 --> 01:23:30,079 SA which preserves 1704 01:23:30,079 --> 01:23:32,890 the majority of the trees this is actually also consistent 1705 01:23:32,890 --> 01:23:33,159 with 1706 01:23:33,159 --> 01:23:36,590 conservation development as envisioned by the current Dent 1707 01:23:36,590 --> 01:23:38,119 on plan and then the 1708 01:23:38,119 --> 01:23:42,350 but with the ESA preservation the existing power and gas 1709 01:23:42,350 --> 01:23:43,279 lines and us 1710 01:23:43,279 --> 01:23:48,350 keeping the NR4 along 428 it requires NR6 zoning to yield 1711 01:23:48,350 --> 01:23:49,720 feasible density for a 1712 01:23:49,720 --> 01:23:53,680 single-family residential subdivision we have filed a 1713 01:23:53,680 --> 01:23:54,960 preliminary plat 1714 01:23:54,960 --> 01:23:59,239 concurrent with zoning as requested by staff back in 1715 01:23:59,239 --> 01:24:01,760 December or January as a 1716 01:24:01,760 --> 01:24:06,489 good-faith gesture to demonstrate our intended project 1717 01:24:06,489 --> 01:24:08,119 density which is where 1718 01:24:08,119 --> 01:24:11,939 many of these which is where the cap density and the single 1719 01:24:11,939 --> 01:24:12,600 -family detached 1720 01:24:12,600 --> 01:24:16,189 requirements have come from we've agreed to cap the density 1721 01:24:16,189 --> 01:24:17,279 on this zone tract 1722 01:24:17,279 --> 01:24:21,159 at 4.7 units per acre as you heard from Miss Jackson the 1723 01:24:21,159 --> 01:24:21,960 work session when you 1724 01:24:21,960 --> 01:24:25,970 combine that with the NR4 section along Long Road our 1725 01:24:25,970 --> 01:24:27,760 overall density is 1726 01:24:27,760 --> 01:24:32,109 approximately 4.3 units per acre on this site we have 1727 01:24:32,109 --> 01:24:33,420 agreed to only single 1728 01:24:33,420 --> 01:24:36,800 family detached construction even though NR6 would allow 1729 01:24:36,800 --> 01:24:37,479 for some attached 1730 01:24:37,479 --> 01:24:41,119 construction we've specifically agreed to that condition as 1731 01:24:41,119 --> 01:24:42,119 you've seen and 1732 01:24:42,119 --> 01:24:46,979 then we understand the impact fee ordinance that proportion 1733 01:24:46,979 --> 01:24:47,880 ality our 1734 01:24:47,880 --> 01:24:50,670 proportional share through impact fees will help fund some 1735 01:24:50,670 --> 01:24:51,880 of these regional 1736 01:24:51,880 --> 01:24:56,300 transportation projects so in summary as you've seen we 1737 01:24:56,300 --> 01:24:57,880 have support supported 1738 01:24:57,880 --> 01:25:00,000 this case from the neighboring property owner I will also 1739 01:25:00,000 --> 01:25:00,680 tell you we've had 1740 01:25:00,680 --> 01:25:05,220 several meetings with DISD since we are adjacent to them we 1741 01:25:05,220 --> 01:25:06,260 're coordinating an 1742 01:25:06,260 --> 01:25:09,489 easement agreement with them to the north to your question 1743 01:25:09,489 --> 01:25:10,399 that strip that 1744 01:25:10,399 --> 01:25:12,949 you saw in the preliminary pat plat we're putting a 1745 01:25:12,949 --> 01:25:14,079 sidewalk in there to 1746 01:25:14,079 --> 01:25:16,380 connect to what is ultimately hopefully going to be a 1747 01:25:16,380 --> 01:25:17,560 future school site there 1748 01:25:17,560 --> 01:25:22,630 to avoid having to go out along 428 to then access that 1749 01:25:22,630 --> 01:25:24,359 site also there's a 1750 01:25:24,359 --> 01:25:27,670 water stub in that site to the DISD site through that 1751 01:25:27,670 --> 01:25:30,640 through that strip as well 1752 01:25:30,640 --> 01:25:34,210 I mentioned the conservation development piece as we cons 1753 01:25:34,210 --> 01:25:37,159 erving the ESA areas we 1754 01:25:37,159 --> 01:25:41,119 filed a preliminary plat as well to be able to demonstrate 1755 01:25:41,119 --> 01:25:42,279 the density that 1756 01:25:42,279 --> 01:25:46,560 that we're asking for and that is now entering its third 1757 01:25:46,560 --> 01:25:48,279 round of reviews with 1758 01:25:48,279 --> 01:25:52,430 the city and should come to you all soon so in our six is 1759 01:25:52,430 --> 01:25:53,880 really required on this 1760 01:25:53,880 --> 01:25:57,020 parcel given the site constraints to achieve feasible 1761 01:25:57,020 --> 01:25:58,399 density on the project 1762 01:25:58,399 --> 01:26:02,510 but we've also been willing to agree to additional 1763 01:26:02,510 --> 01:26:04,840 conditions to make the project 1764 01:26:04,840 --> 01:26:09,479 more risk more restrictive so respectfully request approval 1765 01:26:09,479 --> 01:26:10,319 per staff 1766 01:26:10,319 --> 01:26:14,119 recommendation although I will add one caveat we learned 1767 01:26:14,119 --> 01:26:15,359 about the general 1768 01:26:15,359 --> 01:26:20,779 development plan requirement as we arrived this evening you 1769 01:26:20,779 --> 01:26:21,479 know as I 1770 01:26:21,479 --> 01:26:24,960 mentioned we filed a preliminary plat on this project in 1771 01:26:24,960 --> 01:26:26,279 January I think it's our 1772 01:26:26,279 --> 01:26:30,909 case is actually PP 18001 which was the I guess that means 1773 01:26:30,909 --> 01:26:31,880 the first plat in the 1774 01:26:31,880 --> 01:26:35,439 door for the year we are on our third round of views in 1775 01:26:35,439 --> 01:26:36,279 fact I just paid 1776 01:26:36,279 --> 01:26:41,079 another $1,250 fee on that today we have no problems with 1777 01:26:41,079 --> 01:26:41,600 any of the 1778 01:26:41,600 --> 01:26:45,079 requirements for the proportionality the traffic 1779 01:26:45,079 --> 01:26:47,359 requirements we would just ask 1780 01:26:47,359 --> 01:26:49,640 that we'd be able to address those items through our 1781 01:26:49,640 --> 01:26:50,920 preliminary plat that we've 1782 01:26:50,920 --> 01:26:53,739 spent eight months going back and forth with the city and 1783 01:26:53,739 --> 01:26:54,479 paid and have a 1784 01:26:54,479 --> 01:26:58,960 substantial investment in without going back to the drawing 1785 01:26:58,960 --> 01:27:00,079 board to file a 1786 01:27:00,079 --> 01:27:03,960 general development plan that that accomplishes the same 1787 01:27:03,960 --> 01:27:04,960 thing we're fine 1788 01:27:04,960 --> 01:27:08,500 including any other requirements of the general development 1789 01:27:08,500 --> 01:27:10,520 plan in that plat so 1790 01:27:10,520 --> 01:27:14,300 that so that we get to the same place but would ask that we 1791 01:27:14,300 --> 01:27:15,439 'd be able to do 1792 01:27:15,439 --> 01:27:18,539 that through that Avenue if that's the if that's the way 1793 01:27:18,539 --> 01:27:19,600 you all choose to 1794 01:27:19,600 --> 01:27:23,579 choose to proceed so with that appreciate your your 1795 01:27:23,579 --> 01:27:24,680 attention and would 1796 01:27:24,680 --> 01:27:27,470 be glad to stand for any questions and again my engineers 1797 01:27:27,470 --> 01:27:28,279 here if we need to 1798 01:27:28,279 --> 01:27:32,079 bring up the technical guru for anything so thank you I 1799 01:27:32,079 --> 01:27:33,840 have a question I've got a 1800 01:27:33,840 --> 01:27:37,239 couple other here on the board just to clarify did you say 1801 01:27:37,239 --> 01:27:38,239 today's the first 1802 01:27:38,239 --> 01:27:40,779 day that y'all have had the general development agreement 1803 01:27:40,779 --> 01:27:41,520 brought to your 1804 01:27:41,520 --> 01:27:44,310 attention yes we learned about that this evening and as you 1805 01:27:44,310 --> 01:27:44,800 may know the 1806 01:27:44,800 --> 01:27:51,479 subdivision code at the time of application calls for the 1807 01:27:51,479 --> 01:27:52,560 city to direct 1808 01:27:52,560 --> 01:27:55,500 you to either file a general development plan or to file a 1809 01:27:55,500 --> 01:27:56,720 preliminary plat and 1810 01:27:56,720 --> 01:27:59,630 we've obviously were directed to file a preliminary plat 1811 01:27:59,630 --> 01:28:00,840 which is why we've been 1812 01:28:00,840 --> 01:28:05,239 processing that for you know going on eight months now so 1813 01:28:05,239 --> 01:28:06,159 yeah okay so after 1814 01:28:06,159 --> 01:28:09,399 eight months today first time that's correct okay 1815 01:28:09,399 --> 01:28:13,760 Commissioner Beck thank you chair mr. Bono is yes sir thank 1816 01:28:13,760 --> 01:28:14,279 you very much for 1817 01:28:14,279 --> 01:28:17,600 your presentation and I'm really kind of excited about this 1818 01:28:17,600 --> 01:28:18,880 development I like 1819 01:28:18,880 --> 01:28:21,979 the idea that we're preserving all not only preserving all 1820 01:28:21,979 --> 01:28:22,800 the trees but we're 1821 01:28:22,800 --> 01:28:25,319 gonna get a bunch of added as you develop this thing so 1822 01:28:25,319 --> 01:28:26,239 that's one of the 1823 01:28:26,239 --> 01:28:31,539 few times I've seen where we had a net positive result of 1824 01:28:31,539 --> 01:28:33,119 gaining some trees in 1825 01:28:33,119 --> 01:28:37,430 the city my concern as we move forward I'm on a sub 1826 01:28:37,430 --> 01:28:39,039 committee that's rewriting 1827 01:28:39,039 --> 01:28:43,000 the didn't development code and we're looking at zone 1828 01:28:43,000 --> 01:28:44,239 changes they're 1829 01:28:44,239 --> 01:28:47,970 differing in the way they are now and my vision for that 1830 01:28:47,970 --> 01:28:49,439 strip of Sherman Drive 1831 01:28:49,439 --> 01:28:51,699 as part of the mobility plan it's going to be widened to 1832 01:28:51,699 --> 01:28:52,520 four lanes so it's 1833 01:28:52,520 --> 01:28:57,560 gonna be a busy primary arterial much more so than it is 1834 01:28:57,560 --> 01:29:00,760 now that having a 1835 01:29:00,760 --> 01:29:05,409 residential area that close to primary arterial is not 1836 01:29:05,409 --> 01:29:07,680 always practical but it 1837 01:29:07,680 --> 01:29:12,119 can be done I didn't see anything on your preliminary 1838 01:29:12,119 --> 01:29:18,729 plat is there any plan to create some kind of buffer there 1839 01:29:18,729 --> 01:29:20,359 sound buffer like a 1840 01:29:20,359 --> 01:29:23,670 stone fence or something along Sherman Drive to kind of 1841 01:29:23,670 --> 01:29:24,720 offset the fact that it 1842 01:29:24,720 --> 01:29:31,479 is so close yes so we are planning a didn't a masonry wall 1843 01:29:31,479 --> 01:29:33,000 all along Sherman 1844 01:29:33,000 --> 01:29:38,079 and wrapping the corner along a food along long I don't 1845 01:29:38,079 --> 01:29:39,359 tell you whether it's 1846 01:29:39,359 --> 01:29:42,699 six or eight I can't remember per the plans but certainly 1847 01:29:42,699 --> 01:29:43,880 that is there and 1848 01:29:43,880 --> 01:29:47,640 you know we understood that with that there was some 1849 01:29:47,640 --> 01:29:49,520 reasoning for the in our 1850 01:29:49,520 --> 01:29:52,460 for density in our for existing in our for zoning which is 1851 01:29:52,460 --> 01:29:53,279 why we tried to 1852 01:29:53,279 --> 01:29:56,800 concentrate our greater density to the center of the 1853 01:29:56,800 --> 01:29:58,359 project away from away 1854 01:29:58,359 --> 01:30:05,800 from Sherman so well it is our hope at least my focus is 1855 01:30:05,800 --> 01:30:07,199 going to be as as part 1856 01:30:07,199 --> 01:30:10,750 of that subcommittee is to see that strip along Sherman 1857 01:30:10,750 --> 01:30:12,000 Drive zone some 1858 01:30:12,000 --> 01:30:15,000 what's called a suburban corridor so there'll be some mixed 1859 01:30:15,000 --> 01:30:16,319 use in there so I 1860 01:30:16,319 --> 01:30:18,609 was hoping we could do that before we got into some 1861 01:30:18,609 --> 01:30:20,039 original but that's fine I 1862 01:30:20,039 --> 01:30:24,640 think these neighbors will welcome some other uses on some 1863 01:30:24,640 --> 01:30:25,319 other portions of 1864 01:30:25,319 --> 01:30:28,109 Sherman Drive in the area I would think so okay thank you 1865 01:30:28,109 --> 01:30:29,000 so much thank you mr. 1866 01:30:29,000 --> 01:30:34,399 Smith thank you chair do you guys to plan to develop this 1867 01:30:34,399 --> 01:30:35,319 in phases or do it 1868 01:30:35,319 --> 01:30:38,279 all one time right now it's planned for two phases which is 1869 01:30:38,279 --> 01:30:39,560 shown that's how it's 1870 01:30:39,560 --> 01:30:44,960 shown on our current preliminary plat draft it's in let's 1871 01:30:44,960 --> 01:30:45,319 see understood and 1872 01:30:45,319 --> 01:30:47,619 then I think you did answer the second ago but you guys do 1873 01:30:47,619 --> 01:30:48,439 plan to do some sort 1874 01:30:48,439 --> 01:30:51,850 of buffer to walk out noise and light pollution from yeah 1875 01:30:51,850 --> 01:30:52,800 there is of course 1876 01:30:52,800 --> 01:30:57,189 we have long road that separates us from from that we have 1877 01:30:57,189 --> 01:30:58,960 a masonry wall along 1878 01:30:58,960 --> 01:31:03,979 along there as well we'll have you know landscape perimeter 1879 01:31:03,979 --> 01:31:05,600 around there as well 1880 01:31:05,600 --> 01:31:09,800 so yeah no no no separation there for sure now as this is a 1881 01:31:09,800 --> 01:31:10,720 closer development 1882 01:31:10,720 --> 01:31:14,250 so as it's being developed that way yes and overall with 1883 01:31:14,250 --> 01:31:15,479 the essays and everything 1884 01:31:15,479 --> 01:31:19,170 else included it's 4.7 but in reality when you when you 1885 01:31:19,170 --> 01:31:20,680 just hone in on just 1886 01:31:20,680 --> 01:31:22,899 the actual developed area where you're gonna be building 1887 01:31:22,899 --> 01:31:24,000 homes you think it's 1888 01:31:24,000 --> 01:31:27,880 gonna be more like six units per acre right around there 1889 01:31:27,880 --> 01:31:29,079 you know honestly I 1890 01:31:29,079 --> 01:31:34,810 haven't separately calculated you know the individual pods 1891 01:31:34,810 --> 01:31:35,680 I would assume so I 1892 01:31:35,680 --> 01:31:40,699 will tell you that I mean we've been following the city's 1893 01:31:40,699 --> 01:31:42,039 rewrite of the 1894 01:31:42,039 --> 01:31:47,640 development code and the lot widths that we're planning on 1895 01:31:47,640 --> 01:31:49,920 our plat are consistent 1896 01:31:49,920 --> 01:31:54,760 with I think it's an R3 I mean I'm gonna forget the codes 1897 01:31:54,760 --> 01:31:56,560 but the R3 zoning 1898 01:31:56,560 --> 01:32:02,609 that's on the draft map for this site is consistent with 1899 01:32:02,609 --> 01:32:04,560 what's what's on what's 1900 01:32:04,560 --> 01:32:08,369 on our plat as well so I think even transitioning to you 1901 01:32:08,369 --> 01:32:09,600 know where the 1902 01:32:09,600 --> 01:32:13,670 zoning is projected to go out there it's consistent with 1903 01:32:13,670 --> 01:32:14,680 what's included in that 1904 01:32:14,680 --> 01:32:17,949 draft at least at this stage I know there's a lot of work 1905 01:32:17,949 --> 01:32:19,319 left so the last 1906 01:32:19,319 --> 01:32:22,590 thing you did say was about the general development plan 1907 01:32:22,590 --> 01:32:23,399 rather you wanted to do 1908 01:32:23,399 --> 01:32:26,189 it for the preliminary plot instead through the portion 1909 01:32:26,189 --> 01:32:26,920 ality of doing the 1910 01:32:26,920 --> 01:32:29,739 traffic impact and all that right I mean we are back these 1911 01:32:29,739 --> 01:32:30,840 we're just concerned 1912 01:32:30,840 --> 01:32:34,850 about a blanket requirement for a general development plan 1913 01:32:34,850 --> 01:32:35,720 that that would 1914 01:32:35,720 --> 01:32:39,159 require us to rewind the clock which has already been a 1915 01:32:39,159 --> 01:32:40,880 very long clock in fact 1916 01:32:40,880 --> 01:32:44,960 we had to annex this property of I've been working on this 1917 01:32:44,960 --> 01:32:46,079 just now getting to 1918 01:32:46,079 --> 01:32:49,170 zoning and I've had it under contract for a year so so if 1919 01:32:49,170 --> 01:32:50,439 to rewind that clock 1920 01:32:50,439 --> 01:32:55,170 is concerning have no problem with any of the requirements 1921 01:32:55,170 --> 01:32:56,640 themselves would 1922 01:32:56,640 --> 01:33:01,100 just either want to relabel our existing preliminary plan 1923 01:33:01,100 --> 01:33:01,739 as a general 1924 01:33:01,739 --> 01:33:06,090 development plan and roll in those requirements or address 1925 01:33:06,090 --> 01:33:06,560 those 1926 01:33:06,560 --> 01:33:10,260 requirements on the plat that we've you know we're down to 1927 01:33:10,260 --> 01:33:11,199 the wire on on 1928 01:33:11,199 --> 01:33:14,920 getting getting to PNC in the next few meetings can I ask 1929 01:33:14,920 --> 01:33:16,800 staff and legal to 1930 01:33:16,800 --> 01:33:23,850 address that then Cindy still here can can can we I know we 1931 01:33:23,850 --> 01:33:24,399 just talked about 1932 01:33:24,399 --> 01:33:28,439 this during work session Jerry that we just added this in 1933 01:33:28,439 --> 01:33:29,640 you know can we do 1934 01:33:29,640 --> 01:33:32,119 this the plenary plotting rather than having a drill 1935 01:33:32,119 --> 01:33:32,159 general development plan 1936 01:33:32,159 --> 01:33:35,310 well as I read the code the general development plan is 1937 01:33:35,310 --> 01:33:36,600 required regardless 1938 01:33:36,600 --> 01:33:40,300 so I mean even if this weren't a part of the ordinance that 1939 01:33:40,300 --> 01:33:41,920 's that's what the 1940 01:33:41,920 --> 01:33:49,739 section says is that is that you do this so is nothing that 1941 01:33:49,739 --> 01:33:52,439 this body says or 1942 01:33:52,439 --> 01:33:55,539 incorporates into a recommendation is going to alter the 1943 01:33:55,539 --> 01:33:57,039 the wording of the 1944 01:33:57,039 --> 01:34:01,680 code I'll put it that way right we did not require a 1945 01:34:01,680 --> 01:34:02,960 general development plat 1946 01:34:02,960 --> 01:34:07,310 because well we didn't realize that it was actually 1947 01:34:07,310 --> 01:34:08,880 required for this site and 1948 01:34:08,880 --> 01:34:12,100 I've been here about ten years next week and we've never 1949 01:34:12,100 --> 01:34:13,079 done a develop general 1950 01:34:13,079 --> 01:34:16,590 development plat for a single-family residential subdiv 1951 01:34:16,590 --> 01:34:17,880 ision and that's only 1952 01:34:17,880 --> 01:34:21,340 because this is this such a high TIA but a high trip area 1953 01:34:21,340 --> 01:34:22,640 from the CIA that was 1954 01:34:22,640 --> 01:34:25,520 conducted and there's such low development of that row 1955 01:34:25,520 --> 01:34:26,399 those two roads 1956 01:34:26,399 --> 01:34:30,359 now it's never been has never happened exactly exactly so 1957 01:34:30,359 --> 01:34:32,100 this this the 1958 01:34:32,100 --> 01:34:35,229 applicant found out just literally ten minutes after I 1959 01:34:35,229 --> 01:34:36,560 found out that we needed 1960 01:34:36,560 --> 01:34:40,710 to do this so and it came from from legal so is there 1961 01:34:40,710 --> 01:34:41,399 anything we can do to 1962 01:34:41,399 --> 01:34:44,529 alleviate the pain point of the eight months of preliminary 1963 01:34:44,529 --> 01:34:45,199 plotting they've 1964 01:34:45,199 --> 01:34:48,039 been working on well what I suggested to the applicant is 1965 01:34:48,039 --> 01:34:48,800 they pretty much got 1966 01:34:48,800 --> 01:34:52,600 the GDP already done with their preliminary plat they just 1967 01:34:52,600 --> 01:34:53,039 need to turn 1968 01:34:53,039 --> 01:34:56,449 off a few layers and then turn it in and then we can try to 1969 01:34:56,449 --> 01:34:57,600 get it on the same 1970 01:34:57,600 --> 01:35:00,489 docket as as their preliminary plat get it all approved at 1971 01:35:00,489 --> 01:35:02,159 the same time okay 1972 01:35:02,159 --> 01:35:06,439 thank you I think Richard had a couple things you wanted to 1973 01:35:06,439 --> 01:35:07,319 just wanted to point 1974 01:35:07,319 --> 01:35:10,470 out a couple things I think part of the part of the issue 1975 01:35:10,470 --> 01:35:11,680 again goes back to the 1976 01:35:11,680 --> 01:35:15,170 convoluted nature of the code when you look at the section 1977 01:35:15,170 --> 01:35:15,920 on general 1978 01:35:15,920 --> 01:35:18,279 development plan it talks about it shall be determined a 1979 01:35:18,279 --> 01:35:19,359 pre-application whether a 1980 01:35:19,359 --> 01:35:22,789 general development plan or preliminary plat is required 1981 01:35:22,789 --> 01:35:24,079 but then it goes further 1982 01:35:24,079 --> 01:35:27,720 down it's well generally it's required when and so I think 1983 01:35:27,720 --> 01:35:29,039 again I don't know 1984 01:35:29,039 --> 01:35:32,869 when the PDM occurred I know it was at some time in the 1985 01:35:32,869 --> 01:35:35,880 past but again part 1986 01:35:35,880 --> 01:35:38,670 part of it is these this sort of convoluted nature and 1987 01:35:38,670 --> 01:35:39,520 decisions that were 1988 01:35:39,520 --> 01:35:43,979 made for whatever reason at such time but we're here where 1989 01:35:43,979 --> 01:35:45,560 we are now just to 1990 01:35:45,560 --> 01:35:48,720 give you the context of the general development plan if you 1991 01:35:48,720 --> 01:35:50,119 recall we we had 1992 01:35:50,119 --> 01:35:53,359 brought one forward back in March I believe it was the 1993 01:35:53,359 --> 01:35:55,079 March 21st agenda 1994 01:35:55,079 --> 01:35:58,229 this was related to actually one of the plats that was 1995 01:35:58,229 --> 01:36:00,399 approved tonight with 1996 01:36:00,399 --> 01:36:04,550 respect to razor East so that was it is on consent but to 1997 01:36:04,550 --> 01:36:06,159 give you sort of that 1998 01:36:06,159 --> 01:36:09,260 context it was one that we looked at back on March I 1999 01:36:09,260 --> 01:36:10,920 believe March 21st of 2000 01:36:10,920 --> 01:36:18,510 this year and if I may let me just step in it's it I want 2001 01:36:18,510 --> 01:36:19,399 to assure everyone 2002 01:36:19,399 --> 01:36:22,399 that the legal department was lying in wait waiting to 2003 01:36:22,399 --> 01:36:23,720 ambush somebody on the 2004 01:36:23,720 --> 01:36:28,590 last day this was a situation where we got access to the 2005 01:36:28,590 --> 01:36:30,359 proposed draft 2006 01:36:30,359 --> 01:36:34,050 ordinance that was sent over to us this week and it's not 2007 01:36:34,050 --> 01:36:35,560 because it wasn't sent 2008 01:36:35,560 --> 01:36:38,920 to us beforehand is it I didn't have access to it because 2009 01:36:38,920 --> 01:36:39,720 of a software issue 2010 01:36:39,720 --> 01:36:46,079 but it was sent to us early in July I believe it was and 2011 01:36:46,079 --> 01:36:48,880 and after our last 2012 01:36:48,880 --> 01:36:53,810 postponement of the public hearing so upon reviewing that 2013 01:36:53,810 --> 01:36:55,199 and my earliest 2014 01:36:55,199 --> 01:36:58,710 opportunity identified that issue and and and tried to 2015 01:36:58,710 --> 01:36:59,920 bring it to the staff's 2016 01:36:59,920 --> 01:37:07,310 attention as quickly as I could okay any other comments 2017 01:37:07,310 --> 01:37:09,039 from staff or I'll 2018 01:37:09,039 --> 01:37:13,770 recognize Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I had a few 2019 01:37:13,770 --> 01:37:15,800 issues with BC and D 2020 01:37:15,800 --> 01:37:19,989 and work session and they have exploded into much more 2021 01:37:19,989 --> 01:37:21,840 greater concerns than 2022 01:37:21,840 --> 01:37:27,789 confusions and I have a lot of notes here but what concerns 2023 01:37:27,789 --> 01:37:29,399 me as I don't 2024 01:37:29,399 --> 01:37:32,500 know where to begin let me let me just start here with 2025 01:37:32,500 --> 01:37:33,880 asking legal you said 2026 01:37:33,880 --> 01:37:36,250 you looked at a proposed draft ordinance is that not the 2027 01:37:36,250 --> 01:37:37,079 ordinance that's in 2028 01:37:37,079 --> 01:37:41,810 place right now draft meaning not approved no it won't be 2029 01:37:41,810 --> 01:37:42,319 approved until 2030 01:37:42,319 --> 01:37:45,109 you make your recommendation to council and council 2031 01:37:45,109 --> 01:37:46,720 considers so the ordinance 2032 01:37:46,720 --> 01:37:52,579 of this application not like yes yes yes no we we looked at 2033 01:37:52,579 --> 01:37:53,279 a proposed draft 2034 01:37:53,279 --> 01:37:58,350 ordinance it had the that had the overlay recommendations 2035 01:37:58,350 --> 01:37:59,840 that you have 2036 01:37:59,840 --> 01:38:05,609 your backup I received the backup Monday and and so I mean 2037 01:38:05,609 --> 01:38:06,479 it was right around 2038 01:38:06,479 --> 01:38:09,270 the same time I started reviewing this and saw that there 2039 01:38:09,270 --> 01:38:10,399 was an issue got you 2040 01:38:10,399 --> 01:38:16,729 and then Richard said this GDP is generally required when 2041 01:38:16,729 --> 01:38:18,319 dot dot dot if 2042 01:38:18,319 --> 01:38:21,920 it's generally required when can there not be opportunities 2043 01:38:21,920 --> 01:38:22,960 in which it's not 2044 01:38:22,960 --> 01:38:26,619 required like who's at what discretion is generally 2045 01:38:26,619 --> 01:38:28,359 required I understand you 2046 01:38:28,359 --> 01:38:31,659 said that the code is convoluted how are we coming to such 2047 01:38:31,659 --> 01:38:33,239 a definitive response 2048 01:38:33,239 --> 01:38:39,100 that another plat has to be a plan has to be done if it's 2049 01:38:39,100 --> 01:38:41,760 generally required 2050 01:38:47,479 --> 01:38:52,239 if you want to live 35 1610 B 2051 01:39:17,479 --> 01:39:23,260 you'd like I could show you the language here where the 2052 01:39:23,260 --> 01:39:24,800 general is located here 2053 01:39:24,800 --> 01:39:29,159 it doesn't answer your question directly but 2054 01:39:34,840 --> 01:39:36,539 so I'm wondering of those three items that trigger a 2055 01:39:36,539 --> 01:39:39,840 general development plan 2056 01:39:39,840 --> 01:39:50,279 which one was not able to be recognized in January the way 2057 01:39:50,279 --> 01:39:52,000 I'm bringing it seems 2058 01:39:52,000 --> 01:39:57,859 that number one was we knew is over 20 acres we knew is 2059 01:39:57,859 --> 01:39:59,159 gonna be developed in 2060 01:39:59,159 --> 01:40:02,430 phases and we knew that it would require off-site drainage 2061 01:40:02,430 --> 01:40:03,640 it doesn't look like 2062 01:40:03,640 --> 01:40:07,239 it was triggered by a TIA I guess what the root of this is 2063 01:40:07,239 --> 01:40:08,199 just to understand I 2064 01:40:08,199 --> 01:40:10,989 feel the frustration that I can only imagine they have I 2065 01:40:10,989 --> 01:40:11,760 don't want to 2066 01:40:11,760 --> 01:40:17,550 project frustration but the dollar cost to get to this 2067 01:40:17,550 --> 01:40:20,159 point and the city 2068 01:40:20,159 --> 01:40:25,930 didn't realize they needed a GDP just gonna step in I just 2069 01:40:25,930 --> 01:40:26,319 mentioned to 2070 01:40:26,319 --> 01:40:29,460 Richard I think maybe what might be prudent at this time is 2071 01:40:29,460 --> 01:40:30,199 let's take a 2072 01:40:30,199 --> 01:40:34,960 recess maybe five ten minute recess and let's give legal a 2073 01:40:34,960 --> 01:40:35,880 second to do the 2074 01:40:35,880 --> 01:40:38,670 research and maybe do a little discussion here and then we 2075 01:40:38,670 --> 01:40:39,359 'll come back 2076 01:40:39,359 --> 01:40:41,979 and quit shooting from the hip and let's see if we can 2077 01:40:41,979 --> 01:40:43,640 gather some facts so the 2078 01:40:43,640 --> 01:40:48,539 chair is going to call a recess at 720 and we'll try to 2079 01:40:48,539 --> 01:40:51,640 reconvene at 730 2080 01:40:54,399 --> 01:40:57,359 so I can go ahead and start we're going to count down okay 2081 01:40:57,359 --> 01:40:58,840 we're all ready to go 2082 01:40:58,840 --> 01:41:04,699 in the back and so at 732 we will reconvene and we will 2083 01:41:04,699 --> 01:41:06,279 continue where we 2084 01:41:06,279 --> 01:41:09,890 left off in our public hearing section this item is still 2085 01:41:09,890 --> 01:41:11,920 open and I don't 2086 01:41:11,920 --> 01:41:15,520 have any speakers I think we were going to look for some 2087 01:41:15,520 --> 01:41:18,439 clarification of the 2088 01:41:18,439 --> 01:41:21,539 overlay and the requirements and I don't know if staff 2089 01:41:21,539 --> 01:41:22,840 would like me to state 2090 01:41:22,840 --> 01:41:30,039 that or if staff would like to state that and she had paid 2091 01:41:30,039 --> 01:41:31,079 the big bucks yeah 2092 01:41:31,079 --> 01:41:36,560 so revise the recommendation one prior to that just want to 2093 01:41:36,560 --> 01:41:38,159 make again make the 2094 01:41:38,159 --> 01:41:41,680 affirmative finding that in order for the project to meet 2095 01:41:41,680 --> 01:41:43,000 the public facility 2096 01:41:43,000 --> 01:41:47,159 element or criteria there are certain transportation 2097 01:41:47,159 --> 01:41:47,760 improvements that are 2098 01:41:47,760 --> 01:41:51,529 required those are included as part of the current 2099 01:41:51,529 --> 01:41:54,560 recommendation items B C and 2100 01:41:54,560 --> 01:41:57,350 D what our recommendation is we're still making that 2101 01:41:57,350 --> 01:41:59,960 finding that those items be 2102 01:41:59,960 --> 01:42:03,060 addressed at the proper time of platting but revising the 2103 01:42:03,060 --> 01:42:04,039 condition of a 2104 01:42:04,039 --> 01:42:07,369 recommendation of approval and so that the only condition 2105 01:42:07,369 --> 01:42:08,520 would be that the use 2106 01:42:08,520 --> 01:42:11,470 of the properties restricted to single-family detached 2107 01:42:11,470 --> 01:42:12,119 housing at a 2108 01:42:12,119 --> 01:42:15,279 maximum density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre if that 2109 01:42:15,279 --> 01:42:17,439 makes sense so we're going 2110 01:42:17,439 --> 01:42:20,619 to deal with the zoning part of those requirements in the 2111 01:42:20,619 --> 01:42:21,840 zoning case and then 2112 01:42:21,840 --> 01:42:24,449 the B C and D items that have to do with transportation 2113 01:42:24,449 --> 01:42:25,199 will then be dealt with 2114 01:42:25,199 --> 01:42:29,449 between now and when this comes back before this Commission 2115 01:42:29,449 --> 01:42:29,840 for that plan 2116 01:42:29,840 --> 01:42:33,800 correct okay I think that hopefully will clear up 2117 01:42:33,800 --> 01:42:35,880 everything for the Commission 2118 01:42:35,880 --> 01:42:42,960 and hopefully for the applicant so I do have we are still 2119 01:42:42,960 --> 01:42:44,520 open and we still have 2120 01:42:44,520 --> 01:42:49,250 a applicant here that would like to speak so I'm gonna call 2121 01:42:49,250 --> 01:42:51,520 on Brent Murphy 2122 01:42:51,520 --> 01:43:01,039 you're good okay so this is a public hearing is there 2123 01:43:01,039 --> 01:43:01,880 anyone else who would 2124 01:43:01,880 --> 01:43:07,130 like to speak on this item seeing none we'll close the 2125 01:43:07,130 --> 01:43:08,279 public hearing and I'll 2126 01:43:08,279 --> 01:43:11,859 open the floor for discussion or motions Commissioner Roz 2127 01:43:11,859 --> 01:43:13,880 elle I move for 2128 01:43:13,880 --> 01:43:19,739 approval of Z 17 - 0 0 2 8 C with the amended 2129 01:43:19,739 --> 01:43:22,239 recommendations that we include 2130 01:43:22,239 --> 01:43:29,170 a density restriction of a maximum of 2 4.7 dwelling per 2131 01:43:29,170 --> 01:43:31,479 acre okay 2132 01:43:31,479 --> 01:43:35,960 Commissioner Smith I second that motion okay I have a first 2133 01:43:35,960 --> 01:43:37,000 and a second for 2134 01:43:37,000 --> 01:43:43,310 approval with the one condition on the density of 4.7 any 2135 01:43:43,310 --> 01:43:44,680 other questions or 2136 01:43:44,680 --> 01:43:52,239 discussion on this item okay I'll make a general statement 2137 01:43:52,239 --> 01:43:53,079 and we will call for a 2138 01:43:53,079 --> 01:43:57,239 vote I think that's a good move I think add some clarity 2139 01:43:57,239 --> 01:43:58,319 and clarification for 2140 01:43:58,319 --> 01:44:00,930 you all and hopefully gives you a little bit of time 2141 01:44:00,930 --> 01:44:02,239 between this evening and 2142 01:44:02,239 --> 01:44:04,710 when you come back for plat to have some further discussion 2143 01:44:04,710 --> 01:44:05,560 with staff and get 2144 01:44:05,560 --> 01:44:09,369 all that worked out and I think that's a proper way for us 2145 01:44:09,369 --> 01:44:10,720 to move forward and 2146 01:44:10,720 --> 01:44:16,010 proceed and so thank you staff for the guidance and the 2147 01:44:16,010 --> 01:44:17,239 flexibility on that and 2148 01:44:17,239 --> 01:44:20,500 so at this time I will call for a vote on the board and the 2149 01:44:20,500 --> 01:44:21,199 motion is for 2150 01:44:21,199 --> 01:44:23,520 approval 2151 01:44:29,479 --> 01:44:34,619 that motion is going to carry six to zero good luck with 2152 01:44:34,619 --> 01:44:37,479 your project that 2153 01:44:37,479 --> 01:44:41,279 concludes our public hearing section that will move us on 2154 01:44:41,279 --> 01:44:42,279 to our project 2155 01:44:42,279 --> 01:44:45,359 matrix this evening 2156 01:44:45,880 --> 01:44:51,470 Commissioner Beck again just want to keep raising the issue 2157 01:44:51,470 --> 01:44:53,039 of getting a work 2158 01:44:53,039 --> 01:44:56,560 session scheduled where we're addressing zone changes 2159 01:44:56,560 --> 01:44:57,960 obviously this this 2160 01:44:57,960 --> 01:45:02,470 particular item raises that important even more so so has 2161 01:45:02,470 --> 01:45:04,039 there been any 2162 01:45:04,039 --> 01:45:07,260 activity in that direction as far as establishing the work 2163 01:45:07,260 --> 01:45:08,239 session where we 2164 01:45:08,239 --> 01:45:13,850 can address specific zone changes that I mentioned last 2165 01:45:13,850 --> 01:45:19,199 pins me Richard I will 2166 01:45:19,199 --> 01:45:21,989 get that scheduled I have I have not to be on I have not I 2167 01:45:21,989 --> 01:45:23,319 have not scheduled it 2168 01:45:23,319 --> 01:45:26,210 yet since the since the last and I understand you're busy 2169 01:45:26,210 --> 01:45:26,859 man I'm just 2170 01:45:26,859 --> 01:45:31,069 gonna be a squeaky wheel that's okay that's no that's that 2171 01:45:31,069 --> 01:45:31,439 's fine it's fine 2172 01:45:31,439 --> 01:45:36,359 okay thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I'm gonna 2173 01:45:36,359 --> 01:45:36,880 be a squeaky wheel 2174 01:45:36,880 --> 01:45:40,949 too back in January I brought up the traffic engineering 2175 01:45:40,949 --> 01:45:41,880 discussion so I 2176 01:45:41,880 --> 01:45:44,819 would like to try to move that up with all of today's 2177 01:45:44,819 --> 01:45:46,300 discussion I think it's 2178 01:45:46,300 --> 01:45:49,520 super important that we have that as you stated earlier 2179 01:45:49,520 --> 01:45:50,600 sooner than later 2180 01:45:50,600 --> 01:46:01,119 as a discussion thank you okay anybody else okay with that 2181 01:46:01,119 --> 01:46:02,720 we will close our 2182 01:46:02,720 --> 01:46:08,000 meeting this evening at 737 thank you everyone 2183 01:46:21,600 --> 01:46:23,640 you