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