WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.839 planning and zoning Commission work session for July the 11 00:00:03.839 --> 00:00:05.799 th 2018. This 00:00:05.799 --> 00:00:08.929 meeting's been duly posted and we do have a quorum present 00:00:08.929 --> 00:00:10.000 and I will call us 00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:14.929 to order at 502. Our first order of business will be to 00:00:14.929 --> 00:00:15.279 receive 00:00:15.279 --> 00:00:20.899 clarification of agenda items. So our first questions will 00:00:20.899 --> 00:00:21.839 be or comments 00:00:21.839 --> 00:00:28.839 will be on any of the minutes the 13th or the 27th. 00:00:28.839 --> 00:00:32.159 Commissioner Smith. Thank you 00:00:32.159 --> 00:00:36.460 chair. So the item that we are looking at tonight that was 00:00:36.460 --> 00:00:37.359 continued that was 00:00:37.359 --> 00:00:41.009 that was continued on the applicant's behalf not on a vote 00:00:41.009 --> 00:00:42.320 from it was on a 00:00:42.320 --> 00:00:49.560 vote but applicants request. They are here with the signal. 00:00:50.960 --> 00:00:58.320 Okay anybody else on the minutes? Okay move us to the 00:00:58.320 --> 00:00:59.520 consent agenda any 00:00:59.520 --> 00:01:02.799 questions on the consent agenda? 00:01:04.159 --> 00:01:11.840 Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Who's doing? Haley? Is 00:01:11.840 --> 00:01:14.560 this yours? Is this yours? The Razor Ranch? 00:01:14.560 --> 00:01:20.420 The from what I can see the Google map is that a retention 00:01:20.420 --> 00:01:22.480 area just I guess 00:01:22.480 --> 00:01:26.189 it'd be close to Bonnie Bray and be kind of like the 00:01:26.189 --> 00:01:28.840 southeast corner. Those look 00:01:28.840 --> 00:01:31.939 like retention ponds. Yes that's a series of retention p 00:01:31.939 --> 00:01:32.480 onds that was 00:01:32.480 --> 00:01:35.090 developed as part of the Razor Ranch marketplace that's 00:01:35.090 --> 00:01:36.040 also intended to have 00:01:36.040 --> 00:01:38.310 capacity for this development. Okay so they're gonna feed 00:01:38.310 --> 00:01:39.000 into it too right? 00:01:39.000 --> 00:01:49.959 That's correct. Okay thank you. Do we have other questions 00:01:49.959 --> 00:01:50.319 you want make a 00:01:50.319 --> 00:01:53.209 presentation on this or I'm sorry we were doing a sidebar 00:01:53.209 --> 00:01:54.200 on a question here 00:01:54.200 --> 00:01:57.879 on the agenda. That's right I'd be happy to do a brief walk 00:01:57.879 --> 00:01:58.519 through on the plat if 00:01:58.519 --> 00:02:02.790 that would be helpful for anyone or? I'm sorry I didn't 00:02:02.790 --> 00:02:04.560 hear your question we 00:02:04.560 --> 00:02:09.439 got talking so much did you get your question answered? 00:02:09.439 --> 00:02:18.159 Okay okay any on item 00:02:18.159 --> 00:02:22.280 C on our consent agenda? 00:02:32.360 --> 00:02:38.840 Nobody? Commissioner Beck? Just the typo probably and this 00:02:38.840 --> 00:02:39.439 has happened the 00:02:39.439 --> 00:02:43.030 same time mentions that the track we're talking about is on 00:02:43.030 --> 00:02:44.580 the east side of 35 00:02:44.580 --> 00:02:47.580 and I think it means west side and hopefully everything 00:02:47.580 --> 00:02:49.400 else indicate. There's 00:02:49.400 --> 00:02:52.639 approximately 20.9 acres side of journey located on the 00:02:52.639 --> 00:02:53.439 east side of 00:02:53.439 --> 00:02:57.800 Interstate Highway 35. You are correct and that is a typo 00:02:57.800 --> 00:02:59.439 on my part. 00:03:02.439 --> 00:03:09.370 Was there anything else on that plot I'd be happy to pull 00:03:09.370 --> 00:03:14.120 it up? Okay that'll move 00:03:14.120 --> 00:03:18.879 us on to our items for individual consideration and I'll 00:03:18.879 --> 00:03:20.080 call on Julie 00:03:20.080 --> 00:03:30.800 Wyatt for presentation of that. Good evening. Good evening. 00:03:33.360 --> 00:03:36.319 All right this isn't a project type that we see very often 00:03:36.319 --> 00:03:38.439 so Richard wanted me 00:03:38.439 --> 00:03:41.360 to do just a quick presentation just to go over some of the 00:03:41.360 --> 00:03:42.719 parameters. This is a 00:03:42.719 --> 00:03:48.050 plat extension PE 18.1 symbiosis edition. So the subject 00:03:48.050 --> 00:03:49.639 property is there in 00:03:49.639 --> 00:03:52.990 yellow it is located on the west side of Johnson Street. It 00:03:52.990 --> 00:03:53.960 is south of East 00:03:53.960 --> 00:03:59.030 Collins Street and just to orient you Dallas Drive is right 00:03:59.030 --> 00:04:00.360 here so. So a 00:04:00.360 --> 00:04:04.129 plot was approved on the lot and on July 13th of 2016 it 00:04:04.129 --> 00:04:05.360 was for a multifamily 00:04:05.360 --> 00:04:08.330 development. As part of the review there were perimeter 00:04:08.330 --> 00:04:09.479 street improvements that 00:04:09.479 --> 00:04:12.919 were required storm drain extension and then also a 00:04:12.919 --> 00:04:14.479 sidewalk and now the 00:04:14.479 --> 00:04:19.519 applicant is moving forward or asking for a plat extension. 00:04:19.519 --> 00:04:21.879 So sub chapter 16 of 00:04:21.879 --> 00:04:25.259 the Denton Development Code states that final plots are 00:04:25.259 --> 00:04:26.839 null and void after two 00:04:26.839 --> 00:04:30.319 years if they aren't filed of record. However it does 00:04:30.319 --> 00:04:31.920 provide for a provision 00:04:31.920 --> 00:04:34.730 that the Planning and Zoning Commission can approve an 00:04:34.730 --> 00:04:36.040 extension of that plat 00:04:36.040 --> 00:04:39.670 for good cause. According to the applicant some of the 00:04:39.670 --> 00:04:40.680 construction costs 00:04:40.680 --> 00:04:43.149 associated with those public improvements that were 00:04:43.149 --> 00:04:43.800 required as a 00:04:43.800 --> 00:04:47.759 result of that final plat exceeded that projected budget so 00:04:47.759 --> 00:04:48.920 they did not move 00:04:48.920 --> 00:04:51.259 forward with the filing of the plat and the development 00:04:51.259 --> 00:04:53.480 contracts. However the 00:04:53.480 --> 00:04:56.959 the property owner feels like the the economics of the 00:04:56.959 --> 00:04:58.399 project have changed a 00:04:58.399 --> 00:05:03.029 little bit. Now increasing the feasibility the viability of 00:05:03.029 --> 00:05:03.199 the 00:05:03.199 --> 00:05:07.350 project and would like to extend that plat. Staff reviewed 00:05:07.350 --> 00:05:08.519 the request for the 00:05:08.519 --> 00:05:12.480 extension and determined that the delay warrants a six 00:05:12.480 --> 00:05:14.399 month extension and if if 00:05:14.399 --> 00:05:18.550 you do approve that plat extension as proposed the plat 00:05:18.550 --> 00:05:20.120 would become null and 00:05:20.120 --> 00:05:23.589 void as of December 11th of this year. So I'll stand for 00:05:23.589 --> 00:05:24.639 any questions. 00:05:24.639 --> 00:05:28.439 Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. Julie what what items 00:05:28.439 --> 00:05:30.000 what what criteria were 00:05:30.000 --> 00:05:32.149 you guys looking at that you felt like it was justified for 00:05:32.149 --> 00:05:33.319 an extension? We 00:05:33.319 --> 00:05:36.110 felt like well we talked with engineering about what the 00:05:36.110 --> 00:05:36.360 public 00:05:36.360 --> 00:05:39.600 improvements would be associated with it and those are the 00:05:39.600 --> 00:05:40.560 public improvements 00:05:40.560 --> 00:05:43.199 that were required in 2016 are consistent with what would 00:05:43.199 --> 00:05:43.720 be required 00:05:43.720 --> 00:05:47.870 today. The uses that that are permitted on the side it's in 00:05:47.870 --> 00:05:48.680 a DCG zoning 00:05:48.680 --> 00:05:52.209 district are consistent with what was approved in 2016 and 00:05:52.209 --> 00:05:53.240 we understand that 00:05:53.240 --> 00:05:57.699 that public infrastructure costs can add to the development 00:05:57.699 --> 00:05:59.079 costs of a site and we 00:05:59.079 --> 00:06:01.870 felt like a six month extension was appropriate in this 00:06:01.870 --> 00:06:03.720 instance. So that 00:06:03.720 --> 00:06:08.509 was really our analysis point. Does the does the owner and 00:06:08.509 --> 00:06:09.439 the applicant were 00:06:09.439 --> 00:06:12.230 they set I guess not that was the developer and the owner 00:06:12.230 --> 00:06:13.019 separate were 00:06:13.019 --> 00:06:15.810 they different at the time of application? I believe they 00:06:15.810 --> 00:06:16.360 are the same 00:06:16.360 --> 00:06:19.560 and the owner is will be here tonight so he'll be able to 00:06:19.560 --> 00:06:21.120 answer. So the owner is 00:06:21.120 --> 00:06:23.160 the developer and there it wasn't like they lost the 00:06:23.160 --> 00:06:24.160 developer in the interim 00:06:24.160 --> 00:06:27.439 or something like that. I don't know all of those specifics 00:06:27.439 --> 00:06:28.399 regarding the project 00:06:28.399 --> 00:06:31.660 but like I said. You discussed a six month extension and 00:06:31.660 --> 00:06:32.720 that was enough time for 00:06:32.720 --> 00:06:36.550 the owner. Well I have let them know that we are proposing 00:06:36.550 --> 00:06:37.680 a six month extension I 00:06:37.680 --> 00:06:42.410 didn't hear that that they were not amenable to that so so 00:06:42.410 --> 00:06:43.300 it might be 00:06:43.300 --> 00:06:45.490 something you'd want to ask. I haven't heard back from them 00:06:45.490 --> 00:06:48.319 regarding that though. 00:06:49.639 --> 00:06:54.439 That it Commissioner? Yes. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you 00:06:54.439 --> 00:06:56.259 chair. Hi Julie. I guess 00:06:56.259 --> 00:06:59.490 it kind of goes along to that line. Do you know did they 00:06:59.490 --> 00:07:00.800 offer what might hit 00:07:00.800 --> 00:07:03.009 they're doing in the next six months to be able to get this 00:07:03.009 --> 00:07:04.000 done? Six months is 00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:07.240 just not a lot of time in that world of getting. You know 00:07:07.240 --> 00:07:08.759 they have not given any 00:07:08.759 --> 00:07:12.310 indication about when we would receive any development 00:07:12.310 --> 00:07:13.920 contracts or how far in 00:07:13.920 --> 00:07:16.829 advance. You know we wanted to make sure that that time was 00:07:16.829 --> 00:07:17.759 limited so if there 00:07:17.759 --> 00:07:20.259 were any public improvements that would be different that 00:07:20.259 --> 00:07:21.759 we would capture that 00:07:21.759 --> 00:07:25.910 those requirements. So we wanted to keep it really narrow 00:07:25.910 --> 00:07:27.240 and targeted but I 00:07:27.240 --> 00:07:30.699 haven't talked with them regarding what what their 00:07:30.699 --> 00:07:32.480 timelines are in terms of 00:07:32.480 --> 00:07:35.279 that the future development. 00:07:35.279 --> 00:07:38.910 Good. Thank you. Quick question. And it's just a one time 00:07:38.910 --> 00:07:41.079 extension request that can be done on a plot? 00:07:41.079 --> 00:07:45.569 Well the code doesn't really let me get the code is it 00:07:45.569 --> 00:07:47.879 doesn't give a number of 00:07:47.879 --> 00:07:52.050 times but it does state that it has to be for good cause so 00:07:52.050 --> 00:07:52.959 so I don't know if 00:07:52.959 --> 00:07:55.569 that limits it to one. Legal may want to weigh in on that 00:07:55.569 --> 00:07:59.519 one but. We've done multiples before. 00:07:59.519 --> 00:08:06.079 Well that may be. I think the important thing to recognize 00:08:06.079 --> 00:08:07.120 here is that 00:08:07.120 --> 00:08:10.610 it's it's not only the development that's being proposed 00:08:10.610 --> 00:08:11.720 here but also the 00:08:11.720 --> 00:08:15.550 vesting of permit rights that is potentially impacted by 00:08:15.550 --> 00:08:16.839 the existence of 00:08:16.839 --> 00:08:25.399 this plat and that it may possibly not extending it could 00:08:25.399 --> 00:08:25.920 pave the way for 00:08:25.920 --> 00:08:30.829 other proposals or what have you. The only thing I don't 00:08:30.829 --> 00:08:32.000 know that I have 00:08:32.000 --> 00:08:34.789 anything you know valid to offer as far as how many times 00:08:34.789 --> 00:08:35.799 it could be extended 00:08:35.799 --> 00:08:39.529 but I did want to point out on the agenda information 00:08:39.529 --> 00:08:40.919 sheets that there 00:08:40.919 --> 00:08:43.879 were three options listed there is a fourth one which is to 00:08:43.879 --> 00:08:45.740 deny and just for 00:08:45.740 --> 00:08:48.740 the sake of completeness. 00:08:50.320 --> 00:08:53.110 Commissioner Sanchez. It was pretty much what you were 00:08:53.110 --> 00:08:54.080 asking about how many 00:08:54.080 --> 00:08:57.779 extensions you could get or if there's a limit on that and 00:08:57.779 --> 00:08:59.279 also when you're 00:08:59.279 --> 00:09:02.700 giving an extension you gave it six months I mean is that 00:09:02.700 --> 00:09:03.759 like a minimum or 00:09:03.759 --> 00:09:06.860 is there can you go up to a year or or is that based on 00:09:06.860 --> 00:09:08.159 what is that based on. 00:09:08.159 --> 00:09:12.120 It's that this body's discretion so if y'all wanted to 00:09:12.120 --> 00:09:13.679 approve a different 00:09:13.679 --> 00:09:18.440 amount yours it is the approval would be would be up to you 00:09:18.440 --> 00:09:19.919 and and before 00:09:19.919 --> 00:09:22.500 regular session I'll look through the code and see if I can 00:09:22.500 --> 00:09:23.799 get an answer for 00:09:23.799 --> 00:09:27.090 you regarding the numbers of extensions that would be 00:09:27.090 --> 00:09:28.720 permitted. Commissioner 00:09:28.720 --> 00:09:32.279 Beck. Thank you chair. Yeah again along with what everybody 00:09:32.279 --> 00:09:33.080 else is saying here 00:09:33.080 --> 00:09:37.039 I am curious to see if by giving the six months extension 00:09:37.039 --> 00:09:38.000 are we actually going 00:09:38.000 --> 00:09:41.159 to be seeing some movement towards this but I guess my 00:09:41.159 --> 00:09:43.679 question would be who and 00:09:43.679 --> 00:09:49.309 how is anybody hurt if we don't approve this extension or 00:09:49.309 --> 00:09:49.840 is there an answer 00:09:49.840 --> 00:09:52.740 that is that something I should probably wait and ask at 00:09:52.740 --> 00:09:54.200 the public hearing. I 00:09:54.200 --> 00:09:58.450 don't know I may not know the answer regarding from the 00:09:58.450 --> 00:10:00.080 perspective of the 00:10:00.080 --> 00:10:04.809 developer regarding your question but I think legal brought 00:10:04.809 --> 00:10:05.559 up a really good 00:10:05.559 --> 00:10:08.929 point and that you know we are under a Denton Development 00:10:08.929 --> 00:10:10.759 Code update and there 00:10:10.759 --> 00:10:13.740 is a plat is a vesting document and there may be new 00:10:13.740 --> 00:10:15.279 development standards 00:10:15.279 --> 00:10:18.580 associated with the with the update of the Denton 00:10:18.580 --> 00:10:21.440 Development Code and that you 00:10:21.440 --> 00:10:25.190 know an expiration or extending that plat would it would 00:10:25.190 --> 00:10:26.480 extend potentially 00:10:26.480 --> 00:10:29.879 the vesting of any current development standards. Did I say 00:10:29.879 --> 00:10:31.000 that correctly? Yeah 00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:34.269 well and I have one other observation too you know I am 00:10:34.269 --> 00:10:35.559 looking at the code 00:10:35.559 --> 00:10:41.480 here which is 35 16 12 2 F as in Frank and it's talking 00:10:41.480 --> 00:10:43.120 about if it's not 00:10:43.120 --> 00:10:45.559 filed in the appropriate records of Denton County within 00:10:45.559 --> 00:10:46.279 two years of its 00:10:46.279 --> 00:10:51.789 approval that seems to that it will expire unless extended 00:10:51.789 --> 00:10:52.639 that seems to 00:10:52.639 --> 00:10:59.120 imply that everything short of the the filing or at least a 00:10:59.120 --> 00:11:00.279 good portion of the 00:11:00.279 --> 00:11:05.159 thing short of filing may have been accomplished that you 00:11:05.159 --> 00:11:06.399 extend this just 00:11:06.399 --> 00:11:10.470 so that they don't lose that right in the interim you know 00:11:10.470 --> 00:11:12.240 where there's been 00:11:12.240 --> 00:11:16.610 not a whole lot of progress that that might be something 00:11:16.610 --> 00:11:17.720 that would be 00:11:17.720 --> 00:11:21.399 regarded as a dormant project under state law anyway I don 00:11:21.399 --> 00:11:22.120 't know if that 00:11:22.120 --> 00:11:27.190 anyone's looked at that or not but I think that one of the 00:11:27.190 --> 00:11:28.279 key considerations 00:11:28.279 --> 00:11:32.649 be what kind of progress has been made is it only this is 00:11:32.649 --> 00:11:34.200 it only this period 00:11:34.200 --> 00:11:40.480 of time that's standing in the way and or is it the the 00:11:40.480 --> 00:11:42.919 failure to proceed. 00:11:42.919 --> 00:11:48.860 Thank you. Well I'm gonna chime in and ask I guess kind of 00:11:48.860 --> 00:11:49.879 what's some of the other 00:11:49.879 --> 00:11:52.879 Commissioners if we can go even more than six months my 00:11:52.879 --> 00:11:54.720 recollection is we've 00:11:54.720 --> 00:11:57.940 had a number of these over the years and they've been six 00:11:57.940 --> 00:11:59.159 months and then they 00:11:59.159 --> 00:12:02.659 come back and so I don't know if it's possible maybe we can 00:12:02.659 --> 00:12:04.120 talk about that or 00:12:04.120 --> 00:12:06.960 y'all can research and see if we could do 12 months I think 00:12:06.960 --> 00:12:07.679 another 00:12:07.679 --> 00:12:11.440 dis-observation for this area town I can see where there 00:12:11.440 --> 00:12:12.879 might be more concerns 00:12:12.879 --> 00:12:17.720 about the development standards if it was on Dallas Drive 00:12:17.720 --> 00:12:19.200 or on 35 a very 00:12:19.200 --> 00:12:22.509 high-profile area where it is over there up against the 00:12:22.509 --> 00:12:25.120 railroad tracks and it'd 00:12:25.120 --> 00:12:28.980 be great if somebody would build something new over there 00:12:28.980 --> 00:12:29.720 in that area 00:12:29.720 --> 00:12:33.149 and maybe be an impetus for some redevelopment in that area 00:12:33.149 --> 00:12:35.600 because it is a 00:12:35.600 --> 00:12:39.559 not a lot going on over there so it'd be nice to maybe do 00:12:39.559 --> 00:12:41.080 some research and see 00:12:41.080 --> 00:12:43.870 if we can go a longer time and hopefully somebody has the 00:12:43.870 --> 00:12:44.879 opportunity to get all 00:12:44.879 --> 00:12:47.299 the other ducks in a row that they need to be able to to 00:12:47.299 --> 00:12:48.320 move it forward because 00:12:48.320 --> 00:12:53.200 if it does expire I'm familiar with how long it takes and 00:12:53.200 --> 00:12:54.559 how costly it is to 00:12:54.559 --> 00:12:59.809 get a new plat back you have to a lot of work this would be 00:12:59.809 --> 00:13:01.240 my thoughts to throw 00:13:01.240 --> 00:13:06.000 in on that particular item anybody else have further 00:13:06.000 --> 00:13:07.519 questions on them on this 00:13:07.519 --> 00:13:15.389 item before we move on to our next section that will move 00:13:15.389 --> 00:13:17.320 us to our public 00:13:17.320 --> 00:13:25.200 hearing section and this is Cindy Jackson. 00:13:45.000 --> 00:13:51.720 Good evening let me go ahead and pull up my presentation. 00:13:58.039 --> 00:14:05.720 Are we on the S Drive or the O Drive? There it is. 00:14:12.440 --> 00:14:19.019 Okay this request this is a request for an initial zoning 00:14:19.019 --> 00:14:24.320 designation on to NR6 00:14:24.320 --> 00:14:27.789 on attractive land as you can see here the site is 00:14:27.789 --> 00:14:30.080 approximately 73.47 acres 00:14:30.080 --> 00:14:35.120 and it is currently zone RD5X the site was actually annexed 00:14:35.120 --> 00:14:36.480 into the city 00:14:36.480 --> 00:14:44.190 recently at the beginning of the year they are proposing NR 00:14:44.190 --> 00:14:47.320 6 with the intent 00:14:47.320 --> 00:14:52.059 to develop a single-family subdivision with a density of 4. 00:14:52.059 --> 00:14:53.240 7 dwelling units per 00:14:53.240 --> 00:15:01.240 acre current zoning RD5X and the proposed zoning is NR6 now 00:15:01.240 --> 00:15:01.759 you'll note 00:15:01.759 --> 00:15:07.899 that the site does not have frontage on Sherman Drive this 00:15:07.899 --> 00:15:09.639 area right here that 00:15:09.639 --> 00:15:13.629 is zone NR4 is actually going to be part of the single- 00:15:13.629 --> 00:15:14.759 family subdivision and 00:15:14.759 --> 00:15:17.940 when it is all plotted together into one subdivision the 00:15:17.940 --> 00:15:19.399 overall density will be 00:15:19.399 --> 00:15:27.590 4.3 dwelling units per acre. The site is designated rural 00:15:27.590 --> 00:15:28.919 areas on the future 00:15:28.919 --> 00:15:33.230 land use map the site is located at the edge of the urban 00:15:33.230 --> 00:15:34.759 areas that are located 00:15:34.759 --> 00:15:40.529 to the south of the loop and when the future land use map 00:15:40.529 --> 00:15:41.399 map was first 00:15:41.399 --> 00:15:45.080 approved a few years ago wasn't anticipated that we would 00:15:45.080 --> 00:15:45.519 be seeing 00:15:45.519 --> 00:15:50.299 development in this part of the city so soon so actually we 00:15:50.299 --> 00:15:51.919 've had developers 00:15:51.919 --> 00:15:57.779 inquiring about these areas developing these areas so you 00:15:57.779 --> 00:15:58.720 'll be seeing a few 00:15:58.720 --> 00:16:03.870 more of these probably. When a rezoning request does not 00:16:03.870 --> 00:16:05.159 conform to the future 00:16:05.159 --> 00:16:09.330 land use designation for the site the DDC adds additional 00:16:09.330 --> 00:16:10.360 criteria for the 00:16:10.360 --> 00:16:17.370 evaluation in section 35 3 3 b3 as noted in your backup the 00:16:17.370 --> 00:16:18.320 site complies with 00:16:18.320 --> 00:16:21.450 the additional criteria but in my presentation that follows 00:16:21.450 --> 00:16:22.120 I will hit up 00:16:22.120 --> 00:16:31.309 some high points. The site is has probably 2,803 linear 00:16:31.309 --> 00:16:31.639 feet of 00:16:31.639 --> 00:16:34.889 frontage on Long Road which is a collector roadway which 00:16:34.889 --> 00:16:36.200 you can see here 00:16:36.200 --> 00:16:41.529 and then Sherman Drive is an arterial roadway. Moderate 00:16:41.529 --> 00:16:42.720 density residential 00:16:42.720 --> 00:16:46.730 neighborhoods as proposed along the collector and arterial 00:16:46.730 --> 00:16:47.519 roadways are 00:16:47.519 --> 00:16:50.860 appropriate. Long Drive and Sherman Drive will provide 00:16:50.860 --> 00:16:52.320 adequate visibility and 00:16:52.320 --> 00:16:59.100 access. The improvements recommended for the intersection 00:16:59.100 --> 00:17:00.919 of excuse me I got ahead 00:17:00.919 --> 00:17:06.799 of myself we had a TIA the applicant do a TIA for this side 00:17:06.799 --> 00:17:07.640 a traffic impact 00:17:07.640 --> 00:17:11.789 analysis because of the size of the subdivision we have an 00:17:11.789 --> 00:17:14.160 expected 3729 00:17:14.160 --> 00:17:18.150 daily trips from this particular project. The TI 00:17:18.150 --> 00:17:20.279 recommendations are to of 00:17:20.279 --> 00:17:26.140 construction of street A which is the first street into the 00:17:26.140 --> 00:17:27.599 subdivision off of 00:17:27.599 --> 00:17:33.720 Long it's located approximately right here. To allow for a 00:17:33.720 --> 00:17:35.599 dedicated left and 00:17:35.599 --> 00:17:39.000 right turn lanes construction of a northbound dedicated 00:17:39.000 --> 00:17:40.000 left turn lane and 00:17:40.000 --> 00:17:43.519 construction of a southbound dedicated right turn lane 00:17:43.519 --> 00:17:45.599 along Sherman and 00:17:45.599 --> 00:17:49.019 signalization of the intersection for the service roads at 00:17:49.019 --> 00:17:50.319 the loop 28 and East 00:17:50.319 --> 00:17:54.279 Sherman Drive intersection. These improvements which are 00:17:54.279 --> 00:17:55.119 recommended will 00:17:55.119 --> 00:17:59.319 be achieved through the use of roadway impact fees paid by 00:17:59.319 --> 00:18:00.079 developments which 00:18:00.079 --> 00:18:03.519 would utilize the intersections. The amount of the impact 00:18:03.519 --> 00:18:04.599 fee is determined 00:18:04.599 --> 00:18:08.400 by using a proportionality calculation based on the number 00:18:08.400 --> 00:18:09.319 of lots and 00:18:09.319 --> 00:18:13.119 projected trips of each development. At this time there are 00:18:13.119 --> 00:18:14.000 no city funds 00:18:14.000 --> 00:18:16.240 available for these improvements and they haven't been 00:18:16.240 --> 00:18:17.119 programmed into the 00:18:17.119 --> 00:18:23.839 capital improvements plan. Commissioner Roseau. It sounded 00:18:23.839 --> 00:18:24.519 like street A is 00:18:24.519 --> 00:18:28.529 coming off of Long yes but one of the recommendations was 00:18:28.529 --> 00:18:30.880 street a turn from 00:18:30.880 --> 00:18:36.740 Sherman on to street A yes but doesn't hit Sherman. There's 00:18:36.740 --> 00:18:39.000 well it will 00:18:39.000 --> 00:18:43.730 see it left. I think maybe Cindy misspoke and when you said 00:18:43.730 --> 00:18:45.000 street a off of Long I 00:18:45.000 --> 00:18:46.930 think it come right I think I was talking about the street 00:18:46.930 --> 00:18:47.400 that was going 00:18:47.400 --> 00:18:51.440 to be right here. Okay that's more clear thank you and we 00:18:51.440 --> 00:18:52.240 were requiring the 00:18:52.240 --> 00:18:58.589 turn lines here and here. Commissioner Ellis. I will go 00:18:58.589 --> 00:19:01.519 ahead and change that. Thank you chair. Cindy my 00:19:01.519 --> 00:19:04.480 concern comes with what you just quoted which was at this 00:19:04.480 --> 00:19:05.519 time there are no city 00:19:05.519 --> 00:19:08.619 funds available for these improvements. That's right. So 00:19:08.619 --> 00:19:09.599 how do we make this a 00:19:09.599 --> 00:19:14.900 priority? I mean how can I know how long it takes to get on 00:19:14.900 --> 00:19:15.839 capital improvements 00:19:15.839 --> 00:19:19.450 and whatnot and this is a lot of daily trips and sure it is 00:19:19.450 --> 00:19:20.519 and we have there's 00:19:20.519 --> 00:19:25.349 a lot of improvement needed yes and yes at this time there 00:19:25.349 --> 00:19:26.599 is no plan is 00:19:26.599 --> 00:19:30.880 concerning. We have been meeting with the engineering 00:19:30.880 --> 00:19:32.559 director as well as the 00:19:32.559 --> 00:19:36.099 assistant city manager over engineering and we are working 00:19:36.099 --> 00:19:37.160 with them on that. 00:19:37.160 --> 00:19:42.240 Right now the way these things are going to be constructed 00:19:42.240 --> 00:19:42.759 is by 00:19:42.759 --> 00:19:46.720 proportionality fees and impact fees from the developments 00:19:46.720 --> 00:19:47.680 that are going we 00:19:47.680 --> 00:19:53.990 that will be going in along this area. And I understand 00:19:53.990 --> 00:19:56.160 that my question is 00:19:56.160 --> 00:20:00.000 you're gonna it's gonna take time to collect fees. Mm-hmm. 00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:01.920 So then what is the 00:20:01.920 --> 00:20:06.900 plan what is a projected time frame do we have one? Right 00:20:06.900 --> 00:20:08.000 now there's not a 00:20:08.000 --> 00:20:10.799 projected time frame. I think part of the issue that that's 00:20:10.799 --> 00:20:12.000 sort of plagued 00:20:12.000 --> 00:20:15.619 this area is it's there was never really any traffic data 00:20:15.619 --> 00:20:16.720 that the city had 00:20:16.720 --> 00:20:20.450 collected to really show that what would what would tip 00:20:20.450 --> 00:20:23.160 that impact over really 00:20:23.160 --> 00:20:26.500 lessening that level of service to the road where it's un 00:20:26.500 --> 00:20:28.720 bearable. It's almost 00:20:28.720 --> 00:20:31.599 like the we were kind of talking a couple things on chicken 00:20:31.599 --> 00:20:32.359 versus the egg. 00:20:32.359 --> 00:20:35.690 Now we have the development now it's eminent that it's 00:20:35.690 --> 00:20:37.119 gonna happen and I 00:20:37.119 --> 00:20:40.599 think that's where we're now working with engineering in 00:20:40.599 --> 00:20:42.440 fact where we sort 00:20:42.440 --> 00:20:45.759 of reconstitute the entire transportation model for the 00:20:45.759 --> 00:20:46.319 city where 00:20:46.319 --> 00:20:49.779 we're through RGIS we're sort of plugging this in early so 00:20:49.779 --> 00:20:50.480 rather than 00:20:50.480 --> 00:20:53.410 kind of do this let's wait and see approach we can start to 00:20:53.410 --> 00:20:54.720 identify early 00:20:54.720 --> 00:20:57.519 on while they're starting to gear up for capital 00:20:57.519 --> 00:20:59.400 improvement projects we now have 00:20:59.400 --> 00:21:02.190 that data kind of those those projections are able to be 00:21:02.190 --> 00:21:02.920 forecasted 00:21:02.920 --> 00:21:06.319 much sooner than in the past where we've waited we've 00:21:06.319 --> 00:21:08.579 waited till the end if that 00:21:08.579 --> 00:21:14.440 makes any sense. It does make sense so calculating it is 00:21:14.440 --> 00:21:15.759 good so doing it is 00:21:15.759 --> 00:21:20.000 another thing so is there a plan then for also moving along 00:21:20.000 --> 00:21:21.000 further than we 00:21:21.000 --> 00:21:26.789 have in yes I don't know exactly what when that will be I 00:21:26.789 --> 00:21:29.039 do know that this 00:21:29.039 --> 00:21:32.500 project in in addition to a number of other projects within 00:21:32.500 --> 00:21:34.200 this area I mean a 00:21:34.200 --> 00:21:38.430 lot of yeah I think at one point we're counting around 3, 00:21:38.430 --> 00:21:39.839 000 residential units 00:21:39.839 --> 00:21:46.119 on that north side it's will be sooner than later I can't 00:21:46.119 --> 00:21:46.839 say it's budgeted for 00:21:46.839 --> 00:21:51.890 you know CIP project in fiscal year 20 right now but I know 00:21:51.890 --> 00:21:53.200 I know that they 00:21:53.200 --> 00:21:58.329 are relooking at all of that. They're realizing that what 00:21:58.329 --> 00:21:59.200 we did a few years 00:21:59.200 --> 00:22:03.210 ago with the future land use plan and the mobility plan it 00:22:03.210 --> 00:22:04.880 didn't anticipate 00:22:04.880 --> 00:22:08.029 any of this to be honest with you we didn't think we'd be 00:22:08.029 --> 00:22:08.680 looking at 00:22:08.680 --> 00:22:16.200 development in this area for at least another decade so 00:22:16.880 --> 00:22:19.019 continue if I could chime in well I'm glad you're looking 00:22:19.019 --> 00:22:20.000 at it now because it 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:22.970 absolutely is an area that is going to get developed and 00:22:22.970 --> 00:22:24.240 needs to get developed 00:22:24.240 --> 00:22:30.630 I mean that started a long time ago up there and part of 00:22:30.630 --> 00:22:33.079 that issue you know 00:22:33.079 --> 00:22:36.390 when that when that first mobility plan was done and the 00:22:36.390 --> 00:22:37.680 impact fee analysis 00:22:37.680 --> 00:22:40.470 again it bases off of the future land use map I think we 00:22:40.470 --> 00:22:41.319 might have talked 00:22:41.319 --> 00:22:46.519 about this at one of the development review code committee 00:22:46.519 --> 00:22:47.680 meetings so that 00:22:47.680 --> 00:22:50.950 that was current kind of the basis for the future trips 00:22:50.950 --> 00:22:52.319 well if it's future 00:22:52.319 --> 00:22:57.049 land use is is rural it's not generating a whole lot and so 00:22:57.049 --> 00:22:57.880 in the grand scheme 00:22:57.880 --> 00:23:01.329 of things you know what's there to plan if this is if this 00:23:01.329 --> 00:23:02.960 is a rural area 00:23:02.960 --> 00:23:05.930 interestingly our comp plan allows obviously if it's not 00:23:05.930 --> 00:23:06.960 consistent with the 00:23:06.960 --> 00:23:10.319 comp plan we can still approve it provided it addresses 00:23:10.319 --> 00:23:11.200 those kind of 00:23:11.200 --> 00:23:14.150 impacts and so that's where we're starting to just kind of 00:23:14.150 --> 00:23:14.960 re-looking at 00:23:14.960 --> 00:23:18.920 all of this that's why we have the TIA now rather than 00:23:18.920 --> 00:23:21.079 later so we can start 00:23:21.079 --> 00:23:23.400 to identify what these what these impacts are going to be 00:23:23.400 --> 00:23:24.359 and and the 00:23:24.359 --> 00:23:27.759 the improvements that are required by the TIA will help 00:23:27.759 --> 00:23:29.240 alleviate some of 00:23:29.240 --> 00:23:33.039 these these issues for this subdivision and as we go on 00:23:33.039 --> 00:23:34.920 other subdivisions will 00:23:34.920 --> 00:23:39.920 have to do the TIA too and and make improvements. I'm gonna 00:23:39.920 --> 00:23:41.319 pause and chime 00:23:41.319 --> 00:23:45.720 in on a couple things so what we're talking about is 00:23:45.720 --> 00:23:46.599 something we talked 00:23:46.599 --> 00:23:49.569 about in our last meeting when we look at these areas and 00:23:49.569 --> 00:23:50.759 further to the north 00:23:50.759 --> 00:23:55.670 about what the land use is going to be yes then it drives 00:23:55.670 --> 00:23:57.160 what the traffic 00:23:57.160 --> 00:24:00.400 counts are going to be which then helps us plan better 00:24:00.400 --> 00:24:01.960 versus we'll deal with it 00:24:01.960 --> 00:24:06.359 when it comes up yes and we find ourselves continually in 00:24:06.359 --> 00:24:06.759 these issues 00:24:06.759 --> 00:24:11.829 not only on this side of town but in other parts of town 00:24:11.829 --> 00:24:13.680 where there's not 00:24:13.799 --> 00:24:17.140 planning farther down the road and going ahead and setting 00:24:17.140 --> 00:24:18.960 things up so that the 00:24:18.960 --> 00:24:21.859 traffic analysis are all those things are already set up 00:24:21.859 --> 00:24:22.799 and already done and 00:24:22.799 --> 00:24:25.589 ready to go and then we know what we're going to get into 00:24:25.589 --> 00:24:26.839 so we'll just chime in 00:24:26.839 --> 00:24:29.329 that we talked about that last meeting and I'm just going 00:24:29.329 --> 00:24:30.240 to echo that again 00:24:30.240 --> 00:24:37.170 tonight. Secondly what is the the current level of service 00:24:37.170 --> 00:24:38.640 on that road? The level 00:24:38.640 --> 00:24:47.640 of service at rush hour is F. Okay so to what Commissioner 00:24:47.640 --> 00:24:48.759 Ellis is talking about 00:24:48.759 --> 00:24:52.390 is if I recall the way the traffic impact fees are is if 00:24:52.390 --> 00:24:53.319 the level of 00:24:53.319 --> 00:24:57.650 services D are going to drop to a D those improvements have 00:24:57.650 --> 00:24:58.799 to be made with 00:24:58.799 --> 00:25:02.839 the traffic impact fees not that the city collects those 00:25:02.839 --> 00:25:03.920 funds and then 00:25:03.920 --> 00:25:07.880 decides at some point in the future when those funds will 00:25:07.880 --> 00:25:09.200 be spent as if it's a 00:25:09.200 --> 00:25:12.430 D or going to be a D or worse those fees have to be 00:25:12.430 --> 00:25:13.599 collected and the 00:25:13.599 --> 00:25:16.420 improvements have to go in in that area at that time. 00:25:16.420 --> 00:25:17.759 Exactly and and we actually 00:25:17.759 --> 00:25:21.500 had no idea what the situation was out there until we got 00:25:21.500 --> 00:25:22.799 this TIA in because 00:25:22.799 --> 00:25:25.740 we haven't had any development significant development out 00:25:25.740 --> 00:25:26.920 there to 00:25:26.920 --> 00:25:31.650 require a TIA until now. Okay so when depending on where 00:25:31.650 --> 00:25:32.599 this goes this evening 00:25:32.599 --> 00:25:36.359 if it is approved and those traffic impact fees come in 00:25:36.359 --> 00:25:37.440 those have to be 00:25:37.440 --> 00:25:40.480 spent then to do the improvements in this area at the time 00:25:40.480 --> 00:25:41.559 of development not 00:25:41.559 --> 00:25:44.740 collecting the fees and holding on and at some point in the 00:25:44.740 --> 00:25:45.839 future the city 00:25:45.839 --> 00:25:49.079 will decide to do those they have to be put in because of 00:25:49.079 --> 00:25:50.559 the level of service is 00:25:50.559 --> 00:25:55.599 that correct? I believe that is correct. Okay just a couple 00:25:55.599 --> 00:25:56.400 points to throw out 00:25:56.400 --> 00:26:00.160 for clarification. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. In 00:26:00.160 --> 00:26:01.240 regards to these impact fees 00:26:01.240 --> 00:26:02.930 then if there's going to be other developments are going to 00:26:02.930 --> 00:26:03.480 be developing 00:26:03.480 --> 00:26:07.039 north of that up along 423 does that mean that this subdiv 00:26:07.039 --> 00:26:07.799 ision is going to be 00:26:07.799 --> 00:26:11.279 paying for the majority of the improvements? No. How does 00:26:11.279 --> 00:26:12.480 that all work just 00:26:12.480 --> 00:26:14.990 just for my own ignorance? Actually what we have is a 00:26:14.990 --> 00:26:17.160 proportionality formula and 00:26:17.160 --> 00:26:21.980 the proportionality formula is based on the number of 00:26:21.980 --> 00:26:24.319 dwelling units and the 00:26:24.319 --> 00:26:28.599 number of projected trips and the type of street that that 00:26:28.599 --> 00:26:29.759 there are along and 00:26:29.759 --> 00:26:33.220 that they they have a way of calculating out what the 00:26:33.220 --> 00:26:33.799 report what their impact 00:26:33.799 --> 00:26:36.400 would be. The city puts on the CIP and then they complete 00:26:36.400 --> 00:26:38.039 it and then as future 00:26:38.039 --> 00:26:39.960 developments come in because this one's there we have to 00:26:39.960 --> 00:26:40.799 build it because of the 00:26:40.799 --> 00:26:43.589 F rating. As future developments come in they they collect 00:26:43.589 --> 00:26:44.440 the other money that 00:26:44.440 --> 00:26:47.960 needs to be made back up. Got it. Okay just wanted to make 00:26:47.960 --> 00:26:48.680 sure this 00:26:48.680 --> 00:26:57.390 applicant wasn't being screwed. Commissioner Back. Thank 00:26:57.390 --> 00:26:59.960 you Chair. I'm 00:26:59.960 --> 00:27:03.289 just becoming aware that that Street A is actually 00:27:03.289 --> 00:27:04.940 extending through that NR2 00:27:04.940 --> 00:27:08.369 zone to hit Sherman so that's not part of the property that 00:27:08.369 --> 00:27:09.240 's going to be 00:27:09.240 --> 00:27:12.230 developed so is that going to be the city? Oh it is. Yes it 00:27:12.230 --> 00:27:17.720 is. As I mentioned previously right here this NR2 00:27:17.720 --> 00:27:21.009 zoning right here will be ultimately part of this subdiv 00:27:21.009 --> 00:27:22.200 ision it will all be 00:27:22.200 --> 00:27:26.349 platted together the preliminary plat is in your packet and 00:27:26.349 --> 00:27:28.240 they will have an 00:27:28.240 --> 00:27:33.119 overall density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre. Okay so we 00:27:33.119 --> 00:27:34.319 'll be looking at 00:27:34.319 --> 00:27:37.460 single-family residential in that little stretch there 00:27:37.460 --> 00:27:39.240 which is okay because one 00:27:39.240 --> 00:27:41.630 of the things we were talking about in the past is 00:27:41.630 --> 00:27:44.200 considering rezoning too and 00:27:44.200 --> 00:27:48.029 looks like they're they're moving ahead there where that 00:27:48.029 --> 00:27:49.160 that stretch of 00:27:49.160 --> 00:27:51.710 Sherman Drive in my opinion you know it should be a 00:27:51.710 --> 00:27:56.160 suburban corridor. So I kind 00:27:56.160 --> 00:27:58.109 of caught off guard that we're gonna go ahead and extend 00:27:58.109 --> 00:27:58.960 the residential out 00:27:58.960 --> 00:28:04.309 there on a primary arterial which in my opinion is impract 00:28:04.309 --> 00:28:05.720 ical it just does 00:28:05.720 --> 00:28:10.019 create problems with traffic so but again we'll address 00:28:10.019 --> 00:28:11.319 that later in the 00:28:11.319 --> 00:28:15.619 public being as far we do need to reconsider zoning future 00:28:15.619 --> 00:28:16.079 land use 00:28:16.079 --> 00:28:19.210 changes to that area out there in my opinion and rezoning 00:28:19.210 --> 00:28:20.039 before we get you 00:28:20.039 --> 00:28:25.079 know into some more of this. Right we realize that. Okay 00:28:25.079 --> 00:28:27.799 thank you. 00:28:28.599 --> 00:28:32.339 Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Question back on the 00:28:32.339 --> 00:28:33.599 level of service 00:28:33.599 --> 00:28:38.339 letter so does the TIA change that from a current F to how 00:28:38.339 --> 00:28:39.720 does that get changed 00:28:39.720 --> 00:28:46.650 to prioritize those needs? What was the question? How does 00:28:46.650 --> 00:28:48.440 how do the improvements 00:28:48.440 --> 00:28:54.470 change the level of service? It goes up to a level. I 00:28:54.470 --> 00:28:56.920 believe chair mentioned at 00:28:56.920 --> 00:29:00.740 a certain letter the improvements have to be made. 00:29:00.740 --> 00:29:04.119 Currently you said it's an F 00:29:04.119 --> 00:29:08.450 so when is it getting changed to warrant those improvements 00:29:08.450 --> 00:29:09.720 ? Well with the 00:29:09.720 --> 00:29:13.869 improvements it'll be a D. After the improvements are made? 00:29:13.869 --> 00:29:14.759 Yes after the 00:29:14.759 --> 00:29:21.880 improvement. Right. It goes from an F up to a D which is? 00:29:21.880 --> 00:29:26.960 At what point? After the 00:29:26.960 --> 00:29:33.269 improvements to the road are made? Okay. And if I may 00:29:33.269 --> 00:29:35.359 clarify the turn lanes that 00:29:35.359 --> 00:29:37.660 they're talking about that that's what they're talking 00:29:37.660 --> 00:29:38.759 about bringing the level 00:29:38.759 --> 00:29:42.720 of service up. Yeah. And then I think there's talk in there 00:29:42.720 --> 00:29:43.920 also about 00:29:43.920 --> 00:29:47.940 signaling at some point at look 288. There it is. Yeah 00:29:47.940 --> 00:29:49.160 right the turn lanes 00:29:49.160 --> 00:29:53.759 will help tremendously because people turning left would 00:29:53.759 --> 00:29:54.839 would block up the 00:29:54.839 --> 00:29:59.319 entire street right now. Like Friday Night Football game or 00:29:59.319 --> 00:29:59.799 something if you 00:29:59.799 --> 00:30:03.119 ever go out there but. Yeah. 00:30:06.119 --> 00:30:13.049 Where did I leave off? Okay. Okay the surrounding land uses 00:30:13.049 --> 00:30:14.039 for the subject 00:30:14.039 --> 00:30:19.900 site includes single-family residences all along here and 00:30:19.900 --> 00:30:22.839 there's quite a few 00:30:22.839 --> 00:30:31.200 down along here. Agricultural uses, open pasture as well as 00:30:31.200 --> 00:30:33.240 the institutional 00:30:33.240 --> 00:30:38.190 uses on the south side of Long Road. So single-family would 00:30:38.190 --> 00:30:39.599 would be compatible 00:30:39.599 --> 00:30:42.849 in the area. There is significant single-family in the area 00:30:42.849 --> 00:30:44.319 at this time. 00:30:44.319 --> 00:30:46.799 Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. For my own 00:30:46.799 --> 00:30:48.640 notification what is an improved 00:30:48.640 --> 00:30:51.509 pasture versus a non-improved pasture? Well you know that's 00:30:51.509 --> 00:30:52.960 a good question and we got that 00:30:52.960 --> 00:30:57.690 we got that actually from DCAD. Okay. And I tried to find 00:30:57.690 --> 00:30:59.240 what an improved pasture 00:30:59.240 --> 00:31:04.259 is. I could not find that. My thought is maybe it's got a 00:31:04.259 --> 00:31:05.519 dirt road going through 00:31:05.519 --> 00:31:11.839 it and it's used for agriculture you know crop land or 00:31:11.839 --> 00:31:13.480 pasture for animals. 00:31:13.480 --> 00:31:16.519 Something like that. Cool thank you. Other question while 00:31:16.519 --> 00:31:17.119 we're on this with 00:31:17.119 --> 00:31:25.480 compatibility with the NR6 zone proposal what buffers need 00:31:25.480 --> 00:31:25.640 to be 00:31:25.640 --> 00:31:27.890 created when we're up against something like that CH 00:31:27.890 --> 00:31:29.079 Collins and all that right 00:31:29.079 --> 00:31:33.039 there? Well actually because of the fact that it's across 00:31:33.039 --> 00:31:34.240 the street. No buffer. 00:31:34.240 --> 00:31:39.470 No buffers. Okay. No. Has the I know and I know the zoning 00:31:39.470 --> 00:31:40.440 stage is not plotting 00:31:40.440 --> 00:31:44.849 but the other site plan I should say. The is the applicant 00:31:44.849 --> 00:31:46.720 discussed any type of 00:31:46.720 --> 00:31:50.160 way of deterring light sound all that stuff in regards to 00:31:50.160 --> 00:31:51.519 this project? Well I'll 00:31:51.519 --> 00:31:55.089 let the applicant answer that one. Okay thank you. I do 00:31:55.089 --> 00:31:56.720 want to note that there 00:31:56.720 --> 00:32:02.579 is ESA in this area right here and the applicant is 00:32:02.579 --> 00:32:04.920 planning to preserve all 00:32:04.920 --> 00:32:09.519 of the ESA that's in the area. It's got a couple of site 00:32:09.519 --> 00:32:10.579 constraints which which 00:32:10.579 --> 00:32:13.740 are calling for that NR6. It's the ESA here plus they have 00:32:13.740 --> 00:32:15.079 an overhead power 00:32:15.079 --> 00:32:18.599 line that goes straight through the middle bisecting the 00:32:18.599 --> 00:32:19.720 site so that they 00:32:19.720 --> 00:32:23.880 have to keep certain amount away from those I think 17 feet 00:32:23.880 --> 00:32:26.440 from the edge. So 00:32:26.440 --> 00:32:30.400 they're accommodating all that as well. Continue 00:32:30.400 --> 00:32:31.640 Commissioner Schmitt. Thank you 00:32:31.640 --> 00:32:35.789 Chair. That brings up another point then so the ESA we 00:32:35.789 --> 00:32:37.039 talked about a 00:32:37.039 --> 00:32:40.440 couple months ago but I can't remember the direct term for 00:32:40.440 --> 00:32:42.079 it but we had a 00:32:42.079 --> 00:32:44.430 project I remember was off Ryan Road where they're gonna 00:32:44.430 --> 00:32:45.200 preserve a lot of 00:32:45.200 --> 00:32:48.490 the ESA and they're gonna condense down to having I guess 00:32:48.490 --> 00:32:49.759 basically smaller 00:32:49.759 --> 00:32:54.250 smaller plats there I guess smaller lots. That's what they 00:32:54.250 --> 00:32:55.160 were. Thank you very much. 00:32:55.160 --> 00:32:59.230 Small lots and therefore it's gonna have a higher density 00:32:59.230 --> 00:33:00.920 there but we take over 00:33:00.920 --> 00:33:05.000 the entire plat there it still has a spread it evens out 00:33:05.000 --> 00:33:05.359 because there's 00:33:05.359 --> 00:33:07.509 certain areas that's left behind. That's right. So does 00:33:07.509 --> 00:33:08.400 that mean since they're 00:33:08.400 --> 00:33:11.710 reserving that that really they are gonna have more like an 00:33:11.710 --> 00:33:12.839 NR6 style type 00:33:12.839 --> 00:33:17.079 lots then? Yes. Okay because they're reserving the ESA. It 00:33:17.079 --> 00:33:19.160 's what we call cluster zoning. Cluster zoning. 00:33:19.160 --> 00:33:23.799 Cluster site design rather and where you cluster the houses 00:33:23.799 --> 00:33:27.450 together so that they preserve certain special features of 00:33:27.450 --> 00:33:28.359 the land. So the 00:33:28.359 --> 00:33:30.900 applicant's arguments then that might be like well you know 00:33:30.900 --> 00:33:32.200 we're doing NR6 00:33:32.200 --> 00:33:34.990 even though we really rather do NR4 because we're really 00:33:34.990 --> 00:33:36.599 gonna have a 4.7 or 4.3. 00:33:36.599 --> 00:33:38.920 Well no you're actually gonna have more like NR6 because 00:33:38.920 --> 00:33:39.759 you're gonna be doing 00:33:39.759 --> 00:33:42.730 essentially cluster zoning. There lots are gonna be smaller 00:33:42.730 --> 00:33:43.440 for the cluster. 00:33:43.440 --> 00:33:46.680 Yeah. However their overall the overall density of the 00:33:46.680 --> 00:33:47.799 entire subdivision where 00:33:47.799 --> 00:33:54.079 you include the NR4 will be 4.3. Okay. That's all. Thank 00:33:54.079 --> 00:33:55.119 you. Commissioner Beck. 00:33:55.119 --> 00:33:58.559 Thank you chair. I have one other concern related to 00:33:58.559 --> 00:34:00.279 traffic. Long Road I believe 00:34:00.279 --> 00:34:06.140 connects on the west there to Stewart Road. Correct. So 00:34:06.140 --> 00:34:07.519 that's gonna be a good 00:34:07.519 --> 00:34:11.320 outlet for that subdivision. 00:34:14.639 --> 00:34:20.559 Yes we did how but Long Road is scheduled to be revised and 00:34:20.559 --> 00:34:21.039 connect 00:34:21.039 --> 00:34:27.380 straight across here in the future. So but they did look at 00:34:27.380 --> 00:34:28.880 that as well. 00:34:31.000 --> 00:34:34.289 Possibly the living and lying in the way of Long Road 00:34:34.289 --> 00:34:35.480 itself. 00:34:35.480 --> 00:34:40.840 Well not with this particular subdivision. 00:34:48.119 --> 00:34:49.420 Development must comply with all ESA tree preservation, 00:34:49.420 --> 00:34:53.159 buffer screening, tree 00:34:53.159 --> 00:34:56.119 canopy and lighting conditions and both water and 00:34:56.119 --> 00:34:57.599 wastewater service are 00:34:57.599 --> 00:35:03.460 available to the site from Long Road. We sent out public 00:35:03.460 --> 00:35:04.719 notifications on June 00:35:04.719 --> 00:35:09.440 10th. Within 200 feet we sent three certified mailing 00:35:09.440 --> 00:35:12.239 notices and within 500 00:35:12.239 --> 00:35:15.869 feet we sent three as well. Due to the large size of the 00:35:15.869 --> 00:35:17.159 ownership parcels 00:35:17.159 --> 00:35:21.659 here there aren't very many owners. We received no response 00:35:21.659 --> 00:35:22.880 in opposition and 00:35:22.880 --> 00:35:26.610 one response from the property to the north in favor which 00:35:26.610 --> 00:35:28.400 comprises 23% of 00:35:28.400 --> 00:35:33.599 the land within the 200 foot buffer. Staff recommends 00:35:33.599 --> 00:35:35.519 approval of this request 00:35:35.519 --> 00:35:39.059 with the following recommendations. We recommend that the 00:35:39.059 --> 00:35:40.360 overlay be placed on 00:35:40.360 --> 00:35:42.969 the site and the use of the property be restricted to 00:35:42.969 --> 00:35:44.199 single-family detached 00:35:44.199 --> 00:35:47.510 housing at a maximum density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre 00:35:47.510 --> 00:35:48.880 . For the remainder 00:35:48.880 --> 00:35:54.280 of our recommendations Jerry Drake the City Attorney will 00:35:54.280 --> 00:35:56.559 be crafting and 00:35:56.559 --> 00:36:01.630 wordsmithing a type of recommendation that will be applied 00:36:01.630 --> 00:36:03.760 to the general 00:36:03.760 --> 00:36:06.099 development plan. We're going to require a general 00:36:06.099 --> 00:36:07.440 development plan for this so 00:36:07.440 --> 00:36:14.360 that we can time the provision of the roadway improvements. 00:36:14.360 --> 00:36:19.260 Can I speak to that a little bit? Yeah and as Cindy and the 00:36:19.260 --> 00:36:21.599 staff did a great job of putting this 00:36:21.599 --> 00:36:25.570 together and they sent over a draft with these 00:36:25.570 --> 00:36:28.199 recommendations on it. The 00:36:28.199 --> 00:36:33.679 concern that we had for the overlay conditions BC and D is 00:36:33.679 --> 00:36:34.360 they're 00:36:34.360 --> 00:36:39.119 somewhat unusual as zoning conditions. They're really more 00:36:39.119 --> 00:36:39.679 development 00:36:39.679 --> 00:36:45.539 standards and so what we were recommending would be a 00:36:45.539 --> 00:36:46.280 better 00:36:46.280 --> 00:36:53.000 alternative you know as far as legal compliance would be to 00:36:53.000 --> 00:36:54.039 possibly 00:36:54.039 --> 00:37:00.559 substitute a requirement of pursuing the general 00:37:00.559 --> 00:37:01.840 development plan which is 00:37:01.840 --> 00:37:06.559 required by the code already just because of the size of it 00:37:06.559 --> 00:37:07.480 and the 00:37:07.480 --> 00:37:12.940 necessity of off-site improvements and to pursue the very 00:37:12.940 --> 00:37:15.219 same issues via the 00:37:15.219 --> 00:37:20.119 GDP process and upon final planning anyway. So it's just a 00:37:20.119 --> 00:37:21.119 rewording of the 00:37:21.119 --> 00:37:25.849 same thing to reflect what our actual practice would be to 00:37:25.849 --> 00:37:27.000 address this 00:37:27.000 --> 00:37:31.909 through the planning process. So I guess the recommendation 00:37:31.909 --> 00:37:33.800 would be for to 00:37:33.800 --> 00:37:39.769 restrict the use and density of the site and a general 00:37:39.769 --> 00:37:41.519 development plan. 00:37:41.519 --> 00:37:44.130 Commissioner Rossell. Thank you chair. When I read the 00:37:44.130 --> 00:37:44.920 recommendations that's the 00:37:44.920 --> 00:37:47.460 first thing I thought why are we putting BC and D on a 00:37:47.460 --> 00:37:48.559 zoning case it seems 00:37:48.559 --> 00:37:52.840 extremely odd. It also seems like those are things the city 00:37:52.840 --> 00:37:53.760 should be dealing 00:37:53.760 --> 00:37:56.780 with in terms of if we have impact fees that are based on 00:37:56.780 --> 00:37:57.960 regions and we know 00:37:57.960 --> 00:38:01.679 developments coming in why are we putting the onus on the 00:38:01.679 --> 00:38:02.920 developer to 00:38:02.920 --> 00:38:05.710 make sure the timing of that is all right. This the 00:38:05.710 --> 00:38:06.880 developers are contributing 00:38:06.880 --> 00:38:11.360 the cost dedicated southbound turn lane where's the signal 00:38:11.360 --> 00:38:12.880 the signal I'd be the 00:38:12.880 --> 00:38:15.079 developer saw it contribute to the cost of signal lights 00:38:15.079 --> 00:38:16.079 isn't that assumed in 00:38:16.079 --> 00:38:17.980 the impact fees that that's where the money would go 00:38:17.980 --> 00:38:19.039 towards because the TIA. 00:38:19.039 --> 00:38:23.389 Not necessarily this is all the result of the traffic 00:38:23.389 --> 00:38:24.559 impact analysis if we 00:38:24.559 --> 00:38:27.349 had not had the traffic impact analysis we would not know a 00:38:27.349 --> 00:38:28.239 signal was required 00:38:28.239 --> 00:38:32.969 there. But why I understand that but why are we defining it 00:38:32.969 --> 00:38:33.880 for them to 00:38:33.880 --> 00:38:36.789 specifically do aren't are they not contributing the impact 00:38:36.789 --> 00:38:37.400 fees for the 00:38:37.400 --> 00:38:41.639 road. They will be. And the impact fees should be going 00:38:41.639 --> 00:38:43.199 towards theoretically a 00:38:43.199 --> 00:38:46.769 signal light is that also correct? That's right. So why are 00:38:46.769 --> 00:38:47.320 we putting any 00:38:47.320 --> 00:38:49.679 condition on the property of things that should be 00:38:49.679 --> 00:38:51.440 happening already? We were 00:38:51.440 --> 00:38:55.190 trying to ensure that they would happen we've had 00:38:55.190 --> 00:38:57.559 situations in the past where 00:38:57.559 --> 00:39:03.420 we've had these requirements for impact fees and payment 00:39:03.420 --> 00:39:04.559 for signal lights and 00:39:04.559 --> 00:39:06.769 such and it didn't happen yet based on the way it was 00:39:06.769 --> 00:39:08.639 plotted in the past so 00:39:08.639 --> 00:39:15.849 we were trying to ensure that this would happen. Okay not 00:39:15.849 --> 00:39:17.679 in agreement with the BC 00:39:17.679 --> 00:39:23.639 and D conditions but secondly I lost my turn of thought 00:39:23.639 --> 00:39:25.199 guys and I was gonna be a 00:39:25.199 --> 00:39:34.679 good one too. Yeah I'll come back. Absolutely. I just 00:39:34.679 --> 00:39:37.150 wanted to also explain a little bit with respect to this 00:39:37.150 --> 00:39:39.519 you know one of the main criteria when we 00:39:39.519 --> 00:39:42.619 review these rezoning is to make sure that there's adequate 00:39:42.619 --> 00:39:43.559 public facilities 00:39:43.559 --> 00:39:47.289 right and so putting this amount of development how can we 00:39:47.289 --> 00:39:48.000 know if the 00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:51.679 adequate facilities are really there and so that's why that 00:39:51.679 --> 00:39:53.119 TIA was required. 00:39:53.119 --> 00:39:56.309 While the conditions were on there again they are going to 00:39:56.309 --> 00:39:57.239 be based when that 00:39:57.239 --> 00:40:00.500 proportionality study is done at time of platyp and so it 00:40:00.500 --> 00:40:01.440 more or less was like a 00:40:01.440 --> 00:40:05.480 heads-up hey this is coming down the pike but also we are 00:40:05.480 --> 00:40:06.280 we did look at this 00:40:06.280 --> 00:40:09.159 in order for us to support it the public you know it's 00:40:09.159 --> 00:40:10.559 again it's a chicken 00:40:10.559 --> 00:40:13.349 versus the egg so yes we can support it if the public 00:40:13.349 --> 00:40:14.639 facilities are addressed 00:40:14.639 --> 00:40:17.429 they'll be addressed by this although this can't get 00:40:17.429 --> 00:40:18.679 discussed until the time 00:40:18.679 --> 00:40:22.829 of platyp and so that's really got you. I remembered what I 00:40:22.829 --> 00:40:23.800 was gonna say and it is 00:40:23.800 --> 00:40:27.239 in line with kind of what you're saying this is attached 00:40:27.239 --> 00:40:28.880 now to the zoning we 00:40:28.880 --> 00:40:31.079 just saw on the individual considerations of plat that fell 00:40:31.079 --> 00:40:31.659 through if this 00:40:31.659 --> 00:40:35.360 developer was to resell and someone else bought it 00:40:35.360 --> 00:40:37.280 regardless of what density 00:40:37.280 --> 00:40:39.400 they're gonna put on it they would have to contribute to a 00:40:39.400 --> 00:40:40.159 signal light at that 00:40:40.159 --> 00:40:46.639 intersection of I'm okay. Well based based on what they're 00:40:46.639 --> 00:40:47.559 doing based on 00:40:47.559 --> 00:40:52.000 what they're doing it depends on if what they're proposing 00:40:52.000 --> 00:40:53.360 warrants the signal 00:40:53.360 --> 00:40:57.829 light. Well the recommendation says they shall contribute 00:40:57.829 --> 00:40:58.840 to the signal light now 00:40:58.840 --> 00:41:01.630 the amount might change but they will be contributing 00:41:01.630 --> 00:41:02.760 regardless of what happens 00:41:02.760 --> 00:41:05.260 that property into perpetuity. Oh I see what you're saying 00:41:05.260 --> 00:41:06.920 yeah yeah it would be based on 00:41:06.920 --> 00:41:09.219 proportionality and it would be based on what they were 00:41:09.219 --> 00:41:10.159 planning to do with the 00:41:10.159 --> 00:41:13.650 property. Well it's not based on what they're doing with 00:41:13.650 --> 00:41:16.760 the property that is 00:41:16.760 --> 00:41:21.079 not in the recommendation so if they were to put a one big 00:41:21.079 --> 00:41:21.639 if someone was to 00:41:21.639 --> 00:41:24.219 resell it put a big ranch on it proportionality would be 00:41:24.219 --> 00:41:24.760 one or two 00:41:24.760 --> 00:41:27.099 roads but that owner of that property would still be 00:41:27.099 --> 00:41:28.199 required based on this 00:41:28.199 --> 00:41:31.800 recommendation to pay for part of that signal light. Right 00:41:31.800 --> 00:41:32.719 I think that's why 00:41:32.719 --> 00:41:35.219 these generally aren't attached to zoning cases which goes 00:41:35.219 --> 00:41:35.679 back to my 00:41:35.679 --> 00:41:39.440 original confusion of why we're doing that. Well like 00:41:39.440 --> 00:41:41.079 Richard said we wanted to 00:41:41.079 --> 00:41:45.269 ensure that the infrastructure would be available since 00:41:45.269 --> 00:41:46.679 that is a requirement 00:41:46.679 --> 00:41:54.480 for rezoning. If it is just going to be a ranch again that 00:41:54.480 --> 00:41:55.800 would be when it gets 00:41:55.800 --> 00:41:59.159 platted it would just be restricted to that so if it's only 00:41:59.159 --> 00:42:00.239 going to generate 00:42:00.239 --> 00:42:04.010 five or ten trips because it's one single-family home then 00:42:04.010 --> 00:42:04.679 it probably 00:42:04.679 --> 00:42:07.579 wouldn't have they wouldn't have to comply with these but 00:42:07.579 --> 00:42:08.599 if they were going 00:42:08.599 --> 00:42:11.989 to develop at that maximum density then then it would kick 00:42:11.989 --> 00:42:13.239 in so again it's it's 00:42:13.239 --> 00:42:16.619 once you once you trigger sort of that that trip threshold 00:42:16.619 --> 00:42:17.920 where you're going to 00:42:17.920 --> 00:42:21.420 reduce the level of service below you know if it's going to 00:42:21.420 --> 00:42:22.559 an F- then 00:42:22.559 --> 00:42:25.090 you're gonna you're gonna have to contribute your 00:42:25.090 --> 00:42:26.320 proportionality to it 00:42:26.320 --> 00:42:29.449 whether you do the full number of units or you do two. I 00:42:29.449 --> 00:42:31.039 think I understand what 00:42:31.039 --> 00:42:34.659 you're saying but that's maybe the words with it needs to 00:42:34.659 --> 00:42:35.679 happen then because 00:42:35.679 --> 00:42:38.190 that's not articulated in this recommendation. Yeah and 00:42:38.190 --> 00:42:39.239 that will happen 00:42:39.239 --> 00:42:43.059 prior before it goes to City Council. Yeah it's the 00:42:43.059 --> 00:42:45.119 recommendation is not to 00:42:45.119 --> 00:42:49.639 have BC and D written at in that fashion the recommendation 00:42:49.639 --> 00:42:51.320 is to have A and 00:42:51.320 --> 00:42:55.159 then to have a second condition that points out the 00:42:55.159 --> 00:42:56.800 requirement for the 00:42:56.800 --> 00:43:02.230 general development plan that would base the they would 00:43:02.230 --> 00:43:03.280 base the level of 00:43:03.280 --> 00:43:06.570 contribution upon the proportionality study to be done at 00:43:06.570 --> 00:43:07.840 the time during the 00:43:07.840 --> 00:43:12.079 planning process. The the issue by referencing the general 00:43:12.079 --> 00:43:12.760 development plan 00:43:12.760 --> 00:43:16.050 is they're going to have to do it anyway just due to the 00:43:16.050 --> 00:43:17.360 size of the property. 00:43:17.360 --> 00:43:20.150 It's presumed that that's going to be a necessary component 00:43:20.150 --> 00:43:22.679 . In addition the 00:43:22.679 --> 00:43:26.030 fact that there are already identified off-site 00:43:26.030 --> 00:43:27.400 improvements that is that 00:43:27.400 --> 00:43:31.159 triggers a general development plan as well and it's it 00:43:31.159 --> 00:43:33.639 seems likely that this 00:43:33.639 --> 00:43:37.599 could be a phased development and so sometimes you have to 00:43:37.599 --> 00:43:38.599 say well which 00:43:38.599 --> 00:43:42.840 which final plat phase are we talking about for doing this. 00:43:42.840 --> 00:43:43.599 That's what the 00:43:43.599 --> 00:43:46.760 general development plan does and that's part of the whole 00:43:46.760 --> 00:43:48.239 purpose of it. So the 00:43:48.239 --> 00:43:53.119 the proposal that I suggested is to remove BC and D and to 00:43:53.119 --> 00:43:54.400 reference the 00:43:54.400 --> 00:43:58.360 necessity of going through the general development plan 00:43:58.360 --> 00:44:00.719 process to identify you 00:44:00.719 --> 00:44:03.849 know what what is going to be needed as far as any kind of 00:44:03.849 --> 00:44:05.519 contribution. That way 00:44:05.519 --> 00:44:07.820 if it's a farm or if it's something else and they go 00:44:07.820 --> 00:44:09.360 through a planning process 00:44:09.360 --> 00:44:12.659 that that's different from what you see here in these 00:44:12.659 --> 00:44:14.159 exhibits in the backup 00:44:14.159 --> 00:44:17.980 then that will take that into consideration as well. But 00:44:17.980 --> 00:44:18.760 even if it is a 00:44:18.760 --> 00:44:21.860 farm if it's going to be planted it's going to require the 00:44:21.860 --> 00:44:22.719 GDP just because of 00:44:22.719 --> 00:44:26.760 the size. The mere fact that it's 70 acres is going is 00:44:26.760 --> 00:44:28.480 greater than 20 acres 00:44:28.480 --> 00:44:35.019 which is the threshold for requiring a GDP. Right and when 00:44:35.019 --> 00:44:36.480 you when we go out 00:44:36.480 --> 00:44:39.400 for the public hearing these will be changed it's just I 00:44:39.400 --> 00:44:40.400 hadn't had an 00:44:40.400 --> 00:44:43.579 opportunity to change the recommendations after since 00:44:43.579 --> 00:44:44.440 finding out 00:44:44.440 --> 00:44:50.599 about this new requirement. I hit her with this today. 00:44:50.599 --> 00:44:50.760 Thank you. 00:44:51.159 --> 00:44:55.230 Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair. Okay so to clarify 00:44:55.230 --> 00:44:58.360 this ideally if we're 00:44:58.360 --> 00:45:04.679 recommending approval it would be with a not BC and D but 00:45:04.679 --> 00:45:08.079 adding a general B 00:45:08.079 --> 00:45:11.110 being a general development plan. Yeah that will 00:45:11.110 --> 00:45:12.639 incorporate the elements of 00:45:12.639 --> 00:45:16.199 BC and D as appropriate. 00:45:17.440 --> 00:45:20.440 Commissioner back. I'm sorry I'm a little confused too and 00:45:20.440 --> 00:45:21.400 you mentioned if we're 00:45:21.400 --> 00:45:26.349 gonna approve this zone change to an NR6 how can we come in 00:45:26.349 --> 00:45:27.159 and build a farm 00:45:27.159 --> 00:45:32.949 later? Am I missing something there? Agricultural uses are 00:45:32.949 --> 00:45:33.559 allowed in that 00:45:33.559 --> 00:45:36.980 district. Okay but we're talking about this area that we're 00:45:36.980 --> 00:45:38.280 gonna rezone. You're 00:45:38.280 --> 00:45:42.320 rezoning it and what you've got is a maximum density you 00:45:42.320 --> 00:45:43.079 can go below it. 00:45:43.079 --> 00:45:48.639 Okay. It was a hypothetical sorry. Okay I understand. I 00:45:48.639 --> 00:45:50.159 thought that the fact that 00:45:50.159 --> 00:45:54.650 it was an NR6 would even limit it from okay gotcha thank 00:45:54.650 --> 00:45:55.559 you. 00:45:57.159 --> 00:46:02.230 That concludes my presentation. That was a good move on 00:46:02.230 --> 00:46:09.639 your part. I have a question on the 4.7 00:46:09.639 --> 00:46:11.889 is that something the applicants agreed to or is that 00:46:11.889 --> 00:46:14.440 something staff is? The 00:46:14.440 --> 00:46:18.590 applicants has agreed to it. Okay. That is actually the 00:46:18.590 --> 00:46:19.679 zone the density that 00:46:19.679 --> 00:46:24.849 they're proposing. Well I'm just looking at it if for some 00:46:24.849 --> 00:46:26.480 reason it doesn't move 00:46:26.480 --> 00:46:30.239 forward they've put a limitation somebody has to come back 00:46:30.239 --> 00:46:31.239 if they wanted 00:46:31.239 --> 00:46:36.280 to do townhomes for example because if it is zoned an NR6 00:46:36.280 --> 00:46:37.199 then all that 00:46:37.199 --> 00:46:41.429 property that's underneath the high lines and underneath or 00:46:41.429 --> 00:46:42.519 in the ESA is 00:46:42.519 --> 00:46:46.349 effectively taken out of the mix so it's really only the 00:46:46.349 --> 00:46:47.880 developable land versus 00:46:47.880 --> 00:46:52.159 areas that are in easements and ESAs that they can't get a 00:46:52.159 --> 00:46:53.559 density transfer on 00:46:53.559 --> 00:46:59.050 those. So I'm just curious if they were amenable to that or 00:46:59.050 --> 00:47:01.000 not. Well we didn't 00:47:01.000 --> 00:47:04.179 discuss density transfer to be honest with you. Okay. What 00:47:04.179 --> 00:47:05.559 we discussed was what 00:47:05.559 --> 00:47:11.920 they wanted to do on the site. Sure. Which was the NR7 00:47:11.920 --> 00:47:18.639 excuse me NR6 with 4.7 density preserving all of the ESA 00:47:18.639 --> 00:47:20.320 and clustering 00:47:20.320 --> 00:47:25.119 the houses so that they avoid the ESA and the overhead 00:47:25.119 --> 00:47:27.039 wires. In any future 00:47:27.039 --> 00:47:29.829 developer would have to do the same thing. Yes. It's just a 00:47:29.829 --> 00:47:30.280 matter of if 00:47:30.280 --> 00:47:33.940 somebody had a different vision for that area the density 00:47:33.940 --> 00:47:35.579 then is capped with 00:47:35.579 --> 00:47:43.369 this. That's correct. Overlaying. Okay. Commissioner San 00:47:43.369 --> 00:47:44.840 chez. Yeah I was looking 00:47:44.840 --> 00:47:50.699 at where it says background it talks about where it's the 00:47:50.699 --> 00:47:52.519 developers talks 00:47:52.519 --> 00:47:57.320 about a 384 lot single-family subdivision and I and then 00:47:57.320 --> 00:47:58.000 that was a 00:47:58.000 --> 00:48:00.789 question I had is then if you go to the first page we're 00:48:00.789 --> 00:48:02.079 talking about he first 00:48:02.079 --> 00:48:07.690 submitted for 384 lot single-family then we're talking 00:48:07.690 --> 00:48:10.119 about 395 so that's my 00:48:10.119 --> 00:48:18.250 question was the 395 would include the NR4. Okay but you 00:48:18.250 --> 00:48:19.400 had a larger right 00:48:19.400 --> 00:48:24.130 take a look at take a look at the the preliminary plat okay 00:48:24.130 --> 00:48:25.400 that is in your 00:48:25.400 --> 00:48:31.280 packet okay. City can you pop the zoning map? 00:48:32.960 --> 00:48:38.840 This is the zoning map right here the entire site including 00:48:38.840 --> 00:48:39.920 everything. Yeah so 00:48:39.920 --> 00:48:43.880 so they're their ownership if you look at where it has the 00:48:43.880 --> 00:48:45.039 current the brown 00:48:45.039 --> 00:48:48.309 the that brown strip just to the east or to the right is 00:48:48.309 --> 00:48:50.119 also owned by them and 00:48:50.119 --> 00:48:54.110 so what happened when this property was annexed it that 00:48:54.110 --> 00:48:55.320 first I think what is it 00:48:55.320 --> 00:49:00.050 500 feet was annexed and then assigned to zoning and so it 00:49:00.050 --> 00:49:01.639 already a portion of 00:49:01.639 --> 00:49:04.429 their property is already zoned right right right and so 00:49:04.429 --> 00:49:06.000 the back part they're 00:49:06.000 --> 00:49:09.349 going for NR6 right and that's where you see that those 00:49:09.349 --> 00:49:10.619 additional units so I 00:49:10.619 --> 00:49:14.250 think the it actually overall it's a little bit less than 00:49:14.250 --> 00:49:16.159 the 4.7 it's 4.3 00:49:16.159 --> 00:49:21.949 4.3 when you factor in the site to the east component of 00:49:21.949 --> 00:49:23.239 the site to these 00:49:23.239 --> 00:49:28.530 right this this was strip annexed I I think it was back in 00:49:28.530 --> 00:49:31.519 the 80s so by the 00:49:31.519 --> 00:49:34.409 city and this type of annexation is no longer permitted 00:49:34.409 --> 00:49:35.639 anymore but it's a way 00:49:35.639 --> 00:49:42.119 of extending your your extraterritorial jurisdiction and we 00:49:42.119 --> 00:49:43.440 it's we can't do it 00:49:43.440 --> 00:49:47.590 anymore and actually you can see why we were left to deal 00:49:47.590 --> 00:49:49.039 with the aftermath 00:49:51.639 --> 00:49:56.619 it's I still don't get it because it says on the background 00:49:56.619 --> 00:49:57.199 it says the 00:49:57.199 --> 00:50:00.860 applicant and then it gives his name is requesting approval 00:50:00.860 --> 00:50:02.039 of initial zoning 00:50:02.039 --> 00:50:05.639 designation of NR6 which is that section right there 00:50:05.639 --> 00:50:07.159 pursuit to the development 00:50:07.159 --> 00:50:15.599 site with a 384 not single family units but then oh okay so 00:50:15.599 --> 00:50:16.320 you're adding the 00:50:16.320 --> 00:50:28.349 other yeah okay okay okay any other questions commissioner 00:50:28.349 --> 00:50:29.199 Ellis thank you 00:50:29.199 --> 00:50:32.739 just real quick Cindy I know in your analysis it said that 00:50:32.739 --> 00:50:33.719 the in lieu of a 00:50:33.719 --> 00:50:35.710 neighborhood meeting which doesn't make sense that he was 00:50:35.710 --> 00:50:36.360 gonna talk to the 00:50:36.360 --> 00:50:40.610 surrounding landowners yes did the offer any outcome of 00:50:40.610 --> 00:50:42.199 that oh yes everybody 00:50:42.199 --> 00:50:46.360 was in full favor of it and one of them actually sent in a 00:50:46.360 --> 00:50:47.360 letter saying they 00:50:47.360 --> 00:50:52.230 were yeah he was because there's only three we didn't see 00:50:52.230 --> 00:50:52.880 the point of a 00:50:52.880 --> 00:51:00.840 neighborhood meeting any other questions for Cindy thank 00:51:00.840 --> 00:51:03.719 you Cindy thank you 00:51:10.440 --> 00:51:16.300 that will take care of all of our items on our work session 00:51:16.300 --> 00:51:19.880 agenda so with that 00:51:19.880 --> 00:51:24.780 we will close our work session at 553 and we'll reconvene 00:51:24.780 --> 00:51:26.159 in council chambers 00:51:26.159 --> 00:51:29.199 at 630 00:51:37.360 --> 00:51:38.360 good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and 00:51:38.360 --> 00:51:41.400 zoning Commission 00:51:41.400 --> 00:51:46.440 meeting for July 11th 2018 this meeting has been duly 00:51:46.440 --> 00:51:47.679 posted and we do have a 00:51:47.679 --> 00:51:50.699 quorum present at this time I will ask that we all stand 00:51:50.699 --> 00:51:52.079 and give the pledge to 00:51:52.079 --> 00:51:57.480 us and the Texas flag and I'm gonna call us to order at 630 00:52:17.679 --> 00:52:38.489 next order of business will be to consider approval of our 00:52:38.489 --> 00:52:39.159 planning and 00:52:39.159 --> 00:52:43.760 zoning Commission me minutes would chair entertain a motion 00:52:43.760 --> 00:52:44.840 for these two items 00:52:44.840 --> 00:52:48.199 individually Commissioner Roselle I move approval of the 00:52:48.199 --> 00:52:49.719 June 13th minutes 00:52:49.719 --> 00:52:54.469 Commissioner Beck second okay I have a first and a second 00:52:54.469 --> 00:52:55.320 for approval any 00:52:55.320 --> 00:53:00.050 further discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the 00:53:00.050 --> 00:53:00.840 board and I'll 00:53:00.840 --> 00:53:04.719 abstain I was absent on this one 00:53:13.360 --> 00:53:18.239 that motion is going to carry five zero 00:53:19.880 --> 00:53:23.639 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I move approval of the 00:53:23.639 --> 00:53:25.000 June 27th minutes 00:53:25.000 --> 00:53:29.280 okay Commissioner Roselle second okay we have a first and a 00:53:29.280 --> 00:53:30.440 second for approval 00:53:30.440 --> 00:53:35.510 any discussion or comments seeing none I'll call for a vote 00:53:35.510 --> 00:53:38.679 on the board 00:53:43.360 --> 00:53:54.920 motion is going to carry five zero we'll move us to our 00:53:54.920 --> 00:53:58.280 consent agenda 00:54:00.679 --> 00:54:04.639 Commissioner Smith motion to approve okay Commissioner Rose 00:54:04.639 --> 00:54:06.320 lle second okay we 00:54:06.320 --> 00:54:12.099 have a first and a second for approval any discussion or 00:54:12.099 --> 00:54:13.880 questions seeing none 00:54:13.880 --> 00:54:17.039 I'll call for a vote on the board 00:54:23.280 --> 00:54:27.329 motions can carry six to zero move us to our items for 00:54:27.329 --> 00:54:29.760 individual 00:54:29.760 --> 00:54:36.880 consideration call on Julie Wyatt for presentation 00:54:51.159 --> 00:54:55.679 good evening I'm Julie Wyatt and I am presenting PE 18 one 00:54:55.679 --> 00:54:57.079 symbiosis edition 00:54:57.079 --> 00:55:01.809 to you so the subject property is located adjacent to 00:55:01.809 --> 00:55:02.719 Johnson Street just 00:55:02.719 --> 00:55:06.869 west of it it is south of East Collins and in the vicinity 00:55:06.869 --> 00:55:08.360 is Dallas Drive a 00:55:08.360 --> 00:55:13.420 plot was proved approved for this site in on July 13th of 00:55:13.420 --> 00:55:15.719 2016 as part of the 00:55:15.719 --> 00:55:19.550 review of that plot it included some public improvements 00:55:19.550 --> 00:55:20.400 including perimeter 00:55:20.400 --> 00:55:24.010 street improvements some storm drain extensions as well as 00:55:24.010 --> 00:55:25.599 a sidewalk and 00:55:25.599 --> 00:55:28.469 today they are asking for an extension of that plot it's 00:55:28.469 --> 00:55:29.559 lot one block one of 00:55:29.559 --> 00:55:35.420 the symbiosis edition so under sub chapter 16 of the Denton 00:55:35.420 --> 00:55:35.880 Development 00:55:35.880 --> 00:55:39.739 Code final plots expire after two years if they are not 00:55:39.739 --> 00:55:40.760 filed of record with 00:55:40.760 --> 00:55:44.909 Denton County however sub chapter 16 also has a provision 00:55:44.909 --> 00:55:45.960 that the Planning 00:55:45.960 --> 00:55:50.110 and Zoning Commission can grant an extension if there is 00:55:50.110 --> 00:55:50.960 good cause 00:55:50.960 --> 00:55:53.750 according to the applicant though the construction costs 00:55:53.750 --> 00:55:54.519 associated with those 00:55:54.519 --> 00:55:57.309 public improvements that were required exceeded the 00:55:57.309 --> 00:55:58.360 projected budget and 00:55:58.360 --> 00:56:01.150 therefore it stalled the project and the plot was never 00:56:01.150 --> 00:56:03.039 filed so at this time the 00:56:03.039 --> 00:56:06.389 owner is asking a request an ex for an extension of the 00:56:06.389 --> 00:56:07.840 existing plot because he 00:56:07.840 --> 00:56:10.309 believes that some economic factors have changed and so 00:56:10.309 --> 00:56:11.360 that the feasibility of 00:56:11.360 --> 00:56:18.000 the project is now the project is more feasible so so he is 00:56:18.000 --> 00:56:18.559 asking for that 00:56:18.559 --> 00:56:22.400 extension we have reviewed the request for the extension 00:56:22.400 --> 00:56:23.280 and determined that 00:56:23.280 --> 00:56:27.840 the delay that was created for the public improvements war 00:56:27.840 --> 00:56:28.239 rants an 00:56:28.239 --> 00:56:31.969 extension there was some question in the in the work 00:56:31.969 --> 00:56:33.679 session regarding the 00:56:33.679 --> 00:56:36.659 criteria the the numbers of extensions that could be 00:56:36.659 --> 00:56:38.280 granted and then for the 00:56:38.280 --> 00:56:41.909 the duration of the extensions and so we looked at the code 00:56:41.909 --> 00:56:43.760 and we talked the 00:56:43.760 --> 00:56:47.909 code says an extension so to me that reads that that per 00:56:47.909 --> 00:56:48.920 the code one 00:56:48.920 --> 00:56:51.530 extension should be granted so we tried to come up with 00:56:51.530 --> 00:56:52.599 some ideas because I 00:56:52.599 --> 00:56:56.900 know the discussion was centered around with six months 00:56:56.900 --> 00:56:57.880 enough time for the 00:56:57.880 --> 00:57:01.840 applicant to move forward with those public improvements 00:57:01.840 --> 00:57:02.079 and those 00:57:02.079 --> 00:57:06.829 development contracts associated with it so so one idea is 00:57:06.829 --> 00:57:08.679 to approve a plot 00:57:08.679 --> 00:57:13.699 extension for six months with an option to to have another 00:57:13.699 --> 00:57:15.079 extension if they 00:57:15.079 --> 00:57:17.869 have made progress toward those development contracts and 00:57:17.869 --> 00:57:18.639 moving toward 00:57:18.639 --> 00:57:25.139 that that that filing of the plot so that's one option that 00:57:25.139 --> 00:57:25.519 you could 00:57:25.519 --> 00:57:28.650 approve the plot extension with the option for an 00:57:28.650 --> 00:57:30.920 additional extension this 00:57:30.920 --> 00:57:34.989 body could also approve a plot extension for a year or any 00:57:34.989 --> 00:57:36.280 timeline that that you 00:57:36.280 --> 00:57:41.050 see fit so those are kind of your options or or deny so 00:57:41.050 --> 00:57:42.000 those are the 00:57:42.000 --> 00:57:44.219 options before you I'll stand for any questions and I 00:57:44.219 --> 00:57:45.320 believe a representative 00:57:45.320 --> 00:57:48.420 of the applicant is here and he can answer any questions 00:57:48.420 --> 00:57:50.119 you have a couple 00:57:50.119 --> 00:57:53.320 questions questioner Ozel thank you chair the expiration 00:57:53.320 --> 00:57:54.519 for this is this 00:57:54.519 --> 00:57:58.239 Friday yes sir for clarification this our vote is the final 00:57:58.239 --> 00:57:58.639 doesn't go to 00:57:58.639 --> 00:58:02.400 council correct correct okay thanks 00:58:03.320 --> 00:58:16.360 Commissioner Beck thank you chair okay the six month 00:58:16.360 --> 00:58:18.719 extension are we going to 00:58:18.719 --> 00:58:22.880 establish criteria then for things that have to be done 00:58:22.880 --> 00:58:24.440 during that extension 00:58:24.440 --> 00:58:30.480 before we can extend it another six months okay you said if 00:58:30.480 --> 00:58:31.440 after the six 00:58:31.440 --> 00:58:34.230 months they need another extension we could do that based 00:58:34.230 --> 00:58:35.440 on what development 00:58:35.440 --> 00:58:38.840 some criteria that have to me well and and it is it is 00:58:38.840 --> 00:58:41.039 ultimately up to you but 00:58:41.039 --> 00:58:43.969 there you could put in that approval that there had to 00:58:43.969 --> 00:58:45.440 there would need to be 00:58:45.440 --> 00:58:49.269 progress made toward the development contracts associated 00:58:49.269 --> 00:58:50.280 with the public 00:58:50.280 --> 00:58:53.699 improvement so the typical development process within the 00:58:53.699 --> 00:58:54.440 city of Denton is 00:58:54.440 --> 00:58:57.579 once the plot is approved they have to work with our 00:58:57.579 --> 00:58:58.679 engineering and legal 00:58:58.679 --> 00:59:02.300 department to get development contracts signed as well as a 00:59:02.300 --> 00:59:04.000 fiscal surety and so 00:59:04.000 --> 00:59:07.699 if that is something that could be put it as a condition 00:59:07.699 --> 00:59:09.360 that progress would be 00:59:09.360 --> 00:59:13.559 neat would need to be made toward completing those items so 00:59:13.559 --> 00:59:14.480 it's moving 00:59:14.480 --> 00:59:17.269 toward the filing of the plates of impetus form right 00:59:17.269 --> 00:59:18.239 because at this time 00:59:18.239 --> 00:59:21.210 they have not submitted any development contracts they 00:59:21.210 --> 00:59:22.199 haven't moved forward 00:59:22.199 --> 00:59:29.469 with any of those requirements all right thank you sure don 00:59:29.469 --> 00:59:30.000 't see any other 00:59:30.000 --> 00:59:34.349 questions for you thank you Julie might want to stay close 00:59:34.349 --> 00:59:36.440 this is a item for 00:59:36.440 --> 00:59:38.900 individual consideration so if there is someone who would 00:59:38.900 --> 00:59:39.760 like to speak on this 00:59:39.760 --> 00:59:43.019 item you're welcome to come forward at this time if you'll 00:59:43.019 --> 00:59:44.199 give us your name 00:59:44.199 --> 00:59:46.719 and address and if you haven't already filled out a card if 00:59:46.719 --> 00:59:47.519 you'll fill out a 00:59:47.519 --> 00:59:50.579 card before you leave we'd appreciate it I have not filled 00:59:50.579 --> 00:59:51.119 out a card but I will great my 00:59:51.119 --> 00:59:54.219 name is Jim Dewey with JDJR engineers I'm the engineer of 00:59:54.219 --> 00:59:54.840 record for this 00:59:54.840 --> 00:59:57.260 project I'm here tonight on behalf of the property owner 00:59:57.260 --> 00:59:57.760 and develop 00:59:57.760 --> 01:00:02.039 developer he does own all the property he has intentions of 01:00:02.039 --> 01:00:02.920 developing it when 01:00:02.920 --> 01:00:06.239 we came through a couple of years ago several requirements 01:00:06.239 --> 01:00:07.360 came up through the 01:00:07.360 --> 01:00:11.679 approval process that quite frankly we weren't expecting I 01:00:11.679 --> 01:00:12.840 'm sure you all for 01:00:12.840 --> 01:00:15.940 me with this area of town it is an area that would be great 01:00:15.940 --> 01:00:16.440 for redevelopment 01:00:16.440 --> 01:00:20.510 and I think this project would be a win for the city as 01:00:20.510 --> 01:00:22.559 well as that area as a 01:00:22.559 --> 01:00:25.889 redevelopment some of these old houses into my student 01:00:25.889 --> 01:00:27.360 housing but the things 01:00:27.360 --> 01:00:30.929 that came up that were unexpected where we had to improve a 01:00:30.929 --> 01:00:31.880 portion of the 01:00:31.880 --> 01:00:34.760 street street out there Johnson Road is just an asphalt 01:00:34.760 --> 01:00:35.960 drive we're having to 01:00:35.960 --> 01:00:40.280 put in part of the concrete and carbon gutter on our side 01:00:40.280 --> 01:00:41.880 just for the piece in 01:00:41.880 --> 01:00:45.630 front of us with no idea how long other pieces will be 01:00:45.630 --> 01:00:48.599 there in addition to that 01:00:48.599 --> 01:00:51.969 we required there's no existing storm drain system out 01:00:51.969 --> 01:00:53.119 there and so we're 01:00:53.119 --> 01:00:57.079 required to do stormwater detention which we did a design 01:00:57.079 --> 01:00:58.199 for stormwater 01:00:58.199 --> 01:01:01.019 detention and let it back out into the bar ditch along the 01:01:01.019 --> 01:01:02.320 street but the Ditten 01:01:02.320 --> 01:01:05.420 code requires if you do detention there has to be an 01:01:05.420 --> 01:01:07.280 underground outlet you 01:01:07.280 --> 01:01:11.340 can't just release it back into the street since there's no 01:01:11.340 --> 01:01:12.280 storm drain 01:01:12.280 --> 01:01:16.809 system there we had to do it's four or five hundred feet of 01:01:16.809 --> 01:01:17.679 storm drain 01:01:17.679 --> 01:01:21.440 existing down Johnson to the north to an existing system 01:01:21.440 --> 01:01:22.960 and the only place that 01:01:22.960 --> 01:01:26.559 could be put was down the middle of the street so in 01:01:26.559 --> 01:01:27.679 addition to the cost of 01:01:27.679 --> 01:01:29.960 installing that storm drain system there's a cost of 01:01:29.960 --> 01:01:30.960 repairing the street 01:01:30.960 --> 01:01:35.289 as you go and for a project of this size that is a very 01:01:35.289 --> 01:01:37.260 significant both of those 01:01:37.260 --> 01:01:41.840 factors are very significant to the budget so quite frankly 01:01:41.840 --> 01:01:43.239 the owner put it 01:01:43.239 --> 01:01:45.659 off for a little while thinking even and then try to sell 01:01:45.659 --> 01:01:46.519 the property as an 01:01:46.519 --> 01:01:49.789 approved project and not build it himself but he was not 01:01:49.789 --> 01:01:51.559 successful he does intend 01:01:51.559 --> 01:01:54.000 to build it he wants to build it he's in the process of 01:01:54.000 --> 01:01:55.239 obtaining financing and 01:01:55.239 --> 01:02:00.280 he wants to move forward we were thinking that basically 01:02:00.280 --> 01:02:01.440 the the extension 01:02:01.440 --> 01:02:04.539 only gives us till December which at this point is really 01:02:04.539 --> 01:02:05.519 only five months 01:02:05.519 --> 01:02:10.010 it's not really even a six month extension so we were 01:02:10.010 --> 01:02:11.420 hoping for some 01:02:11.420 --> 01:02:15.869 type of either a longer extension or some type of automatic 01:02:15.869 --> 01:02:17.719 renewal like Julie 01:02:17.719 --> 01:02:20.639 said that maybe we can show that we've made some progress 01:02:20.639 --> 01:02:21.719 we're open to either 01:02:21.719 --> 01:02:25.869 one we would prefer a 12 month extension if that's 01:02:25.869 --> 01:02:27.360 something that the 01:02:27.360 --> 01:02:30.150 Commission doesn't feel is appropriate we can certainly 01:02:30.150 --> 01:02:31.320 live with the six month 01:02:31.320 --> 01:02:35.039 extension but we would like an opportunity to have what has 01:02:35.039 --> 01:02:35.840 been told to 01:02:35.840 --> 01:02:39.619 us is because of the code unless y'all specifically stip 01:02:39.619 --> 01:02:41.480 ulate we only get one 01:02:41.480 --> 01:02:46.449 extension and so that's really pushing it we would take the 01:02:46.449 --> 01:02:48.000 five month extension 01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:51.099 if that's all we can get but it would be nice to have at 01:02:51.099 --> 01:02:52.039 least a method to 01:02:52.039 --> 01:02:55.610 extend it at least one more time up to six months so I'd 01:02:55.610 --> 01:02:57.360 respectfully request 01:02:57.360 --> 01:03:02.269 that this Commission somehow grant us a little longer than 01:03:02.269 --> 01:03:03.960 five months I'd be 01:03:03.960 --> 01:03:06.219 glad to answer you have answer any of the questions you 01:03:06.219 --> 01:03:07.000 have regarding this 01:03:07.000 --> 01:03:09.239 project do you have a question so far on the board 01:03:09.239 --> 01:03:10.599 Commissioner Smith sure I 01:03:10.599 --> 01:03:15.400 didn't catch you last time mr. Dewey D EWI gotcha mr. Dewey 01:03:15.400 --> 01:03:15.880 you are the 01:03:15.880 --> 01:03:19.920 engineer correct you said yes sir okay money not an object 01:03:19.920 --> 01:03:20.800 if you started the 01:03:20.800 --> 01:03:24.119 project tomorrow had everything you need what timeline 01:03:24.119 --> 01:03:25.559 would you have to have to 01:03:25.559 --> 01:03:28.349 be able to get everything done to get this project done to 01:03:28.349 --> 01:03:28.880 where you can 01:03:28.880 --> 01:03:31.670 submit the plat or submit the okay the only thing needed 01:03:31.670 --> 01:03:32.280 the plat has been 01:03:32.280 --> 01:03:36.869 approved it hasn't been recorded right to file the plat we 01:03:36.869 --> 01:03:37.440 have to have 01:03:37.440 --> 01:03:41.199 development contracts in and then all the fees that are due 01:03:41.199 --> 01:03:42.760 to impact and 01:03:42.760 --> 01:03:45.579 there's those are quite substantial so we don't really have 01:03:45.579 --> 01:03:46.400 to have started 01:03:46.400 --> 01:03:48.909 construction as much as they have to know the projects 01:03:48.909 --> 01:03:50.119 going forward and fund 01:03:50.119 --> 01:03:53.400 all the upfront fees so there's no no actual physical 01:03:53.400 --> 01:03:54.320 changes need to happen 01:03:54.320 --> 01:03:56.510 to the property as of right now that's correct so what 01:03:56.510 --> 01:03:57.639 financing has been done 01:03:57.639 --> 01:04:01.239 so far I am not the owner I know that he is actively 01:04:01.239 --> 01:04:03.320 pursuing that at this moment 01:04:03.320 --> 01:04:06.639 he thinks he can get it done by the end of the year okay 01:04:06.639 --> 01:04:08.519 but that's pushing it 01:04:08.519 --> 01:04:12.980 okay what would the owner do if this does expire if the 01:04:12.980 --> 01:04:14.760 plat expires then the 01:04:14.760 --> 01:04:18.309 project is dead and and to develop it a new plat would have 01:04:18.309 --> 01:04:19.360 to come back before 01:04:19.360 --> 01:04:23.789 this Commission so you would you would expect to hold it he 01:04:23.789 --> 01:04:25.159 wouldn't sell it as 01:04:25.159 --> 01:04:28.199 an improved project he would cancel as a project he wouldn 01:04:28.199 --> 01:04:28.760 't even sell just for 01:04:28.760 --> 01:04:33.420 the raw land he would just hold it that would be my best 01:04:33.420 --> 01:04:37.039 guess okay thank you a 01:04:37.039 --> 01:04:40.599 couple more questions now Commissioner Beck thank you chair 01:04:40.599 --> 01:04:41.559 mr. Dewey thank you 01:04:41.559 --> 01:04:45.360 for your presentation I'd like to see that area developed 01:04:45.360 --> 01:04:46.360 too for the reasons 01:04:46.360 --> 01:04:48.800 I think we all agree that this is a primary that needs to 01:04:48.800 --> 01:04:49.719 be developed it's 01:04:49.719 --> 01:04:54.469 been lingering too long I guess and I think I'm hearing 01:04:54.469 --> 01:04:55.760 this from you if you 01:04:55.760 --> 01:05:00.219 had enough time you may be even more than this extension 01:05:00.219 --> 01:05:01.679 allows that you 01:05:01.679 --> 01:05:05.690 would be moving forward with that sounds like apartment 01:05:05.690 --> 01:05:10.360 units yes okay so the 01:05:10.360 --> 01:05:14.239 only thing that would probably hold you up would be lack of 01:05:14.239 --> 01:05:15.679 financing minutes 01:05:15.679 --> 01:05:21.539 that's correct as far as time goes okay okay thank you 01:05:21.539 --> 01:05:23.000 Commissioner Ellis thank 01:05:23.000 --> 01:05:25.880 you chair hi mr. Dewey do you have any development 01:05:25.880 --> 01:05:27.320 contracts in place currently 01:05:27.320 --> 01:05:32.039 he has obtained bids for everything he does not have any 01:05:32.039 --> 01:05:33.719 contracts in place 01:05:33.719 --> 01:05:36.159 these have to be for all the public improvements they have 01:05:36.159 --> 01:05:36.920 to be contracts 01:05:36.920 --> 01:05:39.519 through the city and three-way contracts that process is 01:05:39.519 --> 01:05:42.039 not started he is he has 01:05:42.039 --> 01:05:46.679 gotten contractor bids he knows what it's going to cost to 01:05:46.679 --> 01:05:47.559 build this project 01:05:47.559 --> 01:05:50.650 of course he's owns the property sure he's going to put in 01:05:50.650 --> 01:05:51.480 a little bit of 01:05:51.480 --> 01:05:54.269 money but he needs financing for the balance of the project 01:05:54.269 --> 01:05:56.119 and that based on 01:05:56.119 --> 01:05:59.969 these off-site improvements to most lenders it looks a 01:05:59.969 --> 01:06:01.920 little high because 01:06:01.920 --> 01:06:03.820 we're not just developing our own property but as I 01:06:03.820 --> 01:06:04.760 discussed we're doing 01:06:04.760 --> 01:06:08.199 some off-site public improvements that was required for 01:06:08.199 --> 01:06:10.159 plan approval and so 01:06:10.159 --> 01:06:13.119 it's been a little more difficult now quite frankly I'm 01:06:13.119 --> 01:06:14.360 just telling you what 01:06:14.360 --> 01:06:18.429 he told me you know he kind of put it off for 12 months of 01:06:18.429 --> 01:06:19.079 our two years 01:06:19.079 --> 01:06:21.869 trying to sell it we did have a couple of interested 01:06:21.869 --> 01:06:23.440 parties call us interested 01:06:23.440 --> 01:06:26.780 in buying it those fell through probably for the same 01:06:26.780 --> 01:06:28.719 reason he has no desire to 01:06:28.719 --> 01:06:31.869 own this property forever he would like to build the 01:06:31.869 --> 01:06:34.599 project and move on so he 01:06:34.599 --> 01:06:37.219 has told me he has all intentions of building his way out 01:06:37.219 --> 01:06:38.519 of this project it 01:06:38.519 --> 01:06:41.409 will be a nice project once it's in I think it'll be 01:06:41.409 --> 01:06:43.920 successful I just he's 01:06:43.920 --> 01:06:48.320 got to finish financing but he is working on it hard now 01:06:48.320 --> 01:06:49.800 continue sure 01:06:49.800 --> 01:06:53.280 thank you so I guess just so I understand maybe the 01:06:53.280 --> 01:06:54.039 background so he 01:06:54.039 --> 01:06:58.079 didn't really strive to get financing at the beginning 01:06:58.079 --> 01:06:59.639 after he realized what it 01:06:59.639 --> 01:07:02.800 was going to cost he my understanding is he did and was 01:07:02.800 --> 01:07:03.960 having problems due to 01:07:03.960 --> 01:07:07.340 the cost of the project okay so then went to focus on 01:07:07.340 --> 01:07:09.079 selling it and now is 01:07:09.079 --> 01:07:12.519 back to refocused on financing and yes ma'am understood 01:07:12.519 --> 01:07:15.039 thank you 01:07:16.400 --> 01:07:20.550 Commissioner Smith thank you chair mr. do with in your 01:07:20.550 --> 01:07:21.519 experience as being an 01:07:21.519 --> 01:07:24.670 engineer on these types of product projects the timeline 01:07:24.670 --> 01:07:25.679 for someone to get 01:07:25.679 --> 01:07:28.219 financing for this type project how long I think that 01:07:28.219 --> 01:07:30.239 process would take oh it 01:07:30.239 --> 01:07:33.340 can vary from a few weeks to a few months you feel like six 01:07:33.340 --> 01:07:34.400 months is too 01:07:34.400 --> 01:07:38.480 short of time I think well if we hit you know six months 01:07:38.480 --> 01:07:39.320 from today is into 01:07:39.320 --> 01:07:43.199 January I know that's that I was actually asked that stuff 01:07:43.199 --> 01:07:43.360 about that so 01:07:43.360 --> 01:07:47.219 but because you're right it was pushing it I mean he has 01:07:47.219 --> 01:07:48.239 told me that if that's 01:07:48.239 --> 01:07:51.030 the only extension we get he will do his best to make that 01:07:51.030 --> 01:07:52.519 to make that deadline 01:07:52.519 --> 01:07:56.230 okay because he doesn't want it to expire and us to have to 01:07:56.230 --> 01:07:56.920 start over now 01:07:56.920 --> 01:08:00.050 as he has intentions of building it but it is a very 01:08:00.050 --> 01:08:01.880 aggressive timeline to get 01:08:01.880 --> 01:08:04.920 this all completed so as soon as he has financing he's able 01:08:04.920 --> 01:08:06.719 to file his plat yes 01:08:06.719 --> 01:08:11.199 okay understood but staff Julie if we can have you come 01:08:11.199 --> 01:08:11.800 back up here for one 01:08:11.800 --> 01:08:18.229 second did we did we do bad maths on this one did we move 01:08:18.229 --> 01:08:19.079 to Colorado and 01:08:19.079 --> 01:08:22.640 forgot how to add it's okay so I apologize yes that was 01:08:22.640 --> 01:08:23.399 that was my 01:08:23.399 --> 01:08:32.079 mistake January okay no more thank you Commissioner back 01:08:32.079 --> 01:08:33.319 thank you chair mr. 01:08:33.319 --> 01:08:38.350 Dewey on financing have you looked at all your options in 01:08:38.350 --> 01:08:39.960 other words is it 01:08:39.960 --> 01:08:42.449 are you looking for private financing or have you 01:08:42.449 --> 01:08:44.399 considered HUD to be completely 01:08:44.399 --> 01:08:48.359 honest with you I'm an engineer okay so you don't know you 01:08:48.359 --> 01:08:49.159 couldn't I have not 01:08:49.159 --> 01:08:52.569 been involved in the financing I am relaying he was 01:08:52.569 --> 01:08:53.760 supposed to be here 01:08:53.760 --> 01:08:56.310 tonight and answer these questions unfortunately he hasn't 01:08:56.310 --> 01:08:57.079 showed up yet but 01:08:57.079 --> 01:09:01.539 I am simply telling what he's told me okay I am sure that 01:09:01.539 --> 01:09:02.840 it's all private 01:09:02.840 --> 01:09:11.079 finance okay thank you this is an item for individual 01:09:11.079 --> 01:09:12.000 consideration if there's 01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:14.609 anyone else who would like to speak on this item you're 01:09:14.609 --> 01:09:17.640 welcome to at this time 01:09:19.720 --> 01:09:26.130 that floor is open for this further discussion or a motion 01:09:26.130 --> 01:09:28.319 Commissioner 01:09:28.319 --> 01:09:34.180 Smith I make a motion to adopt the PE but with a six month 01:09:34.180 --> 01:09:37.920 to January 11th 2018 01:09:37.920 --> 01:09:42.890 and the option for a renewal of another six month period 01:09:42.890 --> 01:09:44.840 and if I can make it on 01:09:44.840 --> 01:09:47.739 the record I think that in this motion I would really want 01:09:47.739 --> 01:09:48.600 to see the owner 01:09:48.600 --> 01:09:53.329 one show up to his own item and two if he doesn't get 01:09:53.329 --> 01:09:55.319 financing in six months 01:09:55.319 --> 01:09:59.720 we better have a really good reason of why not so that is 01:09:59.720 --> 01:10:02.000 my motion okay 01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:05.239 Commissioner Beck I concur with everything that 01:10:05.239 --> 01:10:06.439 Commissioner Smith just 01:10:06.439 --> 01:10:12.560 point out so I second okay I have a first and a second for 01:10:12.560 --> 01:10:13.520 approval of the 01:10:13.520 --> 01:10:17.239 extension for six months with a six month option for a 01:10:17.239 --> 01:10:19.439 possible second any 01:10:19.439 --> 01:10:27.680 further discussion Commissioner Ellis thank you chair quick 01:10:27.680 --> 01:10:28.399 question is there 01:10:28.399 --> 01:10:33.720 a cost to requesting the extension of a plat 01:10:37.760 --> 01:10:48.760 I think it might be $250 maybe I have to look at the fee 01:10:48.760 --> 01:10:50.359 this I think the first 01:10:50.359 --> 01:10:53.500 one we've ever we've ever done I just don't recall the fee 01:10:53.500 --> 01:10:56.479 off the top my head 01:11:04.600 --> 01:11:12.270 Karen our planning tech is nodding it's 250 so we have a 01:11:12.270 --> 01:11:16.880 motion and a second on 01:11:16.880 --> 01:11:21.000 the floor any further discussion 01:11:23.640 --> 01:11:27.840 okay let's call for a vote on board 01:11:34.600 --> 01:11:39.600 much is going to carry six to zero that will move us to our 01:11:39.600 --> 01:11:40.079 luck with your 01:11:40.079 --> 01:11:45.149 project that will move us to our public hearing section 01:11:45.149 --> 01:11:46.680 this evening at this 01:11:46.680 --> 01:11:52.810 time I'm open the public hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 2 8 C and 01:11:52.810 --> 01:11:54.600 we'll call on Cindy 01:11:54.600 --> 01:11:58.159 Jackson for presentation 01:12:00.560 --> 01:12:21.960 thank you okay Z 17 - 0 0 2 8 is a request for to assign an 01:12:21.960 --> 01:12:22.680 initial zoning 01:12:22.680 --> 01:12:27.880 designation of neighborhood residential 6 and our 6 to 01:12:27.880 --> 01:12:30.239 approximately 73.47 01:12:30.239 --> 01:12:33.890 acres with the intention to develop a single-family subdiv 01:12:33.890 --> 01:12:35.359 ision subdivision is 01:12:35.359 --> 01:12:38.800 proposed to have an over have a density of 4.7 dwelling 01:12:38.800 --> 01:12:41.000 units per acre in the 01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:47.279 sex in the subject area current zoning is already 5x which 01:12:47.279 --> 01:12:49.520 is the zoning that 01:12:49.520 --> 01:12:52.350 we give the holding zoning we give to newly annexed 01:12:52.350 --> 01:12:53.800 properties the site was 01:12:53.800 --> 01:12:59.189 annexed into the city in approximately January and here you 01:12:59.189 --> 01:13:00.600 see the site as 01:13:00.600 --> 01:13:07.159 proposed with the NR six zoning the subject site is 01:13:07.159 --> 01:13:10.000 designated rural areas 01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:14.800 on the future land use map it's located at the edge of the 01:13:14.800 --> 01:13:16.520 developed area of the 01:13:16.520 --> 01:13:23.250 city on the north side of the loop developers have recently 01:13:23.250 --> 01:13:24.800 been inquiring 01:13:24.800 --> 01:13:27.779 regarding the future development of land located in this 01:13:27.779 --> 01:13:29.000 area so we expect to see 01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:33.149 more development in this area when a rezoning request does 01:13:33.149 --> 01:13:34.319 not conform to this 01:13:34.319 --> 01:13:37.710 future land use designation as this one does not the DDC 01:13:37.710 --> 01:13:39.640 provides additional 01:13:39.640 --> 01:13:45.949 criteria in subsection 35 3 3b 3 as noted in your backup 01:13:45.949 --> 01:13:47.199 the site complies 01:13:47.199 --> 01:13:50.489 with the additional criteria and I will in my presentation 01:13:50.489 --> 01:13:51.159 hit on some 01:13:51.159 --> 01:14:01.359 highlights per the mobility plan the site has 2800 and 01:14:01.359 --> 01:14:02.960 three linear square feet of 01:14:02.960 --> 01:14:08.300 frontage on long road which is a collector roadway and when 01:14:08.300 --> 01:14:09.680 the entire site 01:14:09.680 --> 01:14:12.779 is subdivided and includes the property along Sherman it 01:14:12.779 --> 01:14:14.199 will also have frontage 01:14:14.199 --> 01:14:20.989 along Sherman which is a arterial moderate density moderate 01:14:20.989 --> 01:14:21.800 density single 01:14:21.800 --> 01:14:26.720 family is a good location a good use in this location it's 01:14:26.720 --> 01:14:27.479 appropriate along 01:14:27.479 --> 01:14:31.800 collectors and arterials long road and Sherman Road will 01:14:31.800 --> 01:14:33.199 provide adequate 01:14:33.199 --> 01:14:40.170 visibility and access based on the the size of the site and 01:14:40.170 --> 01:14:41.119 the number of 01:14:41.119 --> 01:14:46.189 projected home sites the city required a traffic impact 01:14:46.189 --> 01:14:48.279 analysis to ensure the 01:14:48.279 --> 01:14:53.359 infrastructure will be provided the TI recommendations are 01:14:53.359 --> 01:14:54.359 the construction of 01:14:54.359 --> 01:14:59.409 a street a which is a long long road with two egress lanes 01:14:59.409 --> 01:15:00.560 to allow for 01:15:00.560 --> 01:15:03.949 dedicated right and left turn lanes construction of a north 01:15:03.949 --> 01:15:05.039 bound dedicated 01:15:05.039 --> 01:15:07.829 left turn lane and construction of a southbound dedicated 01:15:07.829 --> 01:15:08.560 left turn lane 01:15:08.560 --> 01:15:12.789 along Sherman Road and signalization of the intersection of 01:15:12.789 --> 01:15:14.000 the service roads for 01:15:14.000 --> 01:15:20.329 loop 288 and East Sherman the improvements recommended will 01:15:20.329 --> 01:15:20.680 be 01:15:20.680 --> 01:15:23.470 achieved through the use of roadway impact fees paid by 01:15:23.470 --> 01:15:24.479 developments which 01:15:24.479 --> 01:15:27.729 would utilize the intersections the amount of the impact 01:15:27.729 --> 01:15:28.800 fee is determined 01:15:28.800 --> 01:15:32.760 by a proportionality study which will be completed at plat 01:15:32.760 --> 01:15:38.760 ting at this time the 01:15:38.760 --> 01:15:42.050 proportionality fee is actually based on the number of 01:15:42.050 --> 01:15:43.640 projected trips based on 01:15:43.640 --> 01:15:49.500 the number of single-family homes that are anticipated as 01:15:49.500 --> 01:15:50.600 well as the 01:15:50.600 --> 01:15:58.239 designation of the adjacent roadways with regards to 01:15:58.239 --> 01:16:01.600 compatibility the 01:16:01.600 --> 01:16:08.810 subject site is surrounded by why is it doing that it's 01:16:08.810 --> 01:16:10.720 surrounded by already 5x 01:16:10.720 --> 01:16:16.579 to the north then our four to the east and our three to the 01:16:16.579 --> 01:16:17.439 south these are 01:16:17.439 --> 01:16:21.260 institutional uses and then we've got in our six single- 01:16:21.260 --> 01:16:22.840 family down here and in 01:16:22.840 --> 01:16:29.300 our four single-family over here the site is compatible 01:16:29.300 --> 01:16:30.880 with both the the 01:16:30.880 --> 01:16:35.869 current development as well as the anticipated development 01:16:35.869 --> 01:16:40.159 in the area the 01:16:40.159 --> 01:16:43.670 development when we'll have to comply with all of the ESA 01:16:43.670 --> 01:16:44.960 tree preservation 01:16:44.960 --> 01:16:48.920 buffer screening tree canopy and lighting requirements and 01:16:48.920 --> 01:16:49.880 both water and 01:16:49.880 --> 01:16:55.020 wastewater are available to the site from Long Road staff 01:16:55.020 --> 01:16:56.920 sent out public 01:16:56.920 --> 01:17:01.119 notifications on June 10th within 200 feet we sent three 01:17:01.119 --> 01:17:02.399 certified notices and 01:17:02.399 --> 01:17:06.560 within 500 feet we also sent three courtesy notices the 01:17:06.560 --> 01:17:08.119 response we received 01:17:08.119 --> 01:17:11.689 one response in favor of the site located on the north side 01:17:11.689 --> 01:17:12.520 of the subject 01:17:12.520 --> 01:17:16.220 property representing 23% of the land located within the 01:17:16.220 --> 01:17:19.600 200 foot buffer staff 01:17:19.600 --> 01:17:22.039 recommends approval of this request with the following 01:17:22.039 --> 01:17:23.479 recommendations the 01:17:23.479 --> 01:17:25.850 planning and zoning Commission in the City Council place an 01:17:25.850 --> 01:17:26.479 overlay on the 01:17:26.479 --> 01:17:29.649 subject site with the following conditions the use of the 01:17:29.649 --> 01:17:30.359 property is 01:17:30.359 --> 01:17:33.359 restricted to single-family detached housing at a maximum 01:17:33.359 --> 01:17:34.319 density of four point 01:17:34.319 --> 01:17:39.130 seven dwelling units per acre pursuant to DDC 35 1610 a 01:17:39.130 --> 01:17:40.479 general development plan 01:17:40.479 --> 01:17:43.579 will be required to ensure that adequate public facilities 01:17:43.579 --> 01:17:44.319 to support the 01:17:44.319 --> 01:17:47.170 development will be provided in a manner proportionate to 01:17:47.170 --> 01:17:48.079 the impacts of the 01:17:48.079 --> 01:17:52.260 development at the proper phases of development including 01:17:52.260 --> 01:17:53.960 but not limited to 01:17:53.960 --> 01:17:57.340 the Dell developer will contribute to the cost of signal 01:17:57.340 --> 01:17:58.199 lights at the 01:17:58.199 --> 01:18:01.050 intersection of Sherman Drive Long Road and Sherman Drive 01:18:01.050 --> 01:18:03.039 and loop 288 mount to 01:18:03.039 --> 01:18:07.680 be based on proportionality northbound left turn lane and 01:18:07.680 --> 01:18:08.680 southbound right turn 01:18:08.680 --> 01:18:13.880 lane deceleration lanes will be provided along Sherman the 01:18:13.880 --> 01:18:15.000 developer will 01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:17.390 contribute to the cost of a dedicated right turn lane at 01:18:17.390 --> 01:18:18.399 the intersection of 01:18:18.399 --> 01:18:23.319 Sherman Road and loop 2288 amount based on proportionality 01:18:23.319 --> 01:18:25.399 that concludes my 01:18:25.399 --> 01:18:28.779 presentation and the applicant is present if you have 01:18:28.779 --> 01:18:30.760 questions got some 01:18:30.760 --> 01:18:35.600 questions Commissioner Beck thank you chair Cindy the 01:18:35.600 --> 01:18:36.840 recommendation that a 01:18:36.840 --> 01:18:40.000 traffic signal light be provided at long road in Sherman 01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:41.140 now that wasn't the 01:18:41.140 --> 01:18:45.720 result of the TIA was it no that was not the TIA that was 01:18:45.720 --> 01:18:46.720 that was something that 01:18:46.720 --> 01:18:50.960 staff anticipates will be required at plotting and I agree 01:18:50.960 --> 01:18:51.920 I agree okay I just 01:18:51.920 --> 01:18:55.920 wanted to know if there was a distinction okay thank you 01:18:57.720 --> 01:19:03.500 so any other question on the plat since the ISD is the 01:19:03.500 --> 01:19:04.800 property owner to the 01:19:04.800 --> 01:19:09.340 north they have a common area it's common area e - - it's a 01:19:09.340 --> 01:19:11.560 20-foot strip 01:19:11.560 --> 01:19:14.689 there I assume that's being proposed for maybe like a 01:19:14.689 --> 01:19:16.399 future walking trail or 01:19:16.399 --> 01:19:21.479 connection to this school property I'm not sure what that 01:19:21.479 --> 01:19:22.760 is for to be honest 01:19:22.760 --> 01:19:26.810 with you okay I can see if I can find out maybe the 01:19:26.810 --> 01:19:28.439 engineer applicant can 01:19:28.439 --> 01:19:34.840 speak for that for us okay any other questions for Cindy 01:19:34.840 --> 01:19:36.720 thank you thank you 01:19:36.720 --> 01:19:42.140 do have two cards I wish you to speak and I don't know who 01:19:42.140 --> 01:19:42.640 would like to go 01:19:42.640 --> 01:19:45.840 first I have a card for Justin Bono and a card for Brent 01:19:45.840 --> 01:19:47.000 Murphy so I don't know 01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:50.220 who would like to come first if you'll give your name and 01:19:50.220 --> 01:19:52.079 address for us please 01:19:52.079 --> 01:19:55.699 sure yeah thank you mr. chairman is Justin Bono with ask 01:19:55.699 --> 01:19:56.520 for development my 01:19:56.520 --> 01:20:01.090 address is 92 19 Arbor Trail Drive Brent Murphy with Kim 01:20:01.090 --> 01:20:02.960 Lee Horn is here as well 01:20:02.960 --> 01:20:06.920 if there are any technical questions that we may decide 01:20:06.920 --> 01:20:07.960 that he is he is 01:20:07.960 --> 01:20:11.239 better to answer so if you don't mind I have a short 01:20:11.239 --> 01:20:13.079 presentation that I'll go 01:20:13.079 --> 01:20:17.140 through that hopefully addresses many of your questions and 01:20:17.140 --> 01:20:18.680 then we'll be glad to 01:20:18.680 --> 01:20:29.470 stand for questions thereafter so as Cindy represented we 01:20:29.470 --> 01:20:31.279 have 91 acres total 01:20:31.279 --> 01:20:33.890 under contract from the property owner located at the 01:20:33.890 --> 01:20:34.960 northwest corner of 01:20:34.960 --> 01:20:38.520 Sherman and long this zoning case covers approximately 73 01:20:38.520 --> 01:20:40.079 and a half acres which 01:20:40.079 --> 01:20:44.960 we annex through a case we filed back in January 2018 the 01:20:44.960 --> 01:20:46.520 17 and a half acres 01:20:46.520 --> 01:20:49.710 that is currently zoned in our for that front Sherman Drive 01:20:49.710 --> 01:20:50.960 and 428 are not 01:20:50.960 --> 01:20:55.039 included in this zoning case and not planned for rezoning 01:20:55.039 --> 01:20:56.399 the property and I 01:20:56.399 --> 01:20:59.189 have a exhibit on the next page that will help illustrate a 01:20:59.189 --> 01:20:59.960 lot of this but 01:20:59.960 --> 01:21:04.430 the property as you will see is impacted by existing power 01:21:04.430 --> 01:21:05.960 lines and a gas line 01:21:05.960 --> 01:21:11.010 and 125 foot of total combined easement advice and that bis 01:21:11.010 --> 01:21:11.880 ects the track and 01:21:11.880 --> 01:21:18.720 their two ESA areas on site as well as you've heard we have 01:21:18.720 --> 01:21:19.960 completed a traffic 01:21:19.960 --> 01:21:23.060 impact analysis that we spent two or three months going 01:21:23.060 --> 01:21:24.159 back and forth with 01:21:24.159 --> 01:21:27.319 the city on in advance of this zoning hearing and have 01:21:27.319 --> 01:21:28.319 included those 01:21:28.319 --> 01:21:31.939 recommendations into our cost structure for the project so 01:21:31.939 --> 01:21:34.359 here you see the site 01:21:34.359 --> 01:21:38.319 Sherman here long along the south side you see the existing 01:21:38.319 --> 01:21:39.560 in our four zoning 01:21:39.560 --> 01:21:43.909 track power line easement purple gas line easement in 01:21:43.909 --> 01:21:45.880 yellow the site that we 01:21:45.880 --> 01:21:50.850 are is in reddish orange I guess is what that is that we're 01:21:50.850 --> 01:21:52.159 asking for the nr6 01:21:52.159 --> 01:21:57.229 zoning on tonight see the two ESA areas to the north I 01:21:57.229 --> 01:21:58.720 think it's important to 01:21:58.720 --> 01:22:02.220 understand that obviously we we cannot impact this hundred 01:22:02.220 --> 01:22:03.439 and twenty five foot 01:22:03.439 --> 01:22:08.390 strip which significantly impacts development we are 01:22:08.390 --> 01:22:10.279 planning a sidewalk 01:22:10.279 --> 01:22:13.109 system through there to help with some connectivity on the 01:22:13.109 --> 01:22:14.119 side but obviously 01:22:14.119 --> 01:22:18.640 won't get any lot yield from that section furthermore we're 01:22:18.640 --> 01:22:19.600 not we have 01:22:19.600 --> 01:22:22.939 not filed an alternative ESA plan so we plan to preserve 01:22:22.939 --> 01:22:24.520 those ESA areas on site 01:22:24.520 --> 01:22:28.670 which by doing so actually also retains the majority of the 01:22:28.670 --> 01:22:30.119 trees on the site as 01:22:30.119 --> 01:22:35.119 well so we're anticipating development here where we meet 01:22:35.119 --> 01:22:35.920 the tree tree 01:22:35.920 --> 01:22:40.720 mitigation requirements all through preservation without 01:22:40.720 --> 01:22:42.239 without need for 01:22:42.239 --> 01:22:47.789 mitigation fees furthermore as as miss Jackson represented 01:22:47.789 --> 01:22:48.479 the property owner 01:22:48.479 --> 01:22:51.880 to the north has filed a petition or filed a letter in 01:22:51.880 --> 01:22:53.119 support of our case 01:22:53.119 --> 01:22:56.279 we've been coordinating with them on street stubs for 01:22:56.279 --> 01:22:57.760 future connectivity of 01:22:57.760 --> 01:23:01.810 our site to their future site to the north and then largely 01:23:01.810 --> 01:23:02.720 they were in 01:23:02.720 --> 01:23:05.539 support due to the fact that we were preserving this 01:23:05.539 --> 01:23:07.359 southern tips of this ESA 01:23:07.359 --> 01:23:10.739 area which feed into a creek basin through their through 01:23:10.739 --> 01:23:11.880 their property so 01:23:11.880 --> 01:23:16.029 they were excited to hear that that habitat and those areas 01:23:16.029 --> 01:23:17.000 were all going 01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:23.119 to stay in place so our case tonight is as I mentioned we 01:23:23.119 --> 01:23:23.960 were going to leave 01:23:23.960 --> 01:23:28.510 the onside ESA areas intact not filing for an alternative E 01:23:28.510 --> 01:23:30.079 SA which preserves 01:23:30.079 --> 01:23:32.890 the majority of the trees this is actually also consistent 01:23:32.890 --> 01:23:33.159 with 01:23:33.159 --> 01:23:36.590 conservation development as envisioned by the current Dent 01:23:36.590 --> 01:23:38.119 on plan and then the 01:23:38.119 --> 01:23:42.350 but with the ESA preservation the existing power and gas 01:23:42.350 --> 01:23:43.279 lines and us 01:23:43.279 --> 01:23:48.350 keeping the NR4 along 428 it requires NR6 zoning to yield 01:23:48.350 --> 01:23:49.720 feasible density for a 01:23:49.720 --> 01:23:53.680 single-family residential subdivision we have filed a 01:23:53.680 --> 01:23:54.960 preliminary plat 01:23:54.960 --> 01:23:59.239 concurrent with zoning as requested by staff back in 01:23:59.239 --> 01:24:01.760 December or January as a 01:24:01.760 --> 01:24:06.489 good-faith gesture to demonstrate our intended project 01:24:06.489 --> 01:24:08.119 density which is where 01:24:08.119 --> 01:24:11.939 many of these which is where the cap density and the single 01:24:11.939 --> 01:24:12.600 -family detached 01:24:12.600 --> 01:24:16.189 requirements have come from we've agreed to cap the density 01:24:16.189 --> 01:24:17.279 on this zone tract 01:24:17.279 --> 01:24:21.159 at 4.7 units per acre as you heard from Miss Jackson the 01:24:21.159 --> 01:24:21.960 work session when you 01:24:21.960 --> 01:24:25.970 combine that with the NR4 section along Long Road our 01:24:25.970 --> 01:24:27.760 overall density is 01:24:27.760 --> 01:24:32.109 approximately 4.3 units per acre on this site we have 01:24:32.109 --> 01:24:33.420 agreed to only single 01:24:33.420 --> 01:24:36.800 family detached construction even though NR6 would allow 01:24:36.800 --> 01:24:37.479 for some attached 01:24:37.479 --> 01:24:41.119 construction we've specifically agreed to that condition as 01:24:41.119 --> 01:24:42.119 you've seen and 01:24:42.119 --> 01:24:46.979 then we understand the impact fee ordinance that proportion 01:24:46.979 --> 01:24:47.880 ality our 01:24:47.880 --> 01:24:50.670 proportional share through impact fees will help fund some 01:24:50.670 --> 01:24:51.880 of these regional 01:24:51.880 --> 01:24:56.300 transportation projects so in summary as you've seen we 01:24:56.300 --> 01:24:57.880 have support supported 01:24:57.880 --> 01:25:00.000 this case from the neighboring property owner I will also 01:25:00.000 --> 01:25:00.680 tell you we've had 01:25:00.680 --> 01:25:05.220 several meetings with DISD since we are adjacent to them we 01:25:05.220 --> 01:25:06.260 're coordinating an 01:25:06.260 --> 01:25:09.489 easement agreement with them to the north to your question 01:25:09.489 --> 01:25:10.399 that strip that 01:25:10.399 --> 01:25:12.949 you saw in the preliminary pat plat we're putting a 01:25:12.949 --> 01:25:14.079 sidewalk in there to 01:25:14.079 --> 01:25:16.380 connect to what is ultimately hopefully going to be a 01:25:16.380 --> 01:25:17.560 future school site there 01:25:17.560 --> 01:25:22.630 to avoid having to go out along 428 to then access that 01:25:22.630 --> 01:25:24.359 site also there's a 01:25:24.359 --> 01:25:27.670 water stub in that site to the DISD site through that 01:25:27.670 --> 01:25:30.640 through that strip as well 01:25:30.640 --> 01:25:34.210 I mentioned the conservation development piece as we cons 01:25:34.210 --> 01:25:37.159 erving the ESA areas we 01:25:37.159 --> 01:25:41.119 filed a preliminary plat as well to be able to demonstrate 01:25:41.119 --> 01:25:42.279 the density that 01:25:42.279 --> 01:25:46.560 that we're asking for and that is now entering its third 01:25:46.560 --> 01:25:48.279 round of reviews with 01:25:48.279 --> 01:25:52.430 the city and should come to you all soon so in our six is 01:25:52.430 --> 01:25:53.880 really required on this 01:25:53.880 --> 01:25:57.020 parcel given the site constraints to achieve feasible 01:25:57.020 --> 01:25:58.399 density on the project 01:25:58.399 --> 01:26:02.510 but we've also been willing to agree to additional 01:26:02.510 --> 01:26:04.840 conditions to make the project 01:26:04.840 --> 01:26:09.479 more risk more restrictive so respectfully request approval 01:26:09.479 --> 01:26:10.319 per staff 01:26:10.319 --> 01:26:14.119 recommendation although I will add one caveat we learned 01:26:14.119 --> 01:26:15.359 about the general 01:26:15.359 --> 01:26:20.779 development plan requirement as we arrived this evening you 01:26:20.779 --> 01:26:21.479 know as I 01:26:21.479 --> 01:26:24.960 mentioned we filed a preliminary plat on this project in 01:26:24.960 --> 01:26:26.279 January I think it's our 01:26:26.279 --> 01:26:30.909 case is actually PP 18001 which was the I guess that means 01:26:30.909 --> 01:26:31.880 the first plat in the 01:26:31.880 --> 01:26:35.439 door for the year we are on our third round of views in 01:26:35.439 --> 01:26:36.279 fact I just paid 01:26:36.279 --> 01:26:41.079 another $1,250 fee on that today we have no problems with 01:26:41.079 --> 01:26:41.600 any of the 01:26:41.600 --> 01:26:45.079 requirements for the proportionality the traffic 01:26:45.079 --> 01:26:47.359 requirements we would just ask 01:26:47.359 --> 01:26:49.640 that we'd be able to address those items through our 01:26:49.640 --> 01:26:50.920 preliminary plat that we've 01:26:50.920 --> 01:26:53.739 spent eight months going back and forth with the city and 01:26:53.739 --> 01:26:54.479 paid and have a 01:26:54.479 --> 01:26:58.960 substantial investment in without going back to the drawing 01:26:58.960 --> 01:27:00.079 board to file a 01:27:00.079 --> 01:27:03.960 general development plan that that accomplishes the same 01:27:03.960 --> 01:27:04.960 thing we're fine 01:27:04.960 --> 01:27:08.500 including any other requirements of the general development 01:27:08.500 --> 01:27:10.520 plan in that plat so 01:27:10.520 --> 01:27:14.300 that so that we get to the same place but would ask that we 01:27:14.300 --> 01:27:15.439 'd be able to do 01:27:15.439 --> 01:27:18.539 that through that Avenue if that's the if that's the way 01:27:18.539 --> 01:27:19.600 you all choose to 01:27:19.600 --> 01:27:23.579 choose to proceed so with that appreciate your your 01:27:23.579 --> 01:27:24.680 attention and would 01:27:24.680 --> 01:27:27.470 be glad to stand for any questions and again my engineers 01:27:27.470 --> 01:27:28.279 here if we need to 01:27:28.279 --> 01:27:32.079 bring up the technical guru for anything so thank you I 01:27:32.079 --> 01:27:33.840 have a question I've got a 01:27:33.840 --> 01:27:37.239 couple other here on the board just to clarify did you say 01:27:37.239 --> 01:27:38.239 today's the first 01:27:38.239 --> 01:27:40.779 day that y'all have had the general development agreement 01:27:40.779 --> 01:27:41.520 brought to your 01:27:41.520 --> 01:27:44.310 attention yes we learned about that this evening and as you 01:27:44.310 --> 01:27:44.800 may know the 01:27:44.800 --> 01:27:51.479 subdivision code at the time of application calls for the 01:27:51.479 --> 01:27:52.560 city to direct 01:27:52.560 --> 01:27:55.500 you to either file a general development plan or to file a 01:27:55.500 --> 01:27:56.720 preliminary plat and 01:27:56.720 --> 01:27:59.630 we've obviously were directed to file a preliminary plat 01:27:59.630 --> 01:28:00.840 which is why we've been 01:28:00.840 --> 01:28:05.239 processing that for you know going on eight months now so 01:28:05.239 --> 01:28:06.159 yeah okay so after 01:28:06.159 --> 01:28:09.399 eight months today first time that's correct okay 01:28:09.399 --> 01:28:13.760 Commissioner Beck thank you chair mr. Bono is yes sir thank 01:28:13.760 --> 01:28:14.279 you very much for 01:28:14.279 --> 01:28:17.600 your presentation and I'm really kind of excited about this 01:28:17.600 --> 01:28:18.880 development I like 01:28:18.880 --> 01:28:21.979 the idea that we're preserving all not only preserving all 01:28:21.979 --> 01:28:22.800 the trees but we're 01:28:22.800 --> 01:28:25.319 gonna get a bunch of added as you develop this thing so 01:28:25.319 --> 01:28:26.239 that's one of the 01:28:26.239 --> 01:28:31.539 few times I've seen where we had a net positive result of 01:28:31.539 --> 01:28:33.119 gaining some trees in 01:28:33.119 --> 01:28:37.430 the city my concern as we move forward I'm on a sub 01:28:37.430 --> 01:28:39.039 committee that's rewriting 01:28:39.039 --> 01:28:43.000 the didn't development code and we're looking at zone 01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:44.239 changes they're 01:28:44.239 --> 01:28:47.970 differing in the way they are now and my vision for that 01:28:47.970 --> 01:28:49.439 strip of Sherman Drive 01:28:49.439 --> 01:28:51.699 as part of the mobility plan it's going to be widened to 01:28:51.699 --> 01:28:52.520 four lanes so it's 01:28:52.520 --> 01:28:57.560 gonna be a busy primary arterial much more so than it is 01:28:57.560 --> 01:29:00.760 now that having a 01:29:00.760 --> 01:29:05.409 residential area that close to primary arterial is not 01:29:05.409 --> 01:29:07.680 always practical but it 01:29:07.680 --> 01:29:12.119 can be done I didn't see anything on your preliminary 01:29:12.119 --> 01:29:18.729 plat is there any plan to create some kind of buffer there 01:29:18.729 --> 01:29:20.359 sound buffer like a 01:29:20.359 --> 01:29:23.670 stone fence or something along Sherman Drive to kind of 01:29:23.670 --> 01:29:24.720 offset the fact that it 01:29:24.720 --> 01:29:31.479 is so close yes so we are planning a didn't a masonry wall 01:29:31.479 --> 01:29:33.000 all along Sherman 01:29:33.000 --> 01:29:38.079 and wrapping the corner along a food along long I don't 01:29:38.079 --> 01:29:39.359 tell you whether it's 01:29:39.359 --> 01:29:42.699 six or eight I can't remember per the plans but certainly 01:29:42.699 --> 01:29:43.880 that is there and 01:29:43.880 --> 01:29:47.640 you know we understood that with that there was some 01:29:47.640 --> 01:29:49.520 reasoning for the in our 01:29:49.520 --> 01:29:52.460 for density in our for existing in our for zoning which is 01:29:52.460 --> 01:29:53.279 why we tried to 01:29:53.279 --> 01:29:56.800 concentrate our greater density to the center of the 01:29:56.800 --> 01:29:58.359 project away from away 01:29:58.359 --> 01:30:05.800 from Sherman so well it is our hope at least my focus is 01:30:05.800 --> 01:30:07.199 going to be as as part 01:30:07.199 --> 01:30:10.750 of that subcommittee is to see that strip along Sherman 01:30:10.750 --> 01:30:12.000 Drive zone some 01:30:12.000 --> 01:30:15.000 what's called a suburban corridor so there'll be some mixed 01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:16.319 use in there so I 01:30:16.319 --> 01:30:18.609 was hoping we could do that before we got into some 01:30:18.609 --> 01:30:20.039 original but that's fine I 01:30:20.039 --> 01:30:24.640 think these neighbors will welcome some other uses on some 01:30:24.640 --> 01:30:25.319 other portions of 01:30:25.319 --> 01:30:28.109 Sherman Drive in the area I would think so okay thank you 01:30:28.109 --> 01:30:29.000 so much thank you mr. 01:30:29.000 --> 01:30:34.399 Smith thank you chair do you guys to plan to develop this 01:30:34.399 --> 01:30:35.319 in phases or do it 01:30:35.319 --> 01:30:38.279 all one time right now it's planned for two phases which is 01:30:38.279 --> 01:30:39.560 shown that's how it's 01:30:39.560 --> 01:30:44.960 shown on our current preliminary plat draft it's in let's 01:30:44.960 --> 01:30:45.319 see understood and 01:30:45.319 --> 01:30:47.619 then I think you did answer the second ago but you guys do 01:30:47.619 --> 01:30:48.439 plan to do some sort 01:30:48.439 --> 01:30:51.850 of buffer to walk out noise and light pollution from yeah 01:30:51.850 --> 01:30:52.800 there is of course 01:30:52.800 --> 01:30:57.189 we have long road that separates us from from that we have 01:30:57.189 --> 01:30:58.960 a masonry wall along 01:30:58.960 --> 01:31:03.979 along there as well we'll have you know landscape perimeter 01:31:03.979 --> 01:31:05.600 around there as well 01:31:05.600 --> 01:31:09.800 so yeah no no no separation there for sure now as this is a 01:31:09.800 --> 01:31:10.720 closer development 01:31:10.720 --> 01:31:14.250 so as it's being developed that way yes and overall with 01:31:14.250 --> 01:31:15.479 the essays and everything 01:31:15.479 --> 01:31:19.170 else included it's 4.7 but in reality when you when you 01:31:19.170 --> 01:31:20.680 just hone in on just 01:31:20.680 --> 01:31:22.899 the actual developed area where you're gonna be building 01:31:22.899 --> 01:31:24.000 homes you think it's 01:31:24.000 --> 01:31:27.880 gonna be more like six units per acre right around there 01:31:27.880 --> 01:31:29.079 you know honestly I 01:31:29.079 --> 01:31:34.810 haven't separately calculated you know the individual pods 01:31:34.810 --> 01:31:35.680 I would assume so I 01:31:35.680 --> 01:31:40.699 will tell you that I mean we've been following the city's 01:31:40.699 --> 01:31:42.039 rewrite of the 01:31:42.039 --> 01:31:47.640 development code and the lot widths that we're planning on 01:31:47.640 --> 01:31:49.920 our plat are consistent 01:31:49.920 --> 01:31:54.760 with I think it's an R3 I mean I'm gonna forget the codes 01:31:54.760 --> 01:31:56.560 but the R3 zoning 01:31:56.560 --> 01:32:02.609 that's on the draft map for this site is consistent with 01:32:02.609 --> 01:32:04.560 what's what's on what's 01:32:04.560 --> 01:32:08.369 on our plat as well so I think even transitioning to you 01:32:08.369 --> 01:32:09.600 know where the 01:32:09.600 --> 01:32:13.670 zoning is projected to go out there it's consistent with 01:32:13.670 --> 01:32:14.680 what's included in that 01:32:14.680 --> 01:32:17.949 draft at least at this stage I know there's a lot of work 01:32:17.949 --> 01:32:19.319 left so the last 01:32:19.319 --> 01:32:22.590 thing you did say was about the general development plan 01:32:22.590 --> 01:32:23.399 rather you wanted to do 01:32:23.399 --> 01:32:26.189 it for the preliminary plot instead through the portion 01:32:26.189 --> 01:32:26.920 ality of doing the 01:32:26.920 --> 01:32:29.739 traffic impact and all that right I mean we are back these 01:32:29.739 --> 01:32:30.840 we're just concerned 01:32:30.840 --> 01:32:34.850 about a blanket requirement for a general development plan 01:32:34.850 --> 01:32:35.720 that that would 01:32:35.720 --> 01:32:39.159 require us to rewind the clock which has already been a 01:32:39.159 --> 01:32:40.880 very long clock in fact 01:32:40.880 --> 01:32:44.960 we had to annex this property of I've been working on this 01:32:44.960 --> 01:32:46.079 just now getting to 01:32:46.079 --> 01:32:49.170 zoning and I've had it under contract for a year so so if 01:32:49.170 --> 01:32:50.439 to rewind that clock 01:32:50.439 --> 01:32:55.170 is concerning have no problem with any of the requirements 01:32:55.170 --> 01:32:56.640 themselves would 01:32:56.640 --> 01:33:01.100 just either want to relabel our existing preliminary plan 01:33:01.100 --> 01:33:01.739 as a general 01:33:01.739 --> 01:33:06.090 development plan and roll in those requirements or address 01:33:06.090 --> 01:33:06.560 those 01:33:06.560 --> 01:33:10.260 requirements on the plat that we've you know we're down to 01:33:10.260 --> 01:33:11.199 the wire on on 01:33:11.199 --> 01:33:14.920 getting getting to PNC in the next few meetings can I ask 01:33:14.920 --> 01:33:16.800 staff and legal to 01:33:16.800 --> 01:33:23.850 address that then Cindy still here can can can we I know we 01:33:23.850 --> 01:33:24.399 just talked about 01:33:24.399 --> 01:33:28.439 this during work session Jerry that we just added this in 01:33:28.439 --> 01:33:29.640 you know can we do 01:33:29.640 --> 01:33:32.119 this the plenary plotting rather than having a drill 01:33:32.119 --> 01:33:32.159 general development plan 01:33:32.159 --> 01:33:35.310 well as I read the code the general development plan is 01:33:35.310 --> 01:33:36.600 required regardless 01:33:36.600 --> 01:33:40.300 so I mean even if this weren't a part of the ordinance that 01:33:40.300 --> 01:33:41.920 's that's what the 01:33:41.920 --> 01:33:49.739 section says is that is that you do this so is nothing that 01:33:49.739 --> 01:33:52.439 this body says or 01:33:52.439 --> 01:33:55.539 incorporates into a recommendation is going to alter the 01:33:55.539 --> 01:33:57.039 the wording of the 01:33:57.039 --> 01:34:01.680 code I'll put it that way right we did not require a 01:34:01.680 --> 01:34:02.960 general development plat 01:34:02.960 --> 01:34:07.310 because well we didn't realize that it was actually 01:34:07.310 --> 01:34:08.880 required for this site and 01:34:08.880 --> 01:34:12.100 I've been here about ten years next week and we've never 01:34:12.100 --> 01:34:13.079 done a develop general 01:34:13.079 --> 01:34:16.590 development plat for a single-family residential subdiv 01:34:16.590 --> 01:34:17.880 ision and that's only 01:34:17.880 --> 01:34:21.340 because this is this such a high TIA but a high trip area 01:34:21.340 --> 01:34:22.640 from the CIA that was 01:34:22.640 --> 01:34:25.520 conducted and there's such low development of that row 01:34:25.520 --> 01:34:26.399 those two roads 01:34:26.399 --> 01:34:30.359 now it's never been has never happened exactly exactly so 01:34:30.359 --> 01:34:32.100 this this the 01:34:32.100 --> 01:34:35.229 applicant found out just literally ten minutes after I 01:34:35.229 --> 01:34:36.560 found out that we needed 01:34:36.560 --> 01:34:40.710 to do this so and it came from from legal so is there 01:34:40.710 --> 01:34:41.399 anything we can do to 01:34:41.399 --> 01:34:44.529 alleviate the pain point of the eight months of preliminary 01:34:44.529 --> 01:34:45.199 plotting they've 01:34:45.199 --> 01:34:48.039 been working on well what I suggested to the applicant is 01:34:48.039 --> 01:34:48.800 they pretty much got 01:34:48.800 --> 01:34:52.600 the GDP already done with their preliminary plat they just 01:34:52.600 --> 01:34:53.039 need to turn 01:34:53.039 --> 01:34:56.449 off a few layers and then turn it in and then we can try to 01:34:56.449 --> 01:34:57.600 get it on the same 01:34:57.600 --> 01:35:00.489 docket as as their preliminary plat get it all approved at 01:35:00.489 --> 01:35:02.159 the same time okay 01:35:02.159 --> 01:35:06.439 thank you I think Richard had a couple things you wanted to 01:35:06.439 --> 01:35:07.319 just wanted to point 01:35:07.319 --> 01:35:10.470 out a couple things I think part of the part of the issue 01:35:10.470 --> 01:35:11.680 again goes back to the 01:35:11.680 --> 01:35:15.170 convoluted nature of the code when you look at the section 01:35:15.170 --> 01:35:15.920 on general 01:35:15.920 --> 01:35:18.279 development plan it talks about it shall be determined a 01:35:18.279 --> 01:35:19.359 pre-application whether a 01:35:19.359 --> 01:35:22.789 general development plan or preliminary plat is required 01:35:22.789 --> 01:35:24.079 but then it goes further 01:35:24.079 --> 01:35:27.720 down it's well generally it's required when and so I think 01:35:27.720 --> 01:35:29.039 again I don't know 01:35:29.039 --> 01:35:32.869 when the PDM occurred I know it was at some time in the 01:35:32.869 --> 01:35:35.880 past but again part 01:35:35.880 --> 01:35:38.670 part of it is these this sort of convoluted nature and 01:35:38.670 --> 01:35:39.520 decisions that were 01:35:39.520 --> 01:35:43.979 made for whatever reason at such time but we're here where 01:35:43.979 --> 01:35:45.560 we are now just to 01:35:45.560 --> 01:35:48.720 give you the context of the general development plan if you 01:35:48.720 --> 01:35:50.119 recall we we had 01:35:50.119 --> 01:35:53.359 brought one forward back in March I believe it was the 01:35:53.359 --> 01:35:55.079 March 21st agenda 01:35:55.079 --> 01:35:58.229 this was related to actually one of the plats that was 01:35:58.229 --> 01:36:00.399 approved tonight with 01:36:00.399 --> 01:36:04.550 respect to razor East so that was it is on consent but to 01:36:04.550 --> 01:36:06.159 give you sort of that 01:36:06.159 --> 01:36:09.260 context it was one that we looked at back on March I 01:36:09.260 --> 01:36:10.920 believe March 21st of 01:36:10.920 --> 01:36:18.510 this year and if I may let me just step in it's it I want 01:36:18.510 --> 01:36:19.399 to assure everyone 01:36:19.399 --> 01:36:22.399 that the legal department was lying in wait waiting to 01:36:22.399 --> 01:36:23.720 ambush somebody on the 01:36:23.720 --> 01:36:28.590 last day this was a situation where we got access to the 01:36:28.590 --> 01:36:30.359 proposed draft 01:36:30.359 --> 01:36:34.050 ordinance that was sent over to us this week and it's not 01:36:34.050 --> 01:36:35.560 because it wasn't sent 01:36:35.560 --> 01:36:38.920 to us beforehand is it I didn't have access to it because 01:36:38.920 --> 01:36:39.720 of a software issue 01:36:39.720 --> 01:36:46.079 but it was sent to us early in July I believe it was and 01:36:46.079 --> 01:36:48.880 and after our last 01:36:48.880 --> 01:36:53.810 postponement of the public hearing so upon reviewing that 01:36:53.810 --> 01:36:55.199 and my earliest 01:36:55.199 --> 01:36:58.710 opportunity identified that issue and and and tried to 01:36:58.710 --> 01:36:59.920 bring it to the staff's 01:36:59.920 --> 01:37:07.310 attention as quickly as I could okay any other comments 01:37:07.310 --> 01:37:09.039 from staff or I'll 01:37:09.039 --> 01:37:13.770 recognize Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I had a few 01:37:13.770 --> 01:37:15.800 issues with BC and D 01:37:15.800 --> 01:37:19.989 and work session and they have exploded into much more 01:37:19.989 --> 01:37:21.840 greater concerns than 01:37:21.840 --> 01:37:27.789 confusions and I have a lot of notes here but what concerns 01:37:27.789 --> 01:37:29.399 me as I don't 01:37:29.399 --> 01:37:32.500 know where to begin let me let me just start here with 01:37:32.500 --> 01:37:33.880 asking legal you said 01:37:33.880 --> 01:37:36.250 you looked at a proposed draft ordinance is that not the 01:37:36.250 --> 01:37:37.079 ordinance that's in 01:37:37.079 --> 01:37:41.810 place right now draft meaning not approved no it won't be 01:37:41.810 --> 01:37:42.319 approved until 01:37:42.319 --> 01:37:45.109 you make your recommendation to council and council 01:37:45.109 --> 01:37:46.720 considers so the ordinance 01:37:46.720 --> 01:37:52.579 of this application not like yes yes yes no we we looked at 01:37:52.579 --> 01:37:53.279 a proposed draft 01:37:53.279 --> 01:37:58.350 ordinance it had the that had the overlay recommendations 01:37:58.350 --> 01:37:59.840 that you have 01:37:59.840 --> 01:38:05.609 your backup I received the backup Monday and and so I mean 01:38:05.609 --> 01:38:06.479 it was right around 01:38:06.479 --> 01:38:09.270 the same time I started reviewing this and saw that there 01:38:09.270 --> 01:38:10.399 was an issue got you 01:38:10.399 --> 01:38:16.729 and then Richard said this GDP is generally required when 01:38:16.729 --> 01:38:18.319 dot dot dot if 01:38:18.319 --> 01:38:21.920 it's generally required when can there not be opportunities 01:38:21.920 --> 01:38:22.960 in which it's not 01:38:22.960 --> 01:38:26.619 required like who's at what discretion is generally 01:38:26.619 --> 01:38:28.359 required I understand you 01:38:28.359 --> 01:38:31.659 said that the code is convoluted how are we coming to such 01:38:31.659 --> 01:38:33.239 a definitive response 01:38:33.239 --> 01:38:39.100 that another plat has to be a plan has to be done if it's 01:38:39.100 --> 01:38:41.760 generally required 01:38:47.479 --> 01:38:52.239 if you want to live 35 1610 B 01:39:17.479 --> 01:39:23.260 you'd like I could show you the language here where the 01:39:23.260 --> 01:39:24.800 general is located here 01:39:24.800 --> 01:39:29.159 it doesn't answer your question directly but 01:39:34.840 --> 01:39:36.539 so I'm wondering of those three items that trigger a 01:39:36.539 --> 01:39:39.840 general development plan 01:39:39.840 --> 01:39:50.279 which one was not able to be recognized in January the way 01:39:50.279 --> 01:39:52.000 I'm bringing it seems 01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:57.859 that number one was we knew is over 20 acres we knew is 01:39:57.859 --> 01:39:59.159 gonna be developed in 01:39:59.159 --> 01:40:02.430 phases and we knew that it would require off-site drainage 01:40:02.430 --> 01:40:03.640 it doesn't look like 01:40:03.640 --> 01:40:07.239 it was triggered by a TIA I guess what the root of this is 01:40:07.239 --> 01:40:08.199 just to understand I 01:40:08.199 --> 01:40:10.989 feel the frustration that I can only imagine they have I 01:40:10.989 --> 01:40:11.760 don't want to 01:40:11.760 --> 01:40:17.550 project frustration but the dollar cost to get to this 01:40:17.550 --> 01:40:20.159 point and the city 01:40:20.159 --> 01:40:25.930 didn't realize they needed a GDP just gonna step in I just 01:40:25.930 --> 01:40:26.319 mentioned to 01:40:26.319 --> 01:40:29.460 Richard I think maybe what might be prudent at this time is 01:40:29.460 --> 01:40:30.199 let's take a 01:40:30.199 --> 01:40:34.960 recess maybe five ten minute recess and let's give legal a 01:40:34.960 --> 01:40:35.880 second to do the 01:40:35.880 --> 01:40:38.670 research and maybe do a little discussion here and then we 01:40:38.670 --> 01:40:39.359 'll come back 01:40:39.359 --> 01:40:41.979 and quit shooting from the hip and let's see if we can 01:40:41.979 --> 01:40:43.640 gather some facts so the 01:40:43.640 --> 01:40:48.539 chair is going to call a recess at 720 and we'll try to 01:40:48.539 --> 01:40:51.640 reconvene at 730 01:40:54.399 --> 01:40:57.359 so I can go ahead and start we're going to count down okay 01:40:57.359 --> 01:40:58.840 we're all ready to go 01:40:58.840 --> 01:41:04.699 in the back and so at 732 we will reconvene and we will 01:41:04.699 --> 01:41:06.279 continue where we 01:41:06.279 --> 01:41:09.890 left off in our public hearing section this item is still 01:41:09.890 --> 01:41:11.920 open and I don't 01:41:11.920 --> 01:41:15.520 have any speakers I think we were going to look for some 01:41:15.520 --> 01:41:18.439 clarification of the 01:41:18.439 --> 01:41:21.539 overlay and the requirements and I don't know if staff 01:41:21.539 --> 01:41:22.840 would like me to state 01:41:22.840 --> 01:41:30.039 that or if staff would like to state that and she had paid 01:41:30.039 --> 01:41:31.079 the big bucks yeah 01:41:31.079 --> 01:41:36.560 so revise the recommendation one prior to that just want to 01:41:36.560 --> 01:41:38.159 make again make the 01:41:38.159 --> 01:41:41.680 affirmative finding that in order for the project to meet 01:41:41.680 --> 01:41:43.000 the public facility 01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:47.159 element or criteria there are certain transportation 01:41:47.159 --> 01:41:47.760 improvements that are 01:41:47.760 --> 01:41:51.529 required those are included as part of the current 01:41:51.529 --> 01:41:54.560 recommendation items B C and 01:41:54.560 --> 01:41:57.350 D what our recommendation is we're still making that 01:41:57.350 --> 01:41:59.960 finding that those items be 01:41:59.960 --> 01:42:03.060 addressed at the proper time of platting but revising the 01:42:03.060 --> 01:42:04.039 condition of a 01:42:04.039 --> 01:42:07.369 recommendation of approval and so that the only condition 01:42:07.369 --> 01:42:08.520 would be that the use 01:42:08.520 --> 01:42:11.470 of the properties restricted to single-family detached 01:42:11.470 --> 01:42:12.119 housing at a 01:42:12.119 --> 01:42:15.279 maximum density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre if that 01:42:15.279 --> 01:42:17.439 makes sense so we're going 01:42:17.439 --> 01:42:20.619 to deal with the zoning part of those requirements in the 01:42:20.619 --> 01:42:21.840 zoning case and then 01:42:21.840 --> 01:42:24.449 the B C and D items that have to do with transportation 01:42:24.449 --> 01:42:25.199 will then be dealt with 01:42:25.199 --> 01:42:29.449 between now and when this comes back before this Commission 01:42:29.449 --> 01:42:29.840 for that plan 01:42:29.840 --> 01:42:33.800 correct okay I think that hopefully will clear up 01:42:33.800 --> 01:42:35.880 everything for the Commission 01:42:35.880 --> 01:42:42.960 and hopefully for the applicant so I do have we are still 01:42:42.960 --> 01:42:44.520 open and we still have 01:42:44.520 --> 01:42:49.250 a applicant here that would like to speak so I'm gonna call 01:42:49.250 --> 01:42:51.520 on Brent Murphy 01:42:51.520 --> 01:43:01.039 you're good okay so this is a public hearing is there 01:43:01.039 --> 01:43:01.880 anyone else who would 01:43:01.880 --> 01:43:07.130 like to speak on this item seeing none we'll close the 01:43:07.130 --> 01:43:08.279 public hearing and I'll 01:43:08.279 --> 01:43:11.859 open the floor for discussion or motions Commissioner Roz 01:43:11.859 --> 01:43:13.880 elle I move for 01:43:13.880 --> 01:43:19.739 approval of Z 17 - 0 0 2 8 C with the amended 01:43:19.739 --> 01:43:22.239 recommendations that we include 01:43:22.239 --> 01:43:29.170 a density restriction of a maximum of 2 4.7 dwelling per 01:43:29.170 --> 01:43:31.479 acre okay 01:43:31.479 --> 01:43:35.960 Commissioner Smith I second that motion okay I have a first 01:43:35.960 --> 01:43:37.000 and a second for 01:43:37.000 --> 01:43:43.310 approval with the one condition on the density of 4.7 any 01:43:43.310 --> 01:43:44.680 other questions or 01:43:44.680 --> 01:43:52.239 discussion on this item okay I'll make a general statement 01:43:52.239 --> 01:43:53.079 and we will call for a 01:43:53.079 --> 01:43:57.239 vote I think that's a good move I think add some clarity 01:43:57.239 --> 01:43:58.319 and clarification for 01:43:58.319 --> 01:44:00.930 you all and hopefully gives you a little bit of time 01:44:00.930 --> 01:44:02.239 between this evening and 01:44:02.239 --> 01:44:04.710 when you come back for plat to have some further discussion 01:44:04.710 --> 01:44:05.560 with staff and get 01:44:05.560 --> 01:44:09.369 all that worked out and I think that's a proper way for us 01:44:09.369 --> 01:44:10.720 to move forward and 01:44:10.720 --> 01:44:16.010 proceed and so thank you staff for the guidance and the 01:44:16.010 --> 01:44:17.239 flexibility on that and 01:44:17.239 --> 01:44:20.500 so at this time I will call for a vote on the board and the 01:44:20.500 --> 01:44:21.199 motion is for 01:44:21.199 --> 01:44:23.520 approval 01:44:29.479 --> 01:44:34.619 that motion is going to carry six to zero good luck with 01:44:34.619 --> 01:44:37.479 your project that 01:44:37.479 --> 01:44:41.279 concludes our public hearing section that will move us on 01:44:41.279 --> 01:44:42.279 to our project 01:44:42.279 --> 01:44:45.359 matrix this evening 01:44:45.880 --> 01:44:51.470 Commissioner Beck again just want to keep raising the issue 01:44:51.470 --> 01:44:53.039 of getting a work 01:44:53.039 --> 01:44:56.560 session scheduled where we're addressing zone changes 01:44:56.560 --> 01:44:57.960 obviously this this 01:44:57.960 --> 01:45:02.470 particular item raises that important even more so so has 01:45:02.470 --> 01:45:04.039 there been any 01:45:04.039 --> 01:45:07.260 activity in that direction as far as establishing the work 01:45:07.260 --> 01:45:08.239 session where we 01:45:08.239 --> 01:45:13.850 can address specific zone changes that I mentioned last 01:45:13.850 --> 01:45:19.199 pins me Richard I will 01:45:19.199 --> 01:45:21.989 get that scheduled I have I have not to be on I have not I 01:45:21.989 --> 01:45:23.319 have not scheduled it 01:45:23.319 --> 01:45:26.210 yet since the since the last and I understand you're busy 01:45:26.210 --> 01:45:26.859 man I'm just 01:45:26.859 --> 01:45:31.069 gonna be a squeaky wheel that's okay that's no that's that 01:45:31.069 --> 01:45:31.439 's fine it's fine 01:45:31.439 --> 01:45:36.359 okay thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I'm gonna 01:45:36.359 --> 01:45:36.880 be a squeaky wheel 01:45:36.880 --> 01:45:40.949 too back in January I brought up the traffic engineering 01:45:40.949 --> 01:45:41.880 discussion so I 01:45:41.880 --> 01:45:44.819 would like to try to move that up with all of today's 01:45:44.819 --> 01:45:46.300 discussion I think it's 01:45:46.300 --> 01:45:49.520 super important that we have that as you stated earlier 01:45:49.520 --> 01:45:50.600 sooner than later 01:45:50.600 --> 01:46:01.119 as a discussion thank you okay anybody else okay with that 01:46:01.119 --> 01:46:02.720 we will close our 01:46:02.720 --> 01:46:08.000 meeting this evening at 737 thank you everyone 01:46:21.600 --> 01:46:23.640 you