Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

whenever you're ready. John, can you hear us? I can now. Can you hear me? Okay. Yep. Great. Thank you. It's going. Good evening and welcome to the Lewisville Planning Commission meeting for Thursday, May 14th, 2026. Um, with a roll call, please. Commissioner M Haley, Commissioner Richie, present. Commissioner Hunt, here. Commissioner Basket, yes. Commissioner Choy, here. Commissioner Banks,

here. Chair Broadise here. Thank you. A motion to approve this evening's agenda. So moved. Second. Second. There we go. All in favor? I I I will now open it up for public comment for items that are not on the agenda this evening. Um I actually don't have visibility into the online world right now. There's anybody there. Is there a hand raised? I don't

no hands. Okay. Uh if you're wish if you want to participate uh for public comment for items not on the agenda, please use the raise your hand button. Star 86. If somebody was calling in by phone, but seeing none, uh we'll move into our first item of regular business. Not sure. Uh that's on. Yeah. Okay. Um I will now open the public hearing on request for a um recommendation for a final PUD uh for the hel for the medical office building, hospital building, and special review use uh at 900 Rockrest Drive. Purpose of the hearing is receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the planning commission. The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. First, there'll be a presentation and testimony by city staff, followed by questions from the planning commission to staff. Next, we'll have a presentation and testimony by the applicant, followed by questions from the planning commission to the applicant. After these two presentations, members of the public who have joined this meeting in person, by computer, or telephone may speak regarding the application. Anyone who would like to speak in person is asked to complete a speaker card. Use the raise hand function if participating by computer or star9 if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pull their minutes to allow one person to speak for up to a total of six minutes. The purpose of public comment is to receive public testimony and not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period. The applicant and staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement. I will then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless

the commission decides to reopen the hearing. The planning commission will discuss the matter and may approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, or continue to a specific future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and whether you are a resident of Lewisville. Does anyone participating in this hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing no objections, do we have notification? Notice has been satisfied. Thank you. Do we have any disclosures from planning commission? Seeing none.

All right. Thank you, chair. Um, and good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Matt Post, planner on the community development team. Uh the item before you tonight is a planned unit development and special review use to consider resolution 6 series 2026 recommending approval of the Advent Health Hospital hospital campus which includes a new hospital building, medical office building and associated site improvements and then a special review used to establish a helicopter pad on site. Uh so the proposal uh before you is to develop the 39.9 acre site, generally one of the eastern most sites in the area known as Red Tail Ridge. Um the the proposal includes a 371,600 ft hospital, five stories in height, 62,000 ft medical office building and associated site improvements. And then again that helipad mentioned uh previously. Uh just a quick note, I'll try to be brief in tonight's presentation. So I'm happy to answer any any questions following this. Maybe a bit brief than I typically am. So uh so some background on this project. Uh it is located within the Konico Phillips campus general development plan. Again, that area that we otherwise refer to as Red Tail Ridge. Um it is zoned planned community commercial which uh again which is is subject to that general development plan mentioned. There have been several amendments to the GDP in recent years. The most relevant to this particular proposal or the most relevant amendment how rather was approved in October of 2025. Um and that was the Red Tail Ridge General Development Plan first amendment. That amendment expressly permitted a hospital and medical office use within the GDP area, specifically the hospital parcel that we're looking at today. It established height zones and massing standards for the proposed medical campus. And it also transferred additional development capacity in the

form of additional gross square feet from the existing Advent Health campus to this GDP. Again, all of those amendments applied exclusively to the 39.9 acre parcel that we're considering this evening. And so the proposal includes a five-story hospital building, which again totals that 371,600 ft, which is located centrally on the site. If you look at the graphic on your screen, that is the site plan. Um the the top is actually uh west. So north is to the right of this screen. So it is turned or rotated clockwise uh just just so you can orient yourselves. Uh the campus is intended to serve as a regional medical facility integrating emergency operations and again it's with a helellipad for emergency support. Uh the applicant has also identified future expansion areas on this PUD. They are um highlighted in the in the checked boxes that you can see directly north of the hospital. Then there will be an additional medical office building. That PUD is not considering those future improvements or expansions. It's simply on there for reference uh for the applicant and staff. Site design again includes parking areas, pedestrian focused circulation, uh pedestrian amenity and outdoor space areas. Uh this proposal is large enough that it will be phased. It will be built in two concurrent phases. Uh so the graphic that you see on the screen, the red area which is the hospital building will will be constructed as phase one. The blue area will be constructed as phase two. The blue area is the medical office building. Uh the reason for the phasing, I'll let the applicant explain the phasing a bit more, but the reason the reason we're doing the phasing approach is because it will allow city staff to issue construction acceptance for horizontal improvements, utilities, parking areas, and a certificate of occupancy for the hospital building so that the hospital building can become

operational while the medical office building and associated site improvements are still being constructed. Uh so again, I think the the intent is to build out both phases concurrently. However, with the phasing approach that we're notating on the PUD, uh it will allow again staff to um uh again issue issue acceptance on separate phases. Uh we'll also wrap this up in a required development agreement with details including cost estimates and and phasing uh that will go to the city council when that document is prepared. Uh taking a closer look at the hospital building here. Again, five stories tall, primary entrance oriented eastsoutheast and facing um westbound US 36 traffic. So, it's oriented toward Highway 36. South side of the building includes that emergency entrance with dedicated ambulance access and staging areas. Um, as shown in these elevation and renderings, you can see that the building satisfies the upper story step back and massing requirements that were implemented and adopted as part of that first GDP amendment, which requires any portion of the building over 45 ft in height to be stepped back 15 feet on the primary facade. Um and there's some additional um elements in there as well related to mechanical screening uh that the applicant is satisfying on this proposal. But you can see the step back here clearly defined on that bottom graphic and then the rendering on the top um does a good job of showing that as well. Again applying to that primary facade. uh medical office building again located on the north side of the site 62,000 square feet three stories in height is it is uh as shown in the renderings again the building also satisfies the massing requirements uh that are uh proposed by the GDP um or rather that are um required by the GDP you can see there's an additional architectural element on this building

that would be the mechanical screen which tapers back that is a permitted height encroachment for an architectural element um there are some um items we'll discussed with the height with the proposed GDP amendment, but I'll get into that as we get to that slide. Proposed parking in circulation, 773 parking spaces, 306 for the hospital, 467 for the MO or the medical office building. We'll have four site access points with the primary access point coming off Rock Crest Drive to the south. Again, that would be plan left on your screen. proposal includes raised crosswalks at key locations in the site to improve pedestrian circulation in a 10- foot wide shared use path that connects to the larger larger multimmoal trail network in Redail Ridge. Um, EV charging infrastructure is proposed and is consistent with our municipal code requirements and the commitments and obligations uh required of the applicant in the 2024 Red Tail Ridge development agreement. uh landscaping. 63% of the site will be landscaped or set aside as as native um native seated open prairie areas or short grass prairie areas rather. Nearly 400 trees and almost 4,000 lowwater shrubs will be planted on this site. Areas not occupied by building's parking or dedicated landscaping will be restored with that native short grass prairie mix. Uh so this the graphic on the top is representative of the overall landscape plan and those light green areas are areas that are not proposed for improvement um with buildings, structures or parking areas. Uh as part of the landscape plan, the applicant is requesting two waivers from the commercial design standards related to required street tree and shrub plantings. I'll cover that in the analysis section later on here. Part of this proposal includes a request to amend the GDP. Um again, uh this amendment would establish an alternate method of measurement for measuring

height on the site. And that method of measurement would um take uh measurement from the finished floor elevation of a building as opposed to the average grade requirement that would come in our municipal code. Um the reason for this is following approval of the previous GDP amendment and then issuance of an overlock grading permit, the applicant determined that site topography um uh essentially affected their average grade calculation. So in allowing an FF measurement um we're we're seeing roughly a 2.86 86 ft height increase for certain elements of the hospital when compared to the average grade measurement and then a 3.53 increase in height in the medical office building again when compared to the average average grade I'm yeah when compared to the average grade measurement. Uh this amendment is not being considered by the planning commission this evening. Staff and the applicant have proposed an administrative process that is available via the municipal code which allows the director to approve an amendment to a general development plan when it can be shown that that amendment does not increase the density of the plan or impact the overall development character established by the plan with the original intent. And so we'll talk about that a bit further here and happy to answer questions after as well. Um digging into analysis here. As part of the Red Tail Ridge development agreement, a sitewide transportation demand management plan was adopted. That plan required that all PUDs within the Red Tail Ridge area um provide TDM plans or TDM uh memorandums to um essentially show that the PUDs are meeting the commitments and goals of those transportation demand management plans. So the applicant has submitted their TDM memorandum and they include sightsp specific measures like bicycle parking, EV charging stations, designated carpool and ride share

parking and teleawwork policies. All of these um uh commitments by the applicant are intended to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips. That was the overall intent of the TDM plan for the entire Redail Ridge area. The project will also financially participate in a districtwide TDM implementation through the Red Tail Ridge Metro District um for operations and maintenance programs. And that funding will support broader strategies including a potential future shuttle connection. That shuttle will circulate throughout the entirety of Red Tail Ridge from the Flat Irons uh RTD station in Broomfield. um it's going to require funding to get off the ground, but the applicant um uh is is financially committed through the metro district and that shuttle will be established at a at a future date. And so staff find in the analysis here that there uh the TDM um memorandum that was provided uh satisfied the requirements of the Red Tail Ridge Development Agreement. uh traffic study was submitted with this application evaluating traffic generated uh by the initial buildout and then uh expansion scenarios through 2040 and 2045. The study concluded that that the proposed development can be in combinated within the existing and planned roadway network. Um near-term roadway improvements identified in the study are uh generally being developed by the master developer of Red Tail Ridge and are already being implemented. While the study identifies future long-term capacity improvements at full buildout in the future that may require additional expansions and potential for signalization at the primary access point, but at this point no additional um improvements are necessary based on the traffic study provided. Uh the helellipad is again required as a special review use per the GDP. Uh the helellipad is intended support to support regional emergency operations. Staff find that the helellipad is appropriately located to minimize

pedestrian and vehicular conflicts and is safely integrated into the overall campus design with projected flight paths generally oriented northbound and southbound into and out of the site. You can see I've highlighted the flight paths here. Um again this is plan clockwise green he helipad flight paths in blue. Uh based on the information that the applicant provided staff find that all the special review criteria to establish a helellipad are satisfied and that um additional measures um are accounted for given that the area is generally slated for uh commercial industrial development in the in the direct surrounding vicinity. uh the applicant can provide additional operational detail uh if those questions arise. Um so as discussed earlier with the GDP amendment um an an administrative amendment is accompanying this plan unit development and is being processed administratively. The director has approved that GDP amendment and it will go to the city council on consent for formal acceptance. uh that's scheduled for June 2nd. That is a condition of tonight's application. Uh that in order to move forward to the city council, the city council has to accept the director's findings on the consent agenda. In the event that the council does not, then you all will see that GDP amendment here. Um again, as a formal GDP amendment process that that you're more familiar with. Uh but again with the alternate method of measurement staff find um that it does not materially impact the overall development character of the area and the amendment results in that limited increase again of approximately 2.86 ft for portions of the hospital roof not the entire hospital the mechanical screen of the hospital the overall initially intended height is still within the height range limits that were proposed on the GDP. Again, we're just looking at those individual elements

that are called out on the GDP top of building materials. Top of parapet 2.86 ft height increase over the over the proposed average grade or when compared to average grade and then that 3.53 foot increase of the medical office building when measuring from average grade. So again based on these findings you know staff staff are of the opinion that again the development character has not changed. The note that you see highlighted on the screen is the only change that was proposed and that is the method of measurement for FFE. Both buildings remain compliant with the GDP's established massing and setback standards. Uh so the applicant is requesting two waivers. The first waiver is from the requirement for street shrub plantings along portion of the west frontage. uh that requires one shrub for every five lineal feet of street frontage to be planted uh within 10 ft of the back of the sidewalk. The applicant is proposing native short grass prairie in this area as propo as opposed to those shrubs. Staff support their request for a waiver because it's in line with the naturalized landscape approach for the entire Red Tail Ridge development area and the applicant is providing a substantial and significant amount of shrubs and perennials on site and internal to the site. Uh the second waiver is also related to street tree and shrub plantings on the south side of the site. There's an existing Excel easement that's just interior to the site that precludes any plantings in that area. So the applicant cannot plant any trees. There will be street trees planted with the overall master development. These waiverss apply to interior development standards. So the south side, no trees, no shrubs because of the Excel easement. the west side there will be trees interior to the site and trees on the other side of the sidewalk in the public right of way but in lie of shrubs the applicant will establish native short grass prairie under those trees. Um

uh overall the proposal does comply with the um sighting, massing, stepback parking, circulation and architectural design standards of the general development plan and the commercial development design standards and guidelines. And staff find that with the two requested waiverss, the application um again uh satisfies all necessary requirements for recommendation of approval. And so with that, staff recommends approval of resolution 6 TI's 2026 uh recommending approval of this PUD and SRU with the conditions listed on screen. And those conditions um include prior to the city council approval of the final PUD um the the one that I mentioned there at the GDP that that we will forward the the GDP third amendment to the city council for formal acceptance on consent agenda. Um and then a detailed planting schedule interior to the site and then a number of engineering conditions as well. So happy to answer any questions. That concludes staff presentation. The applicant has a presentation as well.

Thank you. We'll open it up now for commissioner questions of staff.

I just had one question. Sure. That was a lot. Sorry. Nice job. Um actually I take that back. I had two questions. I'll ask one and then you can go and then I'll go again. You you um referenced the variance for the finished height and tagged it back to the finished floor height of the building. Is the finished floor height in the building consistent throughout the entire footprint or does it change? I I'll let the applicant answer that question.

Okay. Um and then the other second question was the sighting of the helellipad. Has that been submitted and coordinated with the Denver ADO with the FAA for make sure there's no interference with Rocky Mountain? I've I've asked the applicant to be prepared to answer any any questions you might have about that. So I would thanks I I'll defer to them as well. Is there a helipad at the existing hospital?

Thank you. It's also interesting to note as historical reference that actually uh with storage tech there was one on site. I don't know how many dec decades ago it was last used but um yeah any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Richie. Thank you. Great presentation, great staff report. Um I'm wondering this is might be the first PUD we're approving with the new wildfire resiliency code in effect. Have we double checked that the portion of this site, you know, is subject to that? Do you anticipate any conflicts with either I mean landscape plan is is really hard to read so I don't know if you need a note or just wanted to make sure you guys have connected these.

Right. So um you know within the WOOI code and this the state code that we're based off of there's an exception for large overlock grading. Um so that exception hasn't been submitted yet but we're expecting that. So basically when you do large overlock grading um you look at where the remaining wildland areas are and then there's a buffer um that extends out from the remaining um you know natural areas on the north of Red Tail Ridge and this property is well beyond that buffer area. So although they're in the WOOI mapped area now, we anticipate they won't be in the future. Do you need a note or something on the PUD that just says to the extent required this PUD will comply with the provided the state doesn't approve the map amendment or I'm just something you all can think about but that was just a question.

So the the map amendment um the state it's up to the building official to grant the map amendment based on the criteria. So I think we feel comfortable that based on the overlock grading that this um won't be in the WOOI area. We certainly could add a note if planning commission wanted to. Any additional questions for staff? Seeing none, we'll invite the applicant up, please.

Good evening. Is that good? All right. Hi, I am Fani Makui. I'm a senior project manager with Smith Group, the design team on the project. Uh Valerie Wilkins with uh Adams. We're the program managers and owners rep for Advent Health. I do not live in Lewisville. I also do not live in Lewisville. You too. Uh thank you for having us tonight. It's very exciting to be back here. We were here like six months ago working on those GDP amendments as mentioned and we're excited to show you the progress we have made on the project. Um tonight I would like to review where we are at with our building design. some updates there. A little bit about our site plan and then talk about some more of those landscape amenities. Is it not showing? Do we need to do

just got to present? I'm sorry. Down here. It's not working very well, is it? Um, there you go.

All right. Thank you. All right, starting off with the building design. Um, so as we continue to detail out the building, we are in construction documents, which means we are preparing for our permit. Um, and we've been able to progress greatly since the last time we spoke. Um, in looking at our building materials, we really are trying to incorporate um, materials that are more natural to the area um, and really fit into the context of the surrounding uh, foothills, mountains, and prairie land that we have. really trying to incorporate wood panels um or a metal panel that would look like wood in uh overhead sophets. We're also including a warm metal panel on the upper patient floors as well as a natural stone panel on the first and second floor. Um the image you see on the top right uh is really how those materials could come together. That is not our facility. I'm just showing you how those materials blend together um and work cohesively. So this is the latest rendering um that we have of the facility. As you can see, this is that same um corner that uh Mr. Post was showing you. Uh this is the emergency entry point uh for patients. And then off to the right, which you're not seeing right now, um beyond those trees, is the main entry to the building. So right now we're looking at the east facade. Uh first floor and second floor, those are that stone material. That's what I refer to as podium if I mention it again ear later down in this presentation. And then above that is the patient tower. So that's where all your patient rooms actually are. Um keeping in nice airy light glass trying to really provide uh connection to nature for patients uh so they have better healing prospects and we can also capture the views out west. Uh this is our front entry drop off. Um this is the entry canopy making sure

that we have adequate coverage for anyone visiting our site. Um it will be able to cover full uh lane of cars and about four cars at a time. Um really providing clear wayfinding on site and bringing people from Northwest Parkway easily onto uh our property and then to the main entry of the facility. This is a night rendering here of that same uh souththeast view. Uh really showing how we're trying to provide additional view uh additional wayfinding on campus even at night. Uh clear access to the emergency department and also trying to show from the highway how you would understand how to get to the hospital. All right, moving on to site. So, we did have some overarching cycles uh that really helped drive our design process and our decision-making along the way. We really want to make sure that the outdoor environment supports the healing and well-being of not only patients, visitors, but also the staff. We recognize the immense stress that the staff is under um and want to make sure that we are also providing the respit that they're going to need so they can properly serve their patients. We also wanted to make sure that we were not creating an institutional uh design when it comes to landscaping. Really connecting to the region um and all the local treasures that you all love dearly here in Lewisville. This is the site plan. Um as you saw earlier in the staff report, as he mentioned, uh north is to the right, west is up, uh and then east is down. MOB is on your far right side, hospital to the left. Um, you can see how our parking is designated for Mo uh to serve the Mo separated from the hospital, but we are going to have a landscaping connection to both facilities. So that way if patients, families or physicians

have to go between both buildings, they have a easy pedestrian friendly way to access them. This is an illustrative site plan just showing some more of those trees. As you heard, there's a lot of trees on site um and additional vegetation. So, when we're looking at our landscape typologies, we really are looking to incorporate as much of that short prairie grass um enhanced short prairie grass, looking at manicured planting beds and a mix of planting beds and enhanced short prairie grass together. We really want to be able to create a manicured look as you get closer to the approach of the hospital. um but do keep in with the native grass and then also we are trying to be conservative with our water use. So really um being mindful of the selection of vegetation that we're putting on site uh to help with reduce our water. So now let's talk about the ribbon. So this is that ribbon that I was talking about that is really that pedestrianfriendly access from both the mob and the hospital and then is also going to have zones along it that's going to provide the rest bit that I was mentioning earlier. As you look towards the hospital, that ribbon really becomes enhanced. So along the ribbon is where we have your main entry drop off in the middle. To the right, you're going to have outdoor dining that is connected directly to the dining and servery on the inside of the facility. And then to the left is where we have provided our healing garden. It is very important to our families and our patients to have a healing garden, a place where they can go and they can meditate. They can can relax. As you all know, there's a lot of tough conversations usually happening in hospitals. So, giving them a point for a mental break. We see this area as an opportunity for donors to get really involved and help enhance those areas as well with additional um site furnishings, benches that can be dedicated, pavers that can be named, anything to show that

they supported the building uh during its development. For the MO, we have also provided a staff and public patio. Um, mainly we think it's going to be used by staff, but it can be accessed by the public. It is off of the north side. Um, will help with some of the shading in the summer months. Um, we have created this trail that connects it from the front and drop off of the Mo, also located on the east side of the facility. Um, and this is where you will find 20 of our bike parking as well. So, we're providing parking outside for Mo, parking outside for the hospital, and we also have additional indoor parking for staff for the hospital. This was some of our initial um inspiration photos. As you can see, we're really drawing from the dry rock bed um main boulders. You're seeing a lot of that natural grassing uh grasses coming into play as well as trees. We're going to be playing with the topography and really starting to create those different zones so not everyone feels like they are together um but have those moments of peace and respit. This is that front drop off area. This is just that middle portion of the ribbon. And as I continue continue through these renderings, you're going to see how that evolves. So this is looking towards the right hand side of that plan that I was showing earlier showing that outdoor dining. So right there on the left that's that outdoor dining has a direct connection into that servery and as you can see there is separation um through the landscaping that we have provided from kind of more of that meandering walking trail um that we refer to as the ribbon. That meandering walking trail connects all the way up towards the ED and then all the way down to the MO. Along this walking trail we have provided um evening lighting. So, pedestrian friendly lighting, so it's inviting. Um,

it doesn't feel like a dark spot, and you also don't have anything overhead. We've also created different areas throughout the way with various seating types, um, and different opportunities for those donor locations. We can al also envision some art pieces going into here from the local community. This is looking back um, at the other side of the dining patio. So again, you see you're more on that meandering path. Um you can see we have the pavers in there that is that part of that donor um opportunity I mentioned earlier where you can name a a paver. Um and then as you can see various types of seating and uh locations for people to gather or um contemplate individually. We have made a conscious effort to make sure that when you are in this ribbon that you do feel separated from the parking area. So providing some screening so in case um cars are backing up, you're not uh you are not blinded by their headlights or uh rear brakes. As we go into the healing garden, that's a little more inspiration. You can see it is definitely more of a garden um not as much as the other side. And so as we look into this area, you can see um that we are providing a base landscape design which would be provided day one and then through the hospital foundations board. This is where we would start to enhance it with a lot of those donor uh pieces. Various forms have been done at other hospitals in the Aben Health system. Um and we believe that we have a lot of excitement over the opportunities that they have here to donate. And then once again, this is just looking back. One thing to know outside of the healing garden on the inside of of the facility, it directly um connects to the chapel and the mission wall of Advent Health. So you have a good connection of spirituality as well. That concludes my presentation today.

Thank you so much for having us. Thank you. Questions for the applicant? Um I'll begin with one. Do you have a preliminary lead scorecard? So, we will not be going after LEAD. However, we have been following LEAD to the best of our ability um and to the city of Lewisville code. Can you speak to that? Yeah, the the hospital parcel ex is exempt from lead silver requirements in the SIA and any healthcare use is exempt. Got it. Okay. Additional questions. What about the MOB? Is that part of that?

That that is the same. Yeah. the the the development improvements agreement specifically references the hospital parcel and then supporting medical uses as well. We generally meet close to silver uh lead uh throughout the hospital with our innovative MEP systems and the lighting and other components inside the building. Generally, we meet silver on our own with just healthcare design. Advent Health does not does not pursue the certification side currently. Any additional questions? Commissioner Mahaley, I don't see your hand up, so you're clear there. I'm I'm good. Thank you. Thank you.

Two questions. Um, you detailed uh that that this initial phase of development would cover 63% of the lot, the parcel, but there's further buildout plans later. Correct. Do we have a just a rough estimate? Will it take it to 73? I think it's the inverse. So 63% will remain open. Okay. Yeah. And then um I' I'd have to look at the PUD there, but as of right now, 63% is open, meaning it does not contain parking lot or building. Okay. Even with the proposed expansions, the site still remains well well within the open space requirements and coverage limitations that are proposed. Yeah.

Okay. And then second question, with the elevation, I know it's above average grade. So is there a minmax deviation within the the height limitation? I mean, is there I mean does does the grade drop to 20 feet lower at some point or is it literally um great question. We do have a lot of grading on our site. When you look at the average of it though, it's a delta of about three feet on the average, but is there a one extreme point?

I'm going to have to refer to my civil. Good evening. Um Aaron Griffin with Kimley Horn and Associates. Um yeah so the site is essentially the the existing site well before the overlap grading right drains from north to south right there's a ridge kind of in the middle generally it drains still in that direction but we it does drop a good probably 15 ft I would say from kind of the we we'll just call it the finished floor so center of the site and drops north and south so it needs to drain towards those detention facilities to the north and south of the site but across the building it's it's I Yeah, that's the the elevation changes around 3 ft. So, yeah.

Does that help? But you you understand my question, right? I I do. Yeah. Um and and and then I can just add some just a little bit of detail on how we calculate average grade, which is was the previous method of measurement. We take average grade directly adjacent to the building structure at two points on that building. So we take the highest elevation point quite literally at the structure at grade and then the lowest at the structure at grade and we find the average there. So we don't take an average over over the whole site. So we wouldn't consider for example where the site drops off 15 ft. That would not have been considered in the overall average grade calculation. Um if there's concern about okay I understand how how much higher that delta is with the FF. Okay. Thanks.

Is that finished floor elevation consistent across the entire It is. Yep. Consistent across the entire level one. So, you're going to get the same measurement. Yes. From corner to corner. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Would would one of you like to ask answer my question about the sighting of the helipad and the proposed routing flight path? Sure. Any conflicts with Rocky Mountain and has it been coordinated with the ADO?

Yep. So, the helellipad is private. Uh, but so the FAA circular recommendation, we're not required to follow it, but we do follow it. So the design team has implemented all of those standards and so that is built into their plan right now and the north south orientation for the flight plan. So we don't need to submit and go through the that side of it but we are meeting all those requirements. Okay. Thank you.

If you want to add something please feel free. Well, I was going to add, yeah, so we submit the 7480. Um, we do we do an obstruction analysis, you know, um, to just, you know, verify obviously site, you know, whether it's the light poles, trees, we do all of that analysis. we actually do submit and then we get that from the FAA, you know, the communication um because we want those communication contacts so that when obviously that's more pilot related, but that we're making sure that we have all of that information to share with the EMS um team so that they're aware of, you know, who to contact and all of that. Um but we do submit the 7480. Okay. As part of the project. Thank you.

Is there a projected number of flights? Roughly right now the projections are about eight per month and then about a hundred per year. That's on probably on the high end, but that's a rough projection that we have right now based on other Advent Health uh similar traumasiz uh facilities in the region. 90% of their flights are outbound. Got it. All right. Any additional questions? Seeing none, thank you all. Appreciate

um I'll now open it up for public comment. We have two attendees online. Uh if you want to speak, please uh raise your hand. Um we don't have any written comment on this at all. All right, moving on then. Um actually we can invite you back up for a closing statement. We would just like to express our appreciation for the entire city of Lewisville team. This has been a great process for us to go through. Uh city staff has challenged us where appropriate. We have met those challenges back, but it has been a great relationship and we appreciate the the forming of that early relationship of trying to build this uh new project and have this hospital serve the Lewisville community. So, we appreciate uh city staff and working through issues with us.

Thank you. Sorry, I just thought of a question. I just want to make sure the conditions of approval that were recommended by staff collectively, you all find you all feel you're going to get there prior to city council timing. There's no Okay, assume that was the case. Thanks for clarifying. Yes, an important step. Thank you. All right, staff. Uh, no closing comments. All right. Um, I will now close the public hearing and the planning commissioners will deliberate on the evidence presented. During deliberations, no further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received. Who would like to begin? Start.

Great. Thank you. um very grateful that you all are um continuing to invest in our community with um what looks like a fantastic building and a fantastic improvement for Lewisville. So um I'm just excited to see this moving forward.

Mahaley on deck. Mah, what's that? Is Mahaley have a question or comment? No, I Nope. I was just getting in line. Go ahead. Okay. Yeah, I don't have much to add. I do appreciate the presentation and and city staff prep as well. And thanks everybody for showing up consistently. You bring the full team. That is much appreciated and and acknowledged. So, thank you. Looks good. Thank you, Commissioner Mahaley.

Yeah, just echoing what's been said. Um I appreciate the detail to design. I think the helipad is necessary and well thought out. Um the exceptions I I think are are are very acceptable and especially considering the um high amount of effort and thought put into the gardens and out and outdoor space. So um great presentation as usual. Um and appreciate the amount of thought. I'm I'm very much in favor of this. Thank you.

I'll just I'm happy to pile on on the landscaping point. I I appreciate in particular the thoughtfulness with the outdoor um landscaping and the various paths and the walkways and I think that's going to make a very nice and and pleasing hospital facility. So, look forward to seeing it. Thank you.

Um I'm really pleased to see the connectivity of the hospital site to uh Red Hill Ridge in general. That's really important. Um, you're going to be the first building up. You're going to set a standard for us. So, that's exciting and important. Um, there was one other thing I was going to say. Sorry, it has escaped me, but I comes back to you. That's fine. It's going down the right way. All right. Thank you.

Sure. I'll add my two cents. Uh, I I think it's a good overall presentation. I personally have no problem with the um exceptions that are being requested. Um I think just based on the overall sighting and overall land, we we're hitting the intent if not the letter. um appreciate you guys doing your due diligence um in the coordination with you know being right under the Rocky Mountain Airspace and I would um have preferred to have seen a little bit more kind of uh aggressive pursuit of some some of the sustainability aspects of the building. I know especially with a very process heavy uh and intensive building like that it's hard to meet a lot of those strict certification thresholds. Um but I think you know I there are still a lot of opportunities especially in hospitals to pursue that type of thing. Um, even if we're looking at some of the, um, other elements that are on the horizontal side, you know, it looks like from a lot of the renderings, um, there's a lot of black top surfaces. Um, and I don't know if you guys have done evaluations on looking at alternates for that and lighting lightening up some of those horizontal surfaces and infrastructure. Um, but those are those are some things I think you can still have time to change even at CDs um, if you were to pursue that. But overall, I think it's a a pretty good design. Moves the ball. Definitely sets the stage for the area. So,

thank you. Yes, Commissioner Basket. Excellent. So, I think it's really important that the me that the metro district supports the TDM plan. There is so much opportunity at that site with the Broomfield station just spitting distance away to have a shuttle to connect people once there's a train and buses there. And the buses are really important that are there the flat iron flyer and the airport bus. Doesn't get any better than that in terms of regional service. Um I look forward to see the implementation of the TDM plan and probably none of you will be involved in that because you're the front-end people, but I I wanted to go on record as saying that's important.

Thank you. Yes, here here absolutely important. Um yeah, project looked great. Thank you all. Thanks for everybody who came out who doesn't have to speak this evening. Um uh I know it's not within our purview but a couple of couple of cents worth of thought on this whole way we height measurement issue. Um we've had challenges as we know in Lewisville with how we measure things when and why and who and where and all of that. Personally, I'd rather call a spade a spade and grant the waiver than go through this other optional process or this other path forward in doing that. But that's just my two cents right now. So, that's all good. I don't know what other people think about that. But with that, do I have a motion to a motion? our comm. Yeah. All right.

All right. So, I will move approval of resolution 06 series 2026 recommending to the city council approval with waiverss of a final planned unit development to allow 30 371,600T hospital building a 62,000 ft medical office building and a special review use to allow a helicopter pad on 39.9 acres at 900 Rockrest Drive subject to the conditions set out by staff. Thank you. And a second. Second. Basket. Yes. All right. Commissioner Mahaley. Roll call, please. Commissioner Bangs, approved. Commissioner Richie, yes. Commissioner Mahaley,

yes. Commissioner Choy, yes. Commissioner Hunt, yes. Uh, Chair Broadise, yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you all again. All right. Uh, let's see. Why don't we just take five minutes? Yeah.

This is all you Jeff mostly. Yeah. Yeah. Do you want to tee it up or? Yes. Okay. Yes, I will.

All right. All right. I will now open public hearing on a recommendation to city council uh regarding our Lewisville Title 17 Lewisville Municipal Code to update the city's inclusionary housing ordinance. The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the planning commission. The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. First, there will be a presentation by and testimony by city staff, followed by questions from the planning commission to staff. After this presentation, members of the public who have joined this meeting in person, by computer, or telephone may speak regarding the application. Anyone who would like to speak in person uh may fill out a speaker card. Use the raise hand function if you're participating by computer or star9 if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting. That includes you all online. Uh may pool minutes to allow one person to speak up for a total of six minutes. The purpose of public comment is to receive public testimony, not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period. U staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement. I will then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the commission decides to reopen the hearing. The planning commission will discuss the matter and may approve, approve with conditions, deny, table or continue to a specific future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and city of residence. Does anyone participating in the hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing no objections, uh, do we have notification?

Yes, notification has been met. Thank you. Do we have any disclosures? Seeing none.

Okay. Thank you. So, Jeff with Community Development, I'm here to present some targeted updates to our inclusionary housing ordinance with the overall intent of improving the effectiveness of the ordinance. By that, I mean the likelihood of getting actual affordable housing units built. Um these are intended to be interim updates ahead of our broader development code update um which is starting very soon. I'm happy to talk more about that. Bit of context just kind of remind uh the group of the affordability challenges. Um our housing costs continue to rise at much faster rates than our income. So the problem continues to uh increase. Our medium home price in Lewisville is approaching $900,000. According to our most recent needs assessment, about actually threearters of Lewisville households could not afford to buy a home in Lewisville. About 40% of renters are housing cost burden. That basically means that they're spending more than 30% of their income toward housing. That's what affordable housing means generally is you spend 30% of your income toward um or less toward um toward housing. So, our existing inclusionary housing ordinance framework kind of put simply requires that all new residential development set aside 12% of the units as deed restricted permanently affordable. And of those 12 units, there's a split in the code. Basically, half of them have to be for households earning at or less 60% of area immediate income, the other half for at or less 80% area immediate income. And there's alternative compliance options as well. policy context is very strong supporting these updates um in terms of general updates but specifically what's proposed tonight and we certainly have regional partnerships and the Proposition 123 commitment all kind of aligning uh and pointing to making improvements to the ordinance in terms of why now and relative to waiting for the broader development code update I think there's a few things

there first we all know that the comprehensive plan was just adopted that that does call for some targeted residential growth. So, not saying that's happening right away, but it is an opportune time for us to address our inclusionary housing ordinance. So, as residential growth may occur, we're in a better position in the near term to capture uh some of our affordability goals. And the broader development code update will more comp comprehensively evaluate the inclusionary housing ordinance. So, it'll look at the fee methodology. It'll do a deep dive and we'll have consultant support on that. But, that is at least a year, maybe two years out from now. And so we would rather move forward with something sooner than later in advance of that. The proposal overview kind of put simply on the slide and I'll walk through each of the components. Um first and the first item is addressing the area median income requirements. That's the 60 and 80% looking at some changes to that. The overall goal is to again put us in a better position to actually get affordable units. But it specifically relates to development feasibility which area immediate income is a big part of that in terms of developments being infeasible. So that's one component and then density incentives as well. I'll talk about parking flexibility also an incentive waiverss to our development fees and then looking at updates to our fee and ll amounts that's where a developer can choose to pay a fee in lie of building the units on site. So walking through each of the components of the proposal first regarding area median income. So the proposal is to I mean just get get to this graphic right here. Maybe put simply the this graphic is intended to show from a development feasibility standpoint what this is trying to address. So when you think about what a unit would go for in the blue there at market rate rental or owner and in the green is an example of like what a unit would go for if it's restricted to certain incomes. So there's a gap obviously between those two that really inhibits the feasibility of a lot of

these projects. This kind of puts simply this area median income adjustment is intended to kind of further narrow that gap while also addressing our affordability goals. So the proposal is for u actually to tie the affordability to tenure. So rental versus owner versus just a half and half split. Happy to talk more about that philosophy. But um kind of a more common approach now for the rental units the proposal is that 12% of the units would need to be at or below 80% of area median income. And for the ownership units, between 80 and 120% area median income. 120% sounds like a lot to a lot of people, but it's important to note that 120% is still well below what income you would need to buy a house in Lewisville. So, the intent is to serve kind of more middle income, moderate income, but also dial it to support lower income, which is certainly a critical need. And another thing this does here, I'll talk a little bit more about it, is it it dials it closely to affordable housing funding structures as we understand them in terms of AMI limit. So it's pretty closely aligned with those as well. So regarding the density incentive that's proposed, so the the proposal and um I should say about a year ago, we went to council and got their input at a study session and this reflects their direction. Generally, the specifics with some exceptions I'll talk about, but the proposal is for a 20% increase in the number of residential units that a developer could build if they provide on-site affordable housing, a 20% in the allowable lot coverage, which allows a lot more sort of flexibility for site planning, and then importantly, there's also a density bonus of 30% baked in for deeper affordability. So if 100% of the units on-site rental units are permanently affordable and all units are affordable to under 80% AMI households with an average of 60% AMI. So that's

getting to deeper affordability. Um then that would qualify for an even greater density bonus. So the analysis related to density and I've got one more slide on this is one it improves project feasibility by sort of narrowing that gap between the market rate and the and the the capped rent so the project potentially become more feasible. It is an explicit recommendation in our housing plan to address density bonuses as an incentive with our IHO. Um it does align that 80% and 60%. It does align with affordable housing funding structures now where you can actually do averaging for affordable housing projects. So to get for example low-income housing tax credits, you project could be eligible if the average is 60% basically what our 30% bonus says. If the average is 60% and all units are below 80% then they could be eligible for low-inccome housing tax credit. So it aligns with that as well. I think one important thing to note is that the the density isn't sort of an overriding thing. There's still a lot of other factors projects would be evaluated against in terms of neighborhood impacts, traffic circulation, things like that. So on balance, other things would need to be looked at, not just the density. And here's an example of how that would play out with the 100 unit project example. So in this table the sort of the top row is so if your zoning currently allows 100 units by right under the current ordinance that would be 12 affordable deed restricted units that would be required to be built on site and then that would leave the developer with 88 market rate units. So under this density bonus it would allow 120 units total which would increase the level of affordable units and I think significantly would increase by about 17 the number of market rate units. So further addresses that feasibility component and allows the project to pencil a little bit better in this hypothetical case.

So some other incentives in the proposed ordinance uh first one is to eliminate minimum parking requirements for all projects that require on-site affordable housing. And so that would apply to the market rate and the affordable units. Our experience is that developers will build parking anyway, but this at least gives the flexibility so that you know if structured parking was the only option that's really expensive, this would provide some flexibility to again address the project feasibility component. Um, we're also proposing to wave zoning related development review fees, which are not a huge amount, but they do help. Um, in terms of the analysis of this component of the ordinance, um, one, the housing plan very explicitly calls out parking reductions as a really effective tool as far as feasibility and affordability goes. The fee reductions, like I said, help. I think it's also important to note that again, projects will be evaluated based on a whole breadth of criteria. So if a parking reduction is sort of a by right thing that doesn't negate the fact that the proposal would have to be looked at in terms of access circulate you know emergency services neighborhood impacts. So this is all on balance with other things. Um I think it's important to to keep in mind the fee and loo proposal is pretty simple in that we propose keeping the existing methodology. So I think we we we used several cities have the same methodology. Longmont's one of them for example. Um essentially the fee in Lou just brings in the new market data and updates the model and this is what it tells us the fee should be. Um and so the fee would increase modestly for rental but it would increase a fair amount with ownership and I think that reflects the reality of the market that buying a house has gotten a lot more expensive. And so related to the analysis of the fee and loo I mean it's a it's sort of a a basic question what this obviously adds cost to development right and does that trickle down to tenants and affordability overall and the answer from our perspective and our analysis is

pretty nuanced and it doesn't necessarily trickle down to tenants and ownership costs generally you know there's a not to get too much into development economics but there's a cap that one can charge based on the market for a rental unit or you know an ownership price point. So a developer when they see these fees will spread those costs in a number of different ways through design feature changes um operational changes things like that. The value of the land will adjust over time to account for these fees. So there's sort of this equilibrium that happens and I think from our perspective we've learned that there's a fairly modest sort of pass through to any tenants um as far as the increase in the fees. Again, the rental fee goes up pretty modestly. It would be the ownership fee that would be the bigger jump here. Building height incentives, staff is actually not recommending moving forward with those. Um, that was previously discussed with council and they supported it at the time. Um, from our perspective, we just had a lengthy communitydriven discussion about building heights as part of the comp plan, comprehensive plan. Um, and so from our perspective, allowing additional building height, like one more story, um, would very likely be in conflict with all those community discussions that were had and the comp plan policies. So, we have some concerns about it is a powerful incentive, but we have some concerns about it in terms of like the scenario of your your base height allowance is three stories, you're right up against an existing neighborhood. baking something in that says you can go up to four is a concern I think that we could discuss, but we're not proposing that at this time. The proposal is is definitely consistent with our adopted plans and our and our three specific goals around promoting housing affordability and choice. And overall, um, I guess from our perspective, the proposal improves alignment of the IHO with existing market conditions and development

feasibility, supports the feasibility of projects actually being able to deliver affordable housing units in the future. Um, which is really what this is all about. And so staff recommends approval of what is resolution three to update the inclusionary housing ordinance. And happy to answer any questions. Question. I have one. you ready for question? Yeah.

I just have a question again about the timing. Um I know you explained it at the outset like why now? Um and you I just want to understand that a little bit more. First of all, you said that we're going to be starting the the the fuller development code process this year. We're like almost halfway through this year. I can't believe it. Um and that that's you anticipate that to be like a one to two year process overall. Yeah, we I think we're aspirationally hoping it's about a year and a half from kickoff, but we're in the we're still in the consultant evaluation process. So, we haven't kicked it off yet, but it would be at least I think a year and a half to two years from project start to completion where we would have an adopted code. there is an opportunity to have a discussion about frontloading certain things within that project, but from our perspective, um it'll be a little while before we'd be able to comprehensively evaluate this and do a full update.

And then um I guess the other question is need do do you do we have projects in the like that on the horizon that we're aware of that that increases the urgency of doing this? Not really. This isn't driven by a specific project. I mean, we're we're getting interest post comprehensive plan since we're shifting our policies, but there's nothing specific on the table that this is being influenced by. Okay.

Yeah. Can I follow up on that? So, if if this were approved, goes to city council and it's approved, it becomes policy from that point on. So to the to the earlier question from Commissioner Hunt, if somebody is in process, this would be subject to or that that in process application would be subject to this. It's a good question. No grandfathering of anything pending. Whatever the rules were at the time of the application or what applies. So once if this is approved, any applications from that point forward from the effective date would be subject, but not anything in the pipeline now. Okay. Yeah, that's clear. Thanks.

Go ahead. I would just add with the time frames that we're talking about for the de land development code update being a year and a half at least um you know I think we do anticipate having residential development applications come in and start development within that time frame. Absolutely. So having this interim ordinance in place would allow us um to work with develop developers on the incentives, try to get on-site inclusionary and if they're paying the fee, get a more, you know, current market fee for the city.

So do you think that's still enough though? I mean, my concern is that it hasn't worked enough yet except for perhaps a couple of dedicated developers. um for on-site development or fe so if we're going to raise those why not raise it to the point where it has a stronger chance of achieving on-site yes well you know we don't want to cost out a development by having a fee that's out of line and it's actually very justifiable because it represents the the gaps in AMI um so it's based on that same methodology you want to add anything else

yeah I mean it it's it's a very fair and valid question. I think that, you know, we're we're punting a bit because we'll have a, you know, a consultant that will have housing expertise that will be able to help us with that fee methodology to figure out how to dial it to our specific needs. That's a big it's a big thing to open back up u to complex methodology that had a lot of discussion going into it. So, um I think we're open to that, but from our perspective and in the interest of moving something forward in the near term, um you know, we're going to stick with the method or our proposal is to stick with the methodology as is, recognizing it's not perfect, but at least updating it for market conditions.

So, so I would agree. I mean, I think in all the years that that I've been on this, I think the vast majority of the applications that have come through that would have had a requirement to comply with the previous or the existing requirements right now have chosen to go fee and loo and it's probably because it's we're super affordable right now in terms of, you know, comparison to to a lot of our um adjacent communities. The one of my questions though, right, is like we've identified that we need additional housing stock. Um, obviously the fee in L doesn't directly add to that quantity of housing that we have when it gives that other other path. Um I I'm I'm struggling to think of what what what has the city actually done with fees that we've collected from the fee in L from previous developments

and and how would we use you know something that goes up four times I think oh go ahead yeah you go ahead and start I think I think we just started collecting fees we're five years in adopted 2021 five years in we just started collecting fees in the past I don't know maybe like six months on the first project. So, we don't really have a good case study of what we would uh use it for yet, but it's certainly allocated for that purpose. We also have an affordable housing fee that council I don't know if you were going to mention that the or not fee, the um budget set aside.

Yeah, there's a set aside. So, I think you know we haven't had a lot of residential development recently and I don't think it's because of our inclusionary housing ordinance. I think it's because of our land use policies which we have just updated

a month ago with the comprehensive plan. So I think it takes time um you know for people to come in and you know there's a lot in the works I would say um where we would either be getting onsite or fee you know the comprehensive plan is trying to align with our housing needs assessment which is around 2500 units um and so I think there's definitely an opportunity in the in the near future to start collecting more fee. We've had one project come in that we're starting to collect fee on that's under construction right now. The city set aside a $2 million opportunity fund for affordable housing. We've been actively working with potential development partners and a consultant on how to use those funds. So, there's opportunities out there that we're um um looking at and trying to move forward that would could use those funds.

Can I just follow up being a little new to this on that piece? I mean, what do you have examples of what other communities have done with that kind of money to actually get units built? Do you know? Yeah, I mean, I think there's all kinds of examples um of communities depending on what their strategy is, you know, everything from land acquisition to land banking to down payment assistance to there's a whole toolkit. Um yeah,

you like places like City of Boulder, they're actually, you know, purchasing and deed restricting properties and selling them. So they have a very mature program with lots of funding. Um you know you can pay for fee waivers and other things like that to help a development pencil out or incentivize different types of affordable housing. How do the proposed numbers compare to other cities? And then Commissioner Mahaley will invite you in. I'd have to look at the there's a few there's a comparison table. I don't have the numbers in my head, but one of the attachments compares us to the other communities. Okay.

And I think we're on the we're on the slightly lower side if I recall, but I have to look at that to confirm. It's like attachment three or something. I think it is. Yeah. Got it. All right. Additional questions? Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Mahaley, um maybe maybe you said this and I missed it, but I did look previously and I couldn't find it. I don't think I recall it from previous discussion, but is there a a size threshold where this requirement is triggered or is it any development?

Yeah, that's a good question. So, anything that requires a PUD, it kicks in and PUDs are kick in at six or more units. And then a follow question, how does the density incentive actually work? I know you gave the hypothetical case for units, but is it and and you did say we're not allowing additional height or not recommending that. So, is it effectively a a reduction in like setback distance and allowing a larger lot coverage or what what what metric are you actually dialing to to provide the density incentive? Are you you referring to the lot coverage specifically or the lock coverage and the number of units bonus?

Uh, it's the number of units. We you you just said density at large. I think the example you gave talked about unit number, but is there other allowances given to allow for higher you know density?

Yeah. So it's a number of units and the lot coverage or the two. So for the number of units it basically uh take your baseline density allowance. So the number of dwelling units per acre that your the zoning allows you to have whatever the property is. Add 20% to that and then that's your total new number of units. So that's 120 units in this scenario of 100 units. And then you take 12% of that and that's the number of on-site affordable housing units that you would have to build. And so it increases the number of affordable housing units and also the number of market rate units. Um, which is good for feasibility. And then as far as the lot coverage goes, it's not specifically related to setbacks, but it just gives a larger building footprint on a site for a developer to work with in terms of more site planning flexibility. um whereas you know some of our zone districts um lot coverage requirements may limit the footprint of the building. So the proposal is not to be to let folks go up but to let them go out by 20% um for a for a lot coverage bonus. They would have to still stay within the setbacks and all of that on the on the property without any waiverss or anything like that. Does that make sense?

And it does. Thank you. And I would just add we don't have multifamily design standards like we do for commercial properties. So, you know, this could lead to less landscaped areas on I think is Commissioner M part of what Commissioner Mahaley is getting at. And so, that would have to go through a design review process, but it may have less landscaped areas.

We would hope that maybe there'd be less parking as well, especially if it's in a a good area with good transit access and some things like that. They may be willing to do less parking to balance that out as well. And and that's a good segue into sort of the last question I had is how does it and I think you sort of alluded to this but maybe I didn't quite understand. How does this work from a approval process? Are these exceptions sort of baked in and discussed and and how these allowances are given? Because I think depending on the property and where it exists and where it's being developed. I mean I I could see some incentives being less amunable to the surrounding community than others. Yeah. Yeah. I mean it's it it becomes a so like you're talking about the density bonus and law coverage bonus

and parking and landscape and everything that was just mentioned. I mean it's a a systematic approach. I'm hoping that there's still chance for review. It's not just automatically granted and and permitted per per code.

Yeah, absolutely. The so so it becomes a standard on balance with a lot of other standards. So density bonus, parking reduction. So uh but so I think a good a good example is like so if if there's a 20% lot coverage bonus for example it'll still be evaluated against like storm water impacts. So if there's an impervious area issue that may trump the 20% bonus. So and with the parking reduction for example if you know there access and circulation is an issue with the fire department like that would take pre you know like so there's all these things on balance. Um but I think a way to look at it is these become the standards and so they will all be evaluated or most of them will be evaluated through like a PUB process with public hearings where planning commission and others would have a chance to look at the standards on balance with each other. Um and anything that varies from the standards would be a waiver um like you all would typically see.

Thank you. I think that answers my questions for now. Commissioner Richie, thank you. Um, I think this is definitely moving this ordinance in a better direction. I do have a few questions. I'm wondering if the distinction sometimes you use the word may and sometimes you word use the word shall for eligibility. Is that intentional in the ordinance itself? Yeah. So, I'm I'm looking at like 16765 incentives for on-site affordable. Like for A, you use the word may. Um, B you use the word may. for C, you use the word shall be eligible. And I just I mean, I like the word shall for that eligibility. Again, provided it meets all the other things, but you you're inconsistent in that term. I didn't know if that was intentional or not.

Uh, you know, we worked with the city attorney to draft it, so we could um we could look closely at that language. I don't know how intentional that was specifically, not having that section in my head, but shells are certainly better than May. So if that is a specific recommendation planning commission wants to make, we could definitely look at that. All right. Yeah, I'd like to talk about that with the group. But I think right just cuz then I think or yeah to Commissioner Haley's point Maley's point like

you're still going to review it consistent with all of that. But I just um I'm concerned with that difference there and how a developer or future um elected folks might interpret that. I like the income averaging. I think that's great to allow that more alignment with Chaffa and um to open those up. I do think though as a city um I pulled up the housing plan and on one hand I'm really proud of all the work that the city has done um since adopting that housing plan but I do think it would be good for the city to be able to articulate um more clearly probably a strategy you know with what is happening when those fee and loo come in right we will we you know here is a list of options um you know these will be used for fee waver you know alternatively the strategy could be just we're just opport opportunistic, right? But I do think um we should at least be more intentional in my opinion about, you know, kind of now that we're starting to collect those funds. And then one final question, I'm also curious um for the development fee waivers, have you all had a discussion with council on like tap fee waivers and and embedding that into this ordinance too? Because I think the more the better, but

yeah. So we we can't we can't do tap fee waivers because it's enterprise fund. So we would have to or rebate back or something. Yeah, we'd have to rebet back and that's been a potential use of inclusionary funds or the opportunity fund. Um I think as you know like we're a you know a lot of cities have housing programs and housing managers and those types of things. So I think these are all good comments things we think about and um you know as I always think of it as we mature as a city with affordable housing programs it would be great to develop more structure around it. Um and we have intention to do that for sure as we have resources available to do it. Sure.

And one final question I know it's not included in this but just on familiarity I am curious if there was any thought given to um maybe some flexibility as an incentive for kind of that like for like right so I know right now our code says like all affordable units need to be kind of identical in design and all of that to the market rate but maybe you know if you do 1.5 but maybe they're smaller or something like that. It just feels like that might be worth um a conversation to allow a path for flexibility in that like forl like requirement. Just a thought.

Yeah. No, I think I mean this is all really helpful because like like we said, we are going to be looking at evaluating this more. So, this is starting to tee up some of the issues um with the broader code update. So, I think this is all these are all good points. We're the goal is to make it better um and and then try to get closer to something resembling perfect here in a year or two. And so this is good like to march us toward that. Yeah.

Actually, so so with that in mind, I know there were some good suggestions with public comment to to that point like like for as an example or acquisition as another example. So, I know you don't want to iterate on this too frequently, but conceivably, is there another opportunity to refresh this before the one and a half to two-year policy update if there were good proposals well thought through that we thought might make sense to add again?

I mean, it would be a a council directive if they wanted to, you know, because this will go to council and that may be their input at the time is they want to fine-tune it or bring it back or whatever. But um yeah, we expect with the code update there'll be a lot of like focus groups and technical sort of like working groups focused on specific topics. Housing will be one of them. So our consultants, whoever we choose, we'll be talking to developers and affordable housing people to figure out like how to exactly how to better dial this um to our needs. So that will happen I hopefully starting later this year like late summer fall. I think if I had to ballpark it, we'll start those focus discussions.

Thanks. You mentioned the program is maturing, but I I think we need to hasten that process really. And I think when we push it further along, like you were commenting about how Commissioner Richie about how uh what's it really going to look like? Um that's going to give us a lot easier ability to say, "Oh yeah, this this isn't going to work. This not going to get us there. We need the prices at X amount fee and Lou." Um, so I think anything we can do I I appreciate the staffing challenges, but anything we can do to get it sooner rather than later. You mentioned that the comp plan update may be kind of uh increasing interest out there for projects. So I feel like we don't have a time allowance for kind of a natural maturation process. Um, and we need to jump on it as soon as possible personally. Yeah.

Additional questions. Commissioner Basket. Um, so I I'm comfortable with the ordinance, but I'm curious about the resources you use to develop it and also a little bit more about the coordination with the housing expert that the city has on contract. You you mean the resources to develop what's before you tonight,

right? It's it's definitely building off of the housing plan. So, we did have a housing focus consultant do that work. And so, there was a lot of analysis that went into that plan, even getting into like development proforma analysis, figuring out what the most powerful incentives were, for example. Um, and so it's really building off and really directly tying to what our consultants recommended we do. Um, and certainly the council discussions we had about a year ago now. Um, and looking at what other cities do and best practices. So, um, it's a combination of things, but it definitely is not starting from there. It's it's not starting from scratch. It's been a a two or three year trajectory to get us to what's in front of you tonight. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. So, so the consultant that we hired um was specifically to So, it's really a planning and development consultant because as the city set aside the 200 $2 million opportunity fund, um city council wanted to get some strategic assistance with how to use that fund. So, that consultant um is putting together um a strategy of how we could use those funds. So, I think it's very similar to what some of you have talked about um how the city could look at using that opportunity fund as well as inclusionary funds to try to maximize those funds to get the most affordable housing and also to help us uh work with the development community to understand kind of what would be the most meaningful way to incentivize projects using the funds available um and also to potentially identify development partners. And so all those things are ongoing work that we're doing with the consultant.

Thank you. That answers my question. Thank you. I have a question. The fee and loo rates um the the ownership one particularly aggressively increased. Was that a recommendation from the consultant or what was the basis for the the basis is essentially the the methodology is think of one giant spreadsheet with a bunch of inputs. Um and one of the key inputs is current market price for a house median. And so that's what really bumped it up is when you take into account the when this was developed probably around 2020 the current fee versus 2026 home prices when you plug that in the the model. Okay. So it's literally a formula. It's it's essentially a already sort of baked formula that market inputs change you.

Yeah. And I want to clarify the consultant didn't the consultant we're using on the other housing initiatives didn't um assist on this ordinance drafting. Okay. Do we have the ability just to say that needs to be revisited annually? I have that same question. Do we want to put the fee in the ordinance or should it be in the fee schedule where it's just a little easier to update, right? Similar. I mean, you know, we don't have very many places where it's where it requires a code amendment. So, just thought that's a good perhaps maybe.

Yeah. So, the current um our current fee allows us to update it periodically based on the latest information. Um, so I don't know um if that changed here, if it allows us to do administrative updates even though it's in the ordinance. If not, that could be a a good recommendation. We could add that existing language back into this ordinance because every time we get new AMI and uh housing cost information, we can update it administratively potentially. I don't think I don't think anything was taken out that allows us to update it. I think I mean I agree it is

not a great practice to have a specific fee in a code. That's just the way we had it and we're just updating it as is. Um again to the point of like we're making it a little better. It's not we could do a whole overhaul of this and make it a lot better. That would be one thing. I mean I would personally support Yeah. So in a fee schedule. So and I'm looking at the language so we can update it administratively. We don't have to amend the ordinance to update it. So, as we get new that's still in that language is still in here. Can you put a reminder in your calendar for one year from now? Yeah, that'll be great. Thanks. Any additional questions?

I've got one last question with regards to parking. So, I understand your caveat is, you know, should there be an application? Obviously, all other variables would be factored into the consideration and what might be reviewed and approved, but did you consider some parking as part of this? because zero is is a big move. Yeah. ADA parking maybe accessible parking on site provisions for accessible parking maybe.

Yeah. And my understanding is that only kicks in when there's actually minimum required parking. You can't freestandingly require ADA. I guess we could, but um so well I think one thing to note is we already I'm trying to remember if we fully eliminated minimum parking for so there's a state law that basically required us to eliminate minimum parking for projects that I think have have over half of their units as affordable if they're close to transit. So we already took that sort of aggressive move. this just expands the scope of it a bit um and and broadens it a bit to you know projects that have less than 50% affordable but um it is pretty aggressive but it also tracks with what a lot of communities are doing. Boulder just did the same thing. Um but again we would still have the ability to analyze impacts. So, if there's a as part of a sort of a transportation analysis on a major project, if it's concluded that spillover parking would have a negative impact on surrounding streets and emergency access, like we would still have the leverage to address those kinds of concerns.

I think you answer my question. So, so it makes us competitive with what's been approved elsewhere.

Yes. Yes. Yes. But if it's a smaller one, eight units, they're not going to have a full traffic study, but we're going to sit here and look and we're like, well, where are we at then? Is that where we want to be is staring at something with zero parking knowing that it's going to spill over into the neighborhood or should we just include something minimal? Well, I mean, we have pretty currently have pretty broad criteria like PUB criteria for example to where there's there's openings to look at impacts generally. And so, you know, while they wouldn't have to necessarily, first of all, we think that they're going to provide parking regardless the, you know, in a place like Lewisville, that's, you know, we're not talking about urban Denver here. Um and so um but if they did not if they wanted to do zero parking um you know we we certainly have the ability through like for example the PUB criteria there's there would be a window to look at neighborhood impacts and things like that. So I do think that um you know having 30 PUB criteria that are very subjective can help us sometimes. Actually I

I would just add you might recall last year you you saw um an ordinance related to the state requirements um at city council adoption they did choose to extend that citywide for all multifamily development even if you're not within the to areas. So that's this is Boulder. No city say it's already done. Yeah, it's kind of already done. Yeah, we hadn't really contemplated kind of or it is. Wouldn't Yes, it is done for if it's over 50% affordable. Um, sorry to put your mouth. Yeah, I don't think it Well, I mean this says or any residential uses that provide on-site affordable.

Yeah, this extends it beyond multi this extends it beyond multifamily. Let me look at the ordinance to see about the affordable. But I agree. I think the market will help with this. I don't know that I I find it hard to believe that somebody would, like you said, would propose a development with zero parking in a in Lewisville where most people have to drive places.

All right. Any additional questions? Seeing none, uh, thank you. Um, I'll now open it up for public comment. We have one online attendee. If you wanted to, you would use raise your hand. Alternately, um, so on that question of May shall, do you want to just handle that or do you want that as a condition? Could I request, could you just point us to where?

Yeah. So I'm looking uh and I was going to just propose a condition of approval that says the use of the word may when it's being used in terms of eligibility shall be shall because there so I'm looking at if you look at um 17 and I'm looking at the draft that's in the packet um 177655 under residential density a

um blah blah blah pursuant of this title that addresses residential densities may be increased by 20%, B uses may be increased and then C uses shall be eligible for an increase in maximum up to so I think there's just some inconsistency in there which to me the shall is a given the may means there's you know I like shall better in this case yeah there there are some places where there's may in here that is just they that they may increase it we don't want to tell them they have to increase increase I mean so I think if you shall eligible is good. Um there are places where may is used to where it works. Yeah. But I think what you just identified there I mean um

I think where may is used with regards to eligibility I like it shall be eligible and I think that's you that that be there um that A and B there are the places where I see that. Am I missing something or does may mean the same thing as shall be eligible? like eligible means that we uh could consider it. May means we could I I don't know, maybe I'm shall definitely better, but shall better because I feel like may just because you use shell elsewhere. Yeah, somebody could argue that May is like that's a little bit up for debate. Yeah, I I I would agree with that. Um

it looks like it gives us more discretion. Commissioner Mahaley, go ahead. Yeah. And and I'm not a lawyer. Um but as an engineer, an engineer reads shall as a requirement and may as a desirement or possibility. Shall shall is typically viewed as requirements. I I am a lawyer and I would I would be willing to make that argument if I were trying to argue that they will she gives you discretion and if you I mean that could be

Let me let me ask a let me ask a question that will maybe help you think about this. So, I think you talked a lot about wanting to have some discretion once you get into a site development plan review process because you may you you know I heard a little bit of discussion about well what if it's adjacent to this or it doesn't fit into the character of the community. So, I hear you

having the May language allows more discretion. um the you know the shell be eligible or the shell language could suggest that they get it no matter what even if you wanted to key in on sight specific design issues and I'm not saying one's right or wrong or better than the other but something

I don't I'm not concerned about that I mean I think there's a density minimum in our code or maximum in our code today right they still they don't get to come in and say if I'm eligible for up to 25 dwelling units an acre, I get 20 25 dwelling units an acre no matter what, right? Like they still have to meet all the other things. So I think the eligibility in my opinion, we need to use that consistently and I think shall be eligible is is is fine because I don't think we worry about that everywhere else in our code where there's a a standard. That's just my two cents. So, is it a condition that requires it or is a condition that asks them to revisit it?

I would just request that the ordinance draft ordinance be amended to say shall be eligible instead of may be eligible. But but that's not it would require a little more reddrafting than that because of the way it's worded. It's just more but I think we should just ask them to revisit that language and to make sure it's clear and consistent throughout. That's all I would say. not actually required. Just ask them to revisit and at that point does it need to be a condition or I guess does staff agree? I'm not hearing agreement that you think that it should be more clear.

I'm not sure. I um understand what the recommendation is specifically and if I don't want to we could pull up the ordinance but I hear shall be eligible instead of may but may so may be eligible indicates that somewhere the city has the opportunity say we're not feeling like that today you know consistently too

so it says may be increased or shall be eligible so there's a little bit different wording I mean I I I I think they're going to function nearly the same. Um but I I see I see the point of sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh shall be eligible um means that they are eligible for that for sure versus may be increased sounds a little more wishy-washy and like based on what

I I think it's just a matter of how these these provisions in this 177655 are just grammatically worded a little differently instead of talking about what they're eligible for. talking about that the density is can be increased and so it would just require a little bit more. I think you're right. I do think it's going to in operation operate the same way. Um but I I understand your point. I'm not necessarily opposed to additional wishy-washy. I would say a condition of approval to use consistency in the use of the term shall and may something like that and then you all can figure out how to do that. Something like that

and take that back to the city attorney and ask her to un tell her that we messed it all up and she can fix it. Consistent language was shall be eligible for whatever increase being the consistent would that be a yes I think that would be right. So, is it intentional though? Do you want to have I don't think it's intentional. Yeah, I think it's just a matter of way the way these paragraphs were drafted, I think. Yeah.

But do you but do you do you have a preference at this point in time to or revisiting it? It's strangely like becomes like a policy question because you want to have the you want to have a little bit more discretion to say hey there's all these other factors that are negatively impacting and so we want to look at this density bonus and say maybe it's not appropriate to go to 20%. If you go to the shall then it just it just you don't have to but I mean you would need stronger evidence that there's a counterveailing you know regulation that is creating a problem if that makes sense. And that's where I'm okay with it.

Mhm. Me too. I'm comfortable with the shell because I think for one, it provides that consistency and maybe reliability on how this ordinance was intended to use with the development. He was saying the opposite. Oh, you like the I'm okay with the to maybe we don't feel like it today. So, we also we also don't have any insight as to what the attorney was thinking when this was drafted and a lot of what we're talking about is just conjecture. I think the request is let's make sure there's clarity and consistency in how the intent is being applied. I don't believe that needs to be a condition. That's simply a request for staff as everything gets finalized and and gets taken to to council. I

I agree with that. I would just Yes. I think you just point this out to the drafter and just make sure that it was all intentional and that it's all good. I would be happy with that.

Are you okay with that, Commissioner Richie? I guess that's a question more that's a policy question in terms of are we concerned given all of the other back stops in our code for compatibility and things like that that density could come up for question at the time of PUD when they've you know what I mean provided they meet everything else setbacks and height and you know and and the reason I think about this is you know maybe we have a cap of 25 units an acre and they are going to choose to do all studio apartments and so maybe in that same size building, you know, that you can get 20% more units in there without I don't know. I'm just I I'm comfortable with providing that assurityity to attract affordable housing to our community. But if you all would like a little bit more discretion, I still think we have that ability to deny in our code even with that shell word in there. That's my opinion.

Okay. How are other people feeling then? I as far as whether it's a condition to require I I don't know that I'd want it to be a condition. And I would just like to make sure that it's been intentional how you do it and that you feel if staff feels comfortable that for now that this would be give based on what you're seeing out there this would give sufficient assurances to applicants that they would that this would

I think I think what's important is how the ordinance would be implemented. So I think what's most important to get from the planning commission is do you want the ordinance to to lean towards you know if you hit these um bonus targets that there will be a density increase and that's not up for any discussion or debate through the site development plan or PUD process um or or do you want to have some discretion in it because that might influence the language otherwise I think the language could be written in a lot of different ways. So, I I'd like to hear what you want how you want it to operate. Thanks, Commissioner Bangs.

I think we'd like to I would like to suggest we maintain some level of discretion and I am comfortable with that as well. Second, Commissioner Mahaley. Very much agree with maintaining some level of discretion. Commissioner Basket. Yes. Commissioner Choy, I heard a concurrence. Are you gonna be okay with that, Commissioner Richie? Personally, I still think we can word the use the word shall be eligible and still have discretion um given all of the other things in our code. But I'll defer to the group. I'm not going to All right, I'll drop it from here. Thanks. Well, thanks for bringing it up though. I think it's important. And I do

and we might change the language. I just wanted to understand what you wanted the intent to be and then we can work with the city attorney to make sure it matches what you want it to mean. Great. Thanks. You know, I think what I'm hearing is that I think we'd all I'm going to speak for everybody. We'd like to encourage more, you know, the use of these of these incentives, but we do want to have a little bit of guardrails around it, I think, is what I'm hearing people here. And was there a discussion of another condition? I think we raised a question about the like forl like units if we want to add flex like that came up in public comment and just in terms of additional flexibility or if that we kick that one till the code update.

Is that too hard to take on in this one? It would be a significant it it's valid and important and I think a good but uh it would be a significant change that we probably want to look at closely and analyze and make sure we're getting the language just right. Um and we're probably not prepared for that tonight. Well, and it sounds like it's it's one of several options that should be considered, right? So,

and and I also think I, you know, you mentioned at one point being able to sort of iterate or frontload some things in the development code and I would, you know, I think that this is a big area and I would like to sort of suggest on the record that we do think about frontloading a larger consideration of this piece when we're doing that project. Commissioner Mahaley My comment's changing gears a little bit. Um, so don't don't want to jump in just yet unless we're ready to I think we're ready.

Um, where did we land on the fee and Lou? I mean, I I think based on my notes and recollection here that it, you know, we talked about wanting to make sure we're updating that periodically with new AM AMI data. Um, do is it worth capturing consensus on a desire to look at increased fees? It also seemed like we deferred a little bit to the the formal process that's going to kick off in the next year or so. But where are we with the the fee discussion or where do we land with the fee discussion, I should say? Do you want to answer that?

Well, my recollection is that we like the idea of being able to change it with flexibility. It's kind of strange that it's in the code, but I don't think we definitively said take it out of the code. I think the code currently allows us to change it administratively, which is also strange to change it administratively, yet the code says it's different. Um, so it's unresolved. I'm glad that we are talking about it. But for now, the recommendation is to go up to the numbers included here and in the not too distant future of a couple years, maybe pull it out and put a fix schedule separately and in the meantime revisit in one year.

Maybe when the impact fee analysis is done, we look at impacts related to affordable housing and that impact fee study might be able to weigh a way to capture it there. Great. I mean it does seem like this is a because this is kind of a stop gap measure to just bring it up to like a to mark more market reflection that it is temporary. Yeah. Technically you could do that administratively yesterday. Yeah. We apparently have now learned so it really doesn't matter what we do here. Will the

I am qu will this new amount apply to the previously approved projects or is that amount set by the old like if building permits get continue to get issued after this gets adopted? That's a good question. I would assume that the pre the fee in place at the time of the entitlement would be locked in but we would have to confirm that. It's a good question. Yeah. Thank you. Um, kind of jumping back formally, any final closing statement, any other deliberations?

No, really appreciate the input and and you know, I fully recognize that we a lot of work could still be done on this. I think this is just about can we get it get it better so that we're not missing opportunities in the near term. Um, yeah. All right. Thanks. Any additional thoughts? Maybe we can start down and just work our way across the table. I think this is great. Let's get it. Let's keep making this better. Yep. I'm in support of it. I think it's good. I'm I look forward to seeing what we can actually do with those fees. As much as we can do to support affordable housing, we should do it. So, let's get it on the books.

Commissioner Mahaley, I agree with what's been said. So, in favor? Thank you, Commissioner Bangs. Yeah, I think you mentioned it in the staff presentation, right, that these are targeted changes to make it more effective because clearly it's not effective as much as we'd like it to be today. So, it's a step in the right direction.

Yeah. Um I agree with what everyone has said. I'll just add also just specifically I'm I'm particularly um I was happy to see sort of the the change in the percentages to reach that sort of middle income um group that I think has not been addressed effectively and try to get this these projects to be feasible. So appreciate that you yeah and on that part too yeah 120% of AMI is not much. So, normally I'd be really skeptical of allowing that uh as electric way. Who are are we really helping out here? We are. It would help. It would help a large number of people. So, um yeah, find myself in favor also. Uh with that, a motion. Oh, yes, Commissioner Basket.

I'll move approval of resolution 6 series 2026 recommending to the city council approval with Oh, I'm sorry. I'm reading the wrong resolution. Resolution number three, series 2026, recommending that the city council approve an ordinance amending title 17 of the Lewisville Municipal Code to update the city's inclusionary housing ordinance. And a second. Commissioner Hunt. Thank you. With the second and roll call, please. Commissioner Choy, yes. Commissioner Mahaley, yes. Commissioner Richie, yes. Commissioner Hunt, yes. Commissioner Basket, yes.

Commissioner Bangs, yes. Chair Bronnise, yes. Thank you all for your ongoing work on this. Thank you. Any uh commission member comments? Jenny, thank you so much for filling in this evening. We'll make that official. Any any other additional comments? Seeing not anything else from staff? Nope. Nothing additional at this time. I I'll just answer a question that came up at the end is that you have to pay the fee at the time of building permit. So even if you had your PUD approved, it's the fee in effect at time of building permit application,

right? Oh, please. Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate it. Motion to adjurnn. Thank you. Second. I'll second. All in favor? I I Thank you all. See you next month.