Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

mining industry grew, operations became more mechanized. A good example of this mechanization was the development of the punching machine in the 1880s. Well, it was run by air like just like a jackhammer would, you know, you put the air to it and it would u vibrate back and forth like that with a little stinger on it and uh just push it back and forth and uh then you would u you would start maybe about 3T off of the bottom of the vein and uh keep on pushing it down like that until you got about 3 ft deep into the coal. The punching m Okay, we'll go ahead then. Welcome everybody to the September 11th, 2025 Lewisville Planning Commission meeting. If we can start out with a roll call, please.

Chair Brown Eyes here. Vice Chair Basket here. Commissioner Banks here. Commissioner Shoy here. Commissioner Hunt here. Commissioner Mahaley here. Commissioner Molen here. Thank you. Um then I would entertain a motion to approve this evening's agenda. So moved. Thank you. Second. All in favor? I. I. Motion carries. Looking back, we'll do the minutes separately. Uh, does anybody have any notes they want to make on the April 10th minutes? Seeing none, uh, entertain a motion or did you move approval?

Thank you. of the April minutes. All right. I'll second it. All right. Excellent. Thank you. Uh, all in favor? I. May 8th minutes. Any notes people want to make? I'm abstaining as I was not present. Thank you. Appreciate that. Anybody else? Okay. Um motion. Uh we have a second. All in favor? I I motion carries June 12th minutes. I'm abstaining. Me too. E3. Um motion to approve June 10th 12th minutes. Moved. Second. Second.

Second. All in favor? I I thank you. Uh now we'll open it up for public comment for items that are not on this evening's agenda. There's a something you wanted to speak to to exercise free speech. Yeah, we we uh just put on the agenda there was a noticing error with the first case that says postponed on your agenda. Um, we just wanted to make folks in the audience aware that that is rescheduled for September 25th um, in case they did come tonight or um, would like to speak on it. Now, now would be the time to speak on that because it's not on the agenda formally for tonight. Not on the agenda anymore. Got it. All right.

Thank you. And I don't have access to the online world seem nobody's there. Okay, great. Thanks. Appreciate that. All right. Uh, with that then, um, I will now open the public hearing on a request for a resolution amendment to the North Lewisville General Development Plan. The purpose of the hearing is to 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 will 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 which are available on the small table outside the door there. Um, use the raise hand function if you're participating by computer or star 9. If you're 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 it's 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 or continue

to a 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 or otherwise. Um, does anyone participating in this hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing none, thank you. Can you speak to notification on this one? Yes, public notice has been satisfied. Thank you. And are there any planning commission members who have disclosures? All right. Thank you. Take it away.

Uh thank you, chair, and good evening, commissioners. Uh my name is Matt Post, senior planner on the community development team. The item before you tonight is the North Lewisville GDP first amendment, otherwise referred to as the highline Davidson GDP amendment. some of the application materials. Uh but the request is for approval of resolution number 10 series 2025 recommending to the city council approval of the North Lewisville General Development Plan first amendment to allow residential land uses at 21101 North Courtesy Road. Uh this property is located in the planned community zone district uh within the PCZD district. that planned community zone district. A general development plan is required to establish the overall framework for development which includes proposed land uses, development types and densities. Um can include bulk standards, locations of public facilities if necessary and open spaces and a coordinated street network uh again if necessary that is consistent with adopted plans and policies in the city. The GDP functions as a binding agreement between the city and the developer or the property owner and it serves as a guiding document for any future development, subdivision or zoning review that may take place on that property. Uh the proposed amendment before you tonight would permit residential land uses on a property where only commercial land uses are currently permitted. The amendment would also include uh include yard and bulk standards and/or dimensional standards. Those includes items like setbacks, lot coverage and height. Uh then also density limitations would be applied through this particular general development plan. Uh just to note that if approved this

evening, this general development plan amendment does not entitle the property uh with a development plan or proposal. Uh it simply would allow land uses and dimensional standards so that a development uh could potentially occur via our planned unit development and subdivision application process. So again, any actual development would be approved and entitled via separate processes, PUDs and plats that both would come before the planning commission and city council for consideration at public hearings. Thank you very much.

Uh starting with some background here. Again, the site is 21101 North Courtesy Road. I have some some vicinity maps and later slides. What you see on the screen here is an exhibit that depicts the existing North Lewisville general development plan. The property at 21101 North Courtesy Road is currently occupied by the uh Lewisville boat and RV storage which allows for the outdoor storage of RVs, boats, and trailers in a secured and fence facility. Uh the existing North Lewisville general development plan that regulates land uses on this site was originally approved in 1989 and it covered 65 acres of the north side of Lewisville. What's depicted in dark gray on the screen. The original GDP allowed for commercial, office, residential, and mixed use residential land uses. Uh again, this particular site was predominantly commercial. It's hard to tell what the exact parcel lineup is here. I worked with the applicant to determine what the actual use breakdown is. It functions as a split zone. There's some residential land use allowed maybe in a corner, but the majority of the property based on this general development plan indicates that commercial uses would be the predominant land use um that's permitted here. um portions of this original GDP, the majority of it rather, have been incorporated into other general development plans in the area. That would include the Takakota General Development Plan, the North End General Development Plan, and the Foundry General Development Plan and their associated amendments. What's left of this original North Lewisville GDP includes the subject site, the property that is directly east to it. that's currently occupied by the Divine K9 and then some additional property on the east side of Highway 42 that extends up

to South Boulder Road. Um, but again, the majority of this GDP has been absorbed into other GDPs in the city. Uh continuing on with with background again, the current use on the site was permitted and allowed under the Davidson Highline planned unit development which authorized improvements both on this property and east of this property. The existing buildings that make up the Divine K9 were all approved as part of that original uh PUD approval that was approved in 1990. The property has been subdivided multiple times with the most recent subdivision occurring in 2021 which resulted in the creation of lot 1A which is uh the site of Divine K9 right now and lot 2A which is the subject property highlighted in yellow in the exhibit on this slide. Um, prior to submitting a formal I bit of additional background here just before this application. Prior to submitting the formal application for this GDP amendment, the applicant did present a concept plan to the city council in October of 2024. As the planning commission is aware, the concept plan goes directly to city council to solicit nonbinding advisory feedback on a development proposal prior to developing a formal application. Um the applicant presented the GDP amendment to allow residential land uses and a concept plan uh that would allow permanently affordable deed restricted home ownership town homes along with their concept plan. Uh the plan that was presented to city council envisioned 44 to 48 dwelling units on the site. That equates to 14 to 15 dwelling units per acre. Uh the concept plan that the applicant provided during that plan hearing is also included in your staff packets. You you may have seen that as an attachment. I also have it in slides

here. I just want to make a note that this particular concept plan that's presented tonight does in no way bind the applicant to that concept plan. It's simply provided as a visual representation for what a full buildout of the site may look like if the GDP amendment is approved. Uh at that concept plan hearing, the city council provided generally supportive feedback regarding that proposed GDP amendment to allow residential land uses um and the subsequent development concept for the 40 44 to 48 dwelling units of middle income deed restricted affordable housing. Uh moving further into the proposal here or into the proposal, of course, the request is for an amendment to the North Lewisville GDP that would allow those residential land uses as discussed. Uh the general development plan includes the proposal rather includes specific requests or uh proposals for land uses as part of this amendment. And those land use types would include single family dwellings and duplexes, multif family dwellings, accessory dwelling units, and accessory structures that would be typical of residential development. The applicant is also proposing a maximum of 51 dwelling units on this site, which would equate to a density of 17.42 dwelling units per acre. It's important to note that that density represents an upper limit on the number of dwelling units that may be allowed on site. it does not represent a minimum requirement. So, we'll cover that more in an analysis section as well. The applicant indicated in this UDP amendment application that this amendment is intended to facilitate redevelopment of the site as a permanently affordable deedrestricted middle inome multifamily housing community with the potential for some units to be provided at market rate.

I'll let the applicant talk more about potential development plans um and the uh mixed income distribution on the site. Continuing with the proposal uh some details here. The primary access point is proposed off of uh Heeka Heckler Drive all the way um I'm sorry, it's proposed on the on the west side of the site at Heckla Drive. You can see that there's actually an access easement that bisects that property east to west that actually punches all the way through to Highway 42 and crosses the Divine K9 site. The applicant has no intention of utilizing that access point to Highway 42. We've uh we referred this particular application, I'm sorry, we referred the concept plan application to C DOT um during their initial reviews and um C DOT wasn't supportive of an additional access point on Highway 42 in this particular location. So the accent that the the applicant has no plans for an access point to punch through. So Hecka Drive uh is the inn-out access point here. Um, looking further into the GDP, the applicant has included a conceptual common area on the de development plan. You can see that shown in the center of the site uh with the intent of including open uh open open space for community members. It's important to note that open space um is a conceptual representation on this site and that open space during the review process is actually required via PUD applications. And so when we review PUDS, we'll ensure that open space is provided that is functional, preserves any significant natural features that would potentially be present on the site. Um, and then also provides for recreational opportunity and convenience of use for residents. I bring this up specifically because there are no specific open space standards that are provided in the bulk and dimensional standard table which is

in line with other GDP amendments in the area, specifically the Dakota GDP. So, we'll rely on the PUB review criteria, which mandates open space on all developments um regardless of size, scope, scale, or use. Um, continuing on with the proposal here, the general development plan depicts a future right-of-way dedication at Kaix Avenue. And I'll just move back here so that you can see the slide on the right side of this particular screen. You'll see a proposed Kaix right-of-way dedication. Um the the dedication here is depicted in green on your screen. The dark blue lines are existing completed sections of the Kaix ride ofway through Steel Ranch past Lanterns and then down into Kestrel. Uh the Kaix Avenue connection is called out as a requirement of our transportation master plan. and it's actually highlighted as one of the priorities of the transportation master plan specifically to complete the connection from uh Pascal to Summit View Drive. Uh so this this particular proposal was presented to city council during the concept plan. Staff indicated the policy requirements uh that would call for the Kaix Avenue connection here. This particular GDP amendment will simply show that a dedication of rightofway is required. We will not receive a dedicate dedication at this time. That'll occur at the PUD and/or subdivision stage. It's also important to note that the city council did express some support for potentially allowing only pedestrian and bicycle pathway improvements in the Kaix Avenue rideofway dedication as opposed to a full ride-of-way buildout that would actually connect uh vehicular the

connect the vehicular network in this location. Uh that we we'll continue to work with the applicant on those details. I think city council considered the constraints of the development being a deed restricted affordable community. We will however ask for the full dedication of that land for a potential future build out of Kaix Avenue. So again conceptually shown on the GDP we'll get that dedication through a formal development entitlement process. The GDP amendment also includes bulk and dimensional standards that would be reflective of traditional town home development patterns and densities. Uh for example, the GDP allows for a zero foot setback for attached town home units um that would allow for shared walls and individual property ownership via any future subdivision as the property boundaries would be reflective of those private ownership spaces. So that is again when we have a town home and a shared wall there's actually a property boundary on that shared wall which allows for those town homes to be uh the fee simple sale of those town homes for home ownership opportunities as opposed to a four rent product. Uh no minimum lot coverage requirement. Again that's indicative of typical town home uh developments. We have a 20ft lot width uh that's proposed that's also reflective of what's in the Takakota general development plan where existing steel ranch town homes were developed. Uh there are setbacks also called out on this particular bulk standard. Setbacks include a 15yard front yard a 15 foot rather front yard setback from the public rideway of Heckler Drive. Um and then a 10-ft sideyard setback from the public ride ofway. Again, that would specifically be Heckler Drive. Uh we've worked with the applicant to work in a reduced 5-ft side setback for the principal uses that would be proposed

adjacent to the Kaix Avenue uh dedication. Uh this this condition would generally allow it the five foot setback that would be measured from the back of a sidewalk if the full road would be built out. be a full road rightway to rideaway and back a sidewalk to back of sidewalk and a 5-ft side setback on the Kaix Avenue connection on the east side of that site gives the applicant the opportunity to establish the density that they're looking to achieve and it's also supported in our comprehensive plan policies and documents which I'll cover later on in this slide or in this presentation I'm sorry. Continuing on with the proposal, in addition to those setback standards and lot coverage requirements, the applicant is proposing height limitations with a height transition zone on this GDP, the applicant has requested a maximum height of 40 ft on site and those structures would be limited to the green area that's depicted here on this screen. Anywhere around that, structures would be limited to 35 ft in height. The 35 foot height maximum or limitation is the standard citywide height limit for all single family dwellings in the city at 35. So again, the request here is for a 40 foot height limitation with a height transition zone included. Again, working with the applicant to address some resident concerns that were brought up during the concept plan hearing and provide a transition specifically to the duplexes to the north in lanterns with this transition zone as it's proposed. The GDP again as as as mentioned includes density limitations as well. So 51 dwelling units, 17.4 four dwelling units per acre on site. To reiterate what I said previously, that would uh simply be a cap on the amount

of residential dwelling units. It is not a minimum number. The applicant is looking for um flexibility in designing this site. Uh and again, the the actual density numbers would be established via the PUD, but 51 and 17.42 would technically be permitted if this GDP were to pass tonight. Uh the applicant has also indicated the final unit count would be determined again through that site design and entitlement and subdivision process. There's lots of other items and and considerations in there including utility separations, open space requirements, so on and so forth. So uh I'll let the applicant speak more to what they think the density may be on site through a development plan. Uh you can see here on the slide I've presented two exhibits. The first is also presented in your staff packet. It's a comparison of densities of surrounding developments in the area and the proposed density of the North Lewisville GD GDP. Uh you can see that the most comparable densities would include the steel ranch apartments or the north main steel ranch apartments at 24.2 dwelling units per acre and then the uh steel ranch town homes which are built out at nine dwelling units per acre. and the uh North Lewisville GDP is proposed there at 17.42. On this screen is also the concept plan that was presented by the applicant to the city council that's reflective of that 48 dwelling unit count. I should highlight that it the it's 44 dwelling units with four additional ADUs that are adjacent to these town homes. Uh the applicant has also um indicated a desire to permit ADUs as an income generating opportunity for some of these home ownership folks on this site. This is reflective of the 48 dwelling unit count that was reviewed by city council. Again, this concept plan is not binding on the applicant. It's here for visual reference of what a buildout would potentially look like with this GDP amendment.

Apologies. So, moving into analysis here, the property again is located in the planned community zone district and requires a general development plan, which is that contractual zoning document that will establish land uses and other regulations. All GDP amendments follow the same process and requirements as the original GDP approval. The municipal code does not have any significant or thorough review criteria for GDPs. Interestingly enough, all they do have, although there are specific purposes of the planned community districts laid out, those purposes include encouraging uh preserving and improving the health, safety, and welfare of the community through contemporary land planning principles and coordinated design and then recognizing the economic and cultural advantages of an integrated planned community development that provides areas for various housing types and land uses. Uh in further analysis of the general development plan, we also reviewed our comprehensive plans and then other adopted plan policies to determine applicability and conformance in this particular proposal. I'll say firstly, the South Boulder Road small area plan uh specifically designates this property as medium density residential with a plan indicating that medium density residential development uh is between 10 and 20 dwelling units per acre. Again, that's in the South Boulder Road small area plan. Uh the currently uh adopted uh comprehensive plan identifies this property as being within the Highway 42 urban neighborhood, I'm sorry, urban corridor with an urban neighborhood designation. Uh so there's an urban pattern and then there's the neighborhood designation. There there are two different categories that describe those development types.

The urban pattern uh is is described um or designated and calls for interconnected street networks with multimmodal transportation opportunities that would include development on smaller parcels. Specifically, street oriented building placement when we're considering setbacks that are proposed here with an emphasis on pedestrian scale and massing. Again, that would be that urban pattern. Um, and then the neighborhood designation that's associated with that identifies preferred development types that are predominantly residential land uses and range from low to high density multif family communities. So again, comprehensive plan, neighborhood or urban neighborhood designation. Staff find the proposed densities of this general development plan are in line with those densities that are contemplated by the South Boulder Road small area plan and the comprehensive plan. But the comprehensive plan also includes housing policies uh that would support this GDP amendment. Um the the uh principle H NH5 on the screen here uh encourages a mix of housing types and pricing to meet economic, social, and multi-generational needs of current and future residents in the city of Lewisville. And policy NH5.1 uh includes goals to provide housing that meets the needs of seniors, empty nesters, disabled individuals, renters, firsttime home buyers, and others through a variety of housing prices and styles and types. Uh moving further into our adopted plans, uh we did review this proposal against the recently adopted housing plan and found that the proposed amendment supports the plan's three primary goals, which include increasing opportunities for residential development in appropriate locations, uh expanding and maintaining affordable housing for low and middle inome

households, including uh those in the local workforce in our community. and then diversifying housing stock by encouraging uh mixed use and mixed income neighborhoods with a wider range of housing types for various household sizes, incomes, and demographics. Uh continuing on with our housing plan, uh there are relevant strategies and action items that are included in the housing plan and are articulated as action items. Action items in the housing plan that are relevant to this particular proposal include action item 1.1 which includes establishing criteria and identifying areas for zoning changes to support additional residential development including reszoning underutilized commercial properties. The GDP amendment is for all intents and purposes a reszone of the property. It would be subject to referendum and it changes the land use allowances on the particular property. Right now, commercial is only permitted. If this GDP GDP amendment moves through tonight, it does change the allowed land uses. Although the underlying zone district of PCZD will remain the same, it will go from PC ZDC commercial to PCZDR residential. Um, action item 1.2 two of the housing plan encourages considering offering a height bonus or additional density for projects that include affordable or mixed income housing. So, the applicant's request for the 40ft height limitation specifically in a transition zone while considering the exterior or the perimeter of the site uh is in line with this adopted area plan. Uh and of course, the proposed density is in line with this particular action item here as well. The last action item here is action item 3.2. two, which includes recommendations for expanding allowances for multif family housing and uh in existing commercial zones and supporting standalone residential development in existing commercial areas. And of

course, this request to allow residential land uses on a property that has historically only allowed commercial uses uh would satisfy action item number 3.2. So, in in closing uh with staff analysis here, uh we found that the proposed GDP amendment to allow residential land uses is consistent with multiple adopted policies, including the comprehensive plan, the South Boulder Road small area plan, and the recently adopted Lewisville housing plan. The proposed amendment supports key policy objectives that are contained within those policy documents, which include diversifying Lewisville's housing stock, promoting mixed income and workforce housing opportunities in Lewisville where appropriate, uh encouraging residential development on underutilized commercial properties, and allowing density and height incentives to advance the affordability goals that are outlined in the housing plan. That concludes staff's presentation. And so staff recommends approval of resolution 10 series 2025 recommending to the city council approval of the North Lewisville general development plan first amendment to allow residential land uses at 21101 North Courtesy Road. Uh happy to answer any questions. The applicant does not have a presentation tonight, but they are prepared to answer any questions and and speak to their project.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate the the holistic overview and I think it's also really important that we are kind of taking back and referring to the plans that we have paid good money for. Um so thank you for taking that all into account in your presentation. I'll now open it up for uh commission questions uh of staff. Commissioner Molen.

Hello everyone. Um I have a question uh Mr. post planner post about the the expansion or excuse me the connection of Klinkx Avenue to the north. Is it my understanding that there's an open space strip to the north of this parcel? And so I'm just wondering who will like will the city actually be in control of of making that connection since it looks like it would would end up having to go through a piece of open space. So I'm wondering if you could speak about that. Thank you.

Yeah, that piece of property that you're referring to, Commissioner, is actually dedicated rightway that was dedicated as part of the Lantern's PUD development. And so that ride ofway comes all the way down and is concurrent with the northern boundary of this property. So there's a so there's a an existing ride ofway that goes all the way through that that is there some open space there or not? Maybe I'm misreading that. It's I think it's simply unimproved right ofway. So it's dedicated. The ride ofway has been dedicated. The road section has not been completed there. I think for turnaround purposes there's there's a there's Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Great. How about in the room? You have any questions? I see Commissioner Hunt.

I I have a question and just might be um pardon me not fully understanding how all these pieces fit together, but I um I know that the current plans are for, you know, affordable housing. It's not a binding plan. So, are there opportunities down the road to make sure that's actually what happens that it that it has dedicated affordable housing? Yeah, I'll I'll answer your question by saying at this point there is no um entitlement restriction in the GDP that would mandate affordable housing. So if if this property if the GDP amendment moved forward here, it wouldn't it wouldn't it wouldn't require affordable housing on this site. So that answers your question.

I guess my qu I know that but my question I guess is are there opportunities and further reviews to yes make sure that happens? Yeah. Would you v our inclusionary housing ordinance? Yes. But that I I should I shouldn't say that our inclusionary housing ordinance obviously only requires a 12% on-site affordable dedication or the fee inl the based on the applicant's proposals and conversations with the applicant and what was presented to city council via the concept plan the majority of all the units on site will be in that middle income deed restricted range which would actually exceed our 12% requirement. Although I believe they also intend to include 12% at a 60% AMI, which is what our inclusionary housing ordinance does, but again, I'll let the applicant speak to that.

Great. Thanks. Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Mahaley, question about traffic. I just want to make sure I understand um what's proposed and what's in the plan. I think you said that the connections to Courtesy Road are through Heckler Drive and then also um up north to Pascal. Is that correct? Correct. And so if a if a tenant were to go north um I I don't recall the Hecka Drive intersection, but I think it may be a one-way turn. Is it possible to go north there, or is all the northbound traffic funneling up to Pascal?

Um I I'd have to look at the map. Gabby, can you share my screen again, please? and and you know it's probably obvious where I'm going. I'm looking at pinch points and we are, you know, a we have an established neighborhood. Understanding that it's, you know, consistent with what's in the comprehensive plan, but I'm thinking of pinch points if we're creating a traffic issue in that neighborhood by I'm wondering if all of our roads are sufficiently sized to handle that influx of was it 50 new new units? I don't remember the density, but you know, on the order of that all having, you know, if they have to go north, which is a common way to get to Boulder, uh if you know, are we are we creating a traffic problem by funneling it all to an existing road that may or may not be sized correctly?

Yeah, I'd have to uh look at the the existing conditioner conditions, Commissioner Haley, to answer your question regarding uh maybe the turning movements and or the level of service out outside of this development. But what I can say regarding traffic is that we we do have a uh what a trigger for when a traffic study would be required to determine whether or not the road network and the existing improvements can accommodate the existing volume. That what we look at is whether or not a proposed development will generate 50 or more trips in a peak hour on any given day. And so that would be an AM peak hour or a PM peak hour. As of right now, based on um our IT trip generation manuals and then some initial data that was given to us by the applicant, uh this particular proposal with even with a density of 51 units would not meet the minimum requirements for staff to ask for the transportation impact study. However, in the event that a development does come in, we would likely ask for a traffic letter, which would give us a an idea of what the volumes in those peak hours look like. From there, our city engineers would make a determination as to whether or not it's appropriate to actually request a study to address those items that are uh of concern that you just mentioned.

Thank you. Yeah. And and to be specific, I'm I'm I'm I'm picking at the assumptions of said assessment in particular if if it's only possible to go to one direction through a single way, you know, via Pascal. I want to make sure that that's being accounted for in that in that evaluation or determination of a of a traffic impact. Yeah. And I think we'd be able to make that determination via a traffic letter or study at the time of a development application. That's it for now. Thank you. Thank you. I need uh Commissioner Troy.

Um thank you Mr. Post. That was a lot of information in there. Um appreciate it. Just while we're on this slide, I is it a a safe assumption that the dedicated ride ofway connecting the two sections of Kaix Avenue would prevent transit on that east west that private access out to Highway 42 from the site. you know, I in the review process because there's an established private access easement across those two boundaries, we would ask that the applicant not impede that access point or amend the actual easement that's there with uh um consent from the adjacent property owner who would also be party to that access easement. I would probably need to look through the original entitlement documents also to ensure that there's no emergency access considerations there that were originally considered.

Uh but that that would be the process though that we would consider there.

That's interesting. Okay. Um, and I I I know Commissioner Hunt brought it up, but I just wanted to kind of verify again. Um, in the original uh 2024 concept plan, there was specific language that um was cited about specifically deed restricted as as uh the intent. And I think in the current language um the way the work pack is packet is is written it says the applicant has indicated that the GDP amendment is intended to facilitate redevelopment of the site as a permanently affordable middle-income multifamily housing community with a potential for some units to be offered at market rate. But it it that section didn't include the verbiage from the original 2024 concept of deed restricted. Um, and I just want to confirm that that maybe got filtered down a little bit and is definitely not a commitment from the applicant. I

I would probably call that out as an omission on my part if that was that was probably a mistake. Also, I was being that we're not actually entitling affordable deed restricted units via this process. I also wanted to be cautious in my wording. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, understood. Thank you. Good. Thank you, Commissioner Bangs.

Yeah, thank you. Um, yeah, I'd echo uh Commissioner Choice comments. This was a very comprehensive pack. So, thanks to staff for putting all of this together. Uh, I just f first I want to just reinforce what Commissioner Mahaley pointed out with regards to our future applicant coming back with more specifics and traffic impact. We know there's potentially further development south of this particular location where we've already expressed some concerns and I think a traffic study is underway. So it's a consideration for the future. Obviously not for this particular application. U my question is more specific around Kaix Avenue. So it sounds as though you know city council were supportive of pedestrian and cycle access. From what you said, planner post, um, I heard about a five- foot setback on the access and it sounded like that would be consistent with potential conversion of that avenue to vehicular access. Is that I guess I got a couple of questions. Is there a reason it's considered for pedestrian cycle only currently? Is the expectation that it will be vehicular in the future? And am I right in assuming the five foot setback would accommodate vehicles should it change in the future?

Sure. I'll say I'll start with um just indicating that staff's position on the matter is we'll administer the adopted policy which is for the completion and construction of Kaix Avenue in that location. Obviously the planning commission can make a recommendation on that and the city council will um can choose to deviate from the adopted policy. We presented to the concept at the concept plan hearing I I explicitly presented the uh the policy requirement for the Kaix Avenue connection. Um again the applicant uh obviously was able to present there as well and uh presented their their indication or their plan to just include pedestrian andor uh cycle improvements there and and council uh showed favor to that. However, in requiring the dedication, we would ask for the full width of the dedication in that location for a potential future rideofway improvement to continue the street network there. Um, I can't necessarily answer the full question for you as far as when that may happen. Um, I think we'd have to work through the details at that formal development plan application that would include maybe a full cost estimate um, from the applicant or with the city on what the actual buildout of that roadway would look like. This is, you know, directly from our engineering team. And then what potential funding opportunities would look like there as well. Obviously being considerate of the fact that, you know, the applicant is an affordable housing developer. that is what they do and they um intend to secure funding from limited sources in order to establish this. So uh that's that's a long way to answer that question. In regard to the 5- foot setback, the 50-foot if we're considering a 50-ft rideway dedication, the existing 50oot rideway dedication both north and south of this site is established back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk. So there's a different flow line to flow

line measurement there. So if we continue that all the way down, then we would have an attached sidewalk condition that would match what's north of that site and then that setback would be measured from the edge of rideway or the beginning of the private property which would be should be at the back of the sidewalk. So there would be a five foot distance between at a minimum the back of sidewalk and where that structure would be located. Great. Very clear. Thank you.

And actually just to hammer that a little further. So right um this the completion of Kaix has long been viewed as an important for connectivity uh amongst these neighborhoods. Um so um it seems like it's an important part right it was elevated to being uh up in the transportation master plan. Right. Correct. So, are there any particular reasons other than the affordability of it that we would be interested as a city in in entertaining pedestrian bicycle access?

You know, I I uh from a staff perspective and a policy perspective, I I I don't know that I can answer that question accurately. Sounds good. Yeah, I would say again I would you know our default position is to administer the policy which would call for the full connection there. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Go ahead. I just what I'm hearing though is that you're going to require that the full dedication be there so we have the options when we get down to brass tax on this. We can revisit. That's correct. Yes. Yes.

I'm going to move away from Kelix Avenue for just a second. Um I I understand that while this particular topic would come through a PUB review um and understanding that this would be moving through this GDP amendment to a PCZDR zoning classification understanding the adjacent development that's that are already in place. Um, was there any staff assessment of the storm water capabilities of the site if there were another 50 units of impermeable development within this area?

Yeah. So, I'll let the applicant speak to this, but they are the storm detention will be actually on the adjacent side on lot 1A. I believe there's an easement that accounts for that. So, I'll let I'll let the I'll let the applicant speak to that, but that was not part of we during the concept plan process, we did issue advisory comments to the applicant that they would need to obviously find a storm water and detention solution and I believe their response is they they have that right now on lot 1A with existing agreements. So, I'll let them speak to that if that's acceptable. Thank you. And discussing just back to our city housing plan.

Yeah. Um, so would it be inaccurate for me to say that deed restricted is a big goal that we don't have much of it in Louisville? I would say no. That's not inaccurate. Yeah, you're that that is a that is a goal of the housing plan. If I answered that correctly, I mean, it's considered kind of the the the desired goal. Um, and so this is the first time we've seen anything like this in the past long time. Um, I'm not even sure what we have in the city right now.

Uh, we have Kestrel just to the south of this right now, which is a a more expansive deed restricted. It's I I don't believe it's middle income deed restricted. Um, the applicant may actually be able to speak to that a little more as well. Okay. So, great. Um, thank you. Yep. Any additional questions for staff? Seeing none, uh, why don't we open up? Yeah. if we can have a applicant applicant representative be available for some questions here maybe a few words if you want to address any of the questions that you know we've raised along the way here if I don't I'll have Eric do it

well exactly yes um my name is Michael Reese I'm a housing consultant working with this communities um to bring this project to fruition I may bounce around on a couple topics that I just heard during some of the discussion but um you are correct uh deed restricted housing is lacking in um Lewisville and this is one of the larger projects specifically for the missing middle population that you hear quite a bit about over the last few years which is defined by area median income. Area median income between 80% and 120% of area median income is the missing middle targets. There was another statement about the inclusionary zoning um requirements that already in existence and the 12% and this has been working from the start with the Habitat for Humanity here in Boulder County to be part of this project and we've identified some of the units. We can go to the site plan if we could. We might want to talk about that. Um and that brings some of the units within the habitat sphere um of below 80 below 60 depending on their marketplace. Keep going.

Um, so actually if either of you could speak a little bit to Thistle's background at some point.

Fair enough. That's fair enough. Uh, yes. Thistle Communities is a housing development nonprofit. Been around for about 40 year 30 something years now. Based out of Boulder. Um, has affordable housing in the below 80% range um in Boulder and Longmont, both rental and deed restricted home ownership opportunities. Uh, another area of their mission is to work with mobile home parks across the state. So, you might read their name in a variety of news outlets. When uh mobile home parks be parks become resident owned communities, we call them rocks in the housing world because we like um acronyms. And um so thistle is pretty much the lead nonprofit entity in that world separate from what we're doing, but I think it speaks to their experience with working with communities in affordable affordable in affordable developments and working with homeowners associations within those developments and working with the deed restricted nature of the underlying home ownership and rental structure. Um, so the other thing I heard and might be Eric's conversation is that this property came was was a was owned by a single owner for a number of years and they recently sold this parcel to thistle a couple years ago. We've been bringing this forward. Concept plan was last year. Um this was we we really p try to pay attention what would be feasible when we brought it through the concept plan because we know you know once you start setting those goalpost down um the community can hold us to it. Um this property was always designed to have we don't have it here. Could we go to a larger site? Um I want to show where the drainage would go. I guess I didn't know notice where it was on this site. Let's see.

That'll work actually. Sure.

That's southeast east of the green line that and south of the roadway there. You'll see a handful of RVs. That is all intended to be um drainage retention area and it's already dedicated within the title work of the of the property through joint agreements. So there's construction easement, there's a drainage easement, there's traffic uh traffic routing easement through. Um so we we and we'll have to probably handle some of it on the southeast corner of our site plan, but uh we think we're pretty we we've got that one covered. Um and so I just So again, this has been doing affordable housing. Uh we're here I heard that that hey, if you do this, we're not holding anybody through. We're at the beginning of a This is what we do. This is what Thistle does. Uh we're at the beginning of the process. We have to do PUD prey PUB PUD process. It'll be more public hearings. Um when we started the public process last year, we brought in a traffic study engineer to do some initial counts because it tends to be what is of concern for folks. You know, one of the items and uh we just wanted to get general general counts. they do fall short of a required um study, but in all honesty, we've already secured the engineer to to that to work with us would probably just exercise the the full study and and and what we're really waiting on now is is bringing the full study through the PUB process with or without Kaix. It really does come down to at some point Kaix needs to be decided upon. We've reached middle ground for tonight. 50- foot easement, bigger than we would have originally proposed, but it leaves all the cards remaining on the table to to bring forward kaix someday in the future. Um, and we'd be fine with that, but uh we just want to we just but that

also affects traffic counts if that becomes a built road at the time we build this complex. We want to make sure the traffic study reflects the entry points accurately and if the and so that's one of the all the stuff is linked. Um, any questions of me? And then there's some technical stuff that maybe Eric would want to go through. So on that Kaix issue, it's it's all the cost of doing that building road as opposed to building pedestrian access. Right. The right hearing from the neighbors. Many may be behind me right now.

Um, when we went to the concept plan process, we've been doing this a long time and most people come and they don't like what we're doing. We didn't get any of that. they just didn't really want Kaix to go through. So, there may be different topics tonight, but you know, Kaix, it has to get resolved some point and we just we keep kicking the can and we'll kick it until we can't kick it anymore. But, you know, we we don't want to pay for it and I don't think the neighbors want it. So, we but it's in this traffic study from last century or whatever and you know, here we are. All right. Thank you.

Make a recommendation. at a couple things real quick. Um, yeah, I mean I think the whether affordable housing is required, you know, to be at what level, how many units and all of that is to be determined. Michael keeps reminding me that he's got a whole funding uh path to go down before they know what they're going to be able to build. So, we keep adjusting the product type and kind of what we can do uh based on uh what they're going to be able to afford to buy down so that it will be affordable. So, that's a big question that that we all have and until Michael's done raising all the money then we're not going to know. So, so there is that. But you know, Thistle is a affordable housing developer. So that's the intent here. Obviously, um I think that there was I think a little misspoke. Um I'm not aware of a Kaix right of way through the open space. So you can see the purple line ends at um the south end of the lanterns and then there's that open space swath and then there's uh the Davidson property. So that entire green area um does not have a right ofway dedication to my knowledge at this point. Now since the city controls the open space, they can run rightaways through their open space all they want. I suppose so. Uh we're not we can't so you know the city would have to have to do that. Um and I think just to talk about Kaix just a little bit is when you think about the traffic pattern in and out of this property. Uh hecka is a a nice uh wide street. It is underutilized frankly. Uh there's times during the day when you can find traffic on there. There's other times when there's zero cars on there. Um, and so I

think there's plenty of capacity. The traffic study is going to show uh that, you know, Heckla, Pascal, the full movement intersection at Pascal and um, Highway 42 all handles this. I mean, it it's like a drop in the bucket compared to what they're designed to handle. So, I don't think that's going to be a problem. um for people to come and go north through the lanterns development. Um you know, is that really necessary when you can just go out onto Heeka and have a nice quick trip over to Pascal? Um, so I just I don't see the practical need for it except that it's just happens to be in a traffic uh report that calls it out to go all the way to South Boulder Road, which it will never do. Um, you know, you'd have to take some of TBO's property, condemn that, run a road through there, and there's no way to do, if you think about, you know, right across from Snarfs or whatever it is, there's no way to get any kind of an intersection in there that's going to work. you know, the one that's there now out of the Christopher Plaza development is hard to get in and out of. You know, I think ultimately they'll close that left turn out of there because it's just not not useful. Um, so I just I really question that this is a secondary north south avenue um to take traffic from South Boulder Road up to Pascal for some reason. So, I think we can we can walk down that road when the PUD is going through. Um, but uh it would be good to hear from the neighbors whether that's something that they really think is necessary. Um, and that's really it. Um, yeah, there's uh there's really nothing else that uh I heard that hasn't been answered. So, happy to answer anything else. Thank you.

I just would add um I want to thank the staff very comprehensive a lot of information um you know we hope that you can support it and uh we think it strikes a lot of boxes both in the community and locally I mean residential housing has essentially grown up behi around this site for uh last 40 years. So uh we're looking forward to redeveloping it into a long-term deed restricted product. Commissioner questions for the applicant. I don't see any raised hands online there or anybody waving their hands. Have any questions for the applicant? No. No. Okay, great. Thank you both. Um why don't we take a five minute break right now and then we'll come back with uh public comment. Thank you all.

Thanks. And I forgot I think we we kept it recording, huh? During the break, so we don't have to we don't have to turn it back on. Okay, good. Excellent. Hope no one said anything bad. Oops. All right. Um, thank you all. Welcome back. Uh, I will now, uh, open it up for public comment. Um, I believe there's at least one uh, well, that was part of the packet. Do we have any We didn't have any additional via email. We do have some What's that? One inerson public comment. Yes.

Okay, great. Yes. Um, if we can ask you to uh limit yourself to three minutes and begin with your name and city of residence, please. Angela. And first of all, thank you for coming out this evening. You're welcome. Well, I have Is this okay? Yeah. Well, if you bend it down because uh it helps everybody here.

Yeah. I I just have a quick comment. Um I'm a neighbor. I live in the overlook and I'm very concerned about uh two issues. One is the um the traffic flow and the safety of that because the this project is showing only one exit and entrance on Luke and Heckla and in the overlook we are 58 units. We have only one exit point at that exact intersection. So potentially in an emergency, we could have one to 200 cars in that one intersection. And that feels like a hazard to me that there's no other way in or out. And uh the other is parking. The um I didn't hear any any plans for parking. and I don't know how 48 units could park on Heckler that I don't think there's enough parking spots there. So, I have those two big concerns. Um particularly the the traffic one. Um it feels like a serious um safety issue. We from the Marshall fires from the overlook, we could see the flames and we only had one exit to get out. And so it feels very scary to me to have potentially 58 units on this side and 48 units on this side and how many people that would be. So it just feels very dangerous to me. Just wanted to say that.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. All right. Uh seeing and there's nobody online. We have one online. Oh, one person online. Okay. Ellen.

Hi, my name is Ellen James and I am uh a neighbor uh to the north in um the lanterns and I have uh three concerns. Number one, we are downhill, directly downhill, um from the north side, and I'm very concerned about drainage. Um number two, what sort of plan is there um in terms of limited access so that our backyards and patios don't become um a walkthrough area. And along with that, um, what's going to be done to ensure our privacy since your those, uh, units are uphill from us? Um, how is it that you're not going to be able to look directly into um, our homes, please?

Thank you very much. Appreciate you sharing your thoughts and questions. And that wraps it up for online. Um, no, we have one more. One more. Okay, great. Wonderful. Lisa,

hi there. Is this working now?

Yes. Perfect. Um, so, uh, new to this process, so thank you. Uh, it's Don Ford. I'm a resident of the lanterns, uh, like Ellen directly, uh, north of the proposal. If I understand the process right, we will have lots of opportunity to comment on the development itself and the placement of the units and traffic etc. But as it relates to this particular proposal, uh I wanted to bring to account to the board's attention one important fact that I think has not been brought up and Ellen referred to it that we are directly downhill and there is about a 15t height difference between the land that is being proposed to be developed and our development on the um north side and the lanterns. So I'm by speaking I am urging the voting members to vote against the uh height the granting of height uh uh additional height because we are looking even with a 35 ft it is about a 50 foot impact on uh the residents of Lewisville that live in the lanterns. So, uh, by speaking, I am asking for, uh, to vote against the height, um, the additional height granting for this project. Thank you.

Thank you for pointing that out. Appreciate hearing it from from reality. All right. Do we have anybody else online? Yeah. Not at this time. Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. Well, uh, at this point, we're going to move into applicant closing statement. Yeah, sure. Never done that before. Thank you for joining. Uh, yes, double double bonus points for joining as a first- timer.

Um, so just I'd like to address things that we heard. Um, as far as the Luke Heckla uh intersection there, we do have a second way out. Um, so for less than half the units that they have across the street, we actually have two ways out. We could either go south through Can we just pull up the Oh, yeah. the plan again just so everybody can look see. There we go. Yeah, that's good.

So, um, regardless of what happens with Kaix to the north, Kaix to the south will be available to this development. Um, so that would get you to the south loop of Heeka uh out to uh 96th Courtesy Road. Um, so there are currently two and then obviously if Kaix goes north, that would be another one. Um, parking, we are planning on uh providing parking on site for the residents. Um, right now the plan that we have uh has at least two spaces per dwelling unit. That's what all of the developments around us would have anyway. So, and that's the city requirement before they changed the requirements, but that's a that's pretty standard in residential that um we typically have at least two parking spaces per and uh heckla is underutilized. You can go out there anytime and find parking all the way up and down Heckla. Um, so for additional guest parking, we'll have some guest parking on our main road that goes east west, but uh if there needs to be overflow, there's certainly plenty of overflow out on Heeka. So parking, I'm not concerned about that. Um, the drainage, all of our drainage is going to go to the east and to the south um into that uh area that Michael described on the south side of lot 1A. So there won't be any drainage from this property into the lanterns. So if they're concerned about drainage, it would only be coming from the city's open space, which it currently does. Um, but we don't control that. So that would not u be something that we could change or modify. Um, again, I there is a swath of um open space through there that separates this

property from the lanterns. So, if people are going to be walking in their backyards, they're actually coming from that open space uh through there. And uh you know, I again, I don't think we could control people. There's no path through there, but I assume people walk their dogs and so forth through that open space, but again, that's nothing that we can control. That's city-owned uh property. And um as far as ensuring privacy, when we do get into the um design of the units, we'll be thinking about, you know, the views in and out of the property and how to uh sort of mitigate the um the impact of this project. Um, I might point out that if you look at the uh rear yard to rear yard and even front to front, there's more space between anything we would build and the lanterns than there's currently between uh say uh Summit View Drive, you know, uh house to house. So, uh they're closer now to their neighbors than they're going to be to this built uh neighbor. So in terms of privacy, it will be more than they're used to having in this neighborhood in terms of distance. So uh

doubling back on that kind of very issue and right now the way it's proposed that 35% which is standard for housing. That's the step back and then the only allowance we would be granting is even further back from that is correct. And really the uh the only reason for that it would still be the maximum would be like a threetory maybe you've got a tuck under garage and then two stories on top of that. And so now you're at that 35 ft. You can have flat roofs um and be within the 35T. We could build the exact same product with all flat roofs and be within the 35, but we're asking for the 40 so that we can articulate the roofs, have sloping roofs that would be more in character with the properties to the north and to the west. Um, there are flat roofed buildings uh to the south. We've heard them described as ugly. It's they're modern, you know, but whatever. That's that's what you can build in the 35 foot um without the variance. Um, and then uh I I have not seen where there's 15 feet of vertical distance uh ground to ground from the lanterns to this property. I'll take another look at it, but that it seems like that's not what I've seen on the topo maps, but we'll certainly be cognizant of that. So, um, yeah, those were the comments that we

Great. All right. Thank you. Do we have a staff response and closing statement?

My only response would be to cover um a question that Commissioner Bangs had and um that Eric uh the applicant brought up as well and that would be that right-of-way dedication that's existing. I misinterpreted Commiss Commissioner Bangs question. This this portion of this property here is open space and is currently encumbered by the Highline Davidson ditch. The ride ofway at Lanterns ends here. And so, so the green line is reflective of where there is not currently right ofway and it does go over what is now city-owned property that was referred to as open space. So, I just wanted to clarify that. Other than that, I have no other comments.

All right. Do we have any additional thoughts, concerns before we close out this portion of it? I mean, yeah, I guess we'll get into it when we discuss further. All right. Um, seeing none online, I will now close the public hearing and planning commissioners will deliberate on the evidence presented. During deliberations, no further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received. Who is on the spot? Who's ready to speak to this? Commissioners, I'll I'm I'll go if nobody else wants to. Thank you. appreciate it.

Happy to. Um, thanks staff. I appreciated the the staff report and and um I in some I guess I agree with the the staff analysis. I believe this uh general development plan amendment meets the land use code. It's cons that it's consistent with the comp plan, the small area plan, and the housing plan uh policies that were discussed. So, I find myself in support of this. I'm excited to see this move forward. And I am I I'm confident that some of the issues, the important issues that have been raised by the adjacent homeowners and neighborhoods, I feel like those will be able to be um sorted out successfully at the PUD stage. So, that's that's where I find myself at this time. Thank you very much, Commissioner Molen. Commissioner Mahaley.

Yeah, just just raise my hand because as I'm sitting here gathering my thoughts to summarize, I think Commissioner Molen um I'm in agreement with with Commissioner Meren's summary. I think this is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Um and the motivations and themes for development here. I I I do stand by my my previous comments about looking for traffic pinch points and when we get into the PUB phase. Um I I would like to see assessment relative to to certain modes and directions of travel. Um and so from a PUD perspective, what I'll be looking for is making sure we're mitigating the impact to the existing neighborhood. understanding that this is, you know, consistent with our plan moving forward. I still think I'd like to and and and I I see evidence of the developer um taking these things into account in terms of setbacks and being consistent with with the theme of the neighborhood. So, I I I very much look forward to that discussion and want to um encourage that conversation with the neighborhood to make sure that the um impacts to this um surrounding area are mitigated. So, thank you for the presentation and I uh very much in agreement with Commissioner Molen. And as we deliberate, I would throw it out there for discussion. Um, this is a landlocked site and if if we end up uh discussing the potential for kaix being only pedestrian or bicycle, um, could we even go further with it potentially and say, "Okay, yeah, we don't need the full 50t." All right. Rightways are a funny thing. they last for forever until until they don't. Uh and that's just something to think about. So, Commissioner Yeah. Go ahead.

Sorry. And and and and on that theme, you know, as it pertains to, you know, non-car traffic, you know, particularly pedestrian, there are parks and some, you know, there is I think Cowboy Park nearby um and then maybe some another park that I don't recall the name of in in the near area. So I I in the PED process I will be looking for you know safety. Safety was brought up by the neighbors. Um and I think this is a key issue as we're adding density to a previously undeveloped area. I want to make sure we are thinking of pedestrian uh mobility especially as it pertains to families walking to parks. Thank you Commissioner Bangs.

Yeah thanks. Um yeah generally agree with Commissioner Mahaley Commissioner Molen. Um again thanks to staff for the comprehensive packet. Obviously yeah it's a rare opportunity that uh is presented to us here by the applicant in terms of meeting the affordability needs that we we know are desperately required and difficult to fulfill with um with the land parcels that are available in the city. So I I'm generally supportive. I do appreciate the public comment as well. Um they raised some points that we didn't raise as commissioners. So duly noted and uh as we've stated as we go through the PUD process, I think we'll ask the applicant to be cognizant of those initial comments um and and pay heed to the to the height, the privacy concerns and the other comments um with regards to safety and access. So I'm supportive.

Great. Thank you very much, Commissioner Hunt.

Um I'm not going to repeat everything all the excellent comments that my colleagues have already made. and I agree with them. I want to um specifically I want to commend the staff for really drawing our attention to the various plans and and policies that this satisfies. I think that was really helpful. Um more of that please. And um I I am I am very much in support of this for the in the sense that I think it does I'm excited to see it address that missing middle which I think is a is a is as we've talked about a huge um gap we have here in our city. So, I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with and working with them on the PUD. Um, I would I think um to address what you brought up, um, Commissioner Brown Eyes is, uh, I do think, you know, I don't think we know enough yet to to get rid of that 50 foot, um, easement. I think I'd like to keep it there because I know that there people are concerned about traffic and pinch points and I want to make sure we keep our options open. That would be my pref preference on that. Thank you,

Commissioner Basket. So, I also agree with the comments that the fellow commissioners have made. I'm excited about this project. It's the right type of use in the right location with transit proximity, proximity to grocery, proximity to open space. um really is a nice little micro community to to drop right into Lewisville. So, I will be in support of this. Thank you, Commissioner Choy.

Thanks, Chair. Um so initially I was concerned seeing the numbers related to the development units per acre being uh significantly higher than the adjacent town homes in Steel Ranch. Um and you know verging on the the density that you see in apartments um just from a infrastructure perspective. Um, and I think that hearing a little bit more about the the developer and the and the property owner now and the applicant, um, and and understanding what the intent is of providing the housing type in the area. um makes me feel much better about it where it's not so much development for development sake or driving profit from jamming as many you know units into an acre as possible. um you know I would term it more along the lines of um at least purported responsible development which is exactly what we need when we contemplate the shortage of different housing types and market products that are available on the residential side. Um, so all of the concerns that have been raised on the other elements related to the adjacent properties in the and the um systems and infrastructure that serve it are very valid and I and I do share the sentiment that I think we're going to work through those during the PUD process. Um and you know also thanks to the staff for the to the uh comprehensive packet uh and for the applicant for working through it um with staff to to be able to come and bring a what I believe to be a viable initial solution uh for the GDP application. I look forward to the PUD. So I'm in support.

Great. Thank you. Um, I also find myself in support at this time. Uh, for as many times as affordable housing, the phrase affordable housing has been mentioned in this chamber, this is the closest we've gotten to actually having something built. This is kind of a watershed moment. Um, this is the strikes me as the real thing. I appreciate the concerns uh with the area and um having seen any number of different proposal work their way through. I I have um I expect we'll be able to work on some of those concerns that have been raised. Uh so I'm actually quite excited for seeing this through. Um with that then I would entertain a roll call vote please.

Oh well first we need a motion. I've been doing this a lot lately. Yes. How about a motion? Sure. Chair, I'll move to uh approve resolution 10 series 2025 uh for a request for the first amendment to the North Lewisville General Development Plan to allow residential land uses with a GDP amendment. A second. Second. Second. Thank you. And a roll call, please. Sher Brown Eyes. Yes. Vice Chair Baskets? Yes. Commissioner Banks? Yes. Commissioner Shoy? Yes. Commissioner Hunt, yes. Commissioner Mahaley, yes. Commissioner Molen,

yes. Thank you. Motion carries unanimously. All right, then. Um, moving into our next item of business, a zoning code amendment. Do we have Yeah. Well, yes. Thank you. That is such a cool picture. Um

uh I will now open the public hearing on a request for a zoning code amendment. Um the purpose of the hearing is to 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 blinding commission to staff. After this presentation, um after this presentation, members of the public who have joined the 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 star 9 if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pool 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, 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 the the 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 or continue to a future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and address. Does anyone participating in this hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing none, uh do we have notification?

Uh yes, notice has been met. Thank you. Do we have any disclosures from commission? Seeing none.

All right. Good evening again, commissioners. Matt Post, senior planner, community development team. Uh the item before you now is uh approval request for approval of resolution 11 series 2025 recommending to the city council approval of an ordinance amending title 17 of the Lewisville Municipal Code to update the method of measuring required separation distances between natural medicine businesses and schools and child care facilities. A quick note here, this is a targeted code amendment update at the request of city council. As you all are aware, Colorado voters passed Proposition 122 in November of 2022, which decriminalized the possession, cultivation, sharing, and use of psilocybin and other related substances that are referred to as natural medicine via that state law. Uh the state law permits the supervised use of natural medicine at natural medicine healing centers and it also allows for the cultivation, manufacture and testing of natural medicine at natural medicine businesses. Uh the city council adopted ordinance 1887 series 2024 in December of last year which permitted natural medicine businesses in the city of Lewisville. Um when we adopted the ordinance or when staff crafted the ordinance, we the the ordinance requires a buffer or a separation of uses between natural medicine healing centers specifically and schools or child care facilities. The state law specifically states that the uh method of measurement should be a direct pedestrian route from the property line to the uh the the closest portion of the building or unit that contains the natural medicine business or use. Well, with the opportunity to regulate time, place, and manner of the natural medicine business, staff elected to adopt a property lineto

property line measurement technique. This was uh um obviously went through review with with our attorneys to ensure that we were still in line with the state law. We were we had the opportunity to continue to regulate again time, place, and manner in that way and extend our buffer requirement. The reason we did so was really for the ease of staff administration um and just determining a buffer analysis and then also in consideration of the the amount of schools and child care facilities in relation to downtown and then the uh the amount of commercial uses uh that are available downtown or or spaces downtown. Um, we never received a natural medicine healing application until one individual downtown asked and she was told that she doesn't meet the standard based on the property line to property line measurement. Again, city council requested that we consider amending the ordinance to adopt the pedestrian route measurement technique as opposed to the property lineto property line measurement. So uh this amendment uh is is again updates the 1000 ft separation. Um as as mentioned our previous method was a property lineto property line measurement. This particular update is now a direct pedestrian route measured from the property line of the school or child care facility to the nearest portion of a building or unit containing the natural medicine business use. Importantly, if you recall again, the state law only requires that that buffer apply to natural medicine healing centers, which is where natural medicine is administered. We elected to adopt the buffer applied to all natural medicine business uses. That would include manufacturing, cultivation, and testing. Um, the important point there is that cultivation, manufacturing, and testing is only permitted in industrial zone districts, which is only in the CTC. So there was no significant restriction by applying that to um to natural medicine businesses as a whole across the city.

So the the the old language was no natural medicine business may be lo or the existing language rather. The currently adopted language is no natural medicine business may be located within 10,00t of a childare center preschool, elementary school, high school, residential childcare facility and that the distance shall be determined by a direct measurement from the nearest property line of the land used for the use to the nearest property line of the land used for national medicine business. We're updating that method of measurement to um instit say that the distance shall be calculated by measuring the most direct pedestrian route from the nearest property line of the land use to the nearest portion of the building or unit where the natural medicine healing center uh use will be located. Uh the measurement shall reflect a safe and lawful walking path without trespassing or use of alleys and shall follow designated pedestrian routes and include right angle crossings while observing all traffic signals and traffic regulations. Um of course we anticipate this to only uh impact natural medicine healing centers. Um and of course that's where natural medicine is administered. Uh we uh the impact um again will likely be on downtown where natural medicine healing centers may now be permitted in some areas of downtown where they were not previously. Obviously we can't generate a buffer map for this particular um application just because we we can obviously calculate all kinds of of of pedestrian routes. We would have to have specific location. And so there's no buffer map available, but staff will now utilize the um the existing um I'm sorry, the the the the the proper the the pedestrian route measurement in this particular scenario. And I'm just noticing I'll double check this in the ordinance, but my language here says natural medicine healing center. I do believe we still want it to retain the natural medicine business language. Um,

so maybe during deliberation we can double check that and that might be worth conditioning here. Um, if I if I may have uh uh meant to say natural medicine business as opposed to natural medicine healing center in the additional language here. Um so uh with that staff recommend approval of resolution 11 series 2025 recommending to the city council approval of an ordinance amending title 17 of the LMC to update the method of measuring required requiring separation distances between natural medicine businesses and schools and childcare facilities. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We'll open it up to questions.

Chair I have a question. Um so Mr. post. I appreciate the exacting language of what is a pretty lengthy amendment to that ordinance. Um, it makes me think that I I didn't contemplate this when we first talked about this adoption uh whenever it was a couple years ago. We've contemplated this in terms of establishing the distances between where natural medicine centers, natural medicine businesses can be placed based on essentially the current locations of schools and childcare facilities. Based on the language that's proposed, is there an inadvertent consequence if a natural medicine business or healing center is established that would then prevent the future development of another school or a child care facility if it was within 1,000 ft?

There is not. No, there's a specific provision in the state bill that states that an existing uh natural medicine business or healing center is not procluded from continuing operation if a licensed childcare facility or school were to be established after that business was already established. Yes. Okay. And and the language also wouldn't prevent the child care facility or the school from being established to to my knowledge. Correct. There's obviously state licensing requirements, but but I didn't that wasn't present to me in the bill through reading it. Yeah. Interesting.

Okay. So, even with this language, ostensibly, we could have a child care facility adjacent to a natural healing center if they chose to open their chose to do that. Correct. Correct. Yep. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's my only question. Commissioner Mahaley,

thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Choy. I had the same question. Um, so given the language in terms of pedestrian routes, how does this work with crosswalks and are, you know, is it measured with official crosswalks only or, you know, so let's be honest, even if there is a crosswalk with the signal, not everyone uses that and they just go across the street. So, if you have a building across the street from each other, but the crosswalk is 100 ft down the road, not not saying it would be that far, but just as an example, would that be effectively a 200 foot distance as measured because you'd have to go 100 foot down across the road and 100 foot back? How does this all How does this work? And how does the language pertain specifically to how it's measured relating to crossing the street? Yeah, in the in the example that you provided, Commissioner Haley, I would say Mahaley, I would say yes, that we would we'll based on the language, we'll look to ensure that an individual is not I I guess what we would colloquially call jaywalking to to access the pedestrian or or to measure the pedestrian route. Um, and what was the second part of your question? I'm sorry.

I just wanted to make sure I had it right. Um, and I and I do have some concerns there which which we can talk about. Um I just wanted to understand exactly how they were measuring it. And you know the question was is it only using official crosswalks for you know the point of making it a measurement as as it pertains to the regulation. Well, the the language concerning right angle crossings and that right it doesn't have to be a painted crosswalk on the ground, but it'll follow the the kind of I I think you're describing as kind of a more strict approach or potentially a longer approach than might actually occur. That that's what I'm getting at exactly

related to that. I mean, there if I'm not not remembering incorrectly, there are lots of intersections where there aren't painted crosswalks. Yeah, right. exactly what I'm getting at. You don't need a painted crosswalk, right?

I would say that um yeah, I would say that yeah, to to answer I guess to answer this question more thoroughly, if there is an intersection a a a traffic controlled intersection or even not, right, where there's two sidewalks, right, where there are public rights of way, where there's not a crosswalk. I think based on the language, including at right angle crossings while observing traffic signals and traffic regulations, I I think that we can safely say that that will be that would be the safe pedestrian route and they wouldn't have to shoot all the way down the street 200 feet to a to a a painted crosswalk. Um that yeah, we would we would absolutely interpret this method of measurement in that in in that way. Yes. And and that's my key point because I don't want to only use I don't want to effectively shorten it by saying, "Oh, well, the painted crosswalk is two blocks that way, so just out the gate, you've already added four blocks walking distance to something that is in reality someone's just going to walk across the street right there at at the intersection." C

can you just put that language back up on the screen so we can see it? Sure. Um Does anybody know where that picture again here? Hold on. Yeah. Um, yeah, I don't see anything in there about painted crosswalks. So, I would not interpret that to require painted crosswalks. Um, it's just right angle crossings. Yeah, we have to check the law. I'm point I'm poking at the lawful walking path is what I'm getting at. I'm not sure how the law think that I would not interpret that as requiring

legally requiring there to be painted crosswalks. No, I just want to be sure of that exact point. Yep. All right. Any additional questions for staff? I have a couple. So, right now, um, alcohol and marijuana are still using the this the existing definition, not the proposed one, right? uh for or for separation. Yeah. Yes. Correct. This is a completely separate provision in separation distance measurement. Yes. Yeah. Great. Correct. Chair Brown, I have a quick question. Go ahead.

Yeah. I'm just reading the packet again. So, uh senior planner post quick question. Does it it says in the packet that this amendment aligns the city's ordinance with state law. So is this is this definition or this interpretation akin to other cities or is this going to be an anomaly compared to other cities?

No, it is. We did actually utilize another jurisdiction here in Colorado for the direct pedestrian route. They did adopt similar language and so we looked we did specifically the city of Grand Junction has similar lang. We actually pulled back from what the city of Grand Junction has measured here, but um so the measurement shall reflect in safe and lawful walking path without the trespassing or use of alleys. Those that's the information that we added. I'd have to look at the state bill to see exactly what it what the what the information is in there, but yeah, we are not so so the the be the beginning or the first half of the additional language is pretty identical to what's in the state bill right now. And then the second half was just ensuring that we're able to actually determine what a safe pedestrian walking path is if it's presented to us. And that's from the city and we we utilize the city of Grand Junction with with what they had adopted already.

Okay. Thanks. So, so your language is further your second sentence is further defining direct pedestrian route which is the standard from the statute. Correct. Got it. Great. And we can verify that in the bill too if additional questions for staff. So I think as we move forward we will accept that it should state that it's natural medicine business in here. Yes.

Okay. Unless anybody's concerned about that. No. All right. Seeing none. No additional questions of staff. Do we have any public comment online? I see none in the room. None online. Thank you. Um, I assume that's your closing statement as well.

Yes. Thank you very much. All right. I'll 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? I'll throw it out there a little bit. Um, I mean, I think when we look back at the history of these separation laws, uh, right, originally derived surrounding alcohol, um, sales and and bars and that sort of thing. Um, I think this is kind of a whole different animal. Uh, this is not a retail operation. Um, and, uh, so I'm actually kind of comfortable with this for that reason. Um I I don't kids are not welcome in these facilities. Um so uh I I guess the one thought I had had was uh I was you know sort of taken a back I think for a while there was perhaps a non-compliant large giant marijuana sign. Um I don't think that's the approach that these facilities would take. Um and and I'm not convinced that having that 800 feet from a school or 1,000 feet from a school um is that big of an impact in this kind of situation. So other thoughts? Commissioner,

I I tend to agree with you, um, Chair Brownise, and and I app I I I think it's reasonable to align our statute with our ordinance with the state statute, um, to sort of protect the purposes of the state law and also to not entirely preclude um, these kinds of businesses from opening in in our city. I agree that they are likely to be very different types of businesses than say a liquor store. um more they're more like they're really healing centers, whatever you might think of them. I don't I don't think they're going to have the same kind of impact. So, I'm I have no problem with this.

Great. Thank you. All right. How about online? Commissioner Molen, you're you're often ready for us. Sorry about that. Yes. Um I'm going to be in support as well. Well, I appreciated what um the two of you just mentioned and yeah, I'm it I guess my main actual concern at this point for this kind of language is as long as it's something that the staff will find easy to interpret and utilize to kind of regulate this and so I'm assuming that's true with the with this being staff generated. So, I'm going to be in support.

Great. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Troy. Sure. I think it's nuanced and geometrically right angles are generally going to lead to a longer path than a straight line. So, thumbs up.

Okay, great. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Basket. Well, I find it to be a bit over complicated to do it this way and I envision staff out there with the wheels measuring the distance and figuring out every permutation that is possible. But um in order to support the city council's wish for this language and the practicality of it seems we'll figure it out as we go along. It's not like we're going to have a hundred of these businesses coming to Lewisville. So, I can be in support of it given that I I don't think we'll have a lot of times that we have to use this measurement.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Bangs. Yeah, I have no no questions or concerns, so I'll I'll be in support. All right, Commissioner Mahaley.

Thank you. Yeah, I I think I voiced my concern which I think is alleviated assuming, you know, in terms of what the right angle crossing of roads means. My my just to say it another way, my initial concern was that distances would be artificially shortened in effect by having, you know, only counting certain crossings which would add artificially um extra distance. But that not sounding to be the case, um in terms of consistency with state ordinance and direction the town wants to go, I think this is fair. So, I will be voting yes. Thanks and thanks for raising that issue. But I I mean I actually do think that that the language does artificially um create a buffer that may not be truly that thousand feet buffer, especially the language about avoiding alleys. Um right, we uh people walk through alleys all the time. Um yeah,

for understandable reasons, it needs to be avoided for the sake of this uh language. So yeah, I mean for the for the situation perhaps they're trying to avoid I think the people will be using alleys point. Yeah. But I Yeah. Yeah. But I but I don't feel it threatens the safety of school children. So all right. Uh any additional deliberations? Seeing none, how about a motion? Please. Thank you.

Move approval of zoning code amendment resolution 11 series 2025 recommending to the city council approval of an amendment to the Lewisville Municipal Code Title 17 zoning concerning natural medicine businesses to address how the distances measured between such businesses and other land uses. I I'll just add on on the condition with of changing natural medicine healing center to natural medicine business the proposed language. Yes, you can include in your initial motion. Uh yes, including the the correction of the term to match the rest of the language in the ordinance. Thank you.

I'll second that. Thank you. A roll call vote, please. Sher Brown Eyes. Yes. Vice Sher Basket. Yes. Commissioner Banks. Yes. Commissioner Shoey. Yes. Commissioner Hunt. Yes. Commissioner Mahaley. Sorry, I cut out. This is a roll call. Yes. Commissioner Mahaley. Yes. Commissioner Molain. Yes. Thank you all. Motion carries. Thank you for your work on that. All right. Uh, I'll now open it up for any planning commission comments. My only comment is how can we only be on resolution 11? It's September. We've had a really slow year.

Quiet year. Yes. All right. Any additional comments? Yes, please. I actually have a question for staff about the status of the comprehensive plan and when it might be coming back to the planning commission. Yes. So we um we're having to substantially kind of rework a lot of the plan internally um which is fine. Um so it's just causing a bit of a delay. Um our plan is to have um an upcoming round of community engagement before the holidays on the public review draft of the plan. And so the hope would be to come back to planning commission in and around that time, November, December with the public review draft of the plan for review

be before it's before you have the community engagement possibly. Yeah. Not not sure yet how to sequence that the best, but possibly. Yeah. Right around the same time. Okay. So we'll be expecting the next draft with some heavy revisions perhaps. All right. Yeah. Yeah. Great. Happy to go into more detail, too. That's the 30,000 foot, but there's a lot going on on that front. Just not quite ready for prime time yet. Okay. Then we don't get any more detail. If it's not If it's not ready for prime time, it's not ready for us. It needs a lot of work from what what we got. Great. So, yeah. Yeah.

All right. Thanks. Any additional commissioner comments? Seeing none, um we will now uh we've got a number of so uh we're going to discuss the we do have a number of issues upcoming.

Yeah. I just wanted to call your attention to you know we had a little bit of a lull the last couple months but there's a there's a flood of cases coming your way per your point about the resolution numbers. Those will be upticking soon. Um, we have the special meeting on September 25th, which I know you can't come to, uh, Jennifer, but, um, just reminder of that. Um, and then October and November are really busy. I think we've got six or seven cases that are all, um, timesensitive, um, to varying degrees per state law requirements and getting things through the process. So, um, just calling your attention to the fact that there's a busy agenda upcoming and there may be more on your agendas, three or four cases instead of two or three. Um, so just be mindful of that.

Yeah. Thank you. We'll try to avoid a a second meeting in October or November. But, uh, all kind of depends on how things go. Are these ones that are identified for September 25th, October 9th, and November 13th? Are those pretty solidly set point for September 25th? Yes, for sure. That's actually three cases even though it looks like two. October 9th, I would say two of the three are for sure. And then the Cole Creek Village development is um we're optimistic it's going to go, but there's a lot going on with that one as well. Okay. And just to be aware that there may not be potential for a November overflow because of Thanksgiving, right? Yes. Yep.

All right. Uh with that then I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved and a second. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you all. Thank you.