Mar 03, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2021-03-03 5:00 PM

good afternoon ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning and zoning work session meeting for Wednesday March 3rd we do have a quorum and I'll call the meeting to order at 505 we do not have any citizens comment on the consent agenda this evening so we'll move right into our work session report starting with a report and discussion regarding the development fees good evening Commission Charlie Rosendahl the business services manager for development services just going to give you guys a brief overview here of how we arrived at our current development fees so just a little background it was 1999 that the last fees schedule was adopted prior to our current fee schedule and the last building inspections fees schedule was 2014 so back in June of 2019 we had a consulting firm called matrix consulting group come out and do a fiscal analysis for us and then gave us a cost recovery level of what we were at in our previous fees schedule and then in August we had that presentation with City Council to show them what the fees and the cost recovery was at that current state and then later that year City Council adopted what we have as our current fees schedule for development services so the process that matrix took was they came in and looked at our existing fees and potential fees they used a time estimate for each staff that touches a piece of that fee throughout the process they used a fully burned hourly rate for that and then they came up with a cost recovery level and any gaps that we had based on our current fees or our previous fees set up so that total cost calculation includes direct costs that's the salaries benefits of all the employees and then also department overhead costs our office supplies the things that it takes to run the department and then finally the last piece was the citywide overhead costs that's the contribution of the city manager's office and time spent for our department some of the other fees that go into running the entire city and what portion of that development services has so that's how we got to a fully burdened costs and that was applied to an hourly rate for each employee group and ultimately time spent for each fee is how they determined a full cost recovery rate for that fee after they went through this process they brought that to City Council they determined the city was recovering 52% of our total costs at that time in the development services department based on the previous fees and then we were under collecting almost 5 million dollars so you can see here also I'll point out that we have each of the divisions of the department broken out here this is annual Aaron or Charlie yeah this is annual okay great so this was the recommendation that was taken forward to City Council that current there was what they found about 52% cost recovery level and then ultimately they proposed that an overall 87% cost recovery level I'll point out here in the planning department under our previous fees we were collecting just a little under a quarter million dollars a year and that was only a 16% rate of recovery now the building safety side had a much higher rate of recovery at 67% and then engineering development was was collecting around 31% so you can see here in the proposed that those rates were increased quite substantially but not all the way up to 100% cost recovery so that that less than 100% that have we arrived at that 87% cost recovery rate instead of a fully fully recovering all of our cost is the community benefit portion so that there are things that we do in the department that benefits the community as a whole and in our specific development related costs that go into that these would be things like historic landmarks a portion of our neighborhood and principal planning group that does like citywide comprehensive planning and all the neighborhood planning specifics those were not included and then there were certain benefits that city wanted to subsidize city council wanted to subsidize like minor plats for residential permits just to take some of that burden off on groups that would would it be more impacted by these fees coming forward at a much higher rate so things like appeals to ZBA were were subsidized because you don't want to inhibit somebody from bringing appeal forward single-family alterations and those kind of things were subsidized and then finally the the last subsidy was minor permits so rather than charging a fully burdened rate for like a water heater replacement or some kind of minor repair like that we chose to bring forward a recommendation of a $50 fee for those minor permits that's just to ensure compliance and make it easier on a homeowner coming forward we know that permits protect so having somebody come in get a permit and have it reviewed by us is a is a benefit and as to the safety of our community so we wanted to bring that forward as a register Anderson you have a question yes a quick question did you say we charge a $50 per minor permit fee if somebody's water heater goes out and they need to replace it yes why is that I mean that's kind of I think it's kind of ridiculous these people already upset I mean that they're already hurting oh currently currently the city is waived all fees related to anything that happened as a result of the storm for plumbing repairs or any of those associated fees so that's that $50 fee isn't currently in effect this is under normal circumstances this would be like a minor plumbing repair or something of that nature it would just have the $50 fee I still don't understand why we would charge a $50 fee for somebody having to replace a water heater I believe it's there's an inspection involved for it so there's there is some work on the city side that goes into it but that was the minor $50 fee all right thanks any other questions on this slide so after we had the presentation with City Council in August of that year we adopted our current fee schedule in September and that went into effect in October of 2019 that's the the fee schedule that we currently have in development services so I'll take any other questions that somebody might have yeah Charlie can you maybe on a very high level just when is the obligation from the residents or developers to pay the development fee is what is it assessed and is it like a net 30 years of due pre before permits what what is what's that process um so on the so we kind of do it two ways there's upfront fees in some cases on the planning side and then these will be collected at a later date on the planning side and then the building permit fees are captured an instrument so you pay up front on the on the planning side and then most of the building permit fees are paid at issuance of the permit so you can't come get their permit until those fees are paid and there's there's three categories there's planning building what's the third category and when is that engineering development is also paid upfront with the exception of simple engineering plans those are have an hourly rate associated with them and those are charged monthly so there's a $3,000 upfront deposit for those and then based on the work of our outside consultant HR green charge an hourly rate monthly for those and then secondary to that what how is the the management of all the different departments coming together to make sure that the recovery rate is 87% is that uniformly broken down into the percentages you showed on that previous side that when they come to planning they're paying 84% of those fees how it seems that we're cross departments on all these fees how do we ensure that we're not being over feed or under feed yes so those are actually all divisions of the development services department so we we help house all those different divisions in our fees and we we report that out as a whole that cost recovery rate monthly okay thank you Mr. Cole thank you chair Charlie do y'all look at other municipalities fees as well like where we stand and you know in comparison yeah so we did have comparisons when we brought this forward back in August the City Council most other cities there there are very few I know Austin is one of them are based on a full cost recovery model like you chose to do here in the city of Bentham many of the other fees in the neighboring Metroplex they have fees that are more similar to what we had prior to going to a cost recovery model they they just have a more of a set fee schedule like we used Mr. Smith here's a chair was oh yeah Charlie I was got same kind of question as as Commissioner Cole but what about on on contemporaries on cost recovery percentages rather than just saying our our fees themselves how they match up I'm sure that differs for municipality municipality based off of size age of infrastructure a number of different factors and that cost recovery model is about mid 80s to almost 90 percent cost recovery is kind of standard I know there are as you said municipalities that are 100 percent cost recovery municipalities but yeah I would I would say that I haven't looked into other cities cost recovery base you know going into their cost and almost they collect in revenue but just based on where we are I would assume that we have a much higher cost recovery rate than other neighboring cities would be we try to be as lean as possible on our cost and on our staffing we have comparable staffing levels to other cities of our size but our rates are higher than those other cities after we follow that that cost recovery model okay the that you said the current was the one that was set in I can't write you said that in the in your conversation but looking back to the presentation you said when was that current before we updated in 2019 when was that that current one where those things on the on the planning side that was last looked at in 1999 okay so man that that amount of that amount of inflation over time to you know from a basically all I get about 52 percent coverage really 16 percent cost recovery on a planning side of things that you know 20 or the yeah 20 years or so that really makes a big difference in the inflation how what are some of the other factors that weigh in to some of these pieces I mean on the planning side it sounds like a lot of that is just wage growth is kind of the biggest factor there is wages increase and the time for hours that are invested in planning staff into that that's where that's the factor that a planning piece that really increases that cost over time and essentially I'm trying to get at Charlie is how long until our approved 2019 fees are going to be out of date or going to be well underfunded and doing Dewey as a commission probably make a recommendation to council of having these fees being being reassessed on a more regular basis than every 20 years yeah so I would I would say as far as the previous fee schedule it's you can't really do an inflation rate or or how we got there because the the time methodology that we use to build our costs this time around weren't used in the previous fee schedule okay 99 I'm assuming that they just looked at other area cities and chose numbers that were comparable to the other cities around us so this this way we went about it this time is completely different than what they built that model on before as far as continued look at it is something that we continue to look at where our cost recovery is and if we see that that dipping then we would we would continue to bring it forward to City Council it was one of the recommendations of matrix continue to look at our fee schedule and not leave it for the next 20 years and pick it back up then so it is something that we look at monthly to see how we compare to what we should be comparing to and it's something that we would definitely need to address if we all the sudden a much lower cost recovery rate than we adopted original I mean just just doing rough math here I mean did you say when the planning I'm sorry did you say when the building fee model had been last updated I said planning was 99 building you know 14 okay I'm assuming that that's probably our largest year-over-year growth and change of fees construction costs going up as well even you probably make that assessment as well yeah they hold the majority of building the building cycle the majority of the pizza back here besides you can see that the total angle for planning is one and a half one point five million on the building side it's it's over eight and a half okay thank you Richard yes I just wanted to add because I think it's also important to note that from sort of the management and operational side we're also looking at ways to be even more efficient in our reviews and so those are things we're continually looking to improve so if there's a way that we can we can lower those fees I mean again we're not in here to make money it was to really recoup those costs and so we're continually looking at ways to be more efficient and so if we can bring some of those fees down certainly that that is something we will also bring forward Commissioner Ellis thank you chair yes when are these fees brought up to the applicant is it at the beginning stages I would assume of the process yeah the fees are discussed typically when we have a pre-application conference most most developments go through the pre-application conferences and at that point they're aware of what fees will be charged based on what we assume will be their development pattern and they get some kind of estimate from the city yeah at that point thanks Charlie is it is it possible to control for any lack of projects due to COVID and gather if this fee structure has reduced interest in development is there been an impact just in industry from pre 2019 to current I know COVID kind of messes some of that up but how has this been received that such a significant increase in development fees I would say it is definitely a shock at first we brought them in on the on the front side during our developer town halls let them know that this was coming forward and this is the way we're going about it and what we're looking at as far as our projects of middles and in our average reviews we haven't seen a drop we've actually seen some increases in activity and development now what whether that would be more it would be a higher increase if not for the fees I'm not sure but we haven't seen a drop off in development so thank you Christian Christian back thank you chair Charlie when when matrix came in and did the development did did they compare I mean it's hard to it's hard to look back at 1999 and follow the same procedure that you did in 2020 but did they did they take an estimate of of that do we know what the sort of I mean because to to Chairman's or Commissioner Smith's you know question it feels a little bit like comparing the the top and bottom of the of the recommendation slide is a little apples and oranges because we may have done things very differently I think we've alluded to that in several of the questions so when the matrix when matrix did their assessment did they use did they estimate what the 1999 recoveries would be using the 2020 methodology no they didn't go back to I'm assuming you mean like activity levels and development and 99 and and use the current fees they didn't they didn't do that okay I'm just you know looking at them you know it it feels like perhaps we're I mean I that we're being a little it's it's I think the comparison that we're trying to do isn't isn't quite valid I mean if those are the costs that it costs us to do planning and development and we have a hundred percent cost recovery model then and unless there's an objection to the methodology that staff and matrix used to to parse parse the salaries and HR benefits and things like that I don't really I understand that it's a shock to some developers but it feels like it's because we were passing those costs on to to general revenue rather than do cost recovery so was the goal in 1999 to have a hundred percent cost recovery in in 1999 no they didn't I haven't seen anywhere that they followed some kind of model based on cost to set those fees in 99 I think the progressive mood forward from whenever fees were originally adopted and slowly incrementally increased over time that they arrived at the 99 fees but it's using our current model that I don't think cost were considered at that point and and when did we have the the professed goal of getting as close as possible to cost recovery I think council brought it up sometime in 2018 that they wanted to have a look at this when budgets budgets were tightening and we understood that there was quite a large subsidy for development to the general fund for our department so we there was that revenue there that was having to be made for made up for with property tax or some other kind of revenue source so they've done this with a number of items impact fees and other other fees that the city charges to try to look more at the the costing level rather than what our current model is or was okay thank you I appreciate it Charlie I have one more question do you have an average cost per project like what do what are people what are people paying to developing and then with this fee I don't have an average costs across the board our fee schedule is online I can give you some examples here so like a preliminary plat is based on lots and that's a range from seven thousand five hundred dollars to seventeen thousand dollars zoning change its zoning change is eight thousand seven hundred dollars roughly do you encounter any stagnation and projects going forward because of this fee specifically is that is that a thing Richard you might know better I'm quite I'm having a because I don't have the headphones on some reverb here so if you can just repeat it I'm sorry I'm probably gonna have to switch the other computer because I can't hear that well no worries I'm happy to repeat has there do these development fees ever halt a project going forward is this is that a thing that they want someone wants to develop but these fees are the reason they don't we haven't we haven't come across that yet there have been some instances where we have some individual I'll give one example and this will probably be one that actually will be one that will revisit for a mobile home to be placed on an on a platted lot it requires an SUP permit and so looking at what would typically go into an SUP review say for a 300 unit multifamily project on five you know four acres five acres is a much more intensive review than it would be for for that lot although there there's not that difference in fees and so I think part of it is going back through the the DDC and identifying some of those instances where we just need to take another look so again as I mentioned those those process improvements we've had some individuals you know want to submit for a rezoning but one of those staffs recommendation up front and and I tell them until until we you submit the application and we review it I can't I can't give you those assurances it's you're gonna have you know a positive recommendation from staff what I can tell you is submit everything that we've asked for and we will look at it as quickly and get those comments back to you but kind of going back to one of the other one of the other questions about how this kind of all came about I think I think it was twofold it was one does the does attack general fund ad valorem continue to subsidize development review but also I think we've come a long way over the last five six seven years how long it took for reviews to get to get through and so part of it was you know providing providing that service making sure you get through as expeditiously as possible efficiently we provide you with those comments so we're not going through seven eight reviews and a plat doesn't take you you know 300 days to get in front of planning and zoning and so it was a combination of all of that as we kind of looked at that in 1819 great thanks question for neta yeah and you kind of slightly touched on this a second ago when you mentioned putting a you know a mobile home I guess my question is is there a place right now where someone would be able to go and kind of get a general idea what their fees are going to be I know that they do basically you know kind of an advisory session with staff so they kind of get an idea of what it's going to cost but say I'm a person who's got an infill lot in town that's already you know zoned and I can build by right is there a place where I could kind of get an idea of what I'm going to wind up having to pay in fees to finally put a put a house on that piece of property absolutely we can do it either through that that pre-application conference if it's just a single-family lot or a single-family house going on that lot there would not be any sort of zoning compliance plan site plan approval for the most part you would probably go straight to building permit there might be some tree preservation review done but that could all be that could all be done at that permit time but those are things that what we've been doing with the pre-application conferences is providing that estimate of fees it's it's usually done after the conference so that way as we have those discussions and get a better grasp of exactly what they want to do we're able to tailor those application types but then in addition provide some time frames as well so coming into it you know what your you have a pretty good estimate of what your fees going to be but also the timeframe that it's going to take you to get through that it's going to get you through the process and I'd say we're pretty pretty accurate on on both but you know there's there's not a resource like online and everything where people could get a ballpark before the pre-application process I guess what I'm asking um I don't I don't believe we we have that I know at one point we we looked at or talked about sort of this fee estimator but I think part of the part of the challenge with that is there's so many variables that could come into play certainly anytime someone calls you know we could provide that pretty pretty quickly okay Commissioner Beck thank you chair I just want to double down on Commissioner Prenettas and I know Richard you said you looked at that but I mean you don't have to you don't have to be legally accurate to have a tool you just have to get within sort of a marginal ballpark and say you know within within generally within 10% or 20% or something this is going to this is this is likely if you run these sliders around or change these on a on an estimator you might save staff actually a lot of time if developers had already sort of done a lot of the legwork for you so that by the time you see it it just goes through like butter so I'm just I'm gonna encourage you to continue to investigate a non contractually binding estimator yeah I think for the planning fees it's pretty straightforward gets complicated I think is when you get into actual construction and the various levels of fixtures and and again there's there's a lot of variables that go more into the on the building side then then the sort of planning application entitlement side all right the only thing I would add this is obviously these fees are in play but I would have I would love to see in the future exploring kind of variable rates here for incentivized projects or de-incentivized projects like I wonder if we raise the the fees on on everything and then we have incentives that give discounts and you could actually maybe cut the subsidies lower by having some uses or projects pay variable rates and then kind of help develop and cultivate different projects in town but I don't know if that's possible but that'd be an interesting conversation have Krishna back thank you chair I forgot to ask I meant to ask this in the meeting did you Charlie did you say what the the cost structure was for matrix to do the analysis I can send that out after I don't recall what their consulting fee was and I I'll just say where where I'm going with this I mean it in terms of regularly reevaluating so that we're more in line with actual costs I mean obviously you don't want to do that so often that that the matrix be the or whoever we we contract is a significant portion of our cost but it might I'd be interested in you know if it's if it's a five million dollar modeling estimate to do all this and you know then and we only save through efficiencies you know five million then then basically that that that's a wash so that that's sort of I'm sure you guys are looking into that sort of thing I'm just curious yeah I want to say that it was what less than 100,000 okay thank you any other questions for Charlie great Charlie thanks for being here and presenting I appreciate it thank you everybody next on the agenda is to go through our regular meeting agenda before I go into that Richard is there any updates on any of these items did he even hear me I did hear additional updates sorry but having issues with unmuting myself all day today well then we'd hop right into it first is they can send agenda let's see do we have any questions to lead this or maybe that's the the best way to start so we can dive into this Christian are back sorry now I'm having new issues um yeah I only had a brief question on A&C and can we go ahead and call Sean Jacobson we'll start we'll start at 3a hello change I could start back do you want to start with your question yeah so this is really brief on that on that property that they have the ESA to the west and it but I know that there's a road that kind of runs diagonal and most of the developments to the east and I just wanted to be clear because I was just a little fuzzy that the impact is there's no drainage or adjacency impacts on the ESA to the west over by the Walmart or Home Depot or whatever it is it's you know I'm assuming the answers no or you wouldn't have recommended it but that that we don't need to do an alt ESA when properties are adjacent only when there's a direct impact on on the ESA is that correct yes that I believe that is accurate and in this case the drainage issues we're looking at have been primarily to the south and not in the south okay there are there is some additional drainage work that's being worked out at CEP but that's gonna be handled but again to the south okay that and and and just I think I was a little fuzzy on my question for for the requirements to develop an alt ESA it's it's not when two properties are adjacent it's it's only when you're doing development on on the ESA itself is that correct when it when your development is actually impacting the ESA the property and so because the drainage is to the south and not to the west that there's no impact is that correct awesome my question on that one is done thank you sir any other questions for Sean on item 3a Christian Ellis hey thanks chair and I'm sorry my dog is going crazy just to clarify on the plat it says temporary access drive to be coordinated which will provide access to Mayhill during construction I'm just curious is is that with the city with a property owner it's the city and the property owner will be working together to determine the best way to handle that through the CEP process okay understood thank you great any other questions for Sean all right thanks Sean is there any questions for item 3b we call markup if there is I do not see any so I'll go ahead and invite Julie Wyatt for presentation of item 3 CFP 21 - 0 0 0 2 a good evening Julie Wyatt let me pull up the presentation chair yes Chris you're back yeah just just a streamline I don't unless the Commission wants a presentation I just have a quick question yeah go for it okay so if the this property has is two turnarounds one on the north and one of the south and it looks on the plat like the north turnaround is overlapping Edwards or whatever the East West Road is to the north is that's very confusing can you describe the layout of that turnaround in conjunction with the north north side road certainly can so they actually worked with engineering on that on that that bulb of that cul-de-sac to actually provide an additional access point for fire so so there are 21 homes within this little section of the preserve and so just to provide additional access to that neighborhood and in if necessary they've actually are going to have a mountable curb in that area and make sure that the fencing is such that if the fire if fire needed to get through in that location they would be able to okay so it it's a day-to-day barrier but not an emergency services barrier you are absolutely correct sir okay and and that's that's I was just confused because one road overlapped the other road and I was like wait why isn't that just an access point so you have clarified my question thank you so much you bet any other questions for Julie great Julie hang on for a little bit we're going right into item 4a FP 21 - 0 0 0 5 this is the first item of individual consideration well Julie's pulling it up real fast I skipped over the minutes is there any comments on the minutes sorry got an order here okay great thanks Julie it's all yours okay so this is for a the gray wolf edition it is for a community of four plexes you might recall this preliminary plat it did come before you recently they have submitted the final plot they still have a few things that they need to work through and so staff does recommend denial of the request they have requested an extension to mark 17th and staff does not have any issue with that and I'll be happy to answer any questions any questions for Julie on this item I do not see any thank you thank you Julie next is item 4b PP 21 - 0 0 0 1 and this is Karina Maldonado's item all right can you guys hear me we can all right I had to double unmute so the item today is PP 21 - 0 0 0 1 this is for the preliminary plot of Airport Road approximately 6.99 acres located on the north side of Airport Road just east of the intersection of Airport Road and precision drive so staff is recommending denial of this request as it does not meet all the criteria for approval however the applicant has requested an extension to the mark 17th meeting and with that we can answer any questions on this item great thank you Karina Commissioner Ellis thank you chair okay so I'm confused on this one just as I was reading through it because it looks like when you read through the analysis the denial is on the the wastewater improvements that are still being done which are 18 to 24 months away so I'm confused at if we grant the extension to March 17th how is that being handled how's that being rectified yep and I'm actually gonna defer to Richard on some of the specific questions related to that and so I'll let him handle those questions try to put it as in simple terms as possible I think part of the challenge is you know one we've got time frames that were were under 31 67 where it really doesn't give us a full amount of time to to if an issue arises to fully study it this is something that just given the amount of growth that we've seen particularly in this in this basin the Hickory Creek Interceptor project is the one the one that is referenced that was it that's a capital project that was set to be under construction we've had obviously some delays with kovat there's there's some archaeological items that they're working through Texas Historic Commission that has caused a delay to some extent in getting that capital project moving but but in looking at just the level and rate of growth that we've had you know and continually adding that to the model it kind of showed there there may be an issue under certain under certain certain conditions in certain areas so it's not that the whole system is bad or down or there's issues it's during some of these potential peak conditions during these heavy rainfall events and under very you know bizarre circumstances but we don't know for for certain and so rather than approve it and hope for the best we kind of took more of a conservative approach and just really let's let's let's look at the model and let's let's look at these these areas where where it is currently showing that there could be issues but really really going through tallying up all of the the existing demand what we have what we have moving forward as far as platting approvals and both those in the hopper and sort of testing those those assumptions making sure that the model is essentially calibrated correctly in addition there's other projects in addition to the the Hickory Creek interceptor phase one and two there's also a project for this basin that will increase detention for those peak facilities and so it's making sure that the model again is taking all of this into account and testing it so we have so we have an accurate depiction what would have been ideal is to just say hey we need to we need to test we need to finish testing this and get a better handle on it and not take you to P&Z unfortunately 3167 doesn't allow for that and we have to cite very specific reasons and so you know of course it's it's a huge probably shock when everyone sees it and and you know as I shared with you the letter and again we're not at that we're not at that point yet it is more of a hey let's let's trust and verify what what our model shows because there may not be an issue or there may be we at this point we don't know but rather than recommend approval and pray for the best again we just wanted to take a more of a conservative approach and and just study it studied a little better unfortunately given the time frames that were stuck with under 3167 which just didn't avail us to to to have that time Christopher Chris Ellis you saw the floor thank you yeah well I'm still confused I guess Richard so I mean what are you gonna get done in 14 days with regard to this continue to continue to test the model you know we certainly if we don't have if we don't have a solution by those 14 days then it will most likely come back as a denial unless there's some other solution temporary solution that that could be developed where maybe there's a detention you know detention on on again the good thing is we're at preliminary plat so we still have to go through CEPs and final plat so there is some there's some time until we get to that full design but without without without knowing for certain again that that's just where we are in those with that with that 14 days the other component to that is and I know Commissioner Beck had had asked that question earlier about fees one thing that the extension does does do is there's not a there's not a resubmittal fee associated with a with an extension and so it buys everybody time it doesn't put I I think there's one or two other items though that still need to be corrected in addition to the to the wastewater issue but this at least buys that time it doesn't it doesn't put an onus on them or an additional fee on them so we're hopeful that we can try to work work work through it if not provide a condition a conditional approval potentially that that could that could address it but again we didn't want to on you know as as this was discovered late you know towards the end of last week it wasn't something we wanted to shoot from the hip and and and and then again be bound under 3167 so you know we took a much more conservative approach and and and just want to just want to again look at it and verify before before we make a a formal formal statement about it okay and then just one last thing um you know that the applicant's letter mentioned moratorium you said that that is not a thing that is not happening we there there are there are in Mac and can add if if if I miss if I misspeak but there's very specific findings that need to occur and we are not at that we're not at that at that point yet at least to to even have to go forward with a recommendation for a for a moratorium Christian are back I believe is next thank you chair so I Richard I think you were mostly answering my question which I'm about to say which I appreciate thank you for being a precious like that so it based on the the daisy chain of projects in the in the area serviced by this drainage and by this wastewater your your models are saying that that that under rare but not unusual conditions we may run over capacity is that what we're essentially saying it's sort of certain certain sections under very certain you know certain events there could be there could be an issue with with line capacity so it's not it's not necessarily a treatment you know it's it's getting it through the getting it through the pipe and I think oh I'm sorry go ahead no no I was it I was gonna say I think given the events of a couple weeks ago we're we're much less willing to tolerate the impacts of rare events so I know that I'm I'm more in favor of being cautious on some of these service issues but then I thought I would follow up sort of a follow-on to both my email and Commissioner Ellis's question there's no fee for extending two weeks but if we end up as you suspect in a denial just because all the ducks are not in a row yet what is the fee structure going forward from a denial under under the current fee structure it is anytime there's a denial there's a there's a 50% it's 50% of the original cost so again anything that would have to change related to that that would that would be something that that council would have to would have to decide okay thank you mr. Anderson thank you chair it seems like we've had a lot of these pushback pushback you know give my extensions stuff is that forgive me if I'm if it's already been talked about but is this just kind of a way that some of these developers are kind of getting a little bit lazy and not doing what staff recommends and then it gets time for the cutoff and they're like hey I'd like the an extension and steps like let's deny it but the but the developer wants an extension because just for them to save money I don't know that it would it's that I think in some instances we have you know complete seminal sometimes there's there's missing information we kind of what we do just before it even gets to P&Z we actually already go through two rounds of reviews that's built into that to that 30 days so we we get the we get the application we provide comments within within a couple days and then they have the ability to resubmit shortly thereafter and then we have a very quick turnaround that's why you see you know sometimes at the meeting you know we're changing it because we're recommending denial so they're they're trying to work work through those work through some of those issues part part of the challenge is just indent alone you know a lot of this is infill there's a there's just a lot of complicated engineering issues that need to be resolved unfortunately the time frame that were allotted you know sometimes we need those you know 45 days or 50 days to get through it but we're just we're just not allowed to we're not allowed to do that okay thanks Richard I was just making sure that these developers aren't just trying to use this as a way to get around a pan that extra 50% again instead of I mean I understand weather issues I mean that's delayed some stuff I get you know I have no doubt but I was just wanting to make sure that this isn't these developers way of just not having to pay more fees and just going hey can we just get an extension and because we didn't do our work the past 30 days no I would honestly say I think the best of the vast majority are really trying to really work work through those work through some of those some of those issues small you know they tend to be some of these larger larger issues or there's other you know it might be an all piece though that's that's related to it so it just it just complicates it right I appreciate Richard thank you any other question on this item I did not see any thanks Karina for calling in and presenting the next item is for CPE 21 - 0 0 0 1 and this is Haley's a Gursky's item good evening let me get the presentation pulled up all right this request is for a plat extension for the residences at razor ranch the property you can see outlined in yellow on the map is about 40 acres some of you may remember we recently had a site plan a consideration for this site in May of last year this preliminary plats was originally approved in July of 2018 that preliminary plan did include a phasing plan that allowed it a little bit longer than the normal two-year or 24 months lifespan but it did indicate that the phase two final plat needed to be approved by March of 2021 the developer it has already submitted that final plan it is in review along with the civil engineering plans but they are concerned that they might come up against that end of March deadline and wanted to be proactive and go ahead and request this six-month extension to ensure that the preliminary plant wouldn't expire you know just shortly before they could reach full approval for the final plat so they did request the extension in adequate time for us to bring that before you all before this expiration occurred and so staff is recommending approval of their six months extension request as they've continued to demonstrate progress towards completion since that initial approval I will pull the slides down and I'm happy to answer any questions just your back was was there any I asked this every single time but is there any clarity on the the pedestrian gated access of Nacogdoches for this property the developers indicated that they're they're amenable to providing a pedestrian gate there I have not specifically looked at their civil engineering plans to see if that's there but they did indicate that they would they would willingly provide that pedestrian access okay otherwise there's full sidewalk connectivity through the neighborhood to Bonnie Bray okay thank you any other questions for Haley great I don't see any more thank you Haley although you might want to stick around just a little bit Haley you know we so Richard both public hearings have been moved oh mute and I've got my two different mice here so it's I'm like why doesn't it click I'm sorry yeah the first one was new what was needed to be renoticed because there was a change there was some land area then that they wanted that was added the the second public hearing the applicant did not get their sign posted so that was that was renoticed in and will be brought back so neither one will even be we don't even need to open or do anything with them no they were because they were they were technically noticed in the newspaper yeah they they'll remain on but no action needs to occur okay Commissioner Beck thank you would it be out of order to ask a question about these because we're delaying them I don't want to ask a question if it's out of order I would think questions related these two items would be most appropriate when they come back to be heard okay then if that's the case then I'll just wait thank you thanks Commissioner Beck well with that that wraps up our agenda for this evening we will meet back at this zoom at 630 to do the regular scheduled meeting for the public with that I will close the work session at 559 thank you good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning meeting for Wednesday March 3rd 2021 seeing that we have a quorum I will call the meeting to order at 623 the first item on the agenda is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flag the other commissioners want to join me they can certainly unmute their mic I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the Texas flag, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state, one state. next item on the agenda for consideration is the minutes from January 20th 2021 second we have first and second for approval any discussion on this seeing none I call for a vote via roll call, Commissioner Ellis, aye, Commissioner Smith, aye, Commissioner Beck, aye, Commissioner Cole, aye, Commissioner Anderson, aye, Commissioner Panetta, aye, Chair is also an aye motion carries 7-0 next item of business is our consent agenda Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval Commissioner Anderson. I second. We have a second for approval that's a first and a second is there any discussion on this item seeing none I call for a vote via roll call, Commissioner Ellis, aye, Commissioner Smith, aye, Commissioner Beck, aye, Commissioner Cole, aye, Commissioner Anderson, aye, Commissioner Panetta, aye, Chair is also an aye motion carries 7-0 the next item of business is item 4A FP21-0005 this item is to be presented by Julie Wyatt and the floor is yours Julie when ready good evening I'm Julie Wyatt let me go ahead and share my screen with you okay so I'm presenting FP21-0005 this is a final plat for the gray wolf edition you may remember this preliminary plat it came before you I believe a couple of months ago they do have some outstanding items that they need to address and so we recommend denial of the request the applicant has requested an extension to the March 17th meeting and staff has no issue with that and I'll be happy to answer any questions for Julie I do not see anyone with questions I appreciate it Julie Commissioner Beck I'll make a motion to approve the extension to a date certain of March 17th perfect Commissioner Panetta I'll second we have a first and a second for granting 30 days extension to a date certain of March 17th 2021 any discussion on this item seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Ellis, aye, Commissioner Smith, aye, Commissioner Beck, aye, Commissioner Cole, aye, Commissioner Anderson, aye, Commissioner Panetta, aye, Chair is also an aye motion carries 7-0 the next item is item 4B PP21-0001 and this item is to be presented by Carina Maldonado which I believe she is on the phone hi can you hear me we can all right good evening everyone Carina Maldonado assistant planner this item is PP21-0001 this is a request for approval of a preliminary plat on Airport Road this is approximately 6.99 acre property located on the north side of Airport Road and is approximately 550 feet east of the intersection of Airport Road and Precision Drive okay staff is recommending denial of the request however we are not opposed to the request for an extension by the applicant to a date certain of March 17th and with that I can take any additional questions I appreciate it Carina is there any questions on this item great seeing none the chair will entertain a motion Commissioner Ellis move approval of the applicant's extension for a date certain of March 17th great Commissioner Smith I'll second we have a first and a second for approval to a 30-day extension of a date certain of March 17th 2021 is there any discussion Commissioner Panetta uh so wait did you say 30-day or it's a 30-day extension but the next meeting within the 30 days is March 17th okay as late as we can bump it is March 17th all right thanks yep any other discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Smith aye Commissioner Beck aye Commissioner Cole aye Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Panetta aye chair is also an aye motion carries 7-0 next item of business is item 4c PE 21-0001 and this item is Haley Zagurski floor is yours Haley all right good evening let me get this pulled up um Haley Zagurski with the planning department the request before you is a plat extension for the residences at Razor Ranch specifically this is a preliminary plat that was approved in July of 2018 for the property outland in yellow on the map it's approximately 40 acres located just north of the Razor Ranch marketplace since that preliminary plat approval the the first phase has been final plotted a site plan for the entire subdivision what's approved by the planning and zoning commission last May and the final plat for phase two has been submitted to staff along with civil engineering plans but the phasing schedule that was approved with the preliminary plat requires that that be finally the final plat for phase two be fully approved by March of 2021 as you all know plat sometimes take more than 30 days so just to avoid that preliminary plat expiring before the final plat can be approved by the PNC they've requested a six month extension and staff is recommending approval of the extension as they've demonstrated continual progress towards completion of the project since that initial approval I'm happy to stand for any questions. Thanks Haley any questions for Haley Mr. Ellis. Thank you chair just a quick question Haley is that six months from today or six months from when that preliminary plat is set to expire. I believe it would be six months from that initial or the, the approved or the, I'm sorry extension, the date that it would expire got tongue tied there so additional six months beyond March. Any other questions. Great seeing none the chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the six month extension. Commissioner Ellis. We have a first and a second to approve the six month extension. Is there any discussion. Seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries seven zero. The next two items on the posted agenda for the public hearings have are going to be renoticed so we are not hearing those two items this evening they will be brought back in full to the planning zoning commission at a later date once the notices have been corrected so look for those upcoming on a future agenda for anyone looking for that discussion this evening, they will be again postponed and brought back on a future agenda. With that that closes out the agenda for this evening minus the last concluding item of the matrix and like always I'll turn it over to Richard for any updates and then to the dais for discussion. Just just a small update I know initially we were I was trying to get the small plan small area plan discussion back on for tonight. Unfortunately, as a result of the snowstorm. We actually had to push the that Hirschbach item. In addition, they held some additional neighborhood meetings. So we wanted to just see wherever, whether or not that project was approved or not if that needs to be, you know, as part of that further discussion. So we would bring that back. I think I had it for April 7. That way we got through council, we have a better idea of what what's being planned. And I think, given some of the earlier discussion just take a more comprehensive look at it and start to have that start to have that discussion. Along with that we'll also be able to provide a little bit more of an update as to where we are on the update to the comprehensive plan. I guess I can you'll be the first to know we're tentatively looking at having a the first community meeting with respect to that the last week of March. I think right now we're looking around March 25th. So that will get firmed up, but just at least wanted to get that out there to to PNC. So that will be coming coming sooner or later. So we are starting to progress with that. Thank you. On that note, you're doing that virtually. It'll be for it'll be virtually. Yes. And Richard, you're doing your updates, right? I am. Yes. Great. Back to you, Chris Ross. Thank you, Chair. Any council updates, but I know there hasn't probably been. Yeah, I know that we had any of the items. We did have an item last night, a municipal utility district. Those typically don't go through. They just require city council consent. And in fact, thinking of those because we've had seemed like we've had a lot in the past. I probably will even add may add that to the matrix if if if PNC is interested, at least to give you an update as to what those what those municipal municipal utility districts are, what they mean, and why we have to consent to them. So I could I could do a quick update, even perhaps next next meeting just to give a kind of a status quo of what what they are and what ones that have been approved and ones that haven't. Thank you, Chair. Richard, we've we've skipped a bunch of things, a bunch of meetings because of the weather and other issues was because of that with with there any automatic approvals that went through while we lapsed the the the items that were actually on consent tonight were some of those items that were scheduled for that that meeting. But what we did was we brought them we did bring they were being recommended for approval anyways. And so we did add those to tonight's agenda. There was a I guess the one council update there was a the emergency order that was put in place did allow for some tolling. And I haven't I haven't done the math yet to to see where that kind of put it. So it might have already told those to to this meeting. I just have not. I haven't done that calculation yet but regardless it was brought back and approved the other individual with respect to Sagebrook. They they were aware of it even though that the tolling did get put in place. They did agree to temporarily withdraw their application to avoid an unnecessary denial or extension so that that will be coming back in the in the near future. There's some issues that that they're they're working through with respect to the that project. Awesome. Thank you. Any other questions for Richard staff or items to add to the matrix. Awesome. I think it's worth noting when I first joined PNC it seemed like we're adding eight things to the matrix every week and that list got long. And so thank you staff for keeping that list short and being proactive, which I think keeps at bay, some of our requests that would have happened so appreciate the effort there. With that, our meeting is officially over and I will close it at six forty five. Thank you. I'll be safe. Thanks.