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.