WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.460 good afternoon ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning and zoning work 00:00:05.460 --> 00:00:09.760 session meeting for Wednesday March 3rd we do have a quorum and I'll call the 00:00:09.760 --> 00:00:15.600 meeting to order at 505 we do not have any citizens comment on the consent 00:00:15.600 --> 00:00:19.680 agenda this evening so we'll move right into our work session report starting 00:00:19.680 --> 00:00:26.340 with a report and discussion regarding the development fees good evening 00:00:26.340 --> 00:00:30.120 Commission Charlie Rosendahl the business services manager for development 00:00:30.120 --> 00:00:36.920 services just going to give you guys a brief overview here of how we arrived at 00:00:36.920 --> 00:00:50.440 our current development fees so just a little background it was 1999 that the 00:00:50.440 --> 00:00:56.600 last fees schedule was adopted prior to our current fee schedule and the last 00:00:56.600 --> 00:01:03.880 building inspections fees schedule was 2014 so back in June of 2019 we had a 00:01:03.880 --> 00:01:09.960 consulting firm called matrix consulting group come out and do a fiscal analysis 00:01:09.960 --> 00:01:17.160 for us and then gave us a cost recovery level of what we were at in our previous 00:01:17.160 --> 00:01:24.060 fees schedule and then in August we had that presentation with City Council to 00:01:24.060 --> 00:01:28.600 show them what the fees and the cost recovery was at that current state and 00:01:28.600 --> 00:01:33.800 then later that year City Council adopted what we have as our current fees 00:01:33.800 --> 00:01:41.200 schedule for development services so the process that matrix took was they came 00:01:41.200 --> 00:01:46.480 in and looked at our existing fees and potential fees they used a time estimate 00:01:46.480 --> 00:01:54.260 for each staff that touches a piece of that fee throughout the process they used 00:01:54.260 --> 00:01:59.800 a fully burned hourly rate for that and then they came up with a cost recovery 00:01:59.800 --> 00:02:04.320 level and any gaps that we had based on our current fees or our previous fees 00:02:04.320 --> 00:02:12.480 set up so that total cost calculation includes direct costs that's the 00:02:12.480 --> 00:02:18.680 salaries benefits of all the employees and then also department overhead costs 00:02:18.680 --> 00:02:22.960 our office supplies the things that it takes to run the department and then 00:02:22.960 --> 00:02:28.720 finally the last piece was the citywide overhead costs that's the contribution 00:02:28.720 --> 00:02:34.280 of the city manager's office and time spent for our department some of the 00:02:34.280 --> 00:02:38.680 other fees that go into running the entire city and what portion of that 00:02:38.680 --> 00:02:43.680 development services has so that's how we got to a fully burdened costs and 00:02:43.680 --> 00:02:49.400 that was applied to an hourly rate for each employee group and ultimately time 00:02:49.400 --> 00:02:54.340 spent for each fee is how they determined a full cost recovery rate for 00:02:54.340 --> 00:03:00.240 that fee after they went through this process they brought that to City 00:03:00.240 --> 00:03:05.640 Council they determined the city was recovering 52% of our total costs at 00:03:05.640 --> 00:03:09.120 that time in the development services department based on the previous fees 00:03:09.120 --> 00:03:17.000 and then we were under collecting almost 5 million dollars so you can see here 00:03:17.000 --> 00:03:21.960 also I'll point out that we have each of the divisions of the department broken 00:03:21.960 --> 00:03:31.000 out here this is annual Aaron or Charlie yeah this is annual okay great so this 00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:35.680 was the recommendation that was taken forward to City Council that current 00:03:35.680 --> 00:03:41.560 there was what they found about 52% cost recovery level and then ultimately they 00:03:41.560 --> 00:03:47.040 proposed that an overall 87% cost recovery level I'll point out here in 00:03:47.040 --> 00:03:51.880 the planning department under our previous fees we were collecting just a 00:03:51.880 --> 00:03:57.120 little under a quarter million dollars a year and that was only a 16% rate of 00:03:57.120 --> 00:04:01.840 recovery now the building safety side had a much higher rate of recovery at 67% 00:04:01.840 --> 00:04:08.760 and then engineering development was was collecting around 31% so you can see 00:04:08.760 --> 00:04:14.600 here in the proposed that those rates were increased quite substantially but 00:04:14.600 --> 00:04:24.960 not all the way up to 100% cost recovery so that that less than 100% that have we 00:04:24.960 --> 00:04:30.360 arrived at that 87% cost recovery rate instead of a fully fully recovering all 00:04:30.360 --> 00:04:35.400 of our cost is the community benefit portion so that there are things that we 00:04:35.400 --> 00:04:41.280 do in the department that benefits the community as a whole and in our specific 00:04:41.280 --> 00:04:47.840 development related costs that go into that these would be things like historic 00:04:47.840 --> 00:04:52.680 landmarks a portion of our neighborhood and principal planning group that does 00:04:52.680 --> 00:04:57.120 like citywide comprehensive planning and all the neighborhood planning 00:04:57.120 --> 00:05:02.440 specifics those were not included and then there were certain benefits that 00:05:02.440 --> 00:05:07.400 city wanted to subsidize city council wanted to subsidize like minor plats 00:05:07.400 --> 00:05:13.120 for residential permits just to take some of that burden off on groups that 00:05:13.120 --> 00:05:19.080 would would it be more impacted by these fees coming forward at a much higher 00:05:19.080 --> 00:05:25.400 rate so things like appeals to ZBA were were subsidized because you don't want 00:05:25.400 --> 00:05:31.200 to inhibit somebody from bringing appeal forward single-family alterations and 00:05:31.200 --> 00:05:35.320 those kind of things were subsidized and then finally the the last subsidy was 00:05:35.320 --> 00:05:42.080 minor permits so rather than charging a fully burdened rate for like a water 00:05:42.080 --> 00:05:47.080 heater replacement or some kind of minor repair like that we chose to bring 00:05:47.080 --> 00:05:51.760 forward a recommendation of a $50 fee for those minor permits that's just to 00:05:51.760 --> 00:05:56.920 ensure compliance and make it easier on a homeowner coming forward we know that 00:05:56.920 --> 00:06:01.200 permits protect so having somebody come in get a permit and have it reviewed by 00:06:01.200 --> 00:06:05.820 us is a is a benefit and as to the safety of our community so we wanted to 00:06:05.820 --> 00:06:11.840 bring that forward as a register Anderson you have a question yes a quick 00:06:11.840 --> 00:06:16.960 question did you say we charge a $50 per minor permit fee if somebody's 00:06:16.960 --> 00:06:22.240 water heater goes out and they need to replace it yes why is that I mean that's 00:06:22.240 --> 00:06:25.040 kind of I think it's kind of ridiculous these people already upset I mean that 00:06:25.040 --> 00:06:30.600 they're already hurting oh currently currently the city is waived all fees 00:06:30.600 --> 00:06:34.960 related to anything that happened as a result of the storm for plumbing repairs 00:06:34.960 --> 00:06:39.160 or any of those associated fees so that's that $50 fee isn't currently in 00:06:39.160 --> 00:06:43.760 effect this is under normal circumstances this would be like a minor 00:06:43.760 --> 00:06:50.600 plumbing repair or something of that nature it would just have the $50 fee I 00:06:50.600 --> 00:06:54.280 still don't understand why we would charge a $50 fee for somebody having to 00:06:54.280 --> 00:06:59.760 replace a water heater I believe it's there's an inspection involved for it so 00:06:59.760 --> 00:07:05.120 there's there is some work on the city side that goes into it but that was the 00:07:05.120 --> 00:07:18.320 minor $50 fee all right thanks any other questions on this slide so after we had 00:07:18.320 --> 00:07:23.000 the presentation with City Council in August of that year we adopted our 00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:28.840 current fee schedule in September and that went into effect in October of 2019 00:07:28.840 --> 00:07:35.240 that's the the fee schedule that we currently have in development services so 00:07:35.240 --> 00:07:40.720 I'll take any other questions that somebody might have yeah Charlie can you 00:07:40.720 --> 00:07:48.280 maybe on a very high level just when is the obligation from the residents or 00:07:48.280 --> 00:07:54.640 developers to pay the development fee is what is it assessed and is it like a net 00:07:54.640 --> 00:08:03.560 30 years of due pre before permits what what is what's that process um so on the 00:08:03.560 --> 00:08:12.400 so we kind of do it two ways there's upfront fees in some cases on the 00:08:12.400 --> 00:08:19.280 planning side and then these will be collected at a later date on the planning 00:08:19.280 --> 00:08:23.920 side and then the building permit fees are captured an instrument so you pay 00:08:23.920 --> 00:08:27.320 up front on the on the planning side and then most of the building permit fees 00:08:27.320 --> 00:08:30.840 are paid at issuance of the permit so you can't come get their permit until 00:08:30.840 --> 00:08:34.160 those fees are paid and there's there's three categories there's planning 00:08:34.160 --> 00:08:38.880 building what's the third category and when is that engineering development is 00:08:38.880 --> 00:08:45.160 also paid upfront with the exception of simple engineering plans those are have 00:08:45.160 --> 00:08:49.240 an hourly rate associated with them and those are charged monthly so there's a 00:08:49.240 --> 00:08:54.480 $3,000 upfront deposit for those and then based on the work of our outside 00:08:54.480 --> 00:09:01.480 consultant HR green charge an hourly rate monthly for those and then 00:09:01.480 --> 00:09:06.720 secondary to that what how is the the management of all the different 00:09:06.720 --> 00:09:11.000 departments coming together to make sure that the recovery rate is 87% is that 00:09:11.000 --> 00:09:13.960 uniformly broken down into the percentages you showed on that previous 00:09:13.960 --> 00:09:19.080 side that when they come to planning they're paying 84% of those fees how 00:09:19.080 --> 00:09:24.260 it seems that we're cross departments on all these fees how do we ensure that 00:09:24.260 --> 00:09:28.520 we're not being over feed or under feed yes so those are actually all divisions 00:09:28.520 --> 00:09:33.160 of the development services department so we we help house all those different 00:09:33.160 --> 00:09:39.480 divisions in our fees and we we report that out as a whole that cost recovery 00:09:39.480 --> 00:09:50.480 rate monthly okay thank you Mr. Cole thank you chair Charlie do y'all look at 00:09:50.480 --> 00:09:56.360 other municipalities fees as well like where we stand and you know in 00:09:56.360 --> 00:10:01.000 comparison yeah so we did have comparisons when we brought this forward 00:10:01.000 --> 00:10:07.280 back in August the City Council most other cities there there are very few I 00:10:07.280 --> 00:10:11.660 know Austin is one of them are based on a full cost recovery model like you 00:10:11.660 --> 00:10:17.040 chose to do here in the city of Bentham many of the other fees in the 00:10:17.040 --> 00:10:22.160 neighboring Metroplex they have fees that are more similar to what we had 00:10:22.160 --> 00:10:30.320 prior to going to a cost recovery model they they just have a more of a set fee 00:10:30.320 --> 00:10:33.520 schedule like we used 00:10:37.520 --> 00:10:47.620 Mr. Smith here's a chair was oh yeah Charlie I was got same kind of question 00:10:47.620 --> 00:10:54.000 as as Commissioner Cole but what about on on contemporaries on cost recovery 00:10:54.000 --> 00:10:58.360 percentages rather than just saying our our fees themselves how they match up 00:10:58.360 --> 00:11:02.760 I'm sure that differs for municipality municipality based off of size age of 00:11:02.760 --> 00:11:06.560 infrastructure a number of different factors and that cost recovery model is 00:11:06.560 --> 00:11:11.680 about mid 80s to almost 90 percent cost recovery is kind of standard I know 00:11:11.680 --> 00:11:15.240 there are as you said municipalities that are 100 percent cost recovery 00:11:15.240 --> 00:11:20.960 municipalities but yeah I would I would say that I haven't looked into other 00:11:20.960 --> 00:11:26.560 cities cost recovery base you know going into their cost and almost they collect 00:11:26.560 --> 00:11:32.280 in revenue but just based on where we are I would assume that we have a much 00:11:32.280 --> 00:11:37.800 higher cost recovery rate than other neighboring cities would be we try to be 00:11:37.800 --> 00:11:43.640 as lean as possible on our cost and on our staffing we have comparable staffing 00:11:43.640 --> 00:11:49.080 levels to other cities of our size but our rates are higher than those other 00:11:49.080 --> 00:11:57.200 cities after we follow that that cost recovery model okay the that you said 00:11:57.200 --> 00:12:03.160 the current was the one that was set in I can't write you said that in the in 00:12:03.160 --> 00:12:06.640 your conversation but looking back to the presentation you said when was that 00:12:06.640 --> 00:12:11.360 current before we updated in 2019 when was that that current one where those 00:12:11.360 --> 00:12:19.160 things on the on the planning side that was last looked at in 1999 okay so man 00:12:19.160 --> 00:12:24.280 that that amount of that amount of inflation over time to you know from a 00:12:24.280 --> 00:12:31.280 basically all I get about 52 percent coverage really 16 percent cost recovery 00:12:31.280 --> 00:12:38.560 on a planning side of things that you know 20 or the yeah 20 years or so that 00:12:38.560 --> 00:12:41.880 really makes a big difference in the inflation how what are some of the other 00:12:41.880 --> 00:12:47.600 factors that weigh in to some of these pieces I mean on the planning side it 00:12:47.600 --> 00:12:51.200 sounds like a lot of that is just wage growth is kind of the biggest factor 00:12:51.200 --> 00:12:55.760 there is wages increase and the time for hours that are invested in planning 00:12:55.760 --> 00:13:00.200 staff into that that's where that's the factor that a planning piece that really 00:13:00.200 --> 00:13:03.320 increases that cost over time and essentially I'm trying to get at Charlie 00:13:03.320 --> 00:13:11.320 is how long until our approved 2019 fees are going to be out of date or going to 00:13:11.320 --> 00:13:16.000 be well underfunded and doing Dewey as a commission probably make a 00:13:16.000 --> 00:13:20.040 recommendation to council of having these fees being being reassessed on a 00:13:20.040 --> 00:13:25.720 more regular basis than every 20 years yeah so I would I would say as far as 00:13:25.720 --> 00:13:31.920 the previous fee schedule it's you can't really do an inflation rate or or how 00:13:31.920 --> 00:13:37.040 we got there because the the time methodology that we use to build our 00:13:37.040 --> 00:13:43.800 costs this time around weren't used in the previous fee schedule okay 99 I'm 00:13:43.800 --> 00:13:49.240 assuming that they just looked at other area cities and chose numbers that were 00:13:49.240 --> 00:13:54.380 comparable to the other cities around us so this this way we went about it this 00:13:54.380 --> 00:13:59.880 time is completely different than what they built that model on before as far 00:13:59.880 --> 00:14:04.400 as continued look at it is something that we continue to look at where our 00:14:04.400 --> 00:14:10.440 cost recovery is and if we see that that dipping then we would we would continue 00:14:10.440 --> 00:14:14.120 to bring it forward to City Council it was one of the recommendations of 00:14:14.120 --> 00:14:18.680 matrix continue to look at our fee schedule and not leave it for the next 00:14:18.680 --> 00:14:23.480 20 years and pick it back up then so it is something that we look at monthly to 00:14:23.480 --> 00:14:27.400 see how we compare to what we should be comparing to and it's something that we 00:14:27.400 --> 00:14:31.400 would definitely need to address if we all the sudden a much lower cost 00:14:31.400 --> 00:14:39.360 recovery rate than we adopted original I mean just just doing rough math here I 00:14:39.360 --> 00:14:44.040 mean did you say when the planning I'm sorry did you say when the building fee 00:14:44.040 --> 00:14:50.000 model had been last updated I said planning was 99 building you know 00:14:50.000 --> 00:14:56.280 14 okay I'm assuming that that's probably our largest year-over-year growth 00:14:56.280 --> 00:15:01.040 and change of fees construction costs going up as well even you probably make 00:15:01.040 --> 00:15:04.720 that assessment as well yeah they hold the majority of building the building 00:15:04.720 --> 00:15:10.440 cycle the majority of the pizza back here besides you can see that the total 00:15:10.440 --> 00:15:18.040 angle for planning is one and a half one point five million on the building side 00:15:18.040 --> 00:15:22.000 it's it's over eight and a half 00:15:22.000 --> 00:15:31.000 okay thank you Richard yes I just wanted to add because I think it's also 00:15:31.000 --> 00:15:35.600 important to note that from sort of the management and operational side we're 00:15:35.600 --> 00:15:40.200 also looking at ways to be even more efficient in our reviews and so those 00:15:40.200 --> 00:15:44.440 are things we're continually looking to improve so if there's a way that we can 00:15:44.440 --> 00:15:48.880 we can lower those fees I mean again we're not in here to make money it was 00:15:48.880 --> 00:15:52.760 to really recoup those costs and so we're continually looking at ways to be 00:15:52.760 --> 00:15:57.020 more efficient and so if we can bring some of those fees down certainly that 00:15:57.020 --> 00:16:02.960 that is something we will also bring forward Commissioner Ellis thank you 00:16:02.960 --> 00:16:07.800 chair yes when are these fees brought up to the applicant is it at the beginning 00:16:07.800 --> 00:16:14.240 stages I would assume of the process yeah the fees are discussed typically 00:16:14.240 --> 00:16:18.440 when we have a pre-application conference most most developments go 00:16:18.440 --> 00:16:22.800 through the pre-application conferences and at that point they're aware of what 00:16:22.800 --> 00:16:27.600 fees will be charged based on what we assume will be their development pattern 00:16:27.600 --> 00:16:35.840 and they get some kind of estimate from the city yeah at that point thanks 00:16:36.680 --> 00:16:43.840 Charlie is it is it possible to control for any lack of projects due to COVID 00:16:43.840 --> 00:16:50.760 and gather if this fee structure has reduced interest in development is there 00:16:50.760 --> 00:16:59.080 been an impact just in industry from pre 2019 to current I know COVID kind of 00:16:59.080 --> 00:17:03.360 messes some of that up but how has this been received that such a significant 00:17:03.360 --> 00:17:09.400 increase in development fees I would say it is definitely a shock at first we 00:17:09.400 --> 00:17:13.440 brought them in on the on the front side during our developer town halls let them 00:17:13.440 --> 00:17:17.080 know that this was coming forward and this is the way we're going about it and 00:17:17.080 --> 00:17:22.040 what we're looking at as far as our projects of middles and in our average 00:17:22.040 --> 00:17:26.760 reviews we haven't seen a drop we've actually seen some increases in 00:17:26.760 --> 00:17:33.240 activity and development now what whether that would be more it would be a higher 00:17:33.240 --> 00:17:37.200 increase if not for the fees I'm not sure but we haven't seen a drop off in 00:17:37.200 --> 00:17:44.720 development so thank you Christian Christian back thank you chair Charlie 00:17:44.720 --> 00:17:52.920 when when matrix came in and did the development did did they compare I mean 00:17:52.920 --> 00:17:58.400 it's hard to it's hard to look back at 1999 and follow the same procedure that 00:17:58.400 --> 00:18:06.160 you did in 2020 but did they did they take an estimate of of that do we know 00:18:06.160 --> 00:18:11.520 what the sort of I mean because to to Chairman's or Commissioner Smith's you 00:18:11.520 --> 00:18:16.880 know question it feels a little bit like comparing the the top and bottom of the 00:18:16.880 --> 00:18:23.800 of the recommendation slide is a little apples and oranges because we may have 00:18:23.800 --> 00:18:27.800 done things very differently I think we've alluded to that in several of the 00:18:27.800 --> 00:18:34.840 questions so when the matrix when matrix did their assessment did they use did 00:18:34.840 --> 00:18:45.360 they estimate what the 1999 recoveries would be using the 2020 methodology no 00:18:45.360 --> 00:18:50.480 they didn't go back to I'm assuming you mean like activity levels and 00:18:50.480 --> 00:18:55.320 development and 99 and and use the current fees they didn't they didn't do 00:18:55.320 --> 00:19:04.640 that okay I'm just you know looking at them you know it it feels like perhaps 00:19:04.640 --> 00:19:09.920 we're I mean I that we're being a little it's it's I think the comparison that 00:19:09.920 --> 00:19:13.920 we're trying to do isn't isn't quite valid I mean if those are the costs that 00:19:13.920 --> 00:19:18.000 it costs us to do planning and development and we have a hundred 00:19:18.000 --> 00:19:22.720 percent cost recovery model then and unless there's an objection to the 00:19:22.720 --> 00:19:30.540 methodology that staff and matrix used to to parse parse the salaries and HR 00:19:30.540 --> 00:19:35.360 benefits and things like that I don't really I understand that it's a shock to 00:19:35.360 --> 00:19:42.240 some developers but it feels like it's because we were passing those costs on 00:19:42.240 --> 00:19:51.360 to to general revenue rather than do cost recovery so was the goal in 1999 to 00:19:51.360 --> 00:19:59.360 have a hundred percent cost recovery in in 1999 no they didn't I haven't seen 00:19:59.360 --> 00:20:03.760 anywhere that they followed some kind of model based on cost to set those fees in 00:20:03.760 --> 00:20:09.080 99 I think the progressive mood forward from whenever fees were originally 00:20:09.080 --> 00:20:14.640 adopted and slowly incrementally increased over time that they arrived at 00:20:14.640 --> 00:20:21.680 the 99 fees but it's using our current model that I don't think cost were 00:20:21.680 --> 00:20:27.160 considered at that point and and when did we have the the professed goal of 00:20:27.160 --> 00:20:34.840 getting as close as possible to cost recovery I think council brought it up 00:20:34.840 --> 00:20:41.400 sometime in 2018 that they wanted to have a look at this when budgets 00:20:41.400 --> 00:20:46.440 budgets were tightening and we understood that there was quite a large 00:20:46.440 --> 00:20:53.960 subsidy for development to the general fund for our department so we there was 00:20:53.960 --> 00:20:57.840 that revenue there that was having to be made for made up for with property tax 00:20:57.840 --> 00:21:03.480 or some other kind of revenue source so they've done this with a number of items 00:21:03.480 --> 00:21:09.560 impact fees and other other fees that the city charges to try to look more at 00:21:09.560 --> 00:21:16.400 the the costing level rather than what our current model is or was okay thank 00:21:16.400 --> 00:21:22.120 you I appreciate it Charlie I have one more question do you have an average 00:21:22.120 --> 00:21:27.280 cost per project like what do what are people what are people paying to 00:21:27.280 --> 00:21:34.520 developing and then with this fee I don't have an average costs across the 00:21:34.520 --> 00:21:48.960 board our fee schedule is online I can give you some examples here so like a 00:21:48.960 --> 00:21:54.600 preliminary plat is based on lots and that's a range from seven thousand five 00:21:54.600 --> 00:22:02.160 hundred dollars to seventeen thousand dollars zoning change 00:22:17.240 --> 00:22:25.160 its zoning change is eight thousand seven hundred dollars roughly do you 00:22:25.160 --> 00:22:31.080 encounter any stagnation and projects going forward because of this fee 00:22:31.080 --> 00:22:35.480 specifically is that is that a thing 00:22:35.480 --> 00:22:42.640 Richard you might know better I'm quite I'm having a because I don't have the 00:22:42.640 --> 00:22:47.940 headphones on some reverb here so if you can just repeat it I'm sorry I'm 00:22:47.940 --> 00:22:50.280 probably gonna have to switch the other computer because I can't hear that well 00:22:50.280 --> 00:22:56.820 no worries I'm happy to repeat has there do these development fees ever halt a 00:22:56.820 --> 00:23:01.040 project going forward is this is that a thing that they want someone wants to 00:23:01.040 --> 00:23:05.920 develop but these fees are the reason they don't we haven't we haven't come 00:23:05.920 --> 00:23:11.800 across that yet there have been some instances where we have some individual 00:23:11.800 --> 00:23:16.040 I'll give one example and this will probably be one that actually will be 00:23:16.040 --> 00:23:23.680 one that will revisit for a mobile home to be placed on an on a platted lot it 00:23:23.680 --> 00:23:28.920 requires an SUP permit and so looking at what would typically go into an SUP 00:23:28.920 --> 00:23:35.040 review say for a 300 unit multifamily project on five you know four acres five 00:23:35.040 --> 00:23:39.960 acres is a much more intensive review than it would be for for that lot 00:23:39.960 --> 00:23:43.920 although there there's not that difference in fees and so I think part 00:23:43.920 --> 00:23:48.920 of it is going back through the the DDC and identifying some of those instances 00:23:48.920 --> 00:23:53.040 where we just need to take another look so again as I mentioned those those 00:23:53.040 --> 00:23:59.840 process improvements we've had some individuals you know want to submit for 00:23:59.840 --> 00:24:04.680 a rezoning but one of those staffs recommendation up front and and I tell 00:24:04.680 --> 00:24:09.000 them until until we you submit the application and we review it I can't I 00:24:09.000 --> 00:24:12.760 can't give you those assurances it's you're gonna have you know a positive 00:24:12.760 --> 00:24:16.640 recommendation from staff what I can tell you is submit everything that we've 00:24:16.640 --> 00:24:22.080 asked for and we will look at it as quickly and get those comments back to 00:24:22.080 --> 00:24:26.160 you but kind of going back to one of the other one of the other questions about 00:24:26.160 --> 00:24:31.200 how this kind of all came about I think I think it was twofold it was one does 00:24:31.200 --> 00:24:36.440 the does attack general fund ad valorem continue to subsidize development 00:24:36.440 --> 00:24:42.280 review but also I think we've come a long way over the last five six seven 00:24:42.280 --> 00:24:47.320 years how long it took for reviews to get to get through and so part of it was 00:24:47.320 --> 00:24:51.340 you know providing providing that service making sure you get through as 00:24:51.340 --> 00:24:55.400 expeditiously as possible efficiently we provide you with those comments so 00:24:55.400 --> 00:25:00.040 we're not going through seven eight reviews and a plat doesn't take you you 00:25:00.040 --> 00:25:04.680 know 300 days to get in front of planning and zoning and so it was a 00:25:04.680 --> 00:25:10.400 combination of all of that as we kind of looked at that in 1819 great thanks 00:25:10.400 --> 00:25:14.960 question for neta yeah and you kind of slightly touched on this a second ago 00:25:14.960 --> 00:25:20.360 when you mentioned putting a you know a mobile home I guess my question is is 00:25:20.360 --> 00:25:26.080 there a place right now where someone would be able to go and kind of get a 00:25:26.080 --> 00:25:29.920 general idea what their fees are going to be I know that they do basically you 00:25:29.920 --> 00:25:33.400 know kind of an advisory session with staff so they kind of get an idea of 00:25:33.400 --> 00:25:37.880 what it's going to cost but say I'm a person who's got an infill lot in town 00:25:37.880 --> 00:25:42.080 that's already you know zoned and I can build by right is there a place where I 00:25:42.080 --> 00:25:45.800 could kind of get an idea of what I'm going to wind up having to pay in fees 00:25:45.800 --> 00:25:52.880 to finally put a put a house on that piece of property absolutely we can do 00:25:52.880 --> 00:25:56.320 it either through that that pre-application conference if it's just a 00:25:56.320 --> 00:26:00.520 single-family lot or a single-family house going on that lot there would not 00:26:00.520 --> 00:26:05.520 be any sort of zoning compliance plan site plan approval for the most part you 00:26:05.520 --> 00:26:09.760 would probably go straight to building permit there might be some tree 00:26:09.760 --> 00:26:12.860 preservation review done but that could all be that could all be done at that 00:26:12.860 --> 00:26:16.600 permit time but those are things that what we've been doing with the 00:26:16.600 --> 00:26:20.880 pre-application conferences is providing that estimate of fees it's 00:26:20.880 --> 00:26:25.780 it's usually done after the conference so that way as we have those discussions 00:26:25.780 --> 00:26:29.680 and get a better grasp of exactly what they want to do we're able to tailor 00:26:29.680 --> 00:26:34.120 those application types but then in addition provide some time frames as 00:26:34.120 --> 00:26:38.440 well so coming into it you know what your you have a pretty good estimate of 00:26:38.440 --> 00:26:41.440 what your fees going to be but also the timeframe that it's going to take you to 00:26:41.440 --> 00:26:44.200 get through that it's going to get you through the process and I'd say we're 00:26:44.200 --> 00:26:49.640 pretty pretty accurate on on both but you know there's there's not a resource 00:26:49.640 --> 00:26:53.200 like online and everything where people could get a ballpark before the 00:26:53.200 --> 00:26:57.440 pre-application process I guess what I'm asking um I don't I don't believe we we 00:26:57.440 --> 00:27:00.880 have that I know at one point we we looked at or talked about sort of this 00:27:00.880 --> 00:27:04.520 fee estimator but I think part of the part of the challenge with that is 00:27:04.520 --> 00:27:09.280 there's so many variables that could come into play certainly anytime 00:27:09.280 --> 00:27:16.040 someone calls you know we could provide that pretty pretty quickly okay 00:27:16.040 --> 00:27:22.640 Commissioner Beck thank you chair I just want to double down on Commissioner 00:27:22.640 --> 00:27:28.840 Prenettas and I know Richard you said you looked at that but I mean you don't 00:27:28.840 --> 00:27:34.440 have to you don't have to be legally accurate to have a tool you just have to 00:27:34.440 --> 00:27:41.000 get within sort of a marginal ballpark and say you know within within generally 00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:45.960 within 10% or 20% or something this is going to this is this is likely if you 00:27:45.960 --> 00:27:52.000 run these sliders around or change these on a on an estimator you might save 00:27:52.000 --> 00:27:56.720 staff actually a lot of time if developers had already sort of done a 00:27:56.720 --> 00:28:02.080 lot of the legwork for you so that by the time you see it it just goes through 00:28:02.080 --> 00:28:06.360 like butter so I'm just I'm gonna encourage you to continue to investigate 00:28:06.360 --> 00:28:15.920 a non contractually binding estimator yeah I think for the planning fees it's 00:28:15.920 --> 00:28:20.080 pretty straightforward gets complicated I think is when you get into actual 00:28:20.080 --> 00:28:25.760 construction and the various levels of fixtures and and again there's there's 00:28:25.760 --> 00:28:32.000 a lot of variables that go more into the on the building side then then the sort 00:28:32.000 --> 00:28:40.960 of planning application entitlement side all right the only thing I would add this 00:28:40.960 --> 00:28:45.360 is obviously these fees are in play but I would have I would love to see in the 00:28:45.360 --> 00:28:50.160 future exploring kind of variable rates here for incentivized projects or 00:28:50.160 --> 00:28:55.040 de-incentivized projects like I wonder if we raise the the fees on on 00:28:55.040 --> 00:28:59.520 everything and then we have incentives that give discounts and you could 00:28:59.520 --> 00:29:06.040 actually maybe cut the subsidies lower by having some uses or projects pay 00:29:06.040 --> 00:29:10.480 variable rates and then kind of help develop and cultivate different projects 00:29:10.480 --> 00:29:13.600 in town but I don't know if that's possible but that'd be an interesting 00:29:13.600 --> 00:29:19.280 conversation have Krishna back thank you chair I forgot to ask I meant to ask this 00:29:19.280 --> 00:29:26.680 in the meeting did you Charlie did you say what the the cost structure was for 00:29:26.680 --> 00:29:39.080 matrix to do the analysis I can send that out after I don't recall what their 00:29:39.080 --> 00:29:43.880 consulting fee was and I I'll just say where where I'm going with this I mean 00:29:43.880 --> 00:29:48.960 it in terms of regularly reevaluating so that we're more in line with actual 00:29:48.960 --> 00:29:53.780 costs I mean obviously you don't want to do that so often that that the matrix be 00:29:53.780 --> 00:30:03.520 the or whoever we we contract is a significant portion of our cost but it 00:30:03.520 --> 00:30:07.920 might I'd be interested in you know if it's if it's a five million dollar 00:30:07.920 --> 00:30:14.880 modeling estimate to do all this and you know then and we only save through 00:30:14.880 --> 00:30:20.040 efficiencies you know five million then then basically that that that's a wash 00:30:20.040 --> 00:30:25.920 so that that's sort of I'm sure you guys are looking into that sort of thing I'm 00:30:25.920 --> 00:30:39.720 just curious yeah I want to say that it was what less than 100,000 okay thank 00:30:39.720 --> 00:30:46.800 you any other questions for Charlie great Charlie thanks for being here and 00:30:46.800 --> 00:30:53.080 presenting I appreciate it thank you everybody next on the agenda is to go 00:30:53.080 --> 00:30:56.880 through our regular meeting agenda before I go into that Richard is there 00:30:56.880 --> 00:31:08.320 any updates on any of these items did he even hear me I did hear additional 00:31:08.320 --> 00:31:15.000 updates sorry but having issues with unmuting myself all day today well then 00:31:15.000 --> 00:31:20.600 we'd hop right into it first is they can send agenda let's see do we have any 00:31:20.600 --> 00:31:26.680 questions to lead this or maybe that's the the best way to start so we can dive 00:31:26.680 --> 00:31:35.160 into this Christian are back sorry now I'm having new issues um yeah I only had 00:31:35.160 --> 00:31:45.920 a brief question on A&C and can we go ahead and call Sean Jacobson we'll start 00:31:45.920 --> 00:32:11.240 we'll start at 3a hello change I could start back do you want to start with your 00:32:11.240 --> 00:32:15.540 question yeah so this is really brief on that on that property that they have the 00:32:15.540 --> 00:32:22.640 ESA to the west and it but I know that there's a road that kind of runs diagonal 00:32:22.640 --> 00:32:26.760 and most of the developments to the east and I just wanted to be clear because I 00:32:26.760 --> 00:32:38.040 was just a little fuzzy that the impact is there's no drainage or adjacency 00:32:38.040 --> 00:32:43.680 impacts on the ESA to the west over by the Walmart or Home Depot or whatever it 00:32:43.680 --> 00:32:48.320 is it's you know I'm assuming the answers no or you wouldn't have 00:32:48.320 --> 00:32:53.520 recommended it but that that we don't need to do an alt ESA when properties 00:32:53.520 --> 00:33:01.280 are adjacent only when there's a direct impact on on the ESA is that correct yes 00:33:01.280 --> 00:33:06.320 that I believe that is accurate and in this case the drainage issues we're 00:33:06.320 --> 00:33:12.280 looking at have been primarily to the south and not in the south okay there 00:33:12.280 --> 00:33:16.120 are there is some additional drainage work that's being worked out at CEP but 00:33:16.120 --> 00:33:22.560 that's gonna be handled but again to the south okay that and and and just I think 00:33:22.560 --> 00:33:28.840 I was a little fuzzy on my question for for the requirements to develop an alt 00:33:28.840 --> 00:33:34.600 ESA it's it's not when two properties are adjacent it's it's only when you're 00:33:34.600 --> 00:33:38.920 doing development on on the ESA itself is that correct when it when your 00:33:38.920 --> 00:33:42.940 development is actually impacting the ESA the property and so because the 00:33:42.940 --> 00:33:46.760 drainage is to the south and not to the west that there's no impact is that 00:33:46.760 --> 00:33:52.120 correct awesome my question on that one is done thank you sir any other questions 00:33:52.120 --> 00:34:01.200 for Sean on item 3a Christian Ellis hey thanks chair and I'm sorry my dog is 00:34:01.200 --> 00:34:08.320 going crazy just to clarify on the plat it says temporary access drive to be 00:34:08.320 --> 00:34:13.160 coordinated which will provide access to Mayhill during construction I'm just 00:34:13.160 --> 00:34:20.680 curious is is that with the city with a property owner it's the city and the 00:34:20.680 --> 00:34:24.360 property owner will be working together to determine the best way to handle that 00:34:24.360 --> 00:34:31.800 through the CEP process okay understood thank you great any other questions for 00:34:31.800 --> 00:34:40.240 Sean all right thanks Sean is there any questions for item 3b we call markup if 00:34:40.240 --> 00:34:49.360 there is I do not see any so I'll go ahead and invite Julie Wyatt for 00:34:49.360 --> 00:34:55.360 presentation of item 3 CFP 21 - 0 0 0 2 a 00:35:02.800 --> 00:35:13.400 good evening Julie Wyatt let me pull up the presentation chair yes Chris you're 00:35:13.400 --> 00:35:18.120 back yeah just just a streamline I don't unless the Commission wants a 00:35:18.120 --> 00:35:23.880 presentation I just have a quick question yeah go for it okay so if the 00:35:23.880 --> 00:35:28.440 this property has is two turnarounds one on the north and one of the south and it 00:35:28.440 --> 00:35:34.880 looks on the plat like the north turnaround is overlapping Edwards or 00:35:34.880 --> 00:35:39.920 whatever the East West Road is to the north is that's very confusing can you 00:35:39.920 --> 00:35:44.360 describe the layout of that turnaround in conjunction with the north north side 00:35:44.360 --> 00:35:50.320 road certainly can so they actually worked with engineering on that on that 00:35:50.320 --> 00:35:57.040 that bulb of that cul-de-sac to actually provide an additional access point for 00:35:57.040 --> 00:36:02.440 fire so so there are 21 homes within this little section of the preserve and 00:36:02.440 --> 00:36:08.680 so just to provide additional access to that neighborhood and in if necessary 00:36:08.680 --> 00:36:14.400 they've actually are going to have a mountable curb in that area and make 00:36:14.400 --> 00:36:18.120 sure that the fencing is such that if the fire if fire needed to get through 00:36:18.120 --> 00:36:26.760 in that location they would be able to okay so it it's a day-to-day barrier but 00:36:26.760 --> 00:36:33.000 not an emergency services barrier you are absolutely correct sir okay and and 00:36:33.000 --> 00:36:37.640 that's that's I was just confused because one road overlapped the other 00:36:37.640 --> 00:36:41.280 road and I was like wait why isn't that just an access point so you have 00:36:41.280 --> 00:36:48.120 clarified my question thank you so much you bet any other questions for Julie 00:36:48.120 --> 00:36:55.640 great Julie hang on for a little bit we're going right into item 4a FP 21 - 00:36:55.640 --> 00:37:02.120 0 0 0 5 this is the first item of individual consideration well Julie's 00:37:02.120 --> 00:37:06.320 pulling it up real fast I skipped over the minutes is there any comments on the 00:37:06.320 --> 00:37:15.160 minutes sorry got an order here okay great thanks Julie it's all yours okay 00:37:15.160 --> 00:37:25.180 so this is for a the gray wolf edition it is for a community of four plexes you 00:37:25.180 --> 00:37:29.620 might recall this preliminary plat it did come before you recently they have 00:37:29.620 --> 00:37:32.120 submitted the final plot they still have a few things that they need to work 00:37:32.120 --> 00:37:36.000 through and so staff does recommend denial of the request they have 00:37:36.000 --> 00:37:41.120 requested an extension to mark 17th and staff does not have any issue with that 00:37:41.120 --> 00:37:47.400 and I'll be happy to answer any questions any questions for Julie on this 00:37:47.400 --> 00:37:58.040 item I do not see any thank you thank you Julie next is item 4b PP 21 - 0 0 0 1 00:37:58.040 --> 00:38:06.080 and this is Karina Maldonado's item all right can you guys hear me we can all 00:38:06.080 --> 00:38:13.740 right I had to double unmute so the item today is PP 21 - 0 0 0 1 this is for the 00:38:13.740 --> 00:38:20.720 preliminary plot of Airport Road approximately 6.99 acres located on the 00:38:20.720 --> 00:38:27.040 north side of Airport Road just east of the intersection of Airport Road and 00:38:27.040 --> 00:38:32.760 precision drive so staff is recommending denial of this request as it does not 00:38:32.760 --> 00:38:38.440 meet all the criteria for approval however the applicant has requested an 00:38:38.440 --> 00:38:43.360 extension to the mark 17th meeting and with that we can answer any questions on 00:38:43.360 --> 00:38:51.360 this item great thank you Karina Commissioner Ellis thank you chair okay 00:38:51.360 --> 00:38:55.600 so I'm confused on this one just as I was reading through it because it looks 00:38:55.600 --> 00:39:00.520 like when you read through the analysis the denial is on the the wastewater 00:39:00.520 --> 00:39:06.160 improvements that are still being done which are 18 to 24 months away so I'm 00:39:06.160 --> 00:39:11.600 confused at if we grant the extension to March 17th how is that being handled 00:39:11.600 --> 00:39:17.320 how's that being rectified yep and I'm actually gonna defer to Richard on some 00:39:17.320 --> 00:39:21.920 of the specific questions related to that and so I'll let him handle those 00:39:21.920 --> 00:39:30.560 questions try to put it as in simple terms as possible I think part of the 00:39:30.560 --> 00:39:38.280 challenge is you know one we've got time frames that were were under 31 67 where 00:39:38.280 --> 00:39:43.520 it really doesn't give us a full amount of time to to if an issue arises to 00:39:43.520 --> 00:39:49.760 fully study it this is something that just given the amount of growth that 00:39:49.760 --> 00:39:54.240 we've seen particularly in this in this basin the Hickory Creek 00:39:54.240 --> 00:40:00.160 Interceptor project is the one the one that is referenced that was it that's a 00:40:00.160 --> 00:40:03.840 capital project that was set to be under construction we've had obviously some 00:40:03.840 --> 00:40:10.480 delays with kovat there's there's some archaeological items that they're 00:40:10.480 --> 00:40:13.440 working through Texas Historic Commission that has caused a delay to 00:40:13.440 --> 00:40:19.520 some extent in getting that capital project moving but but in looking at 00:40:19.520 --> 00:40:22.960 just the level and rate of growth that we've had you know and continually 00:40:22.960 --> 00:40:30.200 adding that to the model it kind of showed there there may be an issue under 00:40:30.200 --> 00:40:35.040 certain under certain certain conditions in certain areas so it's not that the 00:40:35.040 --> 00:40:40.280 whole system is bad or down or there's issues it's during some of these 00:40:40.280 --> 00:40:46.160 potential peak conditions during these heavy rainfall events and under very you 00:40:46.160 --> 00:40:53.760 know bizarre circumstances but we don't know for for certain and so rather than 00:40:53.760 --> 00:40:59.480 approve it and hope for the best we kind of took more of a conservative approach 00:40:59.480 --> 00:41:04.920 and just really let's let's let's look at the model and let's let's look at 00:41:04.920 --> 00:41:09.400 these these areas where where it is currently showing that there could be 00:41:09.400 --> 00:41:14.900 issues but really really going through tallying up all of the the existing 00:41:14.900 --> 00:41:20.320 demand what we have what we have moving forward as far as platting approvals and 00:41:20.320 --> 00:41:26.720 both those in the hopper and sort of testing those those assumptions making 00:41:26.720 --> 00:41:31.240 sure that the model is essentially calibrated correctly in addition there's 00:41:31.240 --> 00:41:35.680 other projects in addition to the the Hickory Creek interceptor phase one and 00:41:35.680 --> 00:41:43.080 two there's also a project for this basin that will increase detention for 00:41:43.080 --> 00:41:47.960 those peak facilities and so it's making sure that the model again is taking all 00:41:47.960 --> 00:41:54.560 of this into account and testing it so we have so we have an accurate depiction 00:41:54.560 --> 00:41:59.120 what would have been ideal is to just say hey we need to we need to test we 00:41:59.120 --> 00:42:04.960 need to finish testing this and get a better handle on it and not take you to 00:42:04.960 --> 00:42:11.400 P&Z unfortunately 3167 doesn't allow for that and we have to cite very specific 00:42:11.400 --> 00:42:16.440 reasons and so you know of course it's it's a huge probably shock when everyone 00:42:16.440 --> 00:42:22.200 sees it and and you know as I shared with you the letter and again we're not 00:42:22.200 --> 00:42:26.400 at that we're not at that point yet it is more of a hey let's let's trust and 00:42:26.400 --> 00:42:32.480 verify what what our model shows because there may not be an issue or there may 00:42:32.480 --> 00:42:38.920 be we at this point we don't know but rather than recommend approval and pray 00:42:38.920 --> 00:42:43.360 for the best again we just wanted to take a more of a conservative approach 00:42:43.360 --> 00:42:47.240 and and just study it studied a little better unfortunately given the time 00:42:47.240 --> 00:42:53.600 frames that were stuck with under 3167 which just didn't avail us to to to have 00:42:53.600 --> 00:42:55.880 that time 00:42:55.880 --> 00:43:02.920 Christopher Chris Ellis you saw the floor thank you yeah well I'm still confused I 00:43:02.920 --> 00:43:07.400 guess Richard so I mean what are you gonna get done in 14 days with regard to 00:43:07.400 --> 00:43:13.640 this continue to continue to test the model you know we certainly if we don't 00:43:13.640 --> 00:43:19.520 have if we don't have a solution by those 14 days then it will most likely 00:43:19.520 --> 00:43:24.440 come back as a denial unless there's some other solution temporary solution 00:43:24.440 --> 00:43:29.760 that that could be developed where maybe there's a detention you know detention 00:43:29.760 --> 00:43:34.280 on on again the good thing is we're at preliminary plat so we still have to go 00:43:34.280 --> 00:43:38.720 through CEPs and final plat so there is some there's some time until we get to 00:43:38.720 --> 00:43:46.200 that full design but without without without knowing for certain again that 00:43:46.200 --> 00:43:50.240 that's just where we are in those with that with that 14 days the other 00:43:50.240 --> 00:43:55.240 component to that is and I know Commissioner Beck had had asked that 00:43:55.240 --> 00:44:01.080 question earlier about fees one thing that the extension does does do is 00:44:01.080 --> 00:44:05.880 there's not a there's not a resubmittal fee associated with a with an extension 00:44:05.880 --> 00:44:11.560 and so it buys everybody time it doesn't put I I think there's one or two other 00:44:11.560 --> 00:44:14.800 items though that still need to be corrected in addition to the to the 00:44:14.800 --> 00:44:19.520 wastewater issue but this at least buys that time it doesn't it doesn't put an 00:44:19.520 --> 00:44:24.360 onus on them or an additional fee on them so we're hopeful that we can try to 00:44:24.360 --> 00:44:30.760 work work work through it if not provide a condition a conditional approval 00:44:30.760 --> 00:44:35.800 potentially that that could that could address it but again we didn't want to on 00:44:35.800 --> 00:44:40.120 you know as as this was discovered late you know towards the end of last week it 00:44:40.120 --> 00:44:43.940 wasn't something we wanted to shoot from the hip and and and and then again be 00:44:43.940 --> 00:44:49.200 bound under 3167 so you know we took a much more conservative approach and and 00:44:49.200 --> 00:44:55.360 and just want to just want to again look at it and verify before before we make a 00:44:55.360 --> 00:45:01.840 a formal formal statement about it okay and then just one last thing um you know 00:45:01.840 --> 00:45:06.640 that the applicant's letter mentioned moratorium you said that that is not a 00:45:06.640 --> 00:45:11.440 thing that is not happening we there there are there are in Mac and can add 00:45:11.440 --> 00:45:17.840 if if if I miss if I misspeak but there's very specific findings that need 00:45:17.840 --> 00:45:24.400 to occur and we are not at that we're not at that at that point yet at least 00:45:24.400 --> 00:45:31.080 to to even have to go forward with a recommendation for a for a moratorium 00:45:31.080 --> 00:45:37.840 Christian are back I believe is next thank you chair so I Richard I think you 00:45:37.840 --> 00:45:43.320 were mostly answering my question which I'm about to say which I appreciate thank 00:45:43.320 --> 00:45:49.200 you for being a precious like that so it based on the the daisy chain of projects 00:45:49.200 --> 00:45:56.720 in the in the area serviced by this drainage and by this wastewater your 00:45:56.720 --> 00:46:06.080 your models are saying that that that under rare but not unusual conditions we 00:46:06.080 --> 00:46:11.120 may run over capacity is that what we're essentially saying it's sort of certain 00:46:11.120 --> 00:46:17.720 certain sections under very certain you know certain events there could be there 00:46:17.720 --> 00:46:21.160 could be an issue with with line capacity so it's not it's not necessarily a 00:46:21.160 --> 00:46:24.960 treatment you know it's it's getting it through the getting it through the pipe 00:46:24.960 --> 00:46:30.800 and I think oh I'm sorry go ahead no no I was it I was gonna say I think given 00:46:30.800 --> 00:46:37.880 the events of a couple weeks ago we're we're much less willing to tolerate the 00:46:37.880 --> 00:46:43.440 impacts of rare events so I know that I'm I'm more in favor of being cautious on 00:46:43.440 --> 00:46:48.880 some of these service issues but then I thought I would follow up sort of a 00:46:48.880 --> 00:46:54.120 follow-on to both my email and Commissioner Ellis's question there's no 00:46:54.120 --> 00:47:01.960 fee for extending two weeks but if we end up as you suspect in a denial just 00:47:01.960 --> 00:47:07.000 because all the ducks are not in a row yet what is the fee structure going 00:47:07.000 --> 00:47:12.440 forward from a denial under under the current fee structure it is anytime 00:47:12.440 --> 00:47:21.200 there's a denial there's a there's a 50% it's 50% of the original cost so again 00:47:21.200 --> 00:47:23.920 anything that would have to change related to that that would that would be 00:47:23.920 --> 00:47:29.080 something that that council would have to would have to decide okay thank you 00:47:29.080 --> 00:47:37.120 mr. Anderson thank you chair it seems like we've had a lot of these pushback 00:47:37.120 --> 00:47:42.420 pushback you know give my extensions stuff is that forgive me if I'm if it's 00:47:42.420 --> 00:47:45.520 already been talked about but is this just kind of a way that some of these 00:47:45.520 --> 00:47:49.480 developers are kind of getting a little bit lazy and not doing what staff 00:47:49.480 --> 00:47:53.640 recommends and then it gets time for the cutoff and they're like hey I'd like the 00:47:53.640 --> 00:47:57.420 an extension and steps like let's deny it but the but the developer wants an 00:47:57.420 --> 00:48:03.360 extension because just for them to save money I don't know that it would it's 00:48:03.360 --> 00:48:09.120 that I think in some instances we have you know complete seminal sometimes 00:48:09.120 --> 00:48:14.960 there's there's missing information we kind of what we do just before it even 00:48:14.960 --> 00:48:21.080 gets to P&Z we actually already go through two rounds of reviews that's 00:48:21.080 --> 00:48:26.360 built into that to that 30 days so we we get the we get the application we 00:48:26.360 --> 00:48:31.800 provide comments within within a couple days and then they have the ability to 00:48:31.800 --> 00:48:36.240 resubmit shortly thereafter and then we have a very quick turnaround that's why 00:48:36.240 --> 00:48:41.880 you see you know sometimes at the meeting you know we're changing it 00:48:41.880 --> 00:48:44.800 because we're recommending denial so they're they're trying to work work 00:48:44.800 --> 00:48:48.920 through those work through some of those issues part part of the challenge is 00:48:48.920 --> 00:48:54.760 just indent alone you know a lot of this is infill there's a there's just a lot 00:48:54.760 --> 00:48:59.780 of complicated engineering issues that need to be resolved unfortunately the 00:48:59.780 --> 00:49:04.400 time frame that were allotted you know sometimes we need those you know 45 days 00:49:04.400 --> 00:49:08.700 or 50 days to get through it but we're just we're just not allowed to we're not 00:49:08.700 --> 00:49:12.680 allowed to do that okay thanks Richard I was just making sure that these 00:49:12.680 --> 00:49:16.520 developers aren't just trying to use this as a way to get around a pan that 00:49:16.520 --> 00:49:21.400 extra 50% again instead of I mean I understand weather issues I mean that's 00:49:21.400 --> 00:49:24.720 delayed some stuff I get you know I have no doubt but I was just wanting to make 00:49:24.720 --> 00:49:27.720 sure that this isn't these developers way of just not having to pay more fees 00:49:27.720 --> 00:49:30.760 and just going hey can we just get an extension and because we didn't do our 00:49:30.760 --> 00:49:35.840 work the past 30 days no I would honestly say I think the best of the 00:49:35.840 --> 00:49:40.800 vast majority are really trying to really work work through those work 00:49:40.800 --> 00:49:45.420 through some of those some of those issues small you know they tend to be 00:49:45.420 --> 00:49:48.880 some of these larger larger issues or there's other you know it might be an 00:49:48.880 --> 00:49:52.760 all piece though that's that's related to it so it just it just complicates it 00:49:52.760 --> 00:50:03.400 right I appreciate Richard thank you any other question on this item I did not 00:50:03.400 --> 00:50:09.160 see any thanks Karina for calling in and presenting the next item is for CPE 21 00:50:09.160 --> 00:50:14.480 - 0 0 0 1 and this is Haley's a Gursky's item 00:50:23.760 --> 00:50:36.560 good evening let me get the presentation pulled up all right this request is for 00:50:36.560 --> 00:50:42.440 a plat extension for the residences at razor ranch the property you can see 00:50:42.440 --> 00:50:46.400 outlined in yellow on the map is about 40 acres some of you may remember we 00:50:46.400 --> 00:50:52.560 recently had a site plan a consideration for this site in May of last year this 00:50:52.560 --> 00:50:57.520 preliminary plats was originally approved in July of 2018 that 00:50:57.520 --> 00:51:00.840 preliminary plan did include a phasing plan that allowed it a little bit longer 00:51:00.840 --> 00:51:05.800 than the normal two-year or 24 months lifespan but it did indicate that the 00:51:05.800 --> 00:51:12.240 phase two final plat needed to be approved by March of 2021 the developer 00:51:12.240 --> 00:51:16.520 it has already submitted that final plan it is in review along with the civil 00:51:16.520 --> 00:51:20.720 engineering plans but they are concerned that they might come up against that end 00:51:20.720 --> 00:51:24.280 of March deadline and wanted to be proactive and go ahead and request this 00:51:24.280 --> 00:51:28.560 six-month extension to ensure that the preliminary plant wouldn't expire you 00:51:28.560 --> 00:51:33.080 know just shortly before they could reach full approval for the final plat so 00:51:33.080 --> 00:51:36.400 they did request the extension in adequate time for us to bring that 00:51:36.400 --> 00:51:40.920 before you all before this expiration occurred and so staff is recommending 00:51:40.920 --> 00:51:45.080 approval of their six months extension request as they've continued to 00:51:45.080 --> 00:51:49.560 demonstrate progress towards completion since that initial approval I will pull 00:51:49.560 --> 00:51:54.480 the slides down and I'm happy to answer any questions 00:51:54.480 --> 00:52:04.360 just your back was was there any I asked this every single time but is there any 00:52:04.360 --> 00:52:09.320 clarity on the the pedestrian gated access of Nacogdoches for this 00:52:09.320 --> 00:52:15.120 property the developers indicated that they're they're amenable to providing a 00:52:15.120 --> 00:52:19.880 pedestrian gate there I have not specifically looked at their civil 00:52:19.880 --> 00:52:23.040 engineering plans to see if that's there but they did indicate that they would 00:52:23.040 --> 00:52:27.640 they would willingly provide that pedestrian access okay otherwise there's 00:52:27.640 --> 00:52:31.920 full sidewalk connectivity through the neighborhood to Bonnie Bray okay thank 00:52:31.920 --> 00:52:42.360 you any other questions for Haley great I don't see any more thank you Haley 00:52:42.360 --> 00:52:50.880 although you might want to stick around just a little bit Haley you know we so 00:52:50.880 --> 00:53:00.520 Richard both public hearings have been moved oh mute and I've got my two 00:53:00.520 --> 00:53:05.920 different mice here so it's I'm like why doesn't it click I'm sorry yeah the 00:53:05.920 --> 00:53:09.280 first one was new what was needed to be renoticed because there was a change 00:53:09.280 --> 00:53:14.480 there was some land area then that they wanted that was added the the second 00:53:14.480 --> 00:53:19.400 public hearing the applicant did not get their sign posted so that was that was 00:53:19.400 --> 00:53:25.360 renoticed in and will be brought back so neither one will even be we don't even 00:53:25.360 --> 00:53:28.960 need to open or do anything with them no they were because they were they were 00:53:28.960 --> 00:53:33.520 technically noticed in the newspaper yeah they they'll remain on but no 00:53:33.520 --> 00:53:41.400 action needs to occur okay Commissioner Beck thank you would it be out of order 00:53:41.400 --> 00:53:46.880 to ask a question about these because we're delaying them I don't want to ask 00:53:46.880 --> 00:53:52.960 a question if it's out of order I would think questions related these two items 00:53:52.960 --> 00:53:57.800 would be most appropriate when they come back to be heard okay then if that's the 00:53:57.800 --> 00:54:02.160 case then I'll just wait thank you thanks Commissioner Beck well with 00:54:02.160 --> 00:54:07.440 that that wraps up our agenda for this evening we will meet back at this zoom 00:54:07.440 --> 00:54:15.540 at 630 to do the regular scheduled meeting for the public with that I will 00:54:15.540 --> 00:54:20.280 close the work session at 559 thank you 00:54:20.280 --> 00:54:24.520 good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning 00:54:24.520 --> 00:54:30.880 meeting for Wednesday March 3rd 2021 seeing that we have a quorum I will call 00:54:30.880 --> 00:54:36.720 the meeting to order at 623 the first item on the agenda is to provide a 00:54:36.720 --> 00:54:41.040 pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flag the other commissioners want to 00:54:41.040 --> 00:54:44.800 join me they can certainly unmute their mic 00:54:51.680 --> 00:55:06.680 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. 00:55:08.680 --> 00:55:25.680 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. 00:55:25.680 --> 00:55:32.760 next item on the agenda for consideration is the minutes from January 20th 2021 00:55:32.760 --> 00:56:01.880 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 00:56:01.880 --> 00:56:31.800 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 00:56:31.880 --> 00:56:45.800 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 00:57:01.880 --> 00:57:10.840 good evening I'm Julie Wyatt let me go ahead and share my screen with you 00:57:10.840 --> 00:57:24.840 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 00:57:24.840 --> 00:57:40.680 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 00:57:40.680 --> 00:57:58.680 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 00:57:58.680 --> 00:58:28.600 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 00:58:28.600 --> 00:58:40.600 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 00:58:40.600 --> 00:59:08.600 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 00:59:08.600 --> 00:59:28.600 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 00:59:28.600 --> 00:59:54.600 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 00:59:54.600 --> 01:00:10.600 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 01:00:10.600 --> 01:00:28.600 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 01:00:28.600 --> 01:00:50.600 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 01:00:50.600 --> 01:01:06.600 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 01:01:06.600 --> 01:01:22.600 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 01:01:22.600 --> 01:01:38.600 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 01:01:38.600 --> 01:01:51.600 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. 01:01:51.600 --> 01:02:03.600 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. 01:02:03.600 --> 01:02:17.600 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. 01:02:17.600 --> 01:02:20.600 Any other questions. 01:02:20.600 --> 01:02:24.600 Great seeing none the chair will entertain a motion. 01:02:24.600 --> 01:02:26.600 Commissioner Smith. 01:02:26.600 --> 01:02:29.600 Make a motion to approve the six month extension. 01:02:29.600 --> 01:02:32.600 Commissioner Ellis. 01:02:32.600 --> 01:02:38.600 We have a first and a second to approve the six month extension. Is there any discussion. 01:02:38.600 --> 01:02:48.600 Seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. 01:02:48.600 --> 01:02:57.600 Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries seven zero. 01:02:57.600 --> 01:03:13.600 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 01:03:13.600 --> 01:03:24.600 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. 01:03:24.600 --> 01:03:36.600 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. 01:03:36.600 --> 01:03:45.600 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. 01:03:45.600 --> 01:03:54.600 Unfortunately, as a result of the snowstorm. We actually had to push the that Hirschbach item. In addition, they held some additional neighborhood meetings. 01:03:54.600 --> 01:04:03.600 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. 01:04:03.600 --> 01:04:12.600 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. 01:04:12.600 --> 01:04:19.600 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. 01:04:19.600 --> 01:04:27.600 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. 01:04:27.600 --> 01:04:37.600 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. 01:04:37.600 --> 01:04:44.600 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. 01:04:44.600 --> 01:04:49.600 So that will be coming coming sooner or later. So we are starting to progress with that. 01:04:49.600 --> 01:04:58.600 Thank you. On that note, you're doing that virtually. It'll be for it'll be virtually. Yes. 01:04:58.600 --> 01:05:03.600 And Richard, you're doing your updates, right? I am. Yes. Great. Back to you, Chris Ross. 01:05:03.600 --> 01:05:12.600 Thank you, Chair. Any council updates, but I know there hasn't probably been. Yeah, I know that we had any of the items. 01:05:12.600 --> 01:05:21.600 We did have an item last night, a municipal utility district. Those typically don't go through. They just require city council consent. 01:05:21.600 --> 01:05:26.600 And in fact, thinking of those because we've had seemed like we've had a lot in the past. 01:05:26.600 --> 01:05:41.600 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. 01:05:41.600 --> 01:05:57.600 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. 01:05:57.600 --> 01:06:23.600 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. 01:06:23.600 --> 01:06:29.600 But what we did was we brought them we did bring they were being recommended for approval anyways. 01:06:29.600 --> 01:06:42.600 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. 01:06:42.600 --> 01:06:53.600 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. 01:06:53.600 --> 01:07:01.600 I haven't done that calculation yet but regardless it was brought back and approved the other individual with respect to Sagebrook. 01:07:01.600 --> 01:07:17.600 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. 01:07:17.600 --> 01:07:22.600 There's some issues that that they're they're working through with respect to the that project. 01:07:22.600 --> 01:07:25.600 Awesome. Thank you. 01:07:25.600 --> 01:07:32.600 Any other questions for Richard staff or items to add to the matrix. 01:07:32.600 --> 01:07:53.600 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. 01:07:53.600 --> 01:08:02.600 With that, our meeting is officially over and I will close it at six forty five. Thank you. I'll be safe. Thanks.