Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Planning
and Zoning Commission
meeting for September 13th. This meeting has been duly
posted and we do
barely have a quorum present and I will call us to order at
435. This will be our
work session and our first order of business will be to
welcome two new
members Mr. Alfred Sanchez thank you for joining us. Thank
you. And Mr. Timothy
Smith thank you. Welcome aboard and both of you all. And
with that I will turn the
meeting over to Shandria Shandrian for presentation of our
agenda this evening.
Okay good evening. The first item on the agenda is the
consent agenda and I wanted
to see if there was any discussion on the the items that we
have here. We have
six plats. There's some two prelims a final plat two plat
vacations and then
another prelim for this associated with the plant vacations
. Are there any
questions about those or any discussion? Commissioner Rose
ll. Thank you chair. This
is why I believe my first plat vacation that I've seen and
I guess it's standard
to vacate the plat and then do a preliminary plat at the
same time because
it looks like is that what that's what's happening here
with the Carmel villas
they're vacating and then preliminary plat in the new one.
Do they usually happen
in tandem like that? Well typically the ultimate goal is to
replat and so in
order to do that they'll have to vacate the original plat
do the prelim and then
do the replat. So this is just the first step in that
process. Okay thank you.
Any other questions on the consent agenda? Okay we have one
item for
individual consideration which is to consider and appoint a
member for the P&Z
subcommittee I mean this P&Z vice chair wrong meeting.
We're gonna do that right now we're gonna do that in our
public session. So
no discussion we'll do all of that in the main the regular
meeting? Council
chambers. Okay and then we have five public hearing items
and I'll invite
Haley Zagorski up for our first item which is a replat for
the Brinker
substation.
All right good evening. Let me see if I can get this
rotated for us.
Okay so this is a replat for the DME substation on Brinker
Road. The purpose
of the replat is to replat an existing lot as well as take
in acreage
that was previously unplatted and with this replat they're
also abandoning some
old right of way that you can see here for Morish Road. So
it's got multiple
components going on but in essence they're creating one
larger lot and
abandoning right of way. Do you have any questions on the
plot? I don't have a
question on the plat but do have a question in general. Are
they currently
over there doing site work on that? Is that what's being
done there on this area
now? I believe they do have a minor site plan for some
ground work
over there. I'm not aware of the specifics of that work
though. Well I knew
there's work being done and it looks like it was that area
so I just was
curious if that's what the work is in regards to this site
here. I
believe it is. Okay thank you.
The next item is a zoning request for property located at
the southwest
corner of Teasley and Old Alton. All right so this is case
Z1717. It's for
the relocation of Pioneer Automotive. So the request is to
hold a public hearing
and consider this request to rezone approximately a half
acre from a
neighborhood residential mixed-use zoning district to a
community mixed-use
general district and this property as you see outlined here
in yellow is
located roughly at the southeast corner of Teasley Lane and
Old Alton Road. So
looking at what immediately surrounds the property you can
see it and land to
the west are currently zoned NRMU. Just to the west here we
have an electrical
transfer station and some other land that just has a dry v
ial on it currently.
To the south of the property you can see the hatched area
is all part of the
city's ETJ so that hasn't yet been annexed into the city.
There's multiple
facilities in this area though we have an athletic training
facility to the
south. This is a self storage facility over here to the
southeast. We have ICE
district so industrial center employment to the east of the
property and that is
along the frontage of Teasley Road and it consists of some
offices and some
access points for this industrial park that's to the south.
We have CMG
district directly across Teasley that's the Geyer High
School property and then
we also have NR2 district in this area and I want to take a
second on that
because it at first glance when you look at the map you see
what appears to be a
distinct parcel of land here just to the north of the
subject property. That's
just I guess an error in our map we don't have those layers
updated yet from
the county. All of this area if you look at the most recent
tax maps is dedicated
right of way for Teasley Lane so that NR2 district isn't
necessarily associated
with a particular parcel that will all be incorporated into
Teasley at some
point. If we look a little bit further out you can see some
more it's going on
in the area as I mentioned we have this office and
industrial park here that's
in a mixture of ICE and ETJ. This property here has
recently been developed
with an auto repair shop and here you can see DM I believe
that's actually a
TXU electric transfer station and then Geyer High School's
property across the
street. So just to give you an idea of this general area of
town I'm sure
you're all familiar we have Old Alton Road coming up from
the south Teasley
Lane this is very close to the current city limits. You can
see Geyer High
School here to the north these two parcels just closest to
the subject
property were recently rezoned for Geyer to expand and then
we have a lot of
unincorporated area out here that hasn't been annexed into
the city yet. So
looking at the future land use for this area because of
this major intersection
we have here at Teasley and Old Alton this area serves as a
primary gateway to
the city for people coming from the east and from the south
. So this area was
designated in the Denton Plan 2030 for community mixed use
and that designation
is for areas where we want to promote a mixture of uses
predominantly
commercial but with other supporting services and some
residential uses mixed
in as well to kind of create a sense of place in a
community center for the
surrounding neighborhoods. And the goal over time with this
area is to promote
that mixture of land uses that can serve we have
surrounding neighborhoods to the
north much of Corinth is residential here and so the goal
would be to create
kind of a gateway to the city here with high design
standards that can welcome
people in from either direction and support those existing
neighborhoods.
Just to give you an idea of how these districts compare
they are very similar
in terms of the regulations for these areas you know
similar lot area lot
coverage permitted building height being the same. So the
primary intent with this
rezoning is just to get to CMG because it matches the
future land use
designation and it permits the use that the applicant is
ultimately wanting to
develop on the site which is auto repair. Just looking at
the mobility in this
area and how the site would be accessed it currently has
frontage on Old Alton
at some point when Teasley is expanded there would be lanes
for Teasley much
closer to the subject property. Teasley is under
improvement by text audit this
time its intent is to ultimately be a six lane divided road
way. Old Alton is
intended to be a four lane divided roadway at some point
there's no
immediate plans for that expansion but this immediate
intersection is being improved with a signal being added
there and some turn
lanes because Geyer High School will have a drive aisle
that punches through
straight across from Old Alton at some point. Notifications
were sent about this
case we received two favorable notices back from the
property owner and from
the owner that has the self storage facility immediately to
the east of this.
And staff is recommending approval of this request based
upon it being
compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses. The
district is
appropriate at a prominent gateway to the city because it
does allow for those
high commercial standards and it also consistent with the
Denton Plan 2030.
And I can stand for any questions. Commissioner Smith. So
the applicant is of
course aware that the expansion of Teasley is going to be
happening so any
building they put onto it if we do rezone it that they will
be ready to
make sure all accommodations are can allow for the right of
way to come up
closer to them correct? Yes sir the property's already been
platted and that
right of way has been dedicated.
Anything else? Thank you Hailey. The next two items C and D
have been postponed to
the September 27th meeting at the request of both of the
applicants and
that leaves us with E which is a DDC amendment related to
development
agreements and I'll invite Jim Jinx up for a presentation.
Before we get started
on that item I'd like to get a clarification from legal
being that I'm
engaged in the development business and residential and
commercial construction
on building permits that I can participate in this item and
it's not a
conflict of interest. We did look at that I know originally
we thought it was 2E
but in regards to item 4E I do not think that you have a
conflict of interest in
this item. I will participate in this item thank you.
Good evening everyone I'm Jim Jinx with the development
review engineering
division and I've got a presentation here for the
developments improvements to
our development agreements and basically we are trying to
achieve a few different
objectives here. We frequently get requests from developers
to file a plat
shortly after a P&Z approval and prior to their hiring of a
contractor and
they're entering into the three-way development contracts
that are required
to get the project into construction. We're trying to as
our code is currently
written it doesn't allow us to do that until those three-
way contracts between
the city contractor and developer have been fully executed.
We're trying to find
a way to facilitate filing the platts at a sooner time
while still protecting the
city's interest and then as with a lot of our recent
initiatives and ongoing
initiatives we are trying to also help streamline the pre-
construction process
eliminate some inefficiencies and we can we'll talk about
specifically how we
will be doing that but this is one that's those are the two
main aims of
this initiative. If you can see that this is an outline of
our current process. The
process from starting at final plan approval at the P&Z
meeting until a
project gets into construction both on the public
improvements and the private
improvements. To kind of walk you through this what our
practice has been is that
you can see after the final plan is approved by P&Z. Jim I
need to interrupt.
Will you put the PowerPoint in presentation mode for the
team? I may need a hand on that.
Okay. Katie's coming to help. Glad to. Thank you. Yes much
better. Thank you.
Basically after the final plan is approved by planning and
zoning see the
next step is the three-way contract execution and again as
I said that is a
that is a standard form that the city has been using for I
understand we
started using it it's something like 1987 and basically it
is between the
city the developer and the contractor it requires the
developer and the
contractor to build the public improvements associated with
the private
development project by public improvements I mean public
water mains
sewer mains public streets public drainage facilities
requires that they
build those to the requirements of the approved plans it
gives us the right to
inspect that construction it requires that the work to be
bonded performance
bond and typically if it meets a certain threshold payment
bond as well and it
also establishes the two-year warranty period the city has
that begins at the
point at which we accept the public improvements typically
the process
between a plant getting approved and the developer entering
into this contract
with a contractor getting it submitted to the city with all
the required bonding
and insurance requirements and getting it reviewed and
approved by the city
fully executed by the parties here at the city who have to
sign off we find at
a minimum that typically takes six weeks we unfortunately
had many examples in
which that six weeks has been exceeded and that's typically
a point of
consternation on a project for a developer who's anxious to
get going on
the project or at the very least get their final plat filed
oftentimes we
understand that they're the filing of the final plat is a
is a significant or
required milestone to be reached in order to get financing
for their project
so basically we face this long step right now as you can
see on here from
approval to execution of the three-way contracts after that
you can see in the
the steps below that once those are executed we can have
our pre-construction
meeting the plat can be filed parallel to that we've got
the HHA listed here
that's the hold harmless agreement for projects other than
single-family
residential let me back up our code stipulates that no
private improvements
may be started in terms of construction until the public
improvements have been
constructed and accepted now that's no big deal for a
residential subdivision
for single-family but for anything else multifamily
commercial industrial
that's almost always the applicants will seek a way in
which they can run those
two construction tasks concurrently our code does allow for
that provided that
the applicant enters into a hold harmless agreement we
issue that
following the execution of the three-way contract and then
the applicant will
sign that and record it at the county so the bottom line
here is after we've had
the pre-construction meeting the plaque can be filed which
handles the public
improvements the hold harmless is executed which would
address the private
improvements the building permit can be issued the site
permit to building
permit whatever pertains to the public private improvements
what we're trying
to do what we're proposing after much discussion internally
and a lot of
thought and energy put into it and research we're trying to
get it to where
we can break out the filing of the final plat much sooner
and what we thought
might help facilitate that is basically breaking the
agreement into two
agreements so now instead of a three-way agreement we've
got two two-way
agreements the first being between the city and the
developer I'll get into the
particulars of the major terms of these here next but
basically once that
agreement was signed that would facilitate the plant being
filed
following that which I brought my pointer I'm sorry but
following that the
two-way agreement between the city and the contractor could
be executed and
that's unlike our current process that can be done at the
leisure of the
developer really sometimes they are not in a hurry
necessarily to get the
project under construction or enter a contract with a
contractor but they are
in a hurry to get the plat filed this separates the two and
gives them some
flexibility following that we would we would have the pre-
construction meeting
and the permit could be issued because I should have
mentioned in that first
two-way agreement we would fold in the current hold
harmless language and I'll
explain more about the whole harmless agreement basically
that states that the
developer signs the whole harmless agreement and in that
they acknowledge
that they are allowed by the city to commence their private
improvements
before their public improvements are complete but that they
will not be
issued a certificate occupancy until the public
improvements are complete and
they will hold us harmless if we put a stop on them in that
way. One thing I
should mention is this would be we would also propose
adding a standard note to
plats going forward in conjunction with this. It'd be on
the face of the plat and
we would clarify that no lots shall be sold no construction
of private
improvements shall be authorized to begin until a two-way
agreement between
the contractor in the city that's the latter two-way
agreement is fully
executed which would legally bind the contractor to
construction of all public
improvements associated with the plat. That way no one
would that way it would
be made clear that there may be public improvements that
have yet to be
constructed despite the plat being filed so everyone is
sort of on notice. Getting
into the first of the two-way agreements that I mentioned
the major terms there
would be a performance bond included as an attachment that
would be a performance
bond between the developer and or in the name of the
developer. In practice it
would basically bind in the performance bond it requires
that they have to get a
surety bond that they will construct the work in the three-
way contract or the
development contracts. It binds them to performing that. In
the past we have been
it's the typically the contractor that acquires those bonds
but you know
interestingly we found in the Texas local government code
it does state
actually section 212.073 it says the developer must execute
a performance bond
for the construction of the improvements to ensure
completion of the project. A
weakness of the current three-way contract document form is
that it binds
the contractor to completing the work but it does not bind
the developer so if
you have the case of a contractor who's installing say a
new street or a new
turn lane or something and halfway through halfway through
the job his
developer his his client stops paying him we have we
currently don't have a
recourse to go after the developer. This change would
address that. Now also
we would also require a three-way or excuse me a
performance bond sorry.
I think you can use the up and down arrows.
We would also require a performance bond.
With the city and contractor agreement.
So there would still be a performance bond on the
contractor in this in this
latter agreement and all the other terms of our current
through a contract would
apply payment bonds insurance certificate conformance to
the plans
our right to inspect the warranty period and so forth. Main
difference is the
developer would no longer be named in this agreement. We
believe this would
help improve the process just kind of to summarize again it
would allow the plat
to be filed several weeks earlier which I think would be
from what we hear would
be beneficial to a lot of developers. It would also allow
the plat to be filed
without the developer having to enter into a contract with
the contractor. I
believe plat's expire two years after plat a P&Z approval
if there's no
three-way contract so there would still be that provision
but if the developer
wanted some time between plat filing and entering a
contract with a
contractor this would facilitate that. This would also
eliminate the separate
whole harmless agreement being that again that language
would be folded into the
first of the two-way agreements here the thought being it
would simplify the
process. I would be happy to answer any questions at this
time.
Commissioner Roselle. Thanks chair. Thank you for the
presentation. I have a couple
questions. You mentioned that y'all the staff had spoke
internally about this
was there outside council brought in from like developers
about this process?
We've had some input from one. Okay. We've also talked to a
shorty. Okay. And
they we've but the the party who who did give input we made
aware of the public
hearing tonight and at the upcoming City Council meeting
and invited them to give
input. Oftentimes when there's changes like this we hear
comparisons to other
municipalities local to our area. I consider a lot of
developers cross city
lines it seems to make sense to align the process so that
developers in
Louisville could come to Denton and have similar kind of
processes. Are other
cities doing a double two-way agreement with contractors
and developers is this
kind of standard or how does this compare to other
processes? Sure.
Hi how are you? Good. Good evening commissioners. Wanted to
give you some
background or the history behind these three ways and why
we are where we are
this evening. It's actually a very exciting moment for us.
We have been
analyzing for a couple of years now where the discrepancies
or the
deficiencies do lie in our development code where it hind
ers the ability for
applicants to continue to proceed with their processes. So
when I talk about
processes I'm referring to their applications or their
specific
applications. We have a myriad of applications in the
system from planning
to site plan approval to civil engineering or construction
engineering
plans and what have you. One of the things that we
highlighted in March was
the fact that there was a lot of redundancy and time wasted
or a
time wastage component associated with requiring the three-
way agreement to be
clumped together the way it is because what was happening
is when you have an
applicant who says I think this is what I'm going to do so
I'm going to put all
my paper in order right I'm going to have all my drawings
in order but I'm
not ready to execute and actually go to the to the next
level of actually doing
flat work perhaps or going vertical but I am ready to start
looking at my
opportunities and start project planning my program this
gives them the ability
to say we will allow you to move forward because they might
not have that
contractor in line at that time so the burden of the onus
falls upon the
applicant or developer rather in this case to go ahead and
say I need to find
a contractor I need to make sure all the bonding is in
place at that time. In the
meantime while that developer is doing that guess what we
still haven't
executed their plat and nor have we filed their plat for
record for them so
they're just sitting there so this could impact their
financial obligations
would they be still paying for this property as they're
moving forward so
that's one disconnect secondly that glut of the three-way
agreement and the
review of it falls on the DRC engineering reviewers at that
time
however it's actually a two-part step where you have the
initial agreement
which is the first two way that Jim was trying to explain
and he was very
eloquent in that and the second step is when it comes to I
'm ready to actually do
something so I have my contractors in place let's move on
it now and that's
more of a public works function and that's where that
review would occur so
what have we done we've actually saved in essence to some
degree weeks of timing
or you've actually saved financial obligation on the
developer that is the
intent so when you talk about why did did we then benchmark
this process did
we look at other communities absolutely we did we sat with
the city manager's
office and looked at these examples and ideas to see what
other communities do
some are more like some are more strict we use the larger
communities we looked
at the smaller communities as well and try to figure out
what is best for us
how do we address this but again we also have to stay in
the parameters of the
local government code which provides that that burden of
proof on on the
developer as it relates to is this a large DDC amendment
and does it warrant
us to go and pull the community I wouldn't disagree with
you or the
development community I wouldn't disagree with you it would
not but we
also find that this is one of the quick fixes that we can
implement quickly and
keep moving so that we don't have further redundancy and
how in what we're
doing so it's actually a process improvement and it should
not cause undue
burden I will use a name here Lee Allison has been
instrumental not just as
representative of DCDA but also you know he's provided some
insight and he may
have comment today I'm sure he will have comment today at
the public hearing and
I'd like to take that in but I really don't want to pause
this process unless
it's absolutely necessary it is scheduled for council on
October 17th if
I'm not mistaken and that will give us a good opportunity
in a window to maybe
take in more comments if we need to or maybe tweak or
adjust but this this
basic framework that we're proposing to you really does add
value to our
development community both large and small thank you Manal
and one more
question maybe for legal is what is PNC's responsibility to
understand these
agreements are we just approving that the function is going
from a three-way to a
two-way or should we as a body be looking at this agreement
more in detail
because we looked over the major terms but is it our
responsibility to approve
the minutiae as well no which you're approving is actually
in front of you
tonight it was handed out to you and it's just going to be
a couple of
surgical changes within the DDC as to what agreements are
required where there
will be more detail probably in the construction criteria
manual which is
currently as you know being amended right so you'll get
some more information
that way but the actual agreements themselves you really
have no
jurisdiction over but you have jurisdiction over the DDC so
that's why
we have to have a public hearing today in order because it
's a dual public
hearing process in order to amend the DDC for our new
people so that's why
we're here today but it also in response to what you were
saying when we were
looking at other communities and we sort of did do a
benchmark process and
Manal is correct a lot of them were either more strict or
more relaxed but
this was a way in order for us to comply with both the
local government code for
the subdivision regulations and also the government code
which is for public
infrastructure and that requires the performance and
payment bonds with the
contractor and whereas the local government code requires
the performance
bond with the developer and so we just came up with this
process in order to
streamline it so we think this is the best that we could do
for Denton given
the background that we have in the current codes we have in
place and the
state of the law and clearly we were missing that in our
three-way agreement
it wasn't in compliance with statute so I think this is a
good fix in my opinion
it's on the heels of we want to actually be in line or in
line with the criteria
manuals that Jennifer is talking about so that we can
incorporate everything in
one time so timing is of the essence and we do not want to
compromise anybody's
ability to respond to any this we do have about a month
window now perfect
thank you Commissioner Smith Commissioner Roselle asked a
lot of the questions
that I was going to ask but just a clarification I think I
was writing a
note when you said it the there is a failsafe for timing
out process correct
if they get if they get their plotting and the time between
getting the
plotting and then having the contractor get the second two-
way agreement if that
goes too long the plot will fall apart correct is that what
I've there is a
plat note so they wouldn't be able to proceed they wouldn't
even get their
building permits to move forward okay so I want to know
thank you thank you I have
a couple questions I may have missed it I think I was
reading when the
contractor signs their two-way whose bonding takes over at
that as a time as
the contractors bonding or is the developer bonding still
in place I
believe if I'm not mistaken it would be contractor bonding
but you would have a
signature block for the developer for the contractor to
maintain his contract
with the developer but that two-way with the part with that
that two-way agreement
would be contractor plus city okay because I see that as a
possible issues
during the construction really the contractors their
bonding is one that
needs to stand behind the performance and payment typically
and then just
thinking out loud again just kind of get my hands around
this I don't know how
difficult it may or may not be for developers to get
bonding because
typically every time we've done these in the past it's the
contractors the
bonding is based on their work experience their performance
and those
types of things and so I don't I'm not familiar with that
versus the other
problem actually Jim Jenks did his research in due
diligence on that and I
think you research that with if you want to elaborate on
that because the expert
on this communicate with a local surety about that and we
we understand that in
practice it more often it is the contractor that gets the
bond but it's
not uncommon for the developer to get the performance bond
okay and like I said
interestingly that the local government code names the
developer as the party
that must execute the performance bond so we've apparently
been out of
compliance and we're trying to rectify that and then one
other question is I
remember reading through when you were talking about lots
there was a clause
about you can't sell lots until you have I want to say the
second the
contractor bonding in place correct so the only question I
would have and I
know you all are in the early stages and this is kind of
our first time how is
that going to impact what we call paper lots the ability to
sell paper lots
where we get a piece of property get it preliminary platted
and ready to go and
then a third party buys that property quote-unquote
entitled and I don't know
how this language may or may not impact that business
transaction so that may be
something that needs to be discussed a little bit more and
talk through how that
may or may not impact that possibility and that's something
that we can review
that's independent of the language that's included in the
change for
tonight okay okay and then that and I may have missed it at
the beginning there
was talk about no private improvements in residential but
you can do it in
commercial is that changing that you can do now residential
prior to substantial
completion or not not for single-family residential and
just one multifamily and
why is that not the case why is it excluded in the others
are permitted
trying to recall if it's I believe we just kept it as it
was yes yeah I believe
it's worded that way currently in our code and there would
be no change to
that proposed here I understand and that's why I'm asking
the question is I
know in commercial and in multifamily we do phasing as to
why there's not some
type of a provision for that to be done in single-family
residential that it may
take four to six months or whatever to get a home built and
it would be nice
once the streets are paved and you have fire access while
you're doing all your
franchise utilities and other things if you can go in and
begin building those
homes and you have marketable homes available at
substantial completion
versus you have substantial completion everything's
completely finished and then
you're able to begin building homes but it takes four to
six months to be able
to get product finishes up four to six month drag there
that's just a kind of a
dead time and not very productive for the parties that are
involved financially
and maybe an opportunity for us to look at that as well
just so that I'm clear
and the records clear the suggestion that you're making is
to separate the
type of improvement like the roads have to go in but then
while you're waiting
for the other franchise things to go in you can start well
it'd be similar to I
think what you're doing in the commercial that you'd have
to do a whole
harmless and and then once you sign the whole harmless and
I would assume it'd be
similar to what we get into with commercial that you can't
go vertical
until you've met your fire marshal requirements of being
able to have
access 150 feet each way and all those types of things that
then you would be
allowed to begin building homes while you're in there doing
DME at all your
franchise utilities all your fences entryways and all those
types of things
it just is would be a an efficiency thing while we're
talking about
efficiencies that would help as well that would actually
require a change in
the version that you have before you tonight so you would
have to make a
motion to provide for that so that we can change it
accordingly and bring it
to council okay I was just going to point out the current
code and and that
we haven't changed that wording allows as many as four
model homes to be to be
constructed before the public improvements are accepted
right I
understand that that's why I was wondering if there's a way
to look at
because again you're you have a four to six month lag on
marketable they're not
going to sell the models look they're gonna keep those so
there's a four to
six month lag between substantial completion and then you
're able to
actually have a marketable product that you can sell and
close so there's a four
to six month lag in there that would be an opportunity to
take a look at and see
if there's a way to do that incorporated so those would be
my comments I'm open
to the idea I think it's time to update and I see a
positive with it and a few
questions that just are outside of my realm of expertise or
knowledge that
would like to get some more information on but I think it's
on the surface it's
a it's an improvement and a good idea thank you
any else questions on this item I just wanted to mention as
I was Commissioner
Sanchez sorry I'm sorry okay just so I can say timeout for
for those of you
that are new on the Commission the only reason that we try
to do introductions
is so in the back we have these meetings are recorded and
they do the minutes and
so it's very helpful for staff that is recording our
meetings to be able to
know who says what when they're doing all the minutes back
there so that's why I
like to try to recognize you and if we get into crosstalk
help me with giving
you an opportunity to introduce so the guys in the back
know who's talking so
Commissioner Sanchez yes as I was listening to it and some
of the
experience I've seen and heard from contractors is the
process is very time
consuming and the idea of something like this seems to
bring out that you are
working towards making the process simpler and it does look
like it's you
know it's something to try I agree with it thank you yes
that is a major point
of focus for staff for sure okay thank you Jim thank you
all
okay with that we've kind of gone through things fairly
quickly this
evening that's our work session and so I will close our
work session at 515 and
we will reconvene in council chambers at 630 thank you
everyone
, thank you.
Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and
zoning commission
meeting for September 13th this meeting has been duly
posted and we do have a
quorum present and I will call us to order at 630 our first
order of
business will be to stand and give the pledge the US and
the Texas flag
one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice
for all.
Honor the Texas flag and pledge allegiance to thee Texas
one state under God one indivisible.
As chair I'm going to take a moment and go off agenda we
have two new
commissioners with us tonight and I would like to welcome
mr. Alfred Sanchez
to our Commission thank you for agreeing to serve and also
mr. Tim Smith and
appreciate you being willing to service well Tim welcome to
our Commission the
next item on our agenda will be our consent agenda
Commissioner Roselle I motion to approve the consent agenda
okay the chair would
entertain a second
Commissioner Smith a second to accept okay we have a first
and a second for
approval any discussion seeing none we will call for a vote
on the board
motion carries four to zero we'll make an announcement for
some of you all we'll
draw your attention that we do have two items on our public
hearing tonight that
have been postponed that is item C that is going to be the
3.2 acres that there
are in our six to NRM you which is Z 17 - zero zero one
three and then the second
item that has been postponed is item D which is Z 17 - zero
zero one five it is
the 73 acres over on the corner of loop 288 and McKinney
Street and those are
both being postponed to September the 27th want to make
that announcement for
anybody who's here so you don't have to wait as we go
through the rest of our
agenda those but both of those will be back September 27
two weeks thank you
for coming out tonight sorry give just a second to let the
room clear okay back
to our agenda we have approved our consent agenda and we
will now move on
to our items for individual consideration that item will be
to
consider and appoint a member of the planning and zoning
Commission for vice
chair and the chair will make a motion for Commissioner
Roselle and I make that
motion based on your experience and tenure here on a board
and so I would
put that motion forward for consideration Commissioner
Smith I
second that motion to accept Commissioner Roselle as a vice
chair okay
we have a first and a second any discussion okay that I
will call for a
vote on the board
that motion carries four to zero congratulations and thank
you for being
willing to serve you that will move us to our public
hearing section this
evening and at this time I will open a public hearing for
fr 17 - zero zero one
zero and I will call on Haley's aversely for presentation
good evening this is a replat of property that is used as a
DME
substation out on Brinker Road and let me get it rotated
here so this plat the
purpose of it is to combine some previously plotted
property with
unplatted property and make one larger lot for the subst
ation there is also a
right-of-way for Morse Road that is no longer used and is
being abandoned by
this plot and I can answer any questions any questions for
staff
thank you Haley this is a public hearing anyone who would
like to speak on this
item please come forward at this time anyone to speak on
this item seeing
none I will close the public hearing and open the floor for
discussion or a
motion
Commissioner Roselle I motion to approve fr 17 - 10 okay
Commissioner Smith I second the motion to approve fr 17 -
10 okay we have a
first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none
we will call for
a vote on the board
that motion carries four to zero we'll move us to public
hearing item B this
time I will open the public hearing for Z 17 - zero zero
one seven and I will call
on Haley for presentation of this item as well
this is case Z 17 17 it's for pioneer automotive so the
request is to hold a
public hearing and consider a request to rezone
approximately a half acre from
neighborhood residential mixed-use district to community
mixed-use general
district and you can see outlined here the property is
located on the southeast
corner of the Teasley and old Alton Road intersection
looking at what's
surrounding the property you can see we have a mix of
zoning districts here the
subject property and property to the west are zoned in our
MU to the south
you have in the hatched area area that's in our extra
territorial jurisdiction so
that property hasn't yet been annexed into the city we have
ICE district to the
east that is along Teasley Lane and features some
industrial office park
uses across Teasley we have CMG our community mixed-use
general district
that property is associated with Geyer High School and then
we have some in our
two districts here to the northeast and on the map you also
see NR two district
immediately north of the property these are no longer
separate parcels all of
this area has been platted and this is actually all
dedicated right of way for
Teasley Lane so in the future this will look much just
different when the road
is expanded to its full width if we zoom a little bit
further out you can see
here there's an electrical transfer station nearby you get
a better idea of
the mix of uses here in this office an industrial park that
's partially in the
city partially still in the ETJ there's a sporting facility
directly south of the
subject property and then you can see a mix of commercial
uses across Teasley to
give you a better idea of this general area you can see the
Geyer High School
campus is just north of the subject property we are very
close to the city
limits here so there's Corinth is just a little ways over
to the east and then we
have a lot of land that's still here in the ETJ to the
south and west of the
property looking at the future land use that was designated
for this area under
the Denton plan 2030 it's designated as community mixed use
and that designation
applies to areas where we're trying to promote a mixture of
uses
predominantly commercial but with a mixture of other
services and some
residential uses as well this particular area was
designated with this because
you can see here old Alton Road from the south and Teasley
that combination
creates a pretty prominent gateway into the city for people
coming from the south
or the east so the goal with this designation for this area
is to over
time promote a wide mixture of land uses primarily
commercial uses that can
support the existing neighborhoods in the area as well as
new neighborhoods
that may develop in the future and help create kind of a
sense of place and a
prominent entry point to the city of Denton just to give
you a brief
comparison of the two zoning districts here you can see
based on the general
regulations that NRMU and CMG are fairly comparable the
goal with this rezoning
is to obtain CMG because it matches that future land use it
gets the area where
we're wanting to go with it and that district also allows
the applicants
intended use of auto repair which is not permitted in NRMU
but other than that as
you can see here the districts create fairly comparable
design based on lot
coverage and landscape area requirements if we look at our
mobility plan we have
Teasley which is a primary arterial and old Alton which is
a secondary arterial
that adjoin the property Teasley is ultimately intended to
be built out as a
six-lane divided roadway it's under improvement by tech
stock currently old
Alton is intended to be a four-lane divided roadway there's
no immediate
plans for those improvements there but this intersection is
being improved with
some turn lanes and a signal is being placed there as Geyer
High School
expands to the south and creates a new driveway for the
school notifications
were sent about the request before the meeting we had
received two in favor the
owners of the subject property as well as the owners
immediately to the east
staff is recommending approval for this request based on it
being compatible
with the surrounding zoning and mixture of land uses the
district is appropriate
at a prominent gateway because it allows us to have the
commercial design
standards in place and it's also consistent with the Denton
plan 2030s
designation for this area and with that I can stand for any
questions any
questions for staff thank you Haley again this is a public
hearing anyone
who would like to speak on this item please come forward at
this time I have
no cards from anyone seeing none we will close the public
hearing and we'll open
the floor for discussion or motion
Commissioner Rizzo I'll just keep going here I move
approval of Z 17 - 17 okay
Commissioner Smith second the motion to accept Z 17 - 0 17
okay we have a first
and a second for approval any discussion seeing none I'll
call for a vote on the
board motion is going to carry four to zero as I announced
earlier items C and
D have both been postponed until September the 27th so if
you're here for
either one of those items or watching online those will be
back before us
currently on the 27th item C and D both that will move us
to item E on our
public hearing at this time I will open DCA 17 - 0 0 1 0
and I will call on Jim
Jinx for presentation congratulations and best wishes on
your project
good evening as one of the many process improvements that
the city is looking at
doing on the development review side I've got here for
presentation to you
tonight some agree revisions to development agreements
sorry what one
particular area focus has been streamlining the the pre-
construction
phase of a development project from the period from
approval by the P&Z to the
kickoff of construction both private improvement
construction and public
improvement construction and this is that's what this
effort is focused on
and I'll explain how as we go through it basically the the
objectives here are to
facilitate an expedited plat filing for the benefit benefit
of the developer
it's a request that we frequently get to to file the plat
early we have to make
sure of course that it's done in a way in which the city's
interests are
protected and as I mentioned we also want to just with this
and other
initiatives we're working on help streamline the pre-const
ruction process
to shorten the timeline this diagram here represents a
simplified version of our
current process basically starting at the top you see the
the final plat
approved by the P&Z and then the next step is our current
three-way development
agreements those are forms that we have in place and have
been using for many
years the three parties involved are the city the developer
and the contractor you
can see on the far right I've got a I've got a timeline
listed here this is this
is what we are accustomed to seeing in engineering
development review we're
we're sort of the main party that processes these
agreements for the city
and typically as far as the time for the developer to get
the agreements to
together and submit them and have them executable and have
them executed we see
a timeline of about six weeks sometimes we can it's shorter
than that sometimes
it's longer than that but that's sort of a more or less a
reasonable best-case
expectation and you can see fault it was not till following
that that we can have
the pre-construction meeting and the filing of the plat
there in the lower
left so that and that is how that's a function of how our
development code is
currently written it requires that sequence so and then
following that also
if for for anything other than single-family residential
development
well let me back up our code stipulates that no private
construction improvements
may begin until all the public improvements have been
installed and
accepted unless a hold harmless agreement which is the HHA
that's listed
here is executed by the developer basically that involves
in that
agreement the developer says acknowledges that he has been
allowed to
proceed forward with his private improvements but he will
not be issued a
CEO by the city until his public improvements are complete
and in the
event that his CEO his CEO is held up because of that issue
he will hold the
city harmless so that has to be executed that's a separate
step currently in a
precursor to the issuance of any sort of private building
permit there at the
bottom the next slide is the proposed change we have before
you starting again
at approval by P&Z of the final plat we go on what we've
done here is
essentially break up the existing three-way development
agreement into two
two-way agreements the first would be simply between the
city and the
developer and I will in my next slide to go through the
major terms of what that
agreement will have but basically once that is signed the
plaque can be filed
and as you can see on the far right we're anticipating that
can be done
realistically within a couple weeks of the plat being
approved by P&Z so that's
a big improvement on the six weeks plus that we are
currently seeing and we get
these requests to file plat early from developers we hear
and understand that
often it's developers financing is tied to that milestone
so in an effort to
come help accommodate the development community we are
again trying to break
that out toward that milestone can be reached much sooner
so going down on this
chart the next step would be the two-way agreement between
the city and the
contractor that would other than subtracting the developer
from that
because he's already under agreement for the previous step
that agreement would
be very similar to how it is currently worded once that is
done then we can
proceed on to the pre-construction meeting and and I should
have mentioned
in the first agreement there we were also proposing to roll
in the current
hold harmless agreement language into that first two-way
agreement between the
city and developer our current whole harmless agreement is
names the
developer he's the one who has to sign it and record it so
it makes sense that
it could be folded into that agreement and that would
eliminate that separate
step which is usually not we usually can't initiate that
until the full
three-way agreement is signed so again that's six weeks
plus out in in
conjunction with this we would we propose requiring a
standard note being
added to the plant the plat the face of the plat very
prominently clarifying that
no lots shall be sold no construction of private
improvements shall be authorized
to begin until the two-way agreement between the contractor
and the city is
fully executed legally binding the contractor to
construction of all public
improvements associated with the plan
that way it is the intent there is that it be made clear to
anyone looking at
the plat that there there may be public improvements that
have to be installed
and that none of the private improvements may be begun
before that
step the two-way agreement delving into that a little bit
more this is the first
of the two sequential agreements we're proposing it would
include as an
attachment a performance bond signed or issued to the
developer a current
three-way contract has a requires a performance bond be
attached and it is
it is issued to the contractor kind of a what we perceive
as a weak point of that
agreement is that there's nothing with the developer not
named there's there's
nothing binding the developer and I should point out that
per the Texas
local government code section 212.073 it states quote the
developer must execute
a performance bond for the construction of the improvements
to ensure completion
of the project so we are trying to make sure we are in
compliance with that as
part of this effort also it would as I mentioned they would
incorporate language
from our current cold harmless agreement documenting that
we will not issue a
certificate of occupancy until the developer has completed
all public
improvements associated with the plan and then also it has
the language that
is currently in the form that all construction will comply
with the fire
code as to emergency access and water for firefighting
purposes being provided at
all times during construction the next agreement the second
of the two between
the city and the contractor this one the the terms would be
as I say that similar
to those of the existing three-way contract except the
developer is no
longer a party them having been a party to the previous
agreement so this would
still as it currently does include his attachments
performance and payment bonds
insurance certificate so the contractor would still be
bound and require
construction be done in conformance with the approved plans
you know document our
right to inspect the public improvements and document the
two-year warranty period
following acceptance of the public improvements to kind of
summarize what
we what we anticipate these changes would achieve it would
allow the plat to
be filed several weeks earlier and again that is to
accommodate a frequent
request we received from developers but also certainly it
will also allow the
plat to be filed without the developer having in having to
enter into in a
contract with the contractor now the same requirement will
still be in place
they would still have to enter into that contract within
two years of the plat
approval which is our current requirement but again this
way they could get their
plat filed without entering with contract with a contractor
in case they were not
quite ready for that step and we do encounter that and then
it would
eliminate the separate whole harm's agreement again that
that language would
be incorporated into the first of these two two-way
agreements and simplify the
process and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions
we talked about a couple of them in work session I'll just
bring them up here
again in public session I would like to go back to the
slide I think we talked
about it some at length about the residential the single-
family to where
it's prohibited to be able to sell any of those until
substantial completion I
believe or right until it's a two-way agreement could could
that be
substitute between contractor to where it says developer
because if it has to
be contractor there's not a way to do what are called paper
lots to where you
get all the entitlements done and be able to sell them that
that would
prohibit that business transaction so I would like to put
that before us to
consider obviously the building permits are only going to
be available once the
contractor agreement is in place so it might be that we
need to separate those
two but since it doesn't affect the language on the code
tonight we can we
can actually discuss that further I think there's two
issues I think that
would be one that would prohibit paper lots and then the
second issue that I
asked about in work session had to do with no single-family
residential being
able to begin except for the four models until substantial
completion and is
made and so I don't know where that language on your slides
are but if there
was it's it's not on the slide it's um that that policy or
that requirement is
the current requirement so there's no change currently
being proposed to that
unless we'd like to suggest that we can consider that we
can discuss that we
will okay well I'd like if we get further in into this and
get around to
making a motion that we would be able to do that if there's
a hold harmless
agreement put in place just like is done with multifamily
and commercial I don't
see a reason to exclude one type of construction when we
allow it with
commercial and multifamily because I think it's a four to
six month waste of
time at least for the development community to miss out on
an opportunity
there so we'll can talk about that further if there's not a
slide for that
those would be mine two initial suggestions otherwise I'm
all for trying
to continue to improve and streamline the processes with
the city normally I
like to see a little more detail and see all the things I
understand that this is
a process and there's a time frame and I think based on our
work session that
there's going to be some additional discussions I think
there's going to be
some reach out to stakeholders in the development community
to actually go
through this in a little greater detail and provide some
actual copies of the
two-way agreements and some other details that I'm
comfortable moving this
forward on to City Council when we get to that point this
evening with the
understanding that there is going to be some some
engagement and some reach out
to the development community and stakeholders to to make
sure that this
is definitely what's intended is a streamlining and to make
this process
more user-friendly so thank you and I've got a couple other
questions or comments
Commissioner Smith mr. jinx we talked about it in the
public or in the the
work session we asked about Commissioner Rozelle and then I
echoed it we asked
about contemporaries other cities and municipalities who
have this type of
this type of two-way agreement this sequential two-way
agreement here can
you for the public record can you guys name or does anybody
in your office know
the names of the other contemporaries we've looked at the
other municipalities
so we can use that as a reference I personally was not
involved I may defer
to other staff here if they can contribute but I know that
this effort
and that research has been ongoing since at least March
myself was was been
involved more recently and as she comes down the the reason
why I asked is
because if we're out of if we are out of compliance with
the Texas Code how many
other cities are like that are they facing the same issue
and if we are
going to be fixing it is this something that other cities
have already fixed and
we'd like to at least know what are the municipalities have
done this just so we
have an idea of a frame of reference sure
mr. Smith to address your question in terms of the
benchmarking study we
conducted the team looked at a number of communities from
Plano to McKinney to
surrounding adjacent communities however when it comes to
addressing the
question are they out of compliance what we were looking at
specifically is how
do they do their their development agreement so to speak as
it relates to
for example Fort Worth how do they do it we're pretty
similar to what they were
proposing something very similar to what they're doing
right now so in terms of
looking at the legalities and seeing who was in or out of
compliance as it
relates to state requirements that that exercise obviously
was not conducted but
the exercise that we did conduct was trying to understand
how long for
instance does a specific application stay in the process
and now let's look
at what we do in Denton and is it taking an extraordinary
longer time than it
should and in this case we felt that it was taking too long
in terms of our
parameters and our metrics and we wanted to understand what
is the delay what is
the trigger for the delay and it was realized it was the
agreement or the
length or the the onus or the owner or the requirements of
the agreement that
were causing a hardship earlier on in the development
process so those are the
that's the tangent we took in terms of our study and our
benchmarking great
and before I relinquish my chance to speak just want to
agree with our
commissioner as long as we do except with the new language
to match both
residential as well as commercial and multifamily
commissioner real zone
thank you chair I asked this in work session but I just
want more
clarification there by men all or by legal are is our vote
tonight approving
the framework of a sequential two-way agreement or are we
actually approving
the ordinance language that we were provided what we're
doing tonight is
actually approving the amendment to the DDC which can be
substantially the
ordinances in front of you if you want to make some minor
changes to it that's
fine and then we can bring that forward to council so to
chairs concern earlier
in section e2 is is changing this language something that
needs to be done
tonight or is approving this and moving it forward the
language about the
single-family residents can that be done after or does that
need to be called out
tonight I think that it would be fine if you wanted to make
a motion to approve
the ordinance subject to a change and give us what that
change would be then I
think that would be sufficient okay thank you
any other questions for staff
seeing none this is a public hearing I do have one card
wishing to speak Lee
Allison in support good evening I'm Lee Allison with
Allison Engineering Group
2415 North Elm Street Denton Texas first I'd like to
express my admiration to
staff for taking the risk and the effort to work on fixing
our codes and
ordinances and bring him forward for great scrutiny by a
large number of
people everybody who wants to pick on everything and nobody
who wants to say
anything good about it and yet this is a wonderful thing to
see happening and I
appreciate it I'm glad for it do have a few comments one
developers they do ask
for the plat to be filed but for two reasons one is to get
financing and the
others to sell lots with the note on the plat this doesn't
accomplish the selling
lots goal not to say that it shouldn't be done it just
doesn't get that part of
it there that much quicker when it comes to financing it'll
be interesting to see
what the financing companies say because a lot of times
they don't want to
release the financing until the contractor and all the
people who are
really going to make it happen are in place and they don't
want to start
making funds available before that's there so this might
have a practical
concern there I do have a suggestion in that between
paragraphs a and B you
might want to add a paragraph something like a development
agreement required
before constructing public improvements there's no explicit
language in here
saying that such an agreement is required it is implied in
a couple of
places by saying that such work cannot proceed until that's
done but it doesn't
say you have to go get one secondly in the current
paragraph B it seems it'd be
prudent to require the contractor to be at the pre-const
ruction conference as
well and not just the developer and the city organizations
and you'd need to
consider whether you want the developer to have his two-way
agreement in place
or not before having that pre-construction conference then
as I listen tonight and
I'm sorry for these last-minute comments I like to if I'd
been able to see things
in advance I really like to give staff comments and not say
as much here but is
a two-way developers agreement really required it's not
required in the local
government code it's something the city has come up with
and why do we want to
put a performance put a performance bond on the same
project twice why didn't the
developers performance bond sufficient and provide the city
with adequate
protection would it not be possible to consider having a
construction permit to
be issued after the developers agreement that has a
checklist of items pardon me
such as construction cost estimate payment of inspection
fees liability
insurance etc. that could be provided and not even have to
go through a two-way
developer agreement with with the city I mean I'm sorry a
two-way contractors
agreement with the city then I just curious and when I say
that not asking of
y'all but concerns would be the ability of developers to
get the appropriate
bonds I know that's been heard that it's been issued in the
past but usually that
requires a track record it requires substantial financial
abilities and
while large developers may be able to come in here and
accomplish that can the
person who's trying to develop a small one lot development
or a small four or
five lot development have the wherewithal to go and get
that kind of
bonding or financing I think there's a lot of practical
elements that are
beyond the scope of the local government code or our city
ordinances that do or
do not allow these kind of things to come into place and
would encourage to
have some kind of a backup plan in case we have a backlog
of developments that
can't happen because developers cannot accomplish this I
was surprised to hear
that the three-way agreement as we have it is not in
compliant with the local
government code my understanding was the reason three-way
agreements were
developed was so that the developer and the contractor were
in an agreement
together with the city and therefore the contractor was
providing the bonds in
accordance with the local government code but as it was
read tonight it
doesn't say provide the bonds it says execute the bond so I
'm not sure exactly
how that worked and I might suggest a little bit more look
into that but I do
appreciate the concern in the effort got the question sorry
for you go
commissioner thank you chair thank you mr. Allison for
being here and helping
provide some context from your perspective you said a
couple things
that I wanted to clarify specifically you brought up the
idea of the the need
for a contractor city agreement whether that needs to be
there or not which I
think is a valid question but you also said earlier the
idea of duplicate bonds
being issued of the developer performance bond and the
contractor
performance bond and then lastly you were talking about
rightfully the
difficulty a developer might have in getting a performance
bond putting all
those together if we don't have a contractor agreement and
you don't in the
performance bond on the developer is hard to get then that
effectively
removes any bonds does that make sense and how do we go
about oh it wouldn't
remove the bonds that kill the project right wouldn't have
a project but you
have the bond on the contractor well but you couldn't but
your plat wouldn't be
filed you couldn't go to work because you don't have your
developer agreement
with the developer and his bond is required by the local
government code so
to put the steps in place first you have to have a two-way
agreement with the
developer where you obtain the bond under that developers
agreement with
that bond in place why do you need another performance bond
from the
contractor to bond the same project that the developers
already bonded I think I
track with that but you also have a concern about the
developer procuring
the bond to begin with as well though correct in many cases
yes and that's
just a practical consideration sure sure that's where we
would need input from
both banks and or fine financers and bonding companies in
detail is to it's
easy to call up a bonding company surety and say would you
bond oh yeah we do
that all the time but what are their conditions what are
their requirements
and prerequisites may be very difficult for developers to
comply with their
qualification requirements I know staff talked to surety
providers was there any
explicit detail about how a bond is issued to a developer
and what the
requirements are for that type of surety performance bond
is that a question for
staff that is for a question for staff sure I think it's a
valid point in my own
personal discussion with a surety we did not get into that
level of specific
specificity others at the city may have I'm not sure okay
but you know I will
just say we appreciate Lee's input these are good points to
consider and we will
consider them we still have some some improvements and
tweaks to make in this
process in these forms and it's it's not too late to make
them and and we will
keep these concerns in mind as we finalize these I
appreciate that and
Manal said in work session the the priority to keep this
going and the
importance of this for projects but I don't want to
sacrifice good developer
and contractor language to get projects done at the risk of
an urgency to
process this so my concern would be if mr. Allison and
other developers who
hopefully will be talked to you have concerns goes back to
my initial
question can we approve the framework with those type of
things being changed
between now in council
commissioners oh absolutely what we can do is we can use
this next month to go
ahead and start fine-tuning and incorporate or discuss with
Lee Allison
and other members of the development community we have
reached out to a few
who seemed amenable but it wasn't a detailed conversation
at that time so
our intent is to get the ball rolling on this move forward
as a recommendation
with the conditions that you're discussing if if those
conditions are in
fact void once we determine how we want to do that we can
also iterate that at
the council meeting then upon further review and evaluation
with our legal
team and our engineering team that this was the best way to
approach it but
definitely we'll revisit the plat note or revisit the the
bonding requirements as
well and make sure all our eyes are dotted and teased
across and if we feel
we're not ready at that time we will not proceed so a
motion tonight could
include language that would require the condition to speak
to developers or
without explicitly putting language in how do we make that
motion so in terms
of your motion if you think you want to add a condition
that relates to the
residential component or removing the plat note you know
making sure that
there is no plat note attached to something that you saw in
your
presentation in terms of reaching out to the community or
or or as it relates to
the due process we have notified the request per our local
government code
requirements and public hearing has been set and we will
definitely reach out to
to Lee as well and he has some valid points definitely we
always seem to
meet and discuss issues such as these anyway we also have
the design criteria
manual that's moving forward so we're hoping to tie
everything in together if
there are conditions that you're proposing I would limit
them to the
ordinance opposed to you know we know we should meet with
the community if you
want to add that you're more than welcome to but we will
definitely reach
out to Lee tonight after tonight's meeting thank you I have
a couple of
comments along that with some of the points that mr.
Allison made is one of
the concerns I haven't I think we spoke about it between
work session is
currently it's requiring two sets of bonds so you're gonna
have double cost
you have a cost of rich taming bonds as a developer and a
cost of attaining the
same bonds as a contractor and I bonded a number of
projects and I can't recall
if there's a way to hold the bonds without them actually
going into full
effect and if then you got a contractor bond in place you
could just let the
developer ones expire I can't recall when those go
interactive I know we've
done that with a multitude of projects where we bid and
have to provide a bond
or evidence of a bond but unless you're awarded the project
you actually don't
incur the bonding cost and so there may be some discussions
with sureties on
exactly how that process would work where you're not duplic
ating bond costs
because they are expensive and the second point is is
accurate that it it
does it is a process it's not like getting car insurance
there is a pretty
good process to get bonding it is based upon experience and
a track record and
it is a period of time typically that you are able to build
up a history of
performance that you do projects complete projects in a
timely manner and
all the other things to be able to get larger and larger
and larger bonds and
as part of that also having the financial backing to be
able to stand
behind and get those issued so I think those are valid
points that are the
details that are a very good idea I think it is again a
good idea to go down
this road to try to streamline it but I do think we need to
look into those
couple of areas specifically and make sure that this has
the intended outcome
at the back end that we intend on the front end of making
it easier and more
streamlined with that I don't know that we have anyone else
that would like to
speak I don't have anybody else here on the board but I
will make one final call
that this is a public hearing and if there's anyone who
would like to come
forward to please do so at this time and seeing none I will
close the public
hearing and I will open the floor for discussion or a
motion Commissioner
Roselle thank you chair I would love to see this go forward
I am at a loss of
how to word a motion and I I I worry about the motion not
being right if it's
done spot spontaneously so I'm wondering if it would it
would make sense not to
lag the process down but to continue the item to the next
meeting so that we
could have opportunities to talk to mr. Allison and kind of
shore up some of
these things about the residential language the chair had
mentioned the
plat language that prevents sales this double bonding issue
and even the idea
of a contract contractor city agreement and the need for
that and so some of
those concerns seem that's five right there just to put
motion with those
conditions to move it to council and this body not even be
able to see it
again it just go to council with the hope that that's tough
for sure let's
make an inquiry to staff if we continue this to our next
meeting the 27th does
that allow you all to continue on the timeline that you're
working towards
with council chair person strange if I'm not mistaken we
are optimistic the
we're optimistic that we can hit the October 17th council
meeting for this
item which means we could actually push this item to make
sure we address
Commissioner Roselle's mr. Allison's and of course your
concerns and questions
that did come up we want to make sure that we do have the
right answers we
believe we do but we want to be able to clearly articulate
those to yourselves I
would recommend we push to the first meeting on October
which would still
give us time to hit the council meeting if I'm not mistaken
and I need our legal
councils be available too so I'm looking at my calendar and
I'm actually gonna
look to Shandrin when is the first meeting in October do
you know that's
October 11th if if that would be cutting it close are you
sure you want it the
11th or the do you want the 27th which is the next meeting
right but the 27th
we might have some absences and I want to make sure that we
have the right
people at the table to have the conversation and you know
hopefully we
don't get to that point but we it gives us the three weeks
to actually
diligently pursue answers to these questions you would have
to reopen the
public hearing because I heard you close it so you'll have
to reopen it to
continue so we don't have to re-notice it just as kind of
as we're brainstorming
here if we did it to the 27th and we aren't able to get all
of this addressed
then it could possibly push on to October the 11th if we
are able to do it
it's done and if not we then get a little bit I think that
's a fantastic idea
yes absolutely okay and as a point of order since we are
going to continue
some here and I'd be my motion be a motion we'll can rest
ate that here in a
minute I'm going to reopen this item and I'm gonna give the
number is item DCA
17 - 0 0 1 0 I had closed it inadvertently before the
discussion of
continuation so we will reopen this item and it will be
continued to a date
certain and we will look for a motion here to set that date
so I'd motion to
continue item DCA 17 - 0 1 0 to date certain September 27th
okay
Commissioner Smith I second that motion okay we have a
first and a second to
continue to September the 27th of this item any discussion
seeing none I'll call
for a vote on the board
the motion to continue passes and thank you everyone for a
great presentation
and I think a very good discussion with a number of good
points for us to talk
about when this comes back also we're going to have to go
back in our agenda
to item C and D and I'm going to we're going to need to do
the same procedure
here to continue both of those items so we will do those
individually okay so at
this time I'm going to open item C which is Z 17 - 0 0 1 3
and the chair would
entertain a motion to keep this item open and continue it
to a date certain
of September the 27th Commissioner Roselle I motion to
continue items Z 17 -
13 to date certain September 27th okay Commissioner Smith I
second that motion
okay we have a first and a second to continue to September
27th any
discussion seeing none we'll call for a vote on board that
motion will carry 4
to 0 and at this time we will do the same thing on item D I
will open the
item to open the public hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 1 5 and the
chair would entertain
a motion to continue that item to September the 27th
Commissioner Roselle
thank you chair I move that we continue items Z 17 - 0 0 1
5 to a date certain of
September 27th Commissioner Smith I second that motion okay
we have a first
and a second to continue to September the 27th any
discussion seeing none we'll
call for a vote on the board and that motion carries 4 to 0
I'm just gonna
turn to legal I believe that is all of the items that we
had that's correct
cleaned up okay that will bring to a close our public
hearing section tonight
and that will move us to our final item which is going to
be our project matrix
Commissioner Roselle thank you chair Commissioner Beck
asked for a tree code
status update we're waiting on a special session at the
state to end since that's
concluded can we get that back on our agenda to figure out
what we're doing
about the tree code yes thank you
anybody else okay with that I will close our meeting at 725
this evening thank you
everyone and appreciate all the discussion tonight