Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
Wednesday, May 25th, 2022.
This is our work session with the quorum present.
I will call us to order at 5.03 p.m.
First item on our agenda is citizen comment for consent agenda.
However, we do not have anything on consent agenda today.
So that will move us to our work session reports, which is 2A, receive a report, hold a discussion
regarding development of an updated municipal utility district, and Tina is going to make
her way to the podium for presentation.
>> Can I ask a technical question?
Can you hear me on the microphone?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
It's just red on my end.
I know I have to make it green on your end.
>> Okay.
Yeah, because it doesn't change.
Okay.
Good afternoon.
Tina Fargans, planning director, deputy director of development services.
So happy to be here this afternoon to talk to you about municipal utility district policy
update.
So the reason why we are sharing this presentation with the Planning and Zoning Commission is
to let you know of a project that we're working on at the request of city council.
We know also from time to time you all do take action on plats within ETJ1, and so some
of these municipal utility districts are located within ETJ1, but also ETJ2.
So not necessarily seeking any direction from you this afternoon, just wanted to have this
be more informative and then also share with you council's direction.
Obviously, if you have any questions, comments, observations, please feel free to ask.
I'll be honest with you.
This presentation is a little lengthy.
I'll try to make it as entertaining as possible when talking about municipal utility districts,
but you may find some of this information, you may be saying, "Well, why are you telling
me this, Tina?
I already know this.
I've been on the commission for many, many years."
Absolutely.
So it will be a refresher for some of you, but for others that are relatively new to
the commission or have not worked with municipal utility districts, then some of this will
be, I would almost say Planning 201, given some of the context associated with it.
So again, the whole reason why we're working on this is at the request of city council,
we adopted an interim municipal utility district policy, and I'm going to refer to it as MUD,
because municipal utility district is a lot to say.
But we adopted an interim policy back in 2020, and so council back in 2021 had conversation
about wanting to update that policy, get something more permanent in place.
We agree from the staff's perspective, having worked with the interim policy that's been
in place now for about a year and a half.
And so hence why we were bringing this back forth, because this was a priority item for
council.
We know there continues to be development pressure within the ETJ, therefore it is appropriate
to review our policies that we have in place from time to time to just make sure that they're
still relevant to meet our needs for the city as we move forward.
The other thing, if this policy needs to provide clear direction, not only to us, but to the
development community as well and to decision makers when it comes into play on making decisions
about municipal utility districts.
And I'll get into that here a little more in a moment as to from a decision making standpoint.
So as I mentioned at the start, this presentation is a little lengthy, and it includes a variety
of topics that influence how MUDs are created.
And so therefore, I thought it would be best to provide a presentation roadmap, if you
will, so you can see where I'm going with this.
I will take a break between, let's say, challenges with interim MUD policy and moving into the
recommended case there's any questions there.
I'll try and watch your faces, though, if there's the question that you have as we work
through this, because some of this is, especially on some of the background information.
So happy to entertain some questions, but if we can get through it, that would be great
too.
So we'll start with background.
And so part of the reason why I'm going to present some of the background information,
because a lot of this goes into the decision making associated with MUDs and MUDs being
formed within our ETJ.
So I'm going to talk about what is a MUD.
We'll also address how is a MUD created, discuss our limited authority within our ETJ or extraterritorial
jurisdiction, also address how many MUDs that we currently have within our ETJ as well as
the number of that have expressed interest.
Then I'll move into why update the interim MUD policy, which then will be a good segue
into challenges that we've experienced with the current interim MUD policy.
And then we'll shift gears a little bit and talk about the recommended draft MUD policy
purpose that we put forth for council's consideration as well as the draft MUD policy goals.
And then I'll talk about next steps and then discussion direction that we received from
the city council.
So with that, the question that I had posed to the council is that given the complexity
of this topic, I told them I'd like for you to begin with the end in mind.
And what I posed to them, I said, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions at the end
of the presentation in which I'm seeking your feedback and direction from.
But and so ask them to keep these two questions in mind regarding the MUD policy purpose in
the MUD policy goals, as well as, you know, was there anything that we might have missed?
But the other thing we asked them was to as they were hearing this information to consider
this information through the policy lens and how how we can or how can the city influence
better quality development within the E.T.J.
Again with council policy level, setting that policy direction.
We work on the implementation aspect to implement policy, but wanted them to focus more high
level on what are the goals, what are we trying to achieve, what's in the best interest of
the city, especially with this development that was happening in our E.T.J.
So the questions and the direct the other thing I would add, the direction that they
give us as it relates to this would be providing some of the framework or giving us concurrence
on whether or not our proposed policy purpose and goals, which will provide the framework
as we update the interim policy that will allow us to be able to move forward.
So we were getting their direction on the on the policy purpose and again, the policy
goals as we move forward with this.
So let's talk about what is a MUD or a municipal utility district.
So essentially it's a special district that functions as an independent, limited purpose
political subdivision.
It is separate and apart from the city of Denton.
It has its own board of directors, if you will, which are property owners within the
municipal utility district itself.
We have no influence over in terms of its organizational structure of that nature.
And again, hence why it's a complete separate entity from the city of Denton.
Essentially these municipal utility districts are occurring within our extraterritorial
jurisdiction.
What we have found is that they can be single family residential developments.
They could have multifamily.
They could also have some commercial development incorporated.
So it's really whatever the developers wanting to put forth and develop within the ETJ within
this district, they have the ability to dictate what land uses they want to be able to provide
within it.
As I'll talk about in a little bit, and some of you already know this, our authority is
very limited within the ETJ, especially when it comes to regulating land uses.
We can't say yes.
We can't say no when it comes to the land uses themselves.
So one of the primary reasons why the muds form is that the development is not wanting
to follow any of our land use or zoning regulations, nor other regulations that the city may enforce
within its city limits.
Mud's also they're not interested in paying any impact fees to the city.
Also they're not wanting to have to annex into the city prior to their formation.
And another reason why they form is it because it provides the developer an alternate way
to finance the infrastructure.
So they're looking at typically issuing bonds.
So that way they can reimburse themselves for the costs with extending the water, the
sewer drainage, road facilities, you know, all the major infrastructure items to the
development.
Again, they can reimburse themselves through those bonds that are issued.
And then once those bonds are paid off, then the mud can put requests for annexation into
the city.
And if they were to request annexation, then it would be done so with an agreement with
the city.
What we have found is that being able to negotiate with a mud developer provides us with the
opportunity to influence better quality mud developments and emergency services.
The fire service is one of the primary leverage points, if you will, that we have from our
perspective.
And so we're interested in the type of service and protection that's provided.
For one thing, when people are at their greatest need is typically when they're calling 911
and they're needing assistance.
So it's, you know, who responds to that call?
And many times if it's within the ETJ, it may be another community with a voluntary
fire department that's responding, but in all likelihood, then we're responding as backup
or we're responding to that community in which the fire service was provided from because
we're basically backfilling.
So there is a financial implication, if you will, on the city of Denton because we're
either providing backup response to the community that was the primary response, or we're actually
showing up to the call as the second there.
So then what is the ETJ?
So some of you are already familiar with this, others, this will be a good primer lesson.
So the ETJ is referred to as our Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, hence why we call it ETJ for
short because that's quite a bit of a mouthful.
It's provided for within the state local government code that allows for an area that
extends beyond our municipal boundaries or our city limit lines.
So that can range anywhere from a half a mile up to five miles, depending upon the number
of habitants that happen located within the city.
So in the case of the city of Denton, because we have over 100,000 inhabitants, then it
is five miles as measured from our city limit line.
So every time our city limit line, if we annex a property, our line bumps out, our ETJ bumps
out with it.
We have what's important to note about our ETJ is we have no land use authority within
the ETJ.
So we can't say yes to the land use.
We can't say no to the land use, right?
What we can regulate is the subdivision of land within the ETJ.
So if they're proposing to subdivide property and it meets our criteria within our subdivision
and platting regulations, then we have the ability to influence development in that manner.
Typically we're looking for making sure they've got adequate access to roadways and utilities
being provided for them.
So per the Texas local government code, the city established an agreement, an interlocal
cooperation agreement with Denton County that then further divides our ETJ area into two
areas.
And in this case, this map is going to be tremendous because some say the picture says
a thousand words and I feel like this conveys quite a bit of land area.
So you'll see there's two or actually three shadings.
So the light green shading, that is the land that is within side our city limits, our corporate
limits.
The area that's shaded in blue, that is our division one ETJ or referred to as ETJ one.
So it extends three and a half miles out from our city limit line.
And so within ETJ one, we have platting authority.
We're able to enforce our subdivision regulations.
And again, as I mentioned earlier, we can't control the land use, but we can control how
the property is subdivided within the ETJ provided it meets certain criteria in our
DDC.
Again, we're looking to ensure that properties have access to roads and utilities to be looking
at, you know, from a water sanitary sewer drainage perspective when it comes to utilities.
What's also important to note is that majority of our ETJ one area is within our certificate
of convenience and necessity.
And so basically this is our area where we are authorized to provide water and sewer
service as it relates to what we provide.
The other important thing to note about the area that shaded blue is that the city and
county does not enforce any building code regulations within that area.
So the county may have some limited authority based upon if there are any FEMA requirements
or anything from the state that the state has asked the county to enforce, but from
a building code standpoint, that's otherwise not being enforced within that area.
So then move beyond the blue and from that three and a half boundary out to five miles
is so kind of that brownish tan color that's shown on the screen.
So that is what we refer to as ETJ two or division two district.
So the county has the plotting authority within this area of our ETJ.
So we do not review the plot.
So that's why you don't see those come before your agendas are on your agendas.
The county enforces regulations that are within that area.
Again, they're looking to ensure that properties have access to roads and adequate utilities.
This area that shaded in that tan color is primarily not within our CCN.
So again, that CCN is our ability to provide water and sewer service.
So within this area of the city, we do not have that obligation for providing the water
and sewer service.
There are other certificates that are issued primarily from what I understand is that several,
there may be other water districts that are there, but when it comes to the sewer, that
may be limiting within the area.
And so possibly no certificates potentially within that area for sewer.
But nonetheless, again, the city and county are not enforcing any building code regulations
there.
So some might refer to it kind of as the wild, wild west because there's limited regulatory
authority being enforced within the ETJ.
The other thing I would note is when referring to land in the ETJ, sometimes people refer
to that, well, that's out in the county and that's because it's outside our city limits.
Right?
So any questions about ETJ one, ETJ two?
Okay.
Great.
Oh wait.
I'm sorry.
Commissioner Colm.
Thank you, chair.
Tina, why should we have a say when it's not in our jurisdiction and we're not going to
bring utilities, then why would we have a say?
So there's a House and Senate bill in the state legislature that's going to come up
and it's going to do away with ETJ one and it's going to make it easier for, I mean,
if you're not providing these areas with infrastructure, why the heck should you have a say?
Well, and I'll get to that.
And the reason why, to answer your question more directly right now, is that we want to
be able to positively influence the development because in all likelihood, some of these developments
are going to annex within the city.
And I'll get to that here in a moment and help illustrate that point and why we are
concerned.
Plus, if that bill still has to track through the legislative session, so, you know, if
it gets approved, then we'll adjust accordingly, but still depend upon what the outcome of
that is.
Again, if it's development within our ETJ, we're still concerned about the development
that's happening there because of how it's constructed.
Is it, when it is built, is it having any inspections that are completed upon it?
Is the infrastructure potentially being built to our standards?
And then also, especially from a fire service standpoint, it comes into play on who's providing
service because ultimately, regardless if it's within some of these developments or
within our city limits or not, it does have some financial implications on it, especially
from the emergency service standpoint.
But hopefully, I can help address that question as we move through and provide some better
feedback on that.
Did you have something, Commissioner?
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
So, how long on average does it take, obviously, if ETJ 1 ends up becoming annexed in, what
does that process for Division 2 becoming Division 1, is that even a process that happens
where these changes they get annexed, they always exist in that certain way?
How do they change and move up and down from Division 1 to city, Division 2 to Division
1, and then new Division 2 being created as city limits expand?
So part of that is regulated by state law, but then also, we would look to how it's addressed
within our interlocal agreement that we have with the county.
Because the division between 1 and 2 is a product of the interlocal agreement that we
have in place with them.
So they're purely just a mile set, right?
Yes.
Okay.
Got it.
And then, so how often do those get reviewed to reset during the interlocal agreement?
Is that about to be covered?
So great question.
We're actually in some conversation with the county right now about potentially updating
our agreement.
So to me, I would say it depends upon how often the city chooses to update their and
review their agreement with our county.
How often does that happen traditionally?
In Denton, not very often, I would guess.
So hence why it's been 20 years.
Does that bring any issues in when we're talking about a revision to the mud policy?
This interlocal agreement being reviewed every 20 years, I get it there's different types
and varying rates of growth.
But put a mud policy in place, essentially the division 2, division 1 changes over that
time.
Does that interact at all with a policy change of the mud?
So the decisions that we make on the mud policy, we're also having conversations with the county
and working on our interlocal agreement that we have with the county.
So that will influence our decisions that we make moving forward.
If we were to modify the interlocal agreement, let's say we update something within the next
year and five years from now we amend that agreement, then we would have to go back and
look at whatever policies we have in place.
I mean, that could also even be updating the mud policy if there's any changes that were
made to the interlocal agreement that caused for that to be updated.
It could also be looking at any action items that we have provided for in the comprehensive
plan that might influence development within the ETJ.
And just to make sure I understand, because I think I do, but muds, in an area which has
a mud, if it does get annexed, then essentially the city takes over those utilities at that
point in time.
That is correct.
The mud becomes dissolved at that point in time.
The mud is dissolved, because when it's annexed within the city, then it doesn't exist anymore.
It's just part of our...
And that annexation process as it currently stands has voluntary, so a municipal utilities
district governing body, because it's a separate political division, wouldn't have any say
whatsoever in the vote of getting annexed in, it would have to be the citizens that
would be doing the voluntary annexation, or how does that interaction work?
So that's all...
The annexation laws address all of that in the process of how property is brought within,
and then we'd work with our legal team on any implications associated with the voting
and how that takes place, because I know state law is pretty specific in terms of the requirements
that are in place when properties are annexing within the city.
Gotcha.
Yeah, I know this seems silly, but we haven't talked about a lot about utility or municipal
utilities districts, so I'm trying to wrap my mind around it before we get further into
it.
Scott McDonald, director of development services.
Hi, Scott.
And I think Tina's probably gonna get into some of this that'll probably help.
I guess to focus on the ETJ1, ETJ2, we do it with an interlocal agreement.
We're very much in conversation with the county.
We're not gonna do anything that the county doesn't wanna do.
Both the county and the city have limited authority, so when it comes to MUDs, the purpose
in the MUD really is to have a taxing entity so they can pay for the infrastructure.
That's the bottom line.
If in fact they're looking to get something from the city, or we have an opportunity that
we can make sure that that development is taking into account anything to do with the
infrastructure, the roadway network, what traffic's gonna be created, that's where we're
looking to get into that agreement.
So not likely in the ETJ2 that we would be doing much because, again, it may not be our
CCN and some of those other elements, but everything that we're doing, we're doing in
collaboration with the county and having those conversations.
Yeah.
And I'm just trying to more conceptualize the mechanisms of how this all operates as
kind of really my questions, where that's coming from.
So maybe I'll wait for more clarification.
And then just I think on the annexation piece, that truly is going to be whatever the legislative
process is at the time, with the exception if we are in a developer's agreement, and
then they have a sun setting of that, that ultimately then when somebody buys property
in that, that ultimately it will be annexed in 20 years.
Gotcha.
Okay.
So we've got that established on the front side of the model.
Cool.
Awesome.
Thanks.
Commissioner Anderson?
Thanks, Chair.
Tina, you may know this, or Scott, one of you.
These districts are created to create a tax for the infrastructure.
That is correct.
When they are annexed within the city, does that tax go away?
And then the city's taxes become, because that's one bad thing about these muds is,
you live there, you got to pay a tax on top of all these other taxes.
Once it's annexed with the city, does that tax go away?
Presumably, yes, it would, because it's within the city of Lemiston, then folks would be
paying their municipal city taxes.
So it's the, because the bond aspect will have been retired.
And so the bond goes towards reimbursing the municipal district.
And so once the bonds are completed, then there would not be a need to collect the taxes
from the mud to reimburse on the bonds.
So it's when it, when it gets annexed into the city, then it becomes, they become residents
of the city of Denton and then they pay city taxes.
But they also get city services associated with it.
So what that means is the city of Denton is then maintaining all of their infrastructure
versus the residents were having to maintain it through their municipal utility district.
Commissioner Perrot.
Thank you, Chair.
Just a couple of real short clarification things.
On the CCN, you used a couple of different words.
One was have the authority or the ability to provide services and one was the obligation
to.
So I just want to make sure I'm understanding what the relationship is there between our
utilities and ETJ1 or really in the CCN area.
Thank you for clarifying.
So yes, that is our area that is assigned to us to be able to provide the water and
sewer service.
So it's ultimately, I guess it would be our responsibility or obligation to be able to
provide that service.
But that's where the other thing comes into play is that we would have to negotiate with
the mud to how the utilities are extended to that area.
Because if we're not able to, you know, if we have to, if a water line has to be built
three miles to be able to provide service, then the municipal utility district is going
to be constructing that presumably constructing that particular utility extension to it.
So it's you know, it's within our service area.
So if anything, we are going to be interested in how that utility or how that pipe is constructed.
Does it meet our standards?
And that's why you'll see in the presentation, our goal is to get towards a development agreement
because the development agreement would lay all of that out.
But you know, if we do not have utilities within the area, it's going to be difficult
for us to be able to provide the service.
But because it's within our certificate, I guess you could say we have first say as to
how that is provided for.
Okay.
And what actually sets the CCN area?
I believe that's a legislative action or TCEQ.
It's all done by the state through through some process between our utilities and and
TCEQ.
Okay.
And okay.
Last thing is on the mud, you mentioned, you know, we've been talking about this process
and I'm sure we'll talk more.
But just to make sure I understand on the taxing authority, it's primarily used to pay
down the bonds, right?
Yes.
Speaking hypothetical for a second, let's say we have a mud who goes, you know, pays,
starts to pay their bonds down and they decide that they don't want to annex into the nearest
city, whether it's us or somebody else.
Do they have the ability to charge taxes above what the bond services in order to maintain
and replace that infrastructure when it ages?
So it's my understanding that they have the ability to level additional taxes because
they're still going to have to provide for the maintenance associated with it.
So they may issue, you know, they may retire their initial bonds to provide for the improvement.
But if they're continuing to exist out there as a mud, then they're going to have to have
a revenue stream in order to be able to provide for the maintenance because we won't be doing
the maintenance and none of the other cities within the area would be providing for the
maintenance associated with it.
So the vehicle to do that would be to issue new bonds and then use the revenue to continue
to pay more bonds.
Presumably, yes, unless the legislature changes with respect to that.
Okay.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Okay.
So let's talk about how a mud is created.
So I'm going to keep this very high level because there are probably a lot of intricate
steps associated with it, but just really want to convey to you the two processes that
are available for these to be created.
So one is through a district creation by the Texas legislature.
So that's provided for within state law.
An example of, if you know where La La Ranch is on the Northwest, part of our ETJ, when
it was first established, that was a result of the Texas legislature.
So they passed a bill that established that district.
The other option is with respect to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or TCEQ,
there is a petition and consent process that's provided for within the water code.
So for a property that's located within our ETJ, this city consent has to be requested
prior to the creation of the TCEQ process.
And the key word is that it has to be requested, right?
We do not have to necessarily grant consent, but as part of TCEQ, they do require the mud
developer to go before the city and request consent.
The consent application is what provides this, or the consent application process, excuse
me, provides the city with a potential greater influence over the mud.
And the reason for that is this is where we're able to potentially enter into a development
agreement that is negotiated with the developer.
Typically, when a developer is requesting consent from the city, if they're successful
in getting the consent, then that is an easier process for them to get the mud created.
It's when the city chooses to not grant consent that it becomes a more arduous process for
the developer.
And let's face it, time equals money from their perspective.
So longer process means more time, means more money associated potentially with it.
If I can finish one thing.
So if consent is not provided by the city and the mud continues with the TCEQ process,
the mud can still be forwarded to the state and be established without the city's consent.
So as I mentioned, it's gonna be a more cumbersome process, but it can still be established.
So if we do not grant consent, they can say, "Thank you, city, appreciate you considering
our request, but we're still gonna move forward with the state and be formed."
So it's know that, and so that's why we have limited say when it comes to this, because
at the end of the day, they can form.
They cannot invite us to have a seat at the table, and ideally, that's where we wanna
get.
We wanna be able to get to a seat at the table to be able to negotiate into a developer's
agreement that outlines certain performance obligations, if you will, whether how they're
building their infrastructure or whether their buildings are gonna be subject to any building
codes and inspections, whatever the cases may be.
But ideally, that's where we wanna get is to negotiate in that development agreement,
because ultimately, if we know they can be formed, then we wanna make sure that they're
formed in a proper manner, especially if there is the potential, you know, it could be 20
years from now, but we'll all probably not be sitting here, but maybe Ashley will be,
but so she's early enough in her planning career.
But presumably, if they are eventually annexed into the city, then we wanna make sure that
we have a better idea of what we're getting.
So the preferred application method, from the city's perspective, is that they would
go through TCEQ, because again, that's where we have the opportunity to influence the process
more compared to if it was going through the legislature.
And like I said, I've addressed this at a very high level, you know, all the intricates
associated with it, I confess right now, I don't know all of that, but needless to say,
where the two processes are concerned, the key takeaway from that is the fact that we
have the ability to potentially influence the development through the consent process.
So a little more background information about the MUDs.
So the city has provided consent to four municipal utility districts, one of which was Astra,
another is Lala Ranch, as I mentioned, you know, my cursor might work, can you all see
my cursor?
Okay, it's right here next to this bullet point, so I'm gonna go across the map.
So Lala Ranch I was referring to previously.
So Lala Ranch, this phase here, it was established through the legislature.
The city did grant consent on, I should say half, about half of this area was established
by the legislature.
The city did grant consent on what I'll call the first expansion area, and then this is
their proposed second expansion area, and that has, we were working with council on
that as of November, December of last year, and that ended up not going anywhere from
a consent standpoint right now.
But nonetheless, so Lala Ranch is there.
We've also approved Olex Meadows, which is down in this area here, just, excuse me, down
in this area here, just south of 380.
And then we also have Stonehill Ranch, and I'm looking to see, I can't read it on this
version.
Anyway, Stonehill Ranch was another one that we granted consent.
Legends, we are currently in the process of negotiating a development agreement.
The city did not grant consent associated with that particular request, and so they chose
to enter into negotiating a development agreement.
So we are working on that and hope to have that to council, hopefully sometime in June,
for their consideration.
Otherwise, we have eight other MUDs that have expressed interest and requested consent to
be able to form within the ETJ.
So during our conversations when we were going through the adoption of the comprehensive
plan and had all of those work session discussions, there was much discussion about whether or
not we choose to show the MUDs on our future land use map, how do they potentially influence
development within the area.
And so, and like I said, since the adoption of that plan, we've had, I know Ponder Farms
and Tabor Ranch have requested consent since the adoption of the comp plan in March of
this year.
So, but all the more reason why I think it's important.
- Excuse me, is there a time limit on how long the city can think about granting consent?
- There is, and it's provided for in the TCEQ process.
I don't recall the timeframes off the top of my head, but it does establish a timeframe
in which we have to act on whether or not we choose to grant consent.
And then if we, and then the timeline gets further projected out.
So, but yes, we are obligated to act within a certain timeframe.
- Okay.
- Commissioner Call.
- Thank you, Chair.
So Tina, without city consent, means no difference, it's still set up.
- Correct.
So the goal, and I'll illustrate here shortly when I get more into the presentation is ideally
what we wanna do is have a seat at the table.
We wanna encourage the developers to be able to negotiate a development agreement with
the city so that we can influence better quality development.
And so this gets into, you know, why update the interim policy?
So as I mentioned earlier, you know, it was originally adopted in May of 2020, this was
done as a stop gap measure due to a number of consents that were seeking, or a number
of Mudd developers that were seeking consent from the city.
We did not have any evaluation criteria at that time when these requests were coming
in.
And so hence why we quickly adopted the policy that was included in your packet, and truly
it was viewed as an interim policy.
The current policy, it represents eight policy statements, there are a series of technical
requirements associated with it that align with the policy statements.
What we've learned since then is the policy is difficult to implement, and I'll get into
that in a little bit more on my next slide.
But one of the key points that is, as I mentioned earlier, ideally we want to encourage developers
to enter into the development agreement because we want to be able to influence quality development.
And right now, our current interim Mudd policy, it does not encourage or incentivize developers
to enter into that agreement.
And so, and I want to say incentivize, I'm not talking about financially incentivize,
I'm talking about encouraging them to come to the table and having that conversation
with us.
So ideally, that's where we want to get towards because we want to be able to influence the
type of development that's happening within the ETJ.
Additionally, our comprehensive plan provides policy support, and I've noted the action
item here, but our comp plan provides that policy support and addresses additionally
why we should consider updating the Mudd policy.
And then lastly, it all comes back down to is the continued development pressures within
the ETJ.
And if we know that these developments are going to be happening within our ETJ, and
we know that we have limited authority right now as it is within the ETJ, then we would
want to encourage developers to enter into that development agreement because again,
at the end of the day, it's all about influencing quality development happening within the county.
So with that, that's a good segue into challenges with our current interim policy.
So some of the things that we've learned since then, since it's been adopted.
So there are many technical requirements that are included within the policy that really
should be part of a separate application process.
And that's one of our challenges right now is that there is no formal application process.
So when Mudd developers request consent from the city, there's really, you know, they're
just emailing documents and sending them to the city secretary and letting us know that
they're requesting consent.
But otherwise, there's no formal application process associated with that.
What we have found, and I mentioned earlier, the policy has been difficult to implement
not only from our perspective, but also from the developers.
It's cumbersome for them because in terms of what they're all required to be submitted,
again, this was a stopgap measurement.
We threw everything in the kitchen sink just about to them in asking for certain documentation
to be submitted to us.
But also as we are evaluating these requests, some of the information is okay, is this really
germane to this particular project?
Do we have an interest or a need for this type of information being submitted?
So right now I would say that the scale is really tipped in terms of the developers having
to provide all this information associated with it and knowing that they can still go
through and get their Mudd formulated through the state and not have our consent.
We're trying to get that more reasonable so it's a little more balanced in terms of getting
us at the table to engage in that conversation if you will.
Like I said, the key thing is the fact that they can still be able to form without our
consent and not having to submit anything to us from that perspective.
The other thing I'll add is our current interim policy, it discourages developers from seeking
consent from the city, therefore that's going to result in them not entering into a development
agreement with us as it relates to infrastructure and services being provided.
Additionally, it potentially has emergency services implications, which results in an
increased cost of service, particularly from our perspective.
Right now with development happening within the county, the county or I should say within
the ETJ, the county assigns who is going to be the responding fire service provider.
We're fortunate we have a very strong working relationship with the county, but at the end
of the day when it comes to emergency services, they're going to be looking at who can provide
the service to the development and as I mentioned previously, if it's a community that's the
closest, then that community may only have a volunteer fire department.
And so if the Mudd developer is satisfied with that, so be it.
In all likelihood, we're backfilling, we're either backfilling then to a community that's
responding or we're showing up as the second on site and given the resources that we have
here in the city of Denton, then we're able to provide a better quality of service potentially
if you will.
The other thing is that if we do, as I mentioned, the current policy is discouraging developers
from entering into development agreement.
So there's implications on the city should the development pursue annexation in the future.
And again, this is the potential then for us to be able to inherit substandard roads
or utilities that were constructed because if we do not have a development agreement
in place, then they have, if they're an ETJ one, they may have built to some of our standards.
We would have to continue to work with the county on what the roadway cross section is.
Basically if you're building within the city limits, it's curb and gutter.
If you're within the county, it's more of a rural street cross section with open bar
ditches associated with it to provide for the drainage.
So if we're able to enter into an agreement, then we can be able to stipulate how those
roads or those utilities shall be constructed and then who's also doing the inspection associated
with it and then being able to address and provide for the maintenance with that.
The other thing that we've learned with respect to the interim policy is ETJ one and two,
did we really treat those areas the same?
So knowing that our CCN does not extend within ETJ two, are we really concerned then about
the developments that are happening within that area?
Also we have to take into consideration DME's service area and the ability to provide the
electrical service.
Another thing that comes into play is whether or not we have overlapping ETJ areas.
So depending upon where the mud is locating, is it appropriate or could it potentially
annex within our community versus annexing into another community given their proximity
to that community.
And so also we recognize within ETJ one versus two, if a mud development is located within
ETJ one, there may be a greater likelihood of that development annexing into the city
compared to if it was located in ETJ two.
So again, as I mentioned earlier, it all comes down to then how does the city influence better
quality development within our ETJ knowing that we have limited authority to begin with,
but also then having consent be pursued.
Any questions before I get into the draft mud policy purpose?
Okay.
So the recommended policy purpose and goals that follow outline what the city would like
to achieve with respect to the muds through the policy update process.
The policy purpose and goals have been developed collectively by our outside consultant, our
legal team, our planning staff, as well as other members of the city of Denton team,
and then also researching information from other communities.
The intent would be to keep our policy at a high level as so that it can be flexible
over time, but also given the large area that it will apply to, you saw the map previously
with the ETJ areas shaded.
So this policy is applying to all of those areas that were shaded the blue and tan color.
We would like to add clarity to the policy and the mud review process.
We'd also like to be able to, again, influence quality development where at all possible.
And then we'd also like to potentially mitigate any financial implications on the city, especially
if the development were to annex into the city in the future.
So that's why our first four bullet points here to encourage muds to be in alignment
with city policy, technical requirements is important to us.
So again, it gets back to building the infrastructure consistent with our technical design standards
that we have in place, as well as meeting our subdivision ordinance requirements.
It's also being able to promote fiscal sustainability so that there's no future burden on the residents
of Denton, because again, when these developments come into play, if they annex within the city
or if they still stay out in the ETJ, but we're continuing to provide fire service,
as I mentioned earlier, there's a cost implication associated with that.
So we're interested in trying to make sure we protect our financial integrity and sustainability
within the community.
Also the whole policy purpose, we want to establish a framework for discussions with
the county for applications in the ETJ.
As I mentioned earlier, through our Q&A with Commissioner Smith, we've got a great working
relationship with the county, and we continue to review our interlocal agreement.
But we also want the county to be able to understand what are our expectations for development,
such as a mud that are forming within our ETJ.
So it also provides that vehicle for communication.
Also again, we want to establish a framework for development agreements if they are going
to be a condition of consent.
And then lastly, establish an application process that will outline submission requirements
for mud development applications.
So it's very clear in terms of what needs to be submitted.
It could be that there are different documents that are submitted for ETJ1 versus a mud proposing
to formulate within ETJ2.
So that lays the whole policy purpose, if you will.
So following that, what we did is we drafted 12 goals associated with the mud policy itself
in terms of what it would seek to achieve.
And so these goals provide the framework for us to be able to put more of the -- or it
provides the framework, or the bones, if you will, for the policy.
And so what we asked council was, okay, one, did you agree with the previous slide and
the purpose of what that policy should be?
And then secondly, we asked them, do you agree with these goals and if there's anything we've
missed with respect to it?
Because again, we viewed this as being the framework or the bones of the policy, and
we wanted to get their direction and concurrence on this before we went and really invested
a lot of time in the actual writing the details or the meat of the policy, if you will, the
meat on the bone associated with it.
So the first goal that we proposed for council's consideration is that the mud policy should
establish an equitable arrangement between the mud and the city in order to influence
the development as much as possible.
And the key word there is equitable.
Again, this goes back to right now it's tipped more like this, so we want to get it a little
more even and want to encourage them to come in and let us have a seat at the table.
Again, what they're wanting to get from us is consent, and if we're going to facilitate
that consent, then we want to ensure that with that comes a development agreement that
lays out our expectations associated with that.
Secondly, we want to establish clear guidelines with respect to the muds for the benefit of
council because they're the ones that review the consent requests that are received, but
also for ourselves so we know what we're evaluating and what the expectations are, but also for
the mud developer.
Also this allows for the county to be able to understand again our expectations of what
the city of Denton expects for mud development if they're going to negotiate with us.
Additionally, ideally the mud would be developed in a manner generally consistent with our
conference of plan.
Again, we have limited authority regarding land uses right now, and so with being in
a development agreement negotiation, we have the ability to partake in that conversation
regarding land uses that are being proposed within the mud and then the infrastructure
that supports them.
Number four, we want to encourage alignment with our technical design standards, including
but not limited to our roadway standards and then our water and wastewater standards particularly
within our CCN so that the services can be provided to and maintained for the mud over
time.
Again, we know that the residents that are property owners within the mud, they're making
a financial investment and so we want to make sure that the adequate infrastructure is provided
for, but again if this development eventually gets annexed into the city, then we want to
ensure that we know what we're receiving when it comes to the infrastructure and know that
it was built to city standards to give us a better idea of what the maintenance aspect
would be associated with that.
Our fifth goal was to ensure that the mud has adequate protective services including
fire police ambulance services for the safety of the residents in the greater community.
Again, we want to ensure that when people are at their greatest need and they're calling
911, that service has been assigned and it's on its way, but also then what are the implications
to us from a fire and emergency perspective with services and how that impacts the residents
of the city of Denton, especially like I said if we're having to backfill and send one of
our engines and/or trucks to another community to provide service because then that leaves
a void for us and so our team is backfilling and making sure that our community is provided
for.
We're also interested in number six, verifying the long-term fiscal sustainability of the
mud in order to protect the residents' investment and ensure that a financial burden is not
placed on the residents of Denton and I've already explained that one a couple of times
here as I've been presenting.
Number seven, encouraging environmental stewardship of mud lands and the provision of open space
for the long-term sustainability of the ETJ and the enjoyment of the mud residents.
We know when we worked on the update to the comprehensive plan that preservation of land
and open space, maintaining rural character, and protecting natural resources was of significance
to our community.
So if we have the ability to be able to influence that as part of our development agreement
negotiations then we'll try and do so.
Number eight, to prepare for potential future annexation of a mud in ETJ 1, we want to ensure
that the recommendations of the policy are implemented to facilitate the technical and
financial integration of the mud into the city.
So again, that goes back to the quality of the infrastructure that's built, the structures
themselves, having a level of inspections done associated with it because again, we're
not building inspections out there.
Also if we are to, with some of these mud developments, they may be building city facilities.
So let's say they decide to build a fire station.
The city of Denton is not in the interest of, or doesn't have the interest in inheriting
a Morton building fire station, right?
We have certain standards for us to be able to provide fire service and for our employees.
So this goes back into making sure that if we are to annex some mud within the city,
we know what we're getting, but that development was built to our standards to begin with instead
of some other standard.
Number nine for lands within ETJ 2, ensure that the recommendations of the policy are
implemented so that any possible negative offsite impacts of the development are minimized
and necessary services are provided.
Again, this goes back to adequate infrastructure being developed, but also one of the things
that we got into discussion about was, particularly within ETJ 2, what happens if a mud goes belly
up and they're no longer financially solvent?
Then who's going to be maintaining the roadways and the infrastructure that's out there and
providing for any services, especially if they had fire police, or excuse me, fire service
provide out there because the county would be providing sheriff's support.
But also if the development goes belly up, how does that impact other surrounding development
to the mud?
How does it influence from a land use perspective?
Because those surrounding property owners also have an interest in how the mud development
could impact their land as well.
Number 10, I've already pretty much touched on a couple of different times.
Again, providing a framework and discussion for conversations with the county.
Number 11, establish clear guidelines for a development agreement between the mud and
the city of Denton should the city decide its development agreement is advantageous.
Again, this is the key goal that we would be getting to.
Here what we talked about with council is council said we should establish what are
the minimums?
What are the minimum expectations that we, the city of Denton have for developments that
are wanting to locate within our ETJ and in wanting our consent?
So we feel like number 11 is really going to help with providing that direction and
then it becomes a negotiation, right?
The developer tells us, well, you know, I can live with all of these items except for
this one over here has really given me some grief, can we negotiate on that?
Then, you know, then the city council has the ability to continue to say, nope, sorry,
that's a non-negotiable point, that's a minimum for us and or, you know, yes, we are willing
to consider something differently because, you know, let's say the developer is offering
up something else that's comparable or better value.
So it, but again, it allows for that framework to be further established, if you will.
So the developer knows what the expectation is from the city of Denton should they want
to pursue consent from us.
And then the last item we had here and we added this as a result of some internal conversation
that we were having and it came up naturally in part of our conversation with council,
but that is should the city consider other alternative development financing tools instead
of the MUDs themselves because there are other financing mechanisms out there, whether it's
a public improvement district or a tax increment financing district that could come into play.
Typically, you know, the reason why developers are asking for some sort of financial incentive
and this time I am using the dollar sign, right, the financial incentive is because they're
looking at ways to receive revenues to offset the costs associated with providing for the
infrastructure and any other services that they might be providing.
So and so council is going to be looking at updating our public improvement district policy,
tax increment financing district policy, in the past we have not necessarily been supportive
of entering into those kind of agreements, it's my understanding.
And so the MUD has been the other mechanism in which the developments have pursued.
So item 12 is likely going to drop off in terms of the policy itself for the MUD purposes
because we will be intending to address that separately in another manner with updating
those with our economic development team.
These next set of slides, I'm not going to go through all of these because I basically
covered them all.
The only point I want to make here is just we put this matrix together with the challenges
on the left-hand side that we identified and then how we believe that our proposed MUD
policy update will be able to address those various challenges that were identified.
So you've got that in your packet and you can always look at that at a later date.
So again, direction from council, we received some direction, I've got that on the following
slide here at their meeting last week.
Our next steps now would then be to update the policy and the application requirements.
We anticipate that this is going to be an overhaul of the policy.
There are a few good nuggets of information that are in our current interim policy that
we believe are valid and be able to move forward into our updated policy.
But really, because of the fact that we have all of the application requirements intertwined
within this policy itself, we're going to pull the application requirement information
out, create our separate application framework of which we'll return to council with that.
But we'll have that all listed out of here's what you need to submit if you're going to
do an application for consent from the city of Denton and then here's also the MUD policy.
Because again, remember from all of our comp plan discussions, policies high level provides
that policy direction and then the implementation comes through in this case with the development
agreement and then all of our technical design manuals and what have you that we have.
We anticipate bringing back the updated policy and the application requirements later this
year.
It'll likely be late summer, early fall.
It's possible we could have some additional conversations with council between now and
then as we work on this.
But basically what we heard from council was they were in agreement with the MUD policy
purpose and all of the goals that we presented.
Additionally, they did concur with pursuing development agreements as a potential condition
of consent should certain minimum development requirements be achieved.
And I spoke to that earlier again, identifying in the policy, these are the minimum expectations
that we have if you want to form a MUD within our ETJ and if you're wanting to pursue our
consent so that they know going in what the expectation in terms of whether it was there
anything that we missed, they did not identify anything.
I'm sure as we work on this, we may identify some additional items where we're going to
need their direction.
So we'll likely be back before council before late summer, early, early fall with that conversation.
So I appreciate your attention.
I know that was a very long presentation in kind of a dry subject matter to some extent,
but happy to address any additional questions that the commission may have.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Wow.
That was boring.
No, I'm just kidding.
I would wholeheartedly concur.
No, I think it's actually, it's very interesting.
Obviously the biggest risk that keeps coming to my mind as we're going through this talk
about MUDs is the event of insolvency, right?
That taxpayers aren't there to be able to pay the, pay the due on the bond itself.
Do we have mechanisms in the developer agreement for what happens in the event of insolvency?
Does that already exist somewhere where essentially, because my concern would be, you know, I'm
sure, I think you guys did a great job of encompassing 99% of it, so I'm going to point
out the 1% chance piece, right?
That a municipal utility district has created, whether through mismanagement, misappropriation,
embezzlement, something criminal, it becomes insolvent.
And at that point in time, because of mismanagement, even the utilities themselves have not been
maintained at that point in time.
The MUD goes insolvent, those citizens that are not in the annexed area of the city, not
the city limits, decide, well, we need to get this crap fixed.
And then they come and vote through the annexation process, which I don't know off the top of
my head.
I'd love for Hillary to fill me in maybe at a different time on how the whole annexation
process works now since the House bill we had I think in 2019 or so.
And we have that as a boot camp item.
Oh, cool.
Awesome.
But my fear would then be the city then is they voluntarily annex, we bring them in,
and we take over a utility infrastructure that is insufficient.
So what protections does the development agreement, anything in the revision of this policy do
to protect the city in that event?
That's a great question.
And I'm actually going to call upon Scott, because I know right now we're currently negotiating
the development agreement with Legend Ranch.
Do we address insolvency or what happens or have we engaged in that conversation, Scott?
It looks like he started to.
No, I'm actually looking right now just to confirm.
But ultimately, that's what we're attempting to do with the policy is try to address all
of those provisions to make sure that we have whatever that might look like.
But let me, I'm doing the research.
Yeah, because it almost be like, and just for feedback, if there's a way for there to
be a clause in there about insolvency in the event of insolvency that that then allows
counsel to then vote to be able to create a PID at that point in time.
Just because that's it's sad, obviously, that there's this certain area that is not part
of the city that then becomes a part of the city that their infrastructure is run down
because of poor mismanagement.
The citizens did vote for the politicians to go in and be the board of the municipal
utilities district.
So it's unfair that their politicians they voted in have mismanaged it, therefore creating
a bad situation for them, but at the same time to protect the citizens of Denton.
If annexation rules don't change in house legislature, then it's not fair to citizens
who exist now to have to pick up the bill on that.
And so the ability to then have a PID to be able to create to essentially levy more taxes
against those that come into the city, but those are the ones that should have to weigh
that bill.
And that's a very infinitesimal small percentage chance, but it would protect the existing
citizens in my opinion.
The question I had was, did you guys consult with Dallas Builders Association, any other
developers?
Yeah.
Is that part of the process and stakeholder can stakeholder input be able to see just because
that hate for us to go through a bunch of work on revising a policy that right now is
cumbersome to the point where they're avoiding it and just still going through the more cumbersome
process of not going through TCEQ and instead of going to the state instead, it'd be good
to know if what the revisions made are less cumbersome, therefore more enticing and beneficial
for both sides in this process.
And I think you used a few key words there, yes.
So we've had some conversations with the Home Builders Association.
We're ultimately talking to some of the developers that are doing that.
They ultimately are looking for our consent.
Much of what we're asking for are the same documents that they're required to provide.
So we are trying to entice them, we're trying to encourage them, and we're trying to influence
more positive development with everything that we can without of course chasing them
away.
They have the ability to do that.
So why we have a captive audience, we're trying to do the things that we can.
And from the insolvency, we'll look into that.
I don't have that answer today.
I think that really gets into the bond piece and what they're doing with the legislature
because it is a separate taxing entity that isn't necessarily with us.
That agreement really gets into that we're going to ensure any of the infrastructure
that we may acquire at a later date will be built to our standards and then when it is
that it's annexed.
Sure, and they're obviously going to be formed as GO bonds for the most part, right?
So they're going to be general obligation of the actual taxing body itself.
So it just gets a little bit confusing when we talk about like revenue bonds, not necessarily
a revenue bond.
It's going to be a general obligation bond.
Is there a sinking fund tied to it?
I mean, I just don't know how those and MUDs how traditionally the bond structure is and
I don't want to we can have a whole ton of Yeah, and I don't think we're getting involved
in any of that.
I didn't think so.
That's why I'm not asking about it.
I'm just more concerned about that piece of it's not not really the purview of the city,
but insolvency becomes a part of the city that becomes a problem.
So that's that's something that that they then want to voluntarily annex and now we're
doing that.
So yeah, we'll get that definitive answer.
Thank you.
Yeah, I would just want to echo many of the thoughts of yeah.
Thank you, Commissioner Tim.
It's Wednesday and it feels like Friday to me.
The only couple things I picked up on were one when we're and I recognize this is stuff
that that we're working through because this is the bones but when I hear terms like quality
development and that sort of thing, it's a little hard for me to envision exactly what
the list of things are in the background and that's fine.
I don't need to know right now.
But I guess the one point I wanted to make out when we were when you mentioned, you know,
for instance, the infrastructure quality of roadways or whatever it is.
You can have different deficiencies right where one might be an inadequate subgrade
and geological survey leading to premature failure.
And then another may be well, okay, they built bar ditches instead of curb and gutter and
that sort of thing.
And so just as a pin to put in it, I would say as we're drafting that, it would be good
to make sure that we're not forcing them to build something that over the long term is
more expensive for them to maintain increasing the likelihood of leading to an insolvency
situation or something like that, right into to help address that.
So, you know, if if what we've adopted in the Denton Development Code is the best standards
out there, you know, because that's what you know how we're regulating development within
the city and in TCQ minimum requirements are here in terms of what the mud developer has
to build.
Then what we're trying to do is shore up that distance or or that delta if you will not
distance but shore up that delta and the quality of the construction because ideally we want
them building to our standards because our standards are the best, right.
And so so that way, you know, there's been a lot of thought that has gone into our design
standards that we have today and to provide for quality roadways and to be able to ensure
maintenance over time and also minimize maintenance over time, right.
Because presumably if they're they're built to our standards, then we're trying to ensure
that these roads are going to last or these utilities are going to last.
So the goal is to close that delta so that they're building to our standards and so that
we that we know what we're receiving.
Presumably if they're building to our standards again, if our standards are the best and they're
building to those standards, then ideally that's going to minimize any maintenance considerations
longer term.
Also as part of the development agreement, we would have provisions in there also from
an inspection standpoint to hold the accountability to make sure that the infrastructure is being
built to the standard that we want it built to.
So I feel like the developments, the development agreement itself, when we negotiate those
terms, we'll be able to address any of those concerns as it relates to infrastructure improvements.
Because again, I mean, ideally we want to minimize any impact to the residents within
the mud development, but most importantly, we're concerned about minimizing any financial
implications associated with the city of Denton in the long term.
Yeah, no, I appreciate that.
I wonder whether our DDC requirements are optimized for lowest long term cost or whether they're
optimized for the type of city that we want to see in and around our residents.
And I think that's a different conversation.
That's a definite different conversation, not part of what we're discussing.
And I'm not trying to shut you down, but I'm going to shut you down on that one.
I understand that.
I think that's it.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Great information, Tina, and certainly something we don't discuss very often, and it is a needed
revision.
And so question, is this coming back before us or are you just then continuing to take
this through council?
The intention is that we'll continue to take this through council, however, if along the
way if we feel like there is input that's needed from the commission, then we may bring
that to you.
Or even just kind of as you--
As an informative item.
Yeah, like this again.
I think it's really great to understand it and know what council has kind of directed
you to do just so we kind of are all on the same page with that.
That would be great.
Just another update down the road as you're drafting.
Absolutely.
I think, absolutely, I'm happy to do that because you're right, especially with these
developments being within ETJ1, then you could potentially be seeing some of the plots come
through for that.
Yeah.
And I hope we can get that-- stay on that timeline because clearly with all that's before
you to consider consent on, yeah, it's important.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Okay.
Everyone, we were going to move on with our clarification of agenda items.
I will look to you, do you want to break for a moment, get food and do the rest of our
work session?
Okay.
Let's break work session at 6.05 PM.
We'll reconvene here as soon as you've got your plates and we'll continue.
Thank you.
And I'm going to call our work session back to order at 6.11 PM.
We will continue with our work session agenda, which is clarification of agenda on our meeting
tonight.
First thing would be minutes.
Are there any need for any discussion on minutes here at the work session?
Okay.
Then items for individual consideration, 3A, PP220012.
Hello.
Good evening.
Is it Ashley?
Yes, it is Ashley.
Hello, Ashley.
Hello.
Assistant Planner, City of Denton.
This is PP220012, and this is a preliminary platform industrial use at the intersection
of Moss Branch Road and Jim Crystal Road.
And at this time staff is recommending denial.
They still have a couple of comments that they need to work through, but we have no
objection to the requested extension until June 22nd.
Excellent.
Any questions for Ashley?
Thank you.
Okay.
That'll take us to 3B, PP22008.
Lisa's making her way up.
Hi, Lisa.
Hi.
Good evening, everybody.
Lisa Payne, Principal Planner, City of Denton.
This is a preliminary platform Millennium Crest.
It's a proposed multifamily use.
A 30-day extension was approved last month, but the plot still does not meet all the criteria
for approval, so staff recommends denial.
This one, two weeks ago, an appeal of administrative decision was submitted regarding the approval
of the Millennium Crest Zoning Compliance Plan.
The Denton Development Code and the Texas Local Government Code state that an appeal
stays all related proceedings from further action unless it would create adverse impacts.
However, that conflicts with the Shot Clock Law that requires the automatic approval of
plots that have not been approved or denied by the city within 60 days if an extension
has been requested.
Because the plot was already under review when the appeal was submitted, best practice
would be to take action on the plot tonight so that there's not a result of an automatic
approval.
So, once again, staff recommends denial, and I'm available for questions.
Thank you.
Lisa, is that set for ZBA yet?
We have a tentative date of June 27th, that last Monday of the month, assuming we can
get a quorum.
We just need to confirm.
Got it.
Okay.
Any questions on that?
Okay.
Thank you.
That will take us to 3C, FP220012A, and I believe we had a very late email on this one.
Hi, Julie.
Yes, you did.
I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton.
You did receive an email from us today.
This is a final plot for Unit 26 of Robeson Ranch.
It's single-family residential.
It's consistent with the plan development as well as the preliminary plot.
They had a couple of corrections they needed to make to the plot.
However, they have made them, and so staff is now recommending approval, which is a change
of our recommendation from the original agenda posting.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie.
Any questions?
Commissioner Cole.
Hi, Julie.
Could you kind of ... I need to know if that northwestern point, I think I asked this before,
if on this it doesn't blow up enough, so I can't tell the property owner up there.
Is that us?
I don't believe so, but I will check.
Would you please?
Yes, sir.
Absolutely.
Thank you so much.
Any other questions?
Any other questions for Julie?
I do not see any.
I think you're staying right up here for 3D, FP220013.
Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner.
This is a final plot for a portion of the Ed Robeson Boulevard within the Robeson Ranch
development.
Staff does recommend approval of the request as it meets all of our criteria for approval.
Questions on this one?
That will take us then to 3E, PP220011, those remaining.
This is a preliminary plat for the Woodrow multifamily addition.
It's at the intersection, or I'm sorry.
It's south of the intersection of Woodrow and McKinney on the east side of Woodrow.
It is a preliminary plat.
This might look familiar.
You saw the SUP last meeting for the site, and there's another item on the agenda tonight.
They do have some items that they need to correct on the plan development, or I'm sorry,
on the preliminary plat, and so staff recommends denial.
They have requested an extension, and staff has no objection to the extension to the June
22nd meeting.
Questions?
Commissioner McDade.
Thank you, Chair.
You said there was something else on the agenda other than this?
Yes, sir.
It's the next item on.
Okay, okay.
Yes, sir.
All right.
I just want to make sure I heard you correctly.
Yes, sir.
All right.
Okay.
Thank you, Julie.
Thank you.
Taking us to then 3F, S220002.
Julie, it is your show this evening.
All right.
Julie Wyatt, senior planner.
This is S220002C, pathway on Woodrow.
I just have a couple of slides just to talk about.
So in summary, you might remember this project.
It did come before you on the May 11th meeting.
It was for a specific use permit for 285 dwelling units in the suburban corridor district.
That item was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation.
PNZ did recommend denial of that request.
Staff recommended approval as it was consistent with the comprehensive plan.
So tonight coming before you is actually a reconsideration of that.
So the Code of Ordinances does speak to that.
A member who voted with the prevailing side of a prior motion may make a motion to reconsider
at the next meeting.
So that would be tonight's meeting.
The motion can be seconded by any member.
One of the commissioners did request that the item be placed on tonight's agenda for
that discussion among members in a motion.
If the motion to reconsider carries, then a new public hearing would have to go forward
along with public notification.
The earliest meeting that it could go back before you would be the June 22nd meeting.
And then should the motion to reconsider fail, the original motion of denial would stand
or recommendation of denial would stand.
And then that would require a super majority at City Council.
So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> Thanks, Julie.
And then let me just kind of reiterate.
So what this item is, is we're voting on whether or not we are going to be in favor of the
reconsideration.
So we're not hearing the project again tonight.
That's not even what we're discussing on 3F.
We're simply voting, do we want to vote in favor or not in putting it on the agenda on
June 22nd for reconsideration of the request.
So questions on that.
Commissioner Smith.
>> Thank you, Chair.
How does the preliminary plat interact with this SUP?
Is the preliminary plat something that is the one that's presented for this project that's
the item before this?
Is that as it's being built by right and then we are considering bringing back the SUP for
a public hearing June 22nd and at that point in time, we're also then because of what was
presented in that one, asking for either denial or recommendation for 30-day postponement
to June 22nd.
Would that then make that vote on that Plenary Pat essentially debunk at that point in time?
How are these interacting together?
>> So the preliminary plat, it does the lot size does meet the minimum dimensional standards
for the zoning district.
So it's consistent with that suburban corridor district.
It wouldn't necessarily approve that project.
That would have to come through that specific use permit process.
>> Right.
And if I could -- and the preliminary plat would be tied to the SUP being approved otherwise,
correct?
>> Got it.
Okay.
>> Meaning?
>> That can't really be a -- I mean, if the SUP is not approved, then they can't do the
project.
>> Well, if the SUP was not approved, so the key thing is the preliminary plat is not filed
at the county.
So the applicant would have to come back with a revised preliminary plat in the future to
be able to accommodate any subsequent development.
So it's whether, you know, it's a different multifamily request that gets approved for
the project and they change the layout, their easements are going to have to move or it's
a commercial development, whatever transpires, then we will have a subsequent plat come through.
But that's a great question because we had that discussion internally also and that's
why we noticed.
>> Yeah, because it puts us in a weird position.
>> Right.
>> If this is set to be reconsidered on the 22nd and the preliminary plat is coming through
us on the 22nd, it's an odd kind of place to be.
>> Right.
>> And if I saw before the -- sorry.
>> Yes.
>> If I do.
Am I good?
Okay.
Cool.
The -- obviously, the -- this vote on the preliminary plat piece of it is all being
forced by the shot clock rule.
So understand that piece.
I think more of my -- a reason why I broached that in the first place, how they interacted
was the way that it's being listed on the agenda and flipping those items.
It just seems to me that the way they interact, if that -- a motion to reconsider fails at
some point tonight, then does even considering the preliminary plat at that time, does it
still make sense?
If we go through and then postpone it to June 22nd, it comes back in and says, hey, well,
we didn't even reconsider it.
Now it's going to go to council at that point in time, I guess, for a supermajority.
So I guess I could see the reason why I'm still voting on a preliminary plat even on
June 22nd if an extension was filed for the item before this, that if for some reason
at council it gets overruled by a supermajority and gets approved, then that preliminary process
is already in there.
But I'm just trying to figure out the voting -- or the items, the ways in which we're going
through on the agenda.
So what we would do is, depending upon how the SUP reconsideration plays out this evening,
I think we'll have a better idea, and we can always work with the applicant in coordinating
the scheduling.
Obviously, we'll work with our legal team also to see if there's any concerns regarding
how the plat is scheduled with respect to any future zoning action associated with that,
and then including maybe even looking at the order of the items placed on the agenda, especially
if they end up on the same agenda.
But we'll work through that.
So right now, tonight, the main objective was that the applicant is requesting a 30-day
extension on the plat, so I think we're good from that standpoint.
Yeah, we do have to take action on it.
But we'll definitely be sensitive to that when we come back with the plat.
Okay.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Any other questions with regard to Commissioner Pruitt?
That's what happens when you try to push the button with a wet finger.
Just to make sure I'm reading this right, I know a couple of weeks ago, I'd asked you
about the congruency, if you will, geographically of the SUP-defined area with the to-be-platted
area, and then I noticed, as they're both here on the agenda, that the SUP calls out
an area of 11.891 acres, and the plat that we're delaying is 13.868.
Can you help me understand that discrepancy?
I had that same question.
They are dedicating all of Dutchess as public right-of-way, so I had that very same concern,
and I made sure that it all worked out, so yes.
Got it.
So it's really the 13.86 acres of area before it's platted, and it's the other area after
it's platted because of the dedication.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Any other questions on the reconsideration item?
Okay.
With that, I will adjourn our work session at 6.24 p.m., and we will reconvene in council
chambers for our regular meeting shortly.
Good evening, and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
Wednesday, May 25th, 2022.
With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.38 p.m., and I wanted to make mention
that Commissioner Villarreal is joining us via Zoom, so we will be doing roll call votes
this evening.
First item of business is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one, indivisible.
Thank you.
Next item on our agenda is the consideration for approval of the minutes for May 11th.
Commissioner Cole.
We've got a first to approve, Commissioner Anderson.
Second.
We've got a first and a second to approve the minutes for May 11th.
Any discussion?
All right.
Let's take a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner McDade.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Aye.
And the Chair is an aye.
That motion carries 7-0.
That takes us to our items for individual consideration this evening.
3A is PP220012.
I'll invite Ashley up for presentation.
Hi, Ashley.
Hello.
Good evening.
Ashley Hickock, Assistant Planner, City of Denton.
This item is PP220012, and this is a preliminary plat for an industrial use at the intersection
of Mosh Branch Road and Jim Crystal Road.
At this time, staff has recommended denials, it does not meet all the criteria for approval,
but they have requested an extension and staff has no objection to the requested extension
on June 22nd.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thanks, Ashley.
Any questions for Ashley?
I do not see any.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
I make a motion to approve an extension of date certain of June 22nd, 2022.
Thank you.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Second.
I make a motion or second to approve the extension request to a date certain of June 22nd.
Any discussion?
Okay.
We will take a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner McDade.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Aye.
Chair is also an aye.
That motion carries 7-0.
That will take us to 3B, P-2-2-0-0-8.
Hi, Lisa.
Hi, there.
Do I just go over there?
Hopefully that worked.
All right.
Good evening.
Lisa Payne, principal planner for the City of Denton.
This is a preliminary plat for Millennium Crest for a proposed multifamily use.
A 38 extension was approved last month, but the plat still does not meet all the criteria
for approval and so staff recommends denial.
Two weeks ago, an appeal for administrative decision was submitted regarding the approval
of the Millennium Crest zoning compliance plan.
The Denton development code and the Texas local government code both state that an appeal
stays all related proceedings from further action until unless it would create adverse
impacts.
However, there's conflicts with the shot clock law that requires the automatic approval.
It's not sharing.
Oh.
I didn't do the right thing.
Sorry.
Oh, hang on.
Which one is it?
Yes.
There you go.
Thanks.
Anyway, that conflicts with the shot clock law that requires the automatic approval of
plats that are not approved or denied by a city within 60 days if an extension has been
approved.
If that was already under review when the appeal was submitted, it would be best practice
to take action tonight on the plat so that lack of action does not require automatic
approval.
Again, staff recommends denial and I'm available for questions.
Thank you, Lisa.
And when did you say it's hopeful that the appeals heard at ZBA?
It's expected to go to ZBA on June 27th.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any questions?
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to deny.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We've got a first and a second for denial.
Any questions?
Discussion?
Okay.
Well, we'll take a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner McDade.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Dade.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Aye.
Chair is an aye.
That motion carries 7-0.
That will take us to 3-C, FP 220012.
I'll invite Julie Wyatt up to the podium.
Hi, Julie.
Good evening.
All right.
Good evening.
Julie Wyatt, excuse me, senior planner with the city.
I am presenting FP 22-0012A.
This is for a unit within the Robeson Ranch plan development.
The proposed final plat is for single family residential which is consistent with the plan
development and the preliminary plat.
Staff's original recommendation was for denial, however, they've worked through the last remaining
outstanding issues and so our recommendation has changed to approval.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thanks, Julie.
Questions for Julie?
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Anderson.
Second.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Questions, discussion?
Okay.
Seeing none, let's vote via roll call.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner McDade.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Haynes.
Aye.
Commissioner Stewart.
Aye.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Aye.
Chair is an aye.
That motion carries 7-0.
Taking us to 3D, FP 22-0013.
Okay.
It is not wanting to go to presentation mode, so Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City,
and I am presenting, we're staying in the Robeson Ranch development.
This is for a section of the Ed Robeson Boulevard roadway.
They have a preliminary plat that's approved.
They have worked through all the remaining issues for the final plat and so staff recommends
approval of the final plat and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thanks, Julie.
Any questions for Julie?
Okay.
I don't see any thanks, Julie.
Thank you.
Commissioner Anderson.
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Second.
Got a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote via roll call.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner McDade.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Aye.
Chair is also an aye.
That motion carries 7-0.
That will take us to 3E, PP220011.
Hello again, Julie.
Hello.
Okay.
I'm going to try this one.
Okay.
All right.
Okay.
Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner.
This is PP22-0011.
This is a preliminary plat for the Woodrow Multifamily Edition.
The subject property is located south of McKinney on the east side of Woodrow.
They do have some items they need to work through in order to get to where we could
approve the preliminary plat, so staff does recommend denial.
They have requested an extension to the June 22nd meeting and staff has no objection to
that extension request.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie.
Are there any questions for Julie on this item?
I don't see any.
Thanks, Julie.
Thank you.
Commissioner Pruitt.
I move to approve an extension to the date certain of June 22nd.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
All right.
We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of
June 22nd.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Seeing none, let's take a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner McDade.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Aye.
Fan chair is an aye.
That motion carries 7-0, taking us to 3F, S22-0002.
All right, this is S22-0002, pathway on Woodrow.
So this might look familiar to you.
It was an item that came before you at the last PNZ meeting on May 11th.
It was for a specific use permit for 285 dwelling units within the Suburban Corridor District.
Tonight, the request before you is just a reconsideration of your previous recommendation
of denial.
The subject property is located south of McKinney on the east side of Woodrow Lane.
Just to remind you, staff recommended approval of the request.
However, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of their request 4-3.
So reconsideration is not something we typically see in the Planning and Zoning Commission.
This might be a first that I'm aware of, but the Code of Ordinances does allow for reconsideration
of items.
A member who voted for the prevailing side may make a motion to reconsider at the next
meeting.
Then that motion could be seconded by any member.
Commissioner Jason Cole did request that this item be placed on tonight's agenda for that
reconsideration vote or motion.
So just to let you know, if the motion to reconsider carries tonight, then a new public
hearing would have to go forward.
The most ... soonest, thank you, soonest Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that it could
go forward with that public notification is June 22nd and then it would go on to City
Council after that.
Should the motion to reconsider fail, then that original recommendation of denial would
stand and a super majority would be required at City Council.
So that's all I have unless you have any questions and I'll be happy to answer you.
Thank you, Julie, and I'll just reiterate what we're doing tonight is voting whether
or not to allow reconsideration of the item.
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, it was me that requested this reconsideration.
I let my emotions get the best of me and that's something we should never do up here and I'm
of the opinion that this particular project for that property is the best land use and
so I would like to reconsider.
Thank you, Commissioner Cole.
Commissioner McDade.
I'm not going to say I let my emotions get the best of me.
What I am going to say is I actually met with the neighborhood about this project and we
had the City Council was in attendance, we had Councilman Byrd, Beck and McGee and the
mayor was there and we had members of the Denton Housing Authority and we discussed
it and we talked about it and they were pretty much, this is something that they are not
in agreement with.
If it goes forward, they'll be upset, but they won't be shocked because they're used
to being given what they don't want.
That's something that is probably never going to change and that's pretty much why they
refused to come here because no matter what they do or say, it falls on deaf ears so they
pretty much just have given up, but I'm just letting everyone know that hey, they don't
want it, the council was there, the mayor was there, there were a lot of authority figures
who were there and they let it be known.
I asked for a vote three times to make sure that the first two times were not a fluke.
They said they didn't want it, they're asking the city to listen to them, maybe for the
first time because I haven't heard anything about hey, we asked for it, we told them we
didn't want it and we got it anyway.
So if this city has a heart like they say they do, we ask you to bring some of your
heart into Southeast Denton because that's something we don't see from the city.
Thank you.
Any further discussion or questions for Julie on the ... correct, that's correct, yeah,
we are on discussion and questions for staff.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Thank you, Chair.
I guess I'm just curious to know ... it's interesting to know there was a meeting where
that was discussed, sorry, I didn't know about it so I couldn't come, but I'm interested
to know if there was any discussion about what they would see instead of this.
Sorry, what they would like to see as opposed to this proposal, if that makes sense.
Was there any discussion of that or not?
What the residents of Southeast Denton want is more home ownership and less rental property
because they're under the belief that home ownership brings about power.
Renters have a voice but they have no power.
You have all that property there but for some reason applicants, they will not come over
and build homes and when you don't have home ownership and you're deciding to put in more
rental property, you are decreasing the power that's in that neighborhood.
They've noticed that other areas who aren't in district one, when the apartments come
and you use the word affordable housing, the first thing that the neighborhood yells is
what it brings about crime.
Like I told them, I've never seen any data and I don't know if that's true, but let's
just say for the sake of argument that it is true.
Why would you want to bring more crime into our area?
From the Renaissance apartments all the way to outside of loop 288, the McPenny Street
apartments, there's over 8,000 apartments on that one street and it's not even a mile
long.
None of all the police calls in Southeast Denton are on that street.
So why would you want to bring more apartments to Woodrow and they're already getting ready
to build 216 on loop 288?
Commissioner McDade, I'm going to interrupt you just to try to stay on topic.
So what we're discussing right now is a reconsideration of the vote, so we're not really rehashing
discussion necessarily on what we had last meeting.
What we want to know is, is there any questions or further discussion for staff with regard
to making a decision on the reconsideration?
I mean, I understand, I was just asking this, answering this question.
I appreciate it.
Commissioner Cole, did you have anything, you're still on the board, do you have anything else
to add?
No.
Okay.
Commissioner Anderson.
I make a motion to approve the reconsideration.
Okay.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
Okay.
We have a first and a second on the board for reconsideration of the item.
Further discussion?
Okay.
With that, I will call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner McDade.
No.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
Okay.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Nay.
Okay.
And the chair is an aye.
That motion will carry 5-2 and that will move us to our Planning and Zoning Commission
matrix.
And I will give it over to you, Tina.
Thank you, Chairman Ellis.
So with respect to this last agenda item that took place, so as Julie mentioned in her
presentation, we'll bring back that zoning case for reconsideration on June 22nd.
So in terms of our matrix, so a couple of things, just update from council.
So did the MED presentation that you all received.
So we already talked about that earlier this evening.
Also in case you're interested, Pre-Tam Deshmukh on our team also gave a presentation to council
on Vision Zero and Vision Zero is an initiative that the city is working on.
Right now we're doing an assessment for the first phase of this project before we undertake
the second phase.
But basically the goal associated with Vision Zero is that there were zero fatalities and
a reduction in significant injuries that may result from bicyclists and pedestrian and
vehicle crashes associated with that.
So I know we have on your agenda later this month to talk about some trends, or excuse
me, not this month, but later this year in the fall to talk about some transportation
related items.
So I'm sure Pre-Tam will address the commission on that.
But just want to let you know that that was discussed at council.
So if you're interested in Vision Zero, I would encourage you watch the presentation
that Pre-Tam did on May 17th at the council meeting.
Also we had on the commission's agenda was also this particular zoning case with respect
to the Woodrow multifamily that was continued.
And so that date will be adjusted as well.
It'll still be on the agenda, but it would be continued after the commission considers
action as a result of the reconsideration request this evening.
And also she has already left this evening, but I wanted to thank Lisa for all of her
service and time with us.
She's been with us just under a year and has an opportunity to go work in another community.
So unfortunately Lisa will be leaving us and I was hoping to catch her before she left.
But again, but we thank her for all the work that she's done here at the city of Denton.
So if you don't see that's why so, but she's pursued an opportunity in another community.
So we wish her all the best.
For sure.
And that's all I have.
Thank you.
Okay.
Anything else on the matrix?
Commissioner McDade.
Oh, thank you, chair.
I just want to make sure that this item is going to come back for the June 22nd PNZ meeting,
correct?
That is correct.
And we will send out additional public notices on this since the public hearing or since
the planning and zoning commission had taken a previous action.
So we'll make sure we re-notice for all those within our notification boundaries.
But if you want to help spread the word, please do.
Most definitely.
All right.
Yeah, our signs are still on the lot obviously because council hasn't even heard it yet,
right?
Okay.
Anything else on the matrix?
I just had one thought as we were discussing MUDS today in a discussion of state bills
were brought up.
Is there anyone who could come before us for just a work session discussion and give us
kind of an overview of maybe what's pending out there, what's having to do with planning
and development and whatnot?
I know we've got people out there on the ground.
So we tend not to hear about a whole lot of state legislation until it's kind of thrown
in our face.
If that is something that you could-
We could look at doing something.
We might want to wait closer to when the bill filing deadline occurs, but we could probably
give you an overview of the types of bills that have been filed.
And I know in the MUDS presentation that we had earlier this evening, Commissioner Cole
made mention of a potential bill with respect to dis-annexation.
And so I know we have on the work session matrix also to talk about annexation and then
also if this is getting traction with respect to dis-annexation, what that process also
looks like.
So we intend to address that.
That'd be great.
Anybody else?
Okay.
Seeing no one, I will adjourn our meeting at 7.01 p.m.
Thank you, everyone.