Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Plan Commission Pre Meeting]

[00:02:48]

>> [MUSIC] [INAUDIBLE] THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS A COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS SITE AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THESE ARE THE PHOTOS OF THE AREA, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OFF OF BUCKINGHAM ROAD LOOKING INTO THE RIVERSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND THIS IS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS THE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, ALONG NORTH SHILOH ROAD IN BUCKINGHAM AND THIS IS THE GAS STATION, AND THEN IN THE RARE YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A MIXTURE OF COMMUNITY RETAIL, AND TO THE SOUTH IS THE RIVERSIDE DEVELOPMENT.

IN 2017, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A CONCEPT PLAN AND IN THAT CONCEPT PLAN, THIS PINK AREA UP HERE WAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES USE, AND NOW THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO AMEND THIS SIDE TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL 13 DETACHED HOMES.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN.

TO THE NORTH IS THE MANOR HOMES, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THESE TWO LOTS, AND THEN THE GARDEN HOMES ARE TO THE SOUTH.

WHAT THE TWO HOMES THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THEY ARE MEETING THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 17-37, AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THE MANOR HOMES IS 5,100 SQUARE FEET AND FOR THE GARDEN HOMES IS 4,100 SQUARE FEET.

[00:05:03]

THESE HOMES ARE MEETING THE PD REQUIREMENTS.

THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, THEY ARE MEETING ALL THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AS PER THE OLDER PD.

THIS IS A CLOSE-UP OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SIX-FOOT WALL ALONG BUCKINGHAM ROAD AND THEN ALSO A SIX-FOOT WALL ALONG PATTERSON ROAD.

I'M JUST GOING TO GO BACK TO THE PHOTOS.

THE APPLICANT IS JUST CONTINUING THE SAME BRICK WALL THAT'S ACTUALLY ALREADY ON THE SITE.

I'M LOOKING OVER THE SITE PLAN AGAIN.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR AN ALLEY WAIVER FOR THE TWO LOTS, HOWEVER, THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH WILL HAVE A ALLEY ACCESS FROM THE PHASE 2 OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 2017.

THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS OF THE HOMES THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, WHICH IS THE GARDEN DETACHED HOMES AND THEN ALSO THE MANOR DETACHED HOMES.

THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING ANY DEVIATIONS FOR THIS APPLICATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

WE MAILED OUT 126 NOTIFICATION LETTERS, WE RECEIVED FIVE INSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA THAT IS FOR AND TWO INSIDE THE NOTIFICATION AREA THAT IS AGAINST AND THE TOTAL RESPONSES WAS FIVE.

>> ANY, QUESTIONS? LET'S SEE, COMMISSIONER ROSE AND THEN COMMISSIONER LUCHT.

[NOISE] HERE WE GO.

GET YOUR MIC LIVE NOW.

>> I'M LIVE.

>> YEAH.

>> THERE'S A MAJOR ENTRANCE ON BUCKINGHAM AND THERE'S A MAJOR ENTRANCE ON SHILOH, IS THE APPLICANT GOING TO PUT TRAFFIC LIGHTS THERE? EITHER ONE OF THEM OR IS IT CITY GOING TO DO IT, OR HOW ARE THEY GOING TO CONTROL THE TRAFFIC? BECAUSE WHEN THIS GETS BUILT UP, THAT'S GOING TO BE MISERABLE.

>> I AM NOT AWARE ABOUT THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT THIS TIME, BUT MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> COMMISSIONER LUCHT.

>> WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES AREA THAT IS BEING AMENDED?

>> SO FAR THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, THAT WAS FOR JUST SMALL RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICES, BUT SEEMS LIKE THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO HAVE A BUYER FOR THAT PIECE OF LOT, SO THEY DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND ADD IN 13 MORE HOMES.

>> THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES PLOT IS NOT GOING TO BE LOCATED ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY OR THE WHOLE?

>> NO.

>> OKAY.

>> I FIGURED THAT WOULD HAPPEN WHEN IT FIRST CAME THROUGH.

AT LEAST THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHER RETAIL NEAR YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.

>> [NOISE] YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> SO FAR. [LAUGHTER] ABSOLUTELY.

WELL, THIS IS THE IMPACT FEES STUDY ITEM.

SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL, I THINK A FEW OF YOU MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, DEFINITELY.

MR. CHAIRMAN. FIVE YEARS AGO WE DID AN IMPACT FEES STUDY.

CAMYHORN WAS OUR CONSULTANT AND WE HAD SOME MEETINGS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND OF COURSE WITH CITY COUNCIL AND THEY PRESENTED A LOT OF INFORMATION, A LOT OF DATA.

OF COURSE, IN YOUR PACKETS, IN YOUR ATTACHMENT, THERE'S STUDIES AND A LOT OF NUMBERS, A LOT OF DATA.

BUT I WILL KEEP THIS VERY BRIEF AND JUST GET REALLY TO THE POINT.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, STATE LAW FOR THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES MUNICIPALITIES THAT ASSESS IMPACT FEES TO RE-EVALUATE THOSE EVERY FIVE YEARS,

[00:10:03]

AND IF NECESSARY, ADOPT A STUDY OR A NEW STUDY IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE SHOULD BE.

GARLAND COLLECTS IMPACT FEES FOR WATER AND FOR ROADWAY.

[NOISE] AGAIN, A STUDY WAS CONDUCTED FIVE YEARS AGO WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL.

IT WAS NEEDED AT THE TIME.

LONG STORY SHORT, THE FEES WENT UP, WATER AND ROADWAY.

IN CONSULTING WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE WATER DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS OUR SAME CONSULTANT FROM CAMYHORN.

WE DETERMINED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY AT THIS TIME TO DO A COMPLETELY NEW STUDY.

THE STUDY IS STILL VALID.

IT WILL LIKELY BE NEEDED IN ANOTHER FIVE YEARS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR WILL BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION PER THE BOND THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THIS STUDY.

BUT IT'S STILL PRETTY EARLY FOR THOSE.

GIVE IT ANOTHER FIVE YEARS, WILL DEFINITELY NEED A WHOLE NEW STUDY, BUT IT IS STILL VALID AT THIS TIME IN STAFF'S OPINION FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS.

WITH THAT, YOU ALL OPERATE AS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

IT GOES TO YOU ALL FOR RECOMMENDATION AND THEN WE'LL BRING THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FORMAL ORDINATES APPROVAL.

ONE OF THE ATTACHMENTS, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE LAST ONE, HAD SOME COMPARISON CHARTS OF WHERE OUR FEES LINE UP OR ALIGN WITH OTHER DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA CITIES.

WE PRESENTED THAT FIVE YEARS AGO.

I TASKED THE CONSULTANT TO SEE WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THAT.

I'VE GOT IT AVAILABLE IF YOU'D LIKE.

I'VE GOT THE CHARTS HERE, BUT GENERALLY, WE'RE STILL IN LINE WITH OTHER CITIES IN THE REGION, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT BELOW AVERAGE ON SOME OF THE FEES, ESPECIALLY FOR INDUSTRIAL.

I RECALL FIVE YEARS AGO AS A POLICY MATTER, KEEPING THE FEES RELATIVELY LOW FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS.

A LITTLE BIT ON THE LOW SIDE OF MULTIFAMILY AS WELL, BUT GENERALLY OVERALL IN LINE WITH OTHER CITIES FOR VARIOUS LAND USES, FOR ROADWAY AND WATER.

STAFF DOESN'T HAVE A PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATION OR POSITION AT THIS TIME FOR THE FEES.

BUT OF COURSE, THE MAXIMUM FEES STILL APPLY AS PER THE STUDY FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS, IF THIS IS RE-APPROVED.

THE COLLECTION RATE, THE CITY CAN ADOPT A COLLECTION RATE AT ANY RATE AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T EXCEED THE MAXIMUM.

THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE DONE AT ANY TIME, THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE DONE EVERY FIVE YEARS.

THE COUNCIL CAN JUST AT ANY TIME IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, ADJUST THE FEE, AGAIN, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T [INAUDIBLE]

>> IT'S A COUNCIL DECISION, WE HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT THE FEES ARE.

>> SURE. YOU CERTAINLY CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT WE HAD THAT IN YOUR PACKETS FOR INFORMATION IF IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS, BUT OTHERWISE, I'LL JUST STOP THERE AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> MICHAEL ROSE.

>> I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A QUESTION, I HAVE AN OBSERVATION.

I'M SO TIRED OF PEOPLE, CITIZENS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COST OF UTILITIES.

I THINK IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE THE CITY DOES NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING.

MOSTLY IT'S ABOUT ELECTRICITY, GPNL, AND IT'S VERY COMPETITIVE.

IT'S THE WATER THAT WHEN YOU GET YOUR BILL, YOU GET YOUR ELECTRIC AND THEN WATER AND A TOTAL.

IT'S ENORMOUS. BUT IT'S BECAUSE OF WATER AND SEWER.

I WISH THE CITY COULD DO A BETTER JOB OF EXPLAINING THAT TO CITIZENS. I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER.

[LAUGHTER] I JUST KEEP HEARING PEOPLE COMPLAINING, MAN, GARLAND [INAUDIBLE] IS SO BAD.

IT'S NOT, IT'S THE TOTAL BILL THAT'S SO BAD.

ANYWAY, JUST AN OBSERVATION AND IT'S ANNOYING.

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> COMMISSIONER JENKINS.

>> GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING.

>> I UNDERSTAND THE POLICY REASON BEHIND KEEPING EVERYTHING PRETTY STABLE.

HOW DOES THAT HINDER THE CITY'S ABILITY AT A LATER DATE AND TIME AS IT SEEKS TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE IF IT CONTINUES TO JUST KEEP THAT LINE STEADY AND AT A LATER DATE? IT NEEDS TO REALLY RAMP UP THAT COST.

SHOULD THERE BE ANY CONSIDERATION TO A SLIGHT INCREASE CONSIDERING THE COST OF LIVING GOES OUT.

WHEN I SAY COST OF LIVING THAT'S NOT QUITE WHAT I MEAN, BUT THINGS ARE GETTING MORE EXPENSIVE.

BY KEEPING EVERYTHING THE EXACT SAME, ARE WE LIMITING THE CITY IN THE FUTURE TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE AND COMPETITIVE? IS THE QUESTION.

>> THAT'S A GREAT POINT AND IT IS A BALANCE BECAUSE I SHOULD MENTION WE DID OR THE CITY COUNCIL DID JUST INCREASE OUR ZONING AND PLANNING FEES AS WELL.

THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

THAT WAS JUST PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS.

[00:15:02]

YOU'RE RIGHT, COST OF CONSTRUCTION, COST OF LIVING, THOSE ARE ALL GOING UP.

IT'S REALLY A POLICY DECISION, OF COURSE, AS THE COLLECTION RATE GOES.

AGAIN, FIVE YEARS AGO THE THOUGHT WAS TO TRY TO GET THE MAXIMUM FEE.

I THINK AT THE TIME SEEMED A LITTLE EXTREME SINCE BOTH WATER AND ROADWAY WERE GOING UP QUITE A BIT.

THAT WAS A HAPPY MEDIUM OF STILL INCREASING BUT NOT TOO MUCH AND ALSO STAYING GENERALLY AROUND THE MIDDLE AND THE REGION.

IT DOES LOOK LIKE A NUMBER OF CITIES HAVE GONE UP SINCE THEN.

[INAUDIBLE], IF YOU'VE NOTICE IN YOUR CHART HAS BY [LAUGHTER] FAR THE HIGHEST IN THE REGION.

BUT IT'S A GREAT POINT.

HONESTLY, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE AN ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS OF OUR IMPACT FEE COLLECTION RATE TO SEE, BUT THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA AND SOMETHING WE COULD CONSIDER INTERNALLY AND SEE WHERE WE ARE.

THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS TO CONSIDER.

>> IT'S A TOUGH BALANCING POSITION BECAUSE WE'RE IN REDEVELOPMENT MODE.

EVEN IF YOU'RE REDEVELOPING A LOT, I THINK IMPACT FEES STILL APPLY IF YOU'RE DOING CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WORK.

WE NEED TO CHARGE ENOUGH TO TRY TO GET SOME MONEY IN, BUT NOT SO MUCH THAT AS WE HEARD THE OTHER DAY BECOME A BARRIER TO REDEVELOPMENT.

DEVELOPERS LOOK AT BARRIER COST WAS THE TERM WE HEARD THE OTHER DAY TO DEVELOP OUR SEMINAR.

>> I AGREE TO THE POINT THAT I'M REALLY JUST STARTING TO WONDER.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE REMAIN COMPETITIVE AS WE ARE IN A PLACE, A TRANSITION.

I'M HAPPY NOW THE DEVELOPERS SEE GARLAND HAS AN AREA THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN PUTTING THE INVESTMENT IN.

I WAS JUST WONDERING IF WE ARE LIMITING THE CITY'S ABILITY TO BE FLEXIBLE WHEN THERE MIGHT BE A TIME THERE NEED TO BE FLEXIBLE.

>> LOOKING AT THE CHART, I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY ON THE GOOD SIDE OF THINGS.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT DON'T THESE FEES GO TO HELP OFFSET THE COST OF BOND PROJECTS?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> MAYBE THERE'S MORE MONIES LEFT FOR OVERRUNS AND OTHER THINGS AND OTHER BOND PROJECTS BECAUSE THESE FEES HELP PAY FOR SOME OF YOUR OWN PROJECTS.

>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THAT'S CORRECT AND A COUPLE OF OTHER CONSIDERATIONS TOO.

IF THERE IS A PROJECT THAT COMES TO THE CITY AND THEY'RE HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, OFTENTIMES, IMPACT FEES ARE ON THE TABLE AS A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR NEGOTIATION.

>> IT'S A NEGOTIATING ITEM TOO.

>> SURE. IT'S A PROJECT BY PROJECT CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, BUT THAT'S ONE CONSIDERATION.

ALSO I APPRECIATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION FIVE YEARS AGO OF MAKING ALL THE SERVICE AREAS, THE COLLECTION RATES CONSISTENT ACROSS THE SERVICE AREAS.

BEFORE WE HAD 18 OF THEM, NOW WE HAVE FOUR AND ALL 18 HAD DIFFERENT COLLECTION RATES.

[LAUGHTER] SINCE THEN IT'S BEEN MUCH EASIER FOR STUFF TO ADMINISTER.

BUT BUT PART OF THE THOUGHT OF THAT WAS THAT SOME OF THE SERVICE AREAS HAD MORE AREAS OF REDEVELOPMENT NEED AND THE THOUGHT WAS TO KEEP THOSE FROM GOING TOO HIGH OF WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO TARGET.

>> IF WE DID PROPORTIONALLY, THE SOUTH WOULD BE CHARGING MUCH HIGHER FEES WERE INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE NORTH IS RELATIVELY NEWER, BUT WE CAN STILL CHARGE FEES AND THOSE CAN HELP THE OTHERS IN THE CITY.

>> YES, SIR.

>> WE'RE ALL IN IT TOGETHER, REALLY.

>> [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I THINK THAT'S IT FOR OUR BRIEFING SESSION AND WE WILL BE BACK LIVE AT SEVEN O'CLOCK FOR THE MAIN PORTION OF OUR MEETING.

THANK YOU. [MUSIC] GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO

[Call to Order]

THE NOVEMBER 11TH MEETING OF THE GARLAND PLANNING COMMISSION.

US IS OUR CUSTOM, WE COMMISSIONERS START OUR MEETING WITH A PRAYER AND PLEDGE.

YOU'RE INVITED TO JOIN US.

WHETHER YOU JOIN US OR NOT, HAS NO BEARING ON THE DECISIONS TO THIS COMMISSION OR YOUR RIGHTS IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION? NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL.

TONIGHT'S PRAYER AND PLEDGE WILL BE LED BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS.

>> PLEASE, BOW YOUR HEADS. GOD, WE COME TO YOU WITH OUR HEADS BOWED AND OUR HEARTS HUMBLED.

WE BEAR WITNESS TO YOUR GRACE AND LOVE, BUT WE ALSO BRING YOU OUR ANXIETIES, OUR CONCERNS, AND OUR FEARS.

WE KNOW THAT YOU WALK WITH US AND THAT YOU ARE OUR SWORD AND SHIELD.

BUT WE ASK THAT YOU WALK WITH AND GUIDE OUR VETERANS AND ARMED FORCES AND THEIR FAMILIES.

THEY HAVE GIVEN THEMSELVES TO A SENSE OF GREATER PURPOSE AND WE ARE HUMBLED BY THEIR ACTS OF SERVICE AND HONOR.

WALK WITH OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, WITH OUR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, AND WITH OUR TEACHERS.

[00:20:01]

GOD, WE ALSO ASK THAT YOU COMFORT THE HEARTS AND FAMILIES OF MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION THAT HAVE EXPERIENCED DEATH AND CRISIS.

WE PRAY FOR COMMISSIONER JOHN DAVID O'HARA WHO WE KNOW IS ON THE ROAD TO RECOVERY FROM A MEDICAL EMERGENCY.

BE WITH HIM AND HIS FAMILY.

GUIDE US TO ACT IN FAITH AND LOVE AS WE PRAY FOR HIS SPEEDY RECOVERY AND EVENTUAL RETURN.

GOD AS WE CONDUCT TONIGHT'S BUSINESS, ALLOW US TO BE INDIVIDUALLY REMINDED, THAT WE DO THIS SERVICE FOR YOU AND FOR OUR CITY.

WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE ONE ANOTHER.

THIS WE PRAY, AMEN.

>> AMEN.

>> NOW PLEASE JOIN WITH US AS WE RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> [NOISE].

>> WELL, WELCOME AGAIN.

TO ECHO COMMISSIONER JENKINS, THANK YOU TO ALL THE VETERANS PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE WHO PROTECT THE RIGHTS THAT WE CAN MEET HERE LIKE THIS.

THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE MANY PEOPLE IN OUR AUDIENCE, SO I'LL KEEP MY DEAL SHORT HERE.

ANYBODY THAT COMES UP TO SPEAK, PLEASE NAME AND ADDRESS INTO THE MICROPHONE.

WE GIVE APPLICANTS 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT, OTHER SPEAKERS WE ALLOW THREE MINUTES.

[Consent Agenda]

WE'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO THE AGENDA [NOISE].

FIRST ITEM IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH ARE ITEMS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE REVIEWED AND WILL BE VOTING TO APPROVE ON IN ONE MOTION.

TONIGHT WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM.

ITEM 1A, CONSIDER APPROVAL THE PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25TH, 2021.

I'LL ASK IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SIDE AND REMOVE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, IS AN INDIVIDUAL ANYHOW.

CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION.

JUST PUNCH IN AND SPEAK. GO AHEAD.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSION ROSE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE.

THERE YOU GO. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> AN ABSTENTION IS THE SAME THING AS A YES VOTE ACCORDING TO THE LAW. YEAH.

>> RECORDING IN PROGRESS.

[Items 2a & 2b]

>> OUR NEXT [OVERLAPPING].

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> THE ZONING CASE IS A TWO-PARTER.

IT IS ITEM 2A, CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION AND KIMLEY-HORN REQUESTING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PD 17-37, TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN 1902 PATTERSON.

ITEM 2B, CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION AND KIMLEY-HORN, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A PROPERTY ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 17-37.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN 1902 PATTERSON LANE [LAUGHTER].

DO WE HAVE THE SPEAKERS ON ZOOM READY? [BACKGROUND] I DON'T SEE ANYBODY [OVERLAPPING].

>> CHAIRMAN ROBERTS WE'RE WORKING ON GETTING THE SPEAKER.

>> WE'RE WAITING FOR THE APPLICANT WHO'S APPEARING ON ZOOM.

THEY'RE NOT APPEARING ON MY BOARD YET.

OR TRACY YOU CAN JUST TELL THEM TO CHIME IN WHENEVER THEY WANT.

ISN'T THIS FUN? [LAUGHTER].

>> I THINK THEY'RE JUST BEING A BIT AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> I CAN SAY A QUICK SOMETHING.

FIRST OF ALL, MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR ME NOT BEING THERE IN PERSON.

THERE'S A MISUNDERSTANDING ON MY END AND IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

I HOPE THAT DOESN'T CAUSE ANY ISSUES WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING.

BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

>> WELL, I DO NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS [OVERLAPPING].

>> WE'RE HERE FOR OUR RIVERSET DETAILED PLAN UPDATE, WHICH WE'RE CALLING RIVERSET PHASE 3, WHICH IS THE CUL-DE-SAC TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE SITE, WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT FROM THE ORIGINAL COMMERCIAL TRACT TO 13 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS THAT WE HAVE INCORPORATED WITHIN OUR PHASE 1,

[00:25:04]

WHICH HAS BEEN FULLY CONSTRUCTED, AND THEN ALSO OUR PHASE 2, WHICH IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION CURRENTLY.

I'M NOT A WHOLE LOT TO THIS.

THERE WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT TO TRY TO MAYBE FIND SOME NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SITES OR USES FOR THAT TRACT AND I BELIEVE THAT [INAUDIBLE] HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN FINDING PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT.

WE WANTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE WITH THE SUCCESS THAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT WITH PHASE 1 AND 2.

WE JUST WANT IT TO GO AHEAD AND CONVERT THAT INTO SOME ADDITIONAL LOTS.

OTHER THAN THAT, I AM HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> WELL, FIRST, I'LL HAVE TO ASK YOU FOR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR RECORDED RECORD, PLEASE.

>> NAME AND ADDRESS IS MY NAME IS BRYCE ECKEBERGER.

I'M WITH KIMLEY AND HORN.

MY ADDRESS IS 3907 WICHITA TRAIL, FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS, 75022.

>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER ROSE.

>> YES. THANK YOU, SIR.

THERE IS A MAJOR ENTRANCE ONTO BUCKINGHAM.

THERE'S A MAJOR ENTRANCE ONTO SHILOH.

DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY PLANS OF PUTTING TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT EITHER ONE OR BOTH OF THOSE ENTRANCES?

>> NO, SIR. THERE IS NO PLAN FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

WE CONDUCTED A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH OUR ORIGINAL DETAILED PLAN SUBMISSION WITH OUR SEVEN ENTRANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION.

THE FINDINGS FOR THAT ANALYSIS DID NOT INDICATE THE NEED OR NECESSITY FOR SIGNALS IN THAT IT PROVIDED THE ADEQUATE CIRCULATION EITHER ONTO BUCKINGHAM OR SHILOH OR THE SUBDIVISIONS TO THE SOUTH AND THE WEST WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE BUILT WITH PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2, WHICH INCLUDED SOME LEFT TURN LANES FROM SHILOH WITH A BRAND NEW MEDIAN OPENING AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, WE CONSTRUCTED A LEFT TURN LANE ONTO BUCKINGHAM. THAT STUDY WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED WITH OUR ORIGINAL DETAIL PLANNED SUBMISSION BY CITY STAFF.

>> I JUST GOT A CONFIRMATION FROM TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT THAT THERE ARE NO PLANS AT THIS POINT FOR SIGNALIZATION HERE.

BUT I'M ASSUMING OF BECOMES AN ISSUE, COUNCILMAN ARTURO WILL LET HIM KNOW, AND MAY BE RECONSIDERED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE. I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

THE ONE GENTLEMAN HERE APPARENTLY DOES NOT WANT TO, SO [LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONERS, I THROW IT BACK TO YOU FOR A MOTION OR DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER. WHOEVER WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION.

COMMISSIONER PARIS.

WHOEVER WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION, PRESS YOUR BUTTON AND SPEAK UP.

>> HERE, MY MIC IS ON.

I'M MAKING A MOTION TO ACCEPT.

>> OKAY. A MOTION TO PROVE THE AMENDMENT AND THE DETAILED PLAN?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I SAW THE FIRST SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER JENKINS BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING IN THAT DIRECTION.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PARIS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED DETAIL PLAN AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT.

PLEASE VOTE.

THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. YEAH. THAT'S BEEN A GOOD PROJECT AND IT'S FINISHED OUT REALLY QUICKLY, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING.

[3a. Consideration and possible recommendation to re-adopt the 2016 Water and RoadwayImpact Fee Study: Land Use Assumptions, Roadway and Water Impact Fee CIP, andMaximum Fee.]

ALL RIGHT, IN THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS MISCELLANEOUS ITEM.

IT IS CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION TO READOPT THE 2016 WATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES STUDY, LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, ROADWAY AND WATER IMPACT FEE, CIP, AND MAXIMUM FEE.

I CAN PROBABLY GIVE THE PUBLIC A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND IN THIS.

IT WAS ABOUT SEVEN YEARS AGO OR MAYBE A LITTLE EVEN EARLIER THAT THE STATE REQUIRED THAT CITIES PUT TOGETHER A FULL STUDY UNDER IMPACT FEES AND USES, MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE ALLOCATED FOR THE USAGE THAT THEY ARE PRESCRIBED.

SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY IN THE 2015-2016 TIMESPAN TO PUT TOGETHER THIS IMPACT FEE STUDY.

EVERY FIVE YEARS, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW IT TO MAKE SURE IT IS STILL VALID.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT AND IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT WE DO READOPT IT FIVE YEARS,

[00:30:01]

AND THE TIMESPAN OF GOVERNMENT IS A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME SPAN.

BUT THEY ARE THINKING, IN ANOTHER FIVE YEARS, WHICH WILL MAKE IT TEN YEARS, THAT IT PROBABLY WILL NEED TO BE RE-STUDIED.

I SEE NO SPEAKERS IN THIS ITEM.

DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING, IN A CHALLENGE OR ENTERTAIN THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER LUCHT. GO AHEAD.

>> I DO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DON'T WANT TO RAISE THOSE IMPACT FEES ON INDUSTRIAL AND MULTIFAMILY.

HOWEVER, SINCE THERE'S SO MUCH MULTIFAMILY BEING BUILT NOW, AND IT WILL HAVE TO BE RAISED IN FIVE-YEARS, IT MIGHT BE WHO OF US TO JUST RAISE THE FEES SLIGHTLY THIS FIVE YEARS AND THEN HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF HOW MUCH MORE, SO THAT THE IMPACT ISN'T AS GREAT ON THOSE MULTIFAMILY OR INDUSTRIAL SECTORS.

>> THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A POSSIBILITY.

WE'RE HERE TO GO OVER THE FRAMEWORK, BUT THE COUNCIL DOES LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY SO YOUR INPUT IS VALID.

I THINK THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF MULTIFAMILY RIGHT NOW IS SUCH THAT THEY COULD PROBABLY ABSORB HIGHER FEES, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSION JENKINS.

>> [NOISE] ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER LUCHT HAS JUST SAID.

I THINK I THINK MR. GARON,IN THE WORK SESSION HAS INDICATED THAT PREVIOUSLY THEY WERE A LARGER NUMBER OF SERVICES THAT [NOISE] REST AND THAT THOSE WERE CONSOLIDATED BY THE COMMISSION AT EARLIER TIME.

BUT I DO WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ECHO THAT SENTIMENT THAT POSSIBLY ONE OF THE AREAS THAT COULD ABSORB THAT COST COULD BE THE MULTIFAMILY BECAUSE OF THE INFLUX OF THE LARGE NUMBER THAT ARE BEING BUILT.

THEY ARE PROBABLY BEST SUITED AT THIS POINT TO ABSORB SOME OF THE COSTS IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSE.

>> YES. RATHER THAN HAVING A SLIGHT INCREASE THIS TIME OF RECOMMENDING, AND THEN ANOTHER ONE IN FIVE YEARS, HOW ABOUT A STEPPED INCREASE.

IT'S NOT SO JOLTING, A LITTLE BIT THIS YEAR, A LITTLE BIT NEXT YEAR, A LITTLE BIT MORE NEXT YEAR.

EVERY YEAR THAT THEY CAN ADJUST THEIR BUDGETS ACCORDINGLY.

>> WELL, AS I MENTIONED EARLY, THIS IS A BALANCING ACT OF GETTING ENOUGH FEES TO HELP OFFSET THE COST OF WHAT, A DEVELOPMENT COST, AND YET NOT DRIVING AWAY DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK MULTIFAMILY IS AT SUCH A STATE RIGHT NOW THAT THEY ARE COMING NO MATTER WHAT.

THEY'RE GOING INTO CITIES WITH MUCH HIGHER FEES THAN OURS AND EVERYTHING, AND SINCE THIS HAS BEEN DONE, WE'VE PROBABLY SEEN 4,000-6,000 APARTMENT UNITS PERMITTED OR PLAN SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK THEY ARE COMMON.

THAT'LL BE UP FOR THE COUNCIL TO REALLY DECIDE AFTER REVIEWING WITH STAFF AND MAYBE OTHER EXPERTISE.

A LITTLE BIT OF AN INCREASE MAY BE WANTED AND STEPPED MAY BE WANTED, BUT IN THREE YEARS THERE MAY NOT BE THAT MARKET.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS, BUT IT'S A GOOD POINT.

JUST SNEAK UP ON THEM.

THAT WORKS TOO. LIKE IT'S THE BOILING FROG. [LAUGHTER].

>> OKAY. GOT IT [LAUGHTER].

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CHANNEL OR ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND RE-ADOPTION OF THE ALL THE STUFF I READ OFF.

ANYBODY. [NOISE]

>> CHAIRMAN.

>> COMMISSIONER JENKINS.

>> A MOTION TO READOPT THE 2016 WATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES STUDY AS PRESENTED.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LUCHT.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JENKINS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LUCHT TO RECOMMEND RE-ADOPTION OF THE WATER ROADWAY IMPACT FEES, STUDY LAND-USE ASSUMPTIONS, ROADWAY AND WATER IMPACT FEE, CIP AND MAXIMUM FEE.

I'M GETTING BETTER AT THIS.

YEAH. [LAUGHTER] PLEASE VOTE, THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, AND THAT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.

UNTIL OUR MEETING, WHICH AGAIN, IT'LL BE ON A MONDAY OF NOVEMBER 22ND, WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.