[1. Call to Order: The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Sachse will hold a regular meeting on Monday,September 9, 2024, at 6:00 PM to consider the following items of business:]
[00:00:04]
TO CALL TO ORDER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SACHSE, AND WE WILL HOLD A REGULAR MEETING ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER THE 9TH, 2024, AT 6:00 PM, TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS OF BUSINESS.NUMBER 2, WE'LL HAVE AN INVOCATION AND A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> JOIN ME IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] GIVE THANKS FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THESE REQUESTS FOR CHANGES IN THE CITY, THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO KEEP OUR CITY THE WAY WE WISH IT TO BE AND TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE VISION AND THE DURATION THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW.
THESE THINGS WE HUMBLY [INAUDIBLE] IN NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. AMEN.
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ADDRESS THE BOARD REGARDING ANY TOPIC.
NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION OR PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMENTS REGARDING THE CONSENT AGENDA AND ANY DISCUSSION, ONLY ITEMS IS ON THE AGENDA MAY BE ADDRESSED DURING THIS PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.
TIME LIMIT IS THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE ACTING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE BOARD IS PROHIBITED FROM DISCUSSING ANY ITEM NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA, BUT WILL TAKE COMMENTS UNDER ADVISEMENT.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT? THERE BEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO C;
[1. Consider approving the August 26, 2024, meeting minutes.]
THE ACTION ITEMS FOR BOARD DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION FOR ACTION.THE PRESIDING OFFICE WILL INVITE COMMENTS BEFORE THE BOARD VOTES.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT CARD SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ACTING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING.
NUMBER 1, CONSIDER APPROVING THE AUGUST 26, 2024 MEETING MINUTES.
ANYBODY WISH TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT OR OFFER A MOTION?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES?
WE'LL DO MANUAL, IF YOU DON'T MIND. [INAUDIBLE]
>> NO, IT'S NOT SHOWING UP. CAN I DO A MANUAL VOTE? BUTCH, HOW ARE YOU VOTING?
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. AYE.
>> IT'S NOT OPPOSED? THERE IT IS.
[2. Conduct a public hearing to consider and act on a request to amend the existing gas station Special Use Permit, SUP 23-01, to revise the boundary, site, building layout, and add two additional gas pumps, generally located north of President George Bush Turnpike and east of Merritt Road, within Sachse city limits.]
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST TO AMEND THE EXISTING GAS STATION'S SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 2301, TO REVISE THE BOUNDARY SITE, BUILDING LAYOUT, AND ADD TWO ADDITIONAL GAS PUMPS GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE AND EAST OF MERRITT ROAD WITHIN THE SACHSE CITY LIMITS.[00:05:02]
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
THE REQUEST FOR YOU TONIGHT IS FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING SUP 2301 ORDINANCE 4109.
>> IT'S ON HERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SO IT'S A REQUEST TO AMEND THE EXISTING SUP 2301 TO REVISE THE BOUNDARY, THE SITE, BUILDING LAYOUT AND ADD TWO ADDITIONAL GAS PUMPS.
THIS LOCATION IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF PGBT AND MERRITT ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS URBAN STRATEGY, OWNER'S BENBROOK WINCHESTER LP.
THE SIZE IS APPROXIMATELY 1.72 ACRES, THAT'S UP FROM 1.52 PREVIOUSLY.
CHAPTER 11 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REQUIRES AUTO RELATED USES, INCLUDING GAS STATIONS, TO OBTAIN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO LEGALLY OPERATE WITHIN THAT PGBT ZONING DISTRICT.
AN SUP IS REQUIRED OF USES OF THAT ZONING ORDINANCE AS THEY MAY ALLOW, BUT BASICALLY SUPS ARE REQUIRED FOR USES THAT SOMETIMES REQUIRE SCREENING AND SOMETIMES HAVE SITUATIONAL ITEMS THAT YOU ALL LOOK AT.
AN SUP WAS APPROVED BACK IN JUNE OF 2023 BY CITY COUNCIL FOR THIS USE.
THE APPLICANT IS NOW REQUESTING TO AMEND THE SUP.
HERE'S THE LOCATION OF THE SUP WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. SITE LAYOUT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PUMPS ON SITE FROM 8-10 AND ADDS A SECOND DRIVE THROUGH LANE FOR THE RESTAURANT COMPONENT OF THAT USE.
IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE REQUEST HERE FOR THAT AMENDMENT ON THEIR SITE PLAN, THE 24-01 ON THE LEFT SIDE AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS ONE, 23-01 ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
THE BUILDING LAYOUT. SO AS FAR AS THE AMENDMENT TO THE BUILDING LAYOUT, THE GROSS FLOOR AREA WAS ROUGHLY 4,770 PREVIOUSLY AND IS NOW PROPOSED AT 6,960 SQUARE FEET.
THE BOUNDARY, LIKE I SAID, INCREASED FROM 1.52 ACRES TO 1.75 ACRES, EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY ABOUT, I THINK, 20 FEET TO THE EAST.
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION AT THEIR SEPTEMBER 16, 2024 MEETING.
AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING SUP.
THIS, IF IT'S TO BE DENIED, THEN IT DOES NOT MAKE THAT SUP GO AWAY.
ALL THEY'RE DOING IS BASICALLY AMENDING THAT SITE PLAN FOR THAT USE.
>> IS THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> I THINK TIFFANY HAD ONE REQUEST.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT LAST PART AGAIN? IF IT'S DENIED, IT'S STILL?
>> YES. AN SUP WAS ALREADY APPROVED BACK IN JUNE OF 2023 FOR THIS USE; THE AUTOMOBILE RELATED USE, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SITE PLAN PREVIOUSLY WITH THAT BOUNDARY AND EVERYTHING ON THERE.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE SUP 23-01 HAS THOSE FOUR PUMPS THERE.
THEY'RE BASICALLY AMENDING THE SITE PLAN THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE SUP, AND THEREFORE, THEY HAVE TO COME FORWARD AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR THIS PUBLIC NOTICE AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT AGAIN.
>> SO IF IT'S DENIED, THEY'LL JUST PUT ANOTHER GAS STATION, OR IT'LL BE? WHEN YOU SAY AUTOMOBILE, WHAT OTHER PURPOSES WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO?
>> THE SUP IS DEFINED SPECIFICALLY TO THE SITE PLAN, SO IF THIS WERE DENIED, THAT WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE RIGHT, THAT SUP 23-01.
>> I'M SORRY, ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> YEAH. I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO, JUST BECAUSE I'M CURIOUS, KNOW A LITTLE BIT THE REASON FOR THE INCREASE IN SIZE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF
[00:10:03]
THE PARCEL AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING FROM 4800-7000 SQUARE FEET.IS THIS BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS AND THE REASON FOR ADDING GAS PUMPS, JUST GENERAL INFORMATION FOR THE REASON FOR THE AMENDMENT AND INCREASE?
>> MATT, YOU WANT TO CHIME IN?
>> FROM STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING IS THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO A DIFFERENT ENTITY, AND THEY HAD A DIFFERENT VISION FOR THE LAYOUT FOR THIS GAS STATION.
SO THAT IS WHY THEIR DESIRE IS TO CHANGE IT UP.
AS NOTED, THERE'S AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DRIVE THROUGH LANES, THEY INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
SO ALL THOSE THINGS WERE TO SUPPORT THIS CHANGE.
BUT THE ORIGINAL REQUEST THAT WENT THROUGH, THAT IS NO LONGER WHAT THEY'RE INTENDING TO DO AS THEY HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY TO THIS NEW OWNER.
>> AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE RESTAURANT IN THIS FACILITY IS THAT WOULD REQUIRE TWO LANES OR DRIVE THROUGH? AND THE BUILDING SIZE?
>> THEY HAVE NOT YET SUBMITTED ANY OF THOSE CIVIL PLANS, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE TENANT FINISH OUT FOR THOSE.
>> IF YOU LOOK REAL CLOSE AT THE SITE PLAN, IT SAYS THE WORD SONIC IN IT.
>> JUST TO NOTE THAT THAT CAN ALWAYS CHANGE.
>> THIS WENT REALLY HARD, I GUESS, BUT A GOOD SIDE.
>> I ALSO DO WANT TO NOTE THAT IT HAS NOT SOLD AT THIS POINT.
THERE IS NO PLATTED RECORD, SO THERE'S NO TRANSFER OF LAND.
>> MOST LIKELY, AN ARCHITECT'S DREAM OR SOMEBODY THAT PUTS ON IT IN THERE.
>> AND DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION?
>> SO ON THE 24-01 SITE PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE THE FUELING TANKS ARE ON WHAT WOULD BE THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE.
IF THEY PLACE THEIR PUMPER TRUCK TO FILL THAT, IT'LL BASICALLY BLOCKS THAT WHOLE IN AND OUT LANE.
ARE THOSE PUMPS STILL GOING TO BE USABLE WHILE THERE'S A PUMPER TRUCK THERE FILLING UP THE TANK? IS THERE SUFFICIENT SPACE?
>> I'D IMAGINE SO. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A 30-FOOT LANE DIRECTLY ON THAT FRONT SIDE OF THE PUMPS AND THE GAS STATION CONVENIENCE STORE ITSELF.
SO IN BETWEEN THAT PARKING AND THE PUMPS ITSELF, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A 30-FOOT [OVERLAPPING] DRIVE LANE THERE.
>> AND WE STILL HAVE CIRCULATION ALL THE WAY AROUND WITH JUST THE ONE AXIS IF THE OTHER IS BLOCKED, CORRECT?
>> SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS.
IF YOU LOOK ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, THERE ARE TWO DRIVE THROUGH LANES AND THEN A BYPASS LANE THAT GOES AROUND THE SITE, AND THEN ON THE NORTH SIDE, YOU HAVE A COMMON ACCESS EASEMENT THAT GOES TO THE EAST, AND THEN YOU HAVE TWO DRIVE AISLES THAT GO SOUTH.
>> BUT THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO DRIVE THE ACCESS POINTS ON THE EAST SIDE AT THIS POINT.
SO IF THEY COME IN THROUGH THE DRIVE THROUGHS, AND THAT ONE LANE IS BLOCKED BECAUSE OF THE TRUCK, THEY CAN ONLY GO THROUGH THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, RIGHT AT THE FRONT.
>> YEAH. SO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> OH, AT THIS POINT, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND SIR, IF YOU HAVE TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME UP HERE TO THE PODIUM.
PULL THE MICROPHONE DOWN SO YOU CAN GET CLOSE TO IT.
>> MY NAME IS ALIZAR MUSE, AND WE LIVE AT THE ARIA STATES ON 2957, TENOR WAY.
OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT THAT LOT RIGHT NOW, WHERE IT IS, THERE IS NO SERVICE ROAD ON THE SIDE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE JUST BOUGHT A HOME IN THAT AREA.
AND SO THEY JUST BUILT A GAS STATION ON THE OTHER SIDE.
OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT MERRITT TURNS INTO A ONE LANE THAT'S ALREADY PRETTY CLOGGED UP WHEN IT GETS TO SACHSE ROAD, AND NOW YOU'VE BUILT A GAS STATION ACROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE LEEWAY, BUT THE MOMENT YOU COME OFF THE PGBT, IMMEDIATELY THERE, THERE IS NOT MUCH ROOM, THERE'S NOT A SERVICE ROAD.
SO THE MOMENT YOU EXIT, YOU HAVE TO TURN THAT RIGHT IF YOU'RE GOING OFF ON MERRITT.
>> IF I'M ABLE TO SPEAK INTO THIS,
[00:15:01]
IT DOES FEEL LIKE IT MAKES SENSE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE VALUE.ADDITIONALLY, SACHSE BEING AS SMALL AS IT IS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY NEARBY GROCERY STORES OR ANYTHING OF TRUE VALUE FOR THE COMMUNITIES, AND TO ADD ANOTHER GAS STATION IS A CONCERN SINCE WE HAVE A 7-ELEVEN DOWN ONE EXIT TOWARDS MILES.
I THINK WE WANT TO KNOW, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THERE TO BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN A GAS STATION WHEN THERE IS ALREADY ONE AT 7-ELEVEN AND ONE THAT'S ALREADY BEING BUILT? I KNOW THIS IS ABOUT INCREASING FROM TWO MORE PUMPS, BUT OUR CONCERN IS THAT THERE'S A GAS STATION THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SONIC IS ALSO NOT BENEFICIAL FOR US AS WELL, BUT I GIVE IT BACK TO YOU ALL.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WANT TO SPEAK? THIS TIME, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE POINT THAT WAS MADE IS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD.
THE APPROVAL OF THIS SUP THAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT ONLY AMENDS THE PREVIOUS ONE.
IF THIS ONE FAILS OR FAILS BY CITY COUNCIL, THE DEVELOPER STILL HAS THE ORIGINAL SUP TO BUILD ON. YES, SIR.
>> I WAS JUST COMING UP IN CASE THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?
>> CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS.
>> AT YOUR DESK, YOU DO HAVE ONE OPPOSITION LETTER TO THE SUP REQUEST, SO IT IS THERE FOR YOUR REVIEW.
>> YOU DO NOT NEED TO READ IT. BUT JUST TAKE NOTE OF IT AS FAR AS YOU DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER OPPOSITION.
>> LET THE MINUTE SHOW THAT WE HAVE A LETTER FROM NICARO QUISENBERRY, EXPRESSING HIS DOUBTS ABOUT THE GOODNESS OF HAVING THE SERVICE STATION THERE.
>> IF YOU'D LIKE, CHAIRMAN, I CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THE GENTLEMAN'S CONCERNS IF YOU'D LIKE.
>> JENNIFER, CAN YOU PULL UP THE AERIAL REAL QUICK, OR CAN YOU SLIDE BACK THE AERIAL? THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED WITH THE STAR, THAT IS THE SUP THAT'S UNDER REQUEST TONIGHT.
AS THE CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT, THERE IS AN EXISTING SUP ON THE SITE FOR A GAS STATION.
THIS ONE TONIGHT IS JUST FOR AN ADDITION OF TWO GAS PUMPS, INCREASE IN BUILDING SIZE, LAYOUT THOSE KIND OF COMPONENTS.
I STATED IF THIS REQUEST WAS TO BE DENIED, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUP FOR THE SITE.
AS FAR AS OTHER USES THAT ARE INTENDED FOR THE AREA, THERE ARE RETAIL STRIP CENTER, AT LEAST ONE OR TWO OF THOSE THAT ARE PLANNED FOR THE AREA, AS WELL AS A POTENTIAL QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT AS WELL.
THEY ARE ACTIVELY MARKETING THE SITE FOR DEVELOPMENT.
AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY.
THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, IF WE HAVE THIS ONE AND THEN THE RETAIL STRIP CENTER THAT IS AT THE HARD CORNER OF PLEASANT VALLEY AND MERRITT ROAD.
THOSE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CIVIL PLAN PROCESS.
THEY HAVE NOT COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
I BELIEVE THEY'RE STILL WAITING ON LINING UP THEIR TENANTS.
THERE'S STILL MAY BE AN OPTION FOR A POTENTIAL GROCER OF SOME SORT.
BUT HOPEFULLY THAT ADDRESSES YOUR CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS.
>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS FROM COUNCIL? THEN I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION. YES.
>> I MOTION THAT WE MOVE FORWARD AND APPROVE THE SUP 24-01 AS CURRENTLY SHOWN.
>> WE'VE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> YOU'RE WHERE? LET'S TAKE A VOTE.
LOOK YOU THERE, IT CAME UP WITH.
[00:20:13]
WE HAVE ONE VOTE AGAINST, AND WE HAVE FIVE FOR. MOVING ON.IS THAT ALL TAKEN CARE OF? MOVING ON TO ITEM 3.
[3. Receive a second review and provide direction on Land Use Assumptions; Capital Improvement Plan; and Water, Wastewater, and Roadway Impact Fees.]
RECEIVE A SECOND REVIEW AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND WATER AND WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.>> COMMISSION, WE HAVE COREY NESBIT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING HERE TONIGHT TO GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE CONSULTANTS BACK FROM OUR LAST MEETING TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE LAST MEETING, AND THEN TO ADDRESS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL OR COMMISSIONERS.
I'M COREY NESBIT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.
DEREK CHANEY AND JODI SHORT HERE WITH OUR CONSULTING TEAM TO GIVE YOU A RECAP FROM THE LAST MEETING.
YOU DID HAVE THE REPORT FROM THE LAST MEETING.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THAT, BUT THIS PRESENTATION IS SLIGHTLY SMALLER.
I HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THAT STUFF.
BUT I'LL TURN OVER TO THEM REAL QUICK AND THEN CERTAINLY IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AT THE END, WE'LL RESPOND ACCORDINGLY, SO THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING. DEREK CHANEY WITH BIRKHOFF, HENDRICKS AND CARTER BACK FOR MEETING NUMBER 2.
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TODAY BASICALLY IS RECAP WHAT WE DID TALK ABOUT LAST TIME, SUMMARY OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE WITH LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AND IMPACT FEE UPDATE.
GO BACK THROUGH THE BENCHMARKING COMPARISON TO THE OTHER CITIES IN YOUR AREA, AND THEN TAKE A LOOK AT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER.
TO QUICK RECAP, WHAT'S AN IMPACT FEE? I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAMMER HOME THAT IT'S ONLY A PORTION OF THE COST OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW GROWTH.
IT CAN INCLUDE MAINTENANCE, IT CAN INCLUDE OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE SERVING YOUR EXISTING RESIDENTS TODAY.
IT'S ONLY INTENDED TO COVER THE PORTION THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE GROWING PORTION OF THE CITY.
YOUR ROLE AS THE CAPITAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS TO REVIEW THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AND THE IMPACT FEE UPDATES, AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT'S NOW SCHEDULED.
LAST TIME, WE WENT OVER IN MORE DETAIL, THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS BASED ON YOUR CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR WATER, WASTEWATER, AND ROADWAY, ALONG WITH RECRUITMENT PLANS FOR EACH, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS THE PORTION OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT STILL HAS CAPACITY LEFT TO SUPPORT NEW GROWTH, SO YOU CAN RECOVER THAT COMPONENT.
WE WENT OVER THE UTILIZED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COST.
THAT'S THE PORTION THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE USED OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS OF THESE NEW PROJECTS THAT ARE PROPOSED AND THE IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS, OF COURSE, AND BENCHMARK COMPARISONS THAT WE'LL GO OVER AGAIN.
HERE WE HAVE THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS.
WE HAVE EXISTING POPULATION TODAY RIGHT AROUND 29,000 AND AT BUILDOUT, WHICH WE'RE ALSO TAKING IT TO IN THE 10 YEAR PERIOD AT 2034 IS JUST A LITTLE OVER 34,000.
BELOW THAT IS VERY SMALL PICTURES OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER THAT WE PRESENTED LAST TIME.
THE ROADWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN HERE ON THE LEFT,
[00:25:01]
AND THE QUICK SUMMARY OF EACH OF THOSE COMPONENTS, THE AMOUNT OF UTILIZED COSTS THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY OVER THE 10 YEAR PERIOD FOR EACH COMPONENT OF THE SYSTEM.THESE ARE THE CALCULATED IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS FOR WATER, WASTEWATER, AND ROADWAY, SEPARATE CATEGORY, A SEPARATE COLUMN FOR ROADWAY BECAUSE IT IS TREATED A BIT DIFFERENTLY.
I'VE GOT JODI SHORT HERE WHO DID THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS CAN GO INTO THAT FURTHER IF NEEDED.
BUT ALSO BEARING IN MIND THAT THESE NUMBERS THAT WE CALCULATE ARE CUT IN HALF, SO IN THE FOOTNOTE THERE, IT TALKS ABOUT THAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IS ONLY 50% OF THE NUMBER THAT WE CALCULATED.
ON THE FAR LEFT IS THE CURRENT 2024 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THAT'S BEEN CALCULATED, AND A SUMMARY OF OTHER CITY'S CURRENT MAXIMUM FOR THE EXCESS IMPOSED TO IMPACT THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE FOR SACHSE, FRISCO, ROYSE CITY, AND OTHERS.
ON THE ROADWAY SIDE, WE'RE ACTUALLY ON THE LOW END OF THE COMPARISON CITIES, WHEREAS ON THE WATER WASTEWATER, WE ARE ON THE HIGHER SIDE.
RECOMMENDATIONS, WHAT'S LEFT TO DO HERE? AT THIS POINT, BASED ON THE GUIDANCE AND INPUT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM STAFF, THEY WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDING THE FULL AMOUNTS THAT WE CALCULATED HERE OR THE MAXIMUM ACCESSIBLE AMOUNTS. ANY QUESTIONS?
WHEN WE'RE GETTING INTO A POSITION WHERE THERE IS NOW REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY.
IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE OF HOUSES TORN DOWN AND NEW HOUSES BUILT, SO WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WHAT'S THE STATUS OF IMPACT FEES?
>> REDEVELOPMENT DOES TRIGGER A POTENTIAL IMPACT FEE, IF IT IS A TRUE REDEVELOPMENT AS IN A SEVERAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WERE CONVERTED TO MULTIFAMILY.
>> WELL, MY QUESTION IS REALLY ABOUT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME HAS BEEN TORN DOWN, AND ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME HAS BEEN BUILT ON IN PLACE.
NOW, THAT FIRST HOME IS QUITE SOME NUMBER OF YEARS OLD, THE ONE THAT GOT TORN DOWN.
>> IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD NOT TRIGGER, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, AN IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT.
IF IT'S SINGLE FAMILY GOING TO SINGLE FAMILY UNLESS THERE'S SOME CHANGE THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFY THE LAND USE.
STAFF MAY WANT TO ADD TO THAT.
>> YES. I WAS GOING TO SAY FROM THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE, IF IT'S A TEARDOWN ON AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT DOES NOT INSTITUTE A NEW IMPACT FEE CHARGE BECAUSE IT'S A LIKE FOR LIKE.
BUT AS MENTIONED, IF IT WAS TO GO FROM A SINGLE FAMILY TO A MULTIFAMILY OR COMMERCIAL, THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE.
>> IS IT NOT BASED ON METER SIZE AND STUFF LIKE THAT?
>> IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ROADWAY, ROADWAY, IF YOU'RE GOING FROM THE SAME USE TO THE SAME USE, THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE THERE.
IF THEY'RE INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE METER OR THE NUMBER OF METERS, THAT'S WHEN THE NEW IMPACT FEE COMPONENT WOULD BE CHARGED, WOULD BE FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL METERS OR TO GO UP TO A DIFFERENT SIZE OF METER.
>> ARE SPRINKLER SYSTEM METERS TREATED THE SAME AS HOUSEHOLD METERS OTHER THAN THE SEWAGE COMPONENT?
>> YES. WHEN YOU'RE DEVELOPING, IT'S GOING TO BE BASED OFF A CERTAIN SIZE METER, I THINK AN IRRIGATION METER IS FIVE.
[00:30:02]
>> AGAIN, THOSE WOULD ONLY BE FOUR, AND EVEN THE WATER FOR THAT HOUSE WOULD STILL BE RUN THROUGH ONE RESIDENTIAL METER.
YOU CAN STILL ADD A SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO YOUR HOUSE AS LONG AS YOU DON'T CHANGE THE METER SIZE. THAT MAKE SENSE.
THEN YOU HAVE TO GET IN ALL THE MEP CALCULATIONS AND ALL THAT STUFF.
BUT THE IMPACT FEES ARE ONLY TRIGGERED WHEN THE METER SIZE CHANGES, AND THAT SCENARIO.
>> BUT DON'T IRRIGATION SYSTEM SOMETIMES HAVE THEIR OWN TAP ON METER SEPARATE METER, SO IN THAT CASE, WOULD YOU INCUR THE FULL COST OF THE IMPACT FEE?
>> WE'RE STILL ONLY RECOMMENDING 50% OF THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT AMOUNT.
BUT IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN IRRIGATION METER AND YOU ADDED AN IRRIGATION METER, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO PAY THAT IMPACT FEE.
BUT IF YOU ALREADY HAVE AN IRRIGATION METER AND YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THAT, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT FEE.
>> IS THERE A SCHEDULE FOR THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PERCENTAGE CHANGING IN THE FUTURE? IS THAT INCLUDED IN HERE? OR DOES THE CITY OF SACHSE HAVE THAT? SORRY.
>> CURRENTLY, THIS IS PROPOSING 50% OF THE MAX ALLOWABLE, IS THAT PERCENTAGE CHANGING? IS IT PLANNED TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE? AS IN GOING UP TO 55%, 60%?
>> NO. THIS IS A FIVE YEAR UPDATE.
AGAIN, WE'LL LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS AGAIN IN FIVE YEARS OR 10 YEARS AND ADJUST THEM LIKE WE'RE DOING NOW.
BUT AGAIN, WE ONLY WOULD RECOMMEND THE 50% MAXIMUM VALUE.
>> ISN'T THAT ALL ALLOWED? [NOISE] PARDON, STATE LAW LIMITS US TO 50%?
>> STATE LAW ONLY LETS US CHARGE 50% OF THE MAXIMUM VALUE.
CERTAINLY YOU AND COUNSEL HAVE THE DISCUSSION TO INCREASE OR TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OFF OF THAT, BUT WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE 50%.
THIS IS JUST THIS IMPACT FEE ONLY OCCURS IF THERE'S NEW CONSTRUCTION.
IF SOMEONE SELLS THEIR HOME ON AN EXISTING HOME, THE NEW OWNER DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY.
>> THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, HOW DOES THAT LETTER WORK? DO WE HAVE TO DRAFT THAT? YOU HAD MENTIONED, I THINK THAT WE'LL HAVE TO PRESENT A LETTER TO THE COUNCIL?
>> FOR THE OVERALL STUDY FOR THE REPORT, YES, AND WE HAVE A DRAFT VERSION OF THAT ALSO.
>> YOU HAVE TO DRAFT IT. THANK YOU.
>> THEN I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
>> THERE WAS A COPY OF THE LETTER IN THE PACKET ITSELF, BUT WE DO HAVE A COPY HERE THAT IF YOU'D LIKE TO.
>> I THINK I MISSED THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, LIKE, DO YOU HAVE ANY PRIORITY ON THE PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE LINED UP? ARE YOU GOING TO EVERYWHERE IN THAT
>> EXCUSE ME, SAY IT AGAIN. I'M SORRY.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY PRIORITIES ON THE PROJECT THAT YOU HAVE LINED?
>> PRIORITY? YES. WE HAVE ACTUALLY IT'S ON OUR CIP PLAN, WHICH WAS IN THE REPORT.
AGAIN, COUNCIL WAS GOING TO DO THAT AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS EVERY YEAR.
AGAIN, WELL, WE RE-RANK THOSE BASED ON COUNSEL'S DIRECTION OR BASED ON CONDITION OF ROADS OR EMERGENCY PROJECTS, OR SO WE RE EVALUATE OUR CIP EVERY YEAR, BUT WE DO HAVE A FIVE YEAR PLAN.
AGAIN, THOSE MAY SHIFT WITHIN THAT FIVE YEAR WINDOW, BUT GENERALLY, THERE IS A PRIORITY TO THAT STUFF, YES.
>> WE ARE NOT LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION AND MOVING ON TO SOMETHING ELSE UNLESS WE FINISHED THIS ONE?
>> THE CIP IS PART OF THIS, YES.
WE HAVE A PLAN AND WE'LL FOLLOW THAT PLAN TO THE BEST DEGREE POSSIBLE.
BUT THAT'S ONLY A COMPONENT OF THE IMPACT FEE STUDY. DOES THAT MAKES SENSE?
>> IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO COMMENT? I SEE NONE.
OKAY. IN THE PACKET IS A DRAFT LETTER FROM STAFF THAT MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL VIA THE CITY MANAGER.
NO, STRAIGHT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
BASICALLY, ALL THOSE WORDS UP THERE, IT COMES DOWN TO THREE LINES OF THE PRICES THAT WE HAD ON AND WE SAW ON THE SCREEN FOR $328 AND 50 CENTS PER SERVICE UNIT VEHICLE, $4,300 FOR A 5/8 INCH METER, AND $2,800 FOR A 5/8 INCH METER, BUT ON THE SEWAGE SIDE. YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
[00:35:08]
>> YES. I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY THAT THIS INCLUDES THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, AND THEN ALL OF THOSE PACTS, SO IT'S ONE LONG THING.
>> ALL THE STUFF IS WITHIN THIS.
>> THEN ALL THAT'S IN THE REPORT AS WELL.
>> I JUST HAVE I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE BAR CHART THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, I CAN'T TELL WHICH SHE DID THAT ONE, YES.
FOR 2017, WE'RE LESS THAN HALF OF WELL, JUST JUST OVER HALF OF WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING TO INCREASE IT TO.
IF YOU LOOK COMPARATIVELY ACROSS THE BOARD, AS FAR AS THE WATER PLAN, $4,200 FOR THE WATER, THE ONLY ONE THAT'S CLOSE TO THAT IS WILEY.
IF YOU DO THE SAME COMPARISON BETWEEN THE WASTEWATER, YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE LITTLE THAT ARE MORE IN THE ZONE THEY'RE ACTUALLY HIGHER, WHICH I'M NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT THE WASTEWATER ONE.
MY CONCERN IS BY PUSHING THE IMPACT FEES AS HIGH AS IT POSSIBLY CAN, IT'S GOING TO DISCOURAGE WHAT LITTLE DEVELOPMENT IT WOULD BE TO DEVELOP OTHER PORTIONS OF SACHSE.
MY ONLY QUESTION IS, DO WE, AS A COMMISSION, WANT TO SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO BECOME MORE UNFRIENDLY TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE CHARGING HIGHER PRICES FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN AND DEVELOP?
>> I GUESS IF YOU CAN YOU GO ONE SLIDE BEFORE FOR THE UTILIZED PROJECT COST? THERE'S ONE BEFORE THAT RIGHT HERE.
ARE THERE I'M ASSUMING YOU HAVE SUPPORT ON THE TOTALS HERE.
ARE THESE TOTALS FOR IMPACT FEE COLLECTIONS OVER THE I GUESS THESE ARE PROJECT COSTS, OF YOUR CIP PROJECTS? WHAT PERCENTAGE DO YOU THINK THAT THE INCREASED IMPACT FEE COLLECTION RATES IN THIS SPREADSHEET ARE GOING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THESE CFP PROJECTS FOR WHAT IMPACT FEES TYPICALLY PAY FOR?
>> I THINK SO, AND THIS IS A TELLING, MAYBE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION IN DIRECTLY.
WE HAVE $5,000,000 MORE WORTH OF WATER PROJECTS THAN WE DO SEWER PROJECTS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WARRANTS THE $4,000 VERSUS HALF OF THAT OR PERCENTAGE OTHER THAN THE 50% MAX, BUT CERTAINLY IT'S COMPARABLE TO THE AMOUNT OF WORK WE STILL HAVE TO DO.
WE'VE DONE A LOT OF SEWER IMPROVEMENTS HERE RECENTLY.
ON MORE BIG ONE COMING UP HERE SHORTLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I GUESS I'M NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.
BUT I THINK THE NUMBERS ARE COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT WE'RE PROJECTING OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS.
AGAIN, EVEN IN FIVE YEARS AFTER IF WE DO KNOW THE FIVE YEAR UPDATE, WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS AND EVEN THE OLD CIP NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE, THERE'S A PORTION IN THE IMPACT FEE UPDATE THAT WE CAN RECOUP.
IF WE ESTIMATE THAT PROJECT IS FIVE MILLION, AND WE GO AND BUILD IT AND IT WAS SEVEN, WE CAN RECOUP THAT $10,000,000 AND THE NEXT UPDATE.
WE HAVE AN INFLATION FACTOR AND INTEREST FACTOR IN THERE, SO WE'RE ESTIMATING THE INFLATION OF THESE PROJECTS.
AGAIN, TO DO A 10 YEAR WINDOW FOR PROJECTS IS PRETTY HARD HONESTLY.
WE TAKE OUR BEST ESTIMATE OF WHAT WE ASSUME THE COSTS ARE GOING TO BE.
THINGS AREN'T GETTING CHEAPER, BUT I DON'T THINK IF YOU GO BACK TO THIS TABLE FOR A SECOND.
SOME OF THESE NUMBERS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DATES, SO WHY THE ROYSE CITY, MCKINNEY, AND WYLIE ARE ALL GOING TO DO UPDATES HERE THIS NEXT YEAR IN 2025.
YOU'RE SEEING A FIVE-YEAR-OLD NUMBER AS WELL.
IT'S NOT ALWAYS APPLES TO APPLES, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE TOO FAR OUT OF LINE FOR IF YOU JUST LOOK AT WYLIE, WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT WYLIE CURRENTLY CHARGES.
I CAN'T IMAGINE THEIR NUMBERS WILL GO DOWN NEXT UPDATE.
>> THESE ARE EXISTING IMPACT FEES.
>> THESE ARE EXISTING IMPACT FEES WITH THE DATE THAT THEY WERE ADOPTED.
>> SOME OF THIS, AGAIN, YOU SEE ROCKWALL AND MCKINNEY IN THERE, THE AGE AND THE POPULATION AND THE SIZE OF THE CITY ARE SOMEWHAT NOT QUANTIFIABLE ON THIS.
PROSPER THEY PUT A TON OF ROADS TO BUILD, TON OF WATER TO BUILD, THEIR IMPACT FEES ARE GOING TO BE WAY HIGHER.
>> WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT AS A NEW DEVELOPMENT, YOUR PRICES ARE GENERALLY CHEAPER, AS YOU DO REDEVELOPMENT, YOU'VE GOT A DEMO AND REPLACE, WHICH DRIVES THE COST HIGHER.
I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT,
[00:40:01]
WE'RE AT THAT PHASE WHERE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WE CAN DO WITHOUT DOING SOME MAJOR REHABBING AS WELL.>> THESE IMPACT FEES ARE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, THOUGH.
AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE AN EXISTING RETAIL CENTER AND YOU'RE BUILDING ANOTHER RETAIL CENTER, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T CHANGE THE METERS AND CHANGE THE USES SIGNIFICANTLY, YOU'RE NOT PAYING AN IMPACT FEES, SO THIS IS NOT FOR REDEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT ON.
I BELIEVE LAST YEAR OR NOT LAST YEAR, SORRY.
LAST TIME WE MET, WE COMPARED THE COSTS FOR HOMEOWNERS, AND I BELIEVE ACTUALLY THE COSTS GO DOWN FOR HOMEOWNERS, BUT THEY WOULD GO UP FOR MEDICAL AND COMMERCIAL.
>> I BELIEVE SO. THE COMMERCIAL STATISTIC?
>> BUT NOT HERE ON THE WASTEWATER SIDE?
>> THIS IS THE WATER WASTEWATER ONE HERE.
THOSE ALL GO UP FOR WATERWAYS WATER, BUT ROADWAY DOES GO DOWN.
>> AGAIN, TECHNICALLY, THE HOMEOWNERS DON'T PAY THESE FEES.
>> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I GUESS I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPACT FEE UPDATES AS PRESENTED.
>> OKAY. IS THAT ALL YOU NEED?
>> WAIT A SECOND WE NEED A VOTE FOR THE BOARD.
>> I KNOW WE'VE GOT TO VOTE FOR IT, BUT IS THAT ALL YOU NEED IN THE MOTION? DO YOU HAVE A SECOND?
WE ADJOURN. [NOISE]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.