Feb 24, 2022 P&Z Commission

[00:00:02]

GOOD EVENING.

THE TIME

[1. Call to Order.]

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS

[2. Roll Call.]

TELL ME WHAT'S THE ITEM THREE

[3. Director’s report to the Planning & Zoning Commission on actions taken by the City Council at the February 17, 2022, meeting]

GOOD EVENING.

I'M REPORTING ON ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE FEBRUARY 17TH MEETING.

UM, DURING THAT MEETING, THEY HEARD SEVERAL CASES THAT WERE FORWARDED TO THEM BY THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION.

UM, THEY REVIEWED THE GREENLIGHT VILLAGE CONCEPT PLAN AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

THE SKY HEIGHTS, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

THEY APPROVE THAT REQUEST, BUT THEY DID CHANGE THE DENSITY.

THEY REDUCED IT TO 32 UNITS AND ADDED A REQUIREMENT FOR REDUCTION IN THE TURF GRASS.

UM, THEY ALSO REVIEWED THE PROPOSED GAS STATION ON THOSE VISTA ON THAT ITEM.

THEY DID NOT TAKE ACTION.

THEY COMPLETED THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT POSTPONED ACTION TO THE MEETING NEXT WEEK.

CAUSE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CATCH UP.

UM, THAT ONE WAS POSTPONED BECAUSE OF THE, UM, ICE EVENTS.

UM, BUT THAT'LL ALL BE ON THE AGENDA NEXT TIME.

UH, THEY ALSO REVIEWED THE HARMONY SCHOOLS, ZONING REQUEST AND APPROVED IT.

AND WE HAD THE COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON 180 3, A, UM, THEY APPROVED THAT ONE AS WELL.

AND THEN THE TWO ZONING CASES OFF OF HERO WAY, ONE WAS FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

THE OTHER WAS HEAVY COMMERCIAL.

THEY ALSO APPROVE THOSE AND THAT'S IT FOR MY REPORT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MOVES US TO ITEM SIX AND SEVEN.

[ CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION]

THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MAY 2ND FROM VICE CHAIR, MAN.

ALL IN FAVOR.

ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY EITHER MAY

[8. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider action regarding Comprehensive Plan Case 22-CPA-001 to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use category from Employment Center to Activity Center; and consider action regarding Zoning Case 21-Z-044 to amend the current zoning of Interim SFS-2-B (Single-Family Suburban) and Interim SFR-2-B (Single-Family Rural) to SFT-2-B (Single-Family Townhouse) and GC-2-B (General Commercial) on five parcels of land approximately 56.785 acres ± in size, more particularly described by Williamson Central Appraisal District Parcels R031298, R031398, R473651, R473652, and R031397; and generally located west of Ronald W. Reagan Blvd. And north of RM 2243, Leander, Williamson County, Texas. Discuss and consider action regarding Comprehensive Plan Case 21-CPA-006 as described above. Discuss and consider action regarding Zoning Case 21-Z-044 as described above. Staff Presentation Applicant Presentation Open Public Hearing Close Public Hearing Discussion Consider Action]

TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE CATEGORY FROM EMPLOYMENT CENTER TO ACTIVITY CENTER AND CONSIDER ACTION REGARDING ZONING CASE 21 DASH Z DASH 0 4 4.

TO AMEND THE CURRENT ZONING OF INTERIM SFS TO BE SINGLE-FAMILY SUBURBAN AND INTERIM SFR TO BE SINGLE FAMILY, RURAL TO S F T TO BE SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE AND GC, TO BE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ON FIVE PROPS WITH PARCELS OF LAND, APPROXIMATELY 56.785 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES IN SIZE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY WILLIAMSON COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCELS ARE 0 3 1 2 9 8 OR 0 3 1 3 9 8 OR 4 7 3 6 5.

ONE ARE 4 7 3 6 5 2 AND OUR 0 3 1 3 9 7 AND GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF RONALD REAGAN BOULEVARD AND, AND NORTH OF RM 2243 LEANDER WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, MR .

THANK YOU.

MICHAEL PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

UH, THIS REQUEST IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE ZONING PROCESS.

THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DE DESIGNATED ZONING DISTRICT OF THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO DEVELOP BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES.

SO THIS PROPERTY OR THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE INTENT STATEMENTS OF THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE GOAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND I'LL TOUCH ON THAT IN A LITTLE BIT.

UM, ONE OF THOSE ITEMS BEING UNDER THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE USE COMPONENT IS GENERALLY INTENDED TO BE LOCATED IN PLANNED COMMUNITIES OF GREATER THAN 100 ACRES AND COMPRISING LESS THAN 10% OF THOSE LOTS.

IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 34 ACRES, UH, WHICH COULD YIELD APPROXIMATELY 350 UNITS, UH, WHICH IS NOT PART OF AN OVERALL COMMUNITY OR AN INFILL PROJECT.

UM, SO THE SURROUNDING AREA, UH, WE SHOULD ALL BE FAMILIAR AT.

IT'S BEEN PART OF SOME OTHER PREVIOUS ZONING CASES.

UH, MOST RECENTLY THE ONE TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS STILL SHOWN AS A SINGLE FAMILY RURAL.

UM, BUT I THINK ON JANUARY 27TH IS WHEN, UH, THAT ZONING CASE CAME IN, UH, TO CHANGE IT TO A GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND WEST, OR EITHER A GENERAL COMMERCIAL OR INTERIM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, EXCEPT FOR THOSE JUST LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OR NORTHERN PORTION OF RM 2243.

UM, SO SOME OF THE PHYSICAL FEATURES THIS, UH, SUBJECT AREA IS NOT PLANTED CURRENTLY, SO IT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS.

UH, THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF LONG ARM, 22, 43 IS WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED, UM, LATER ON DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, UM, THE NORTHERN PORTION, WHICH IS THE COMMERCIAL TRACT, UH, DOES HAVE SIGNIFICANT TREE COVER AND THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED

[00:05:01]

AND THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SUBJECT AREA WAS ANNEXED IN 2005 WITH THE OTHER PARCELS BEING ANNEXED LATER IN 2018.

AND THE SUBJECT AREA ALSO WAS PART OF TWO SEPARATE ZONING CASES.

SO THE FIRST BEING 19 Z 0 2 3, WHICH INCLUDED THESE PARCELS AS PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS DENIED IN 2020.

UH, THE SECOND ZONING CASE WAS 21 Z DASH 0 2 7.

UM, THAT ZONING CASE WAS LATER AMENDED TO REMOVE, UH, THESE PARCELS ALONG WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USE COMPONENT.

SO THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE ACCESS ONTO RM 2243 AND NOT SHOWN ON THESE MAPS ARE THE FUTURE NORTH AND SOUTH AND EASTERN WEST COLLECTOR ROADWAYS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN.

SO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, UH, I DESIGNATE THIS AREA AS AN APPOINTMENT CENTER AND AN ACTIVITY CENTER.

SO THE ACTIVITY CENTER INCLUDES A DESIRED LAND USE DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE FOR COMMERCIAL AS 70 TO 100%.

THE RESIDENTIAL FROM ZERO TO 30%.

AND THE SUBJECT AREA IS CURRENTLY MADE UP OF INTERIM ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH WERE APPLIED AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION.

UH, THE ACTIVITY CENTER ALSO INCLUDES A MAJORITY INTERIM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ACCOUNTING FOR ROUGHLY 62%.

UH, THIS IS ZONING REQUEST WOULD INCREASE THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL LAND DISTRIBUTION FROM ABOUT 24% TO 27% AND INCREASE THE DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL FROM 15 TO ABOUT 21%.

THIS SUBJECT AREA SITE, UH, HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER OR CITY STAFF WITH REGARD TO PLATTING ACCESS OR DRAINAGE AT THIS TIME, UH, DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS, UH, THAT'S WHEN THE ENGINEER WILL NEED TO DEMONSTRATE, UH, HOW THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WILL BE PLANTED, WHAT THE ROAD NETWORK WILL LOOK LIKE AND ANY EXTENSION OF UTILITIES.

SO THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL AND 34 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS, UH, THIS SMALL PORTION, UH, AS AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER, UM, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL OR SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE USE COMPONENTS.

SO THIS REQUEST WOULD BE TO AMEND THAT PORTION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER TO INCLUDE IT WITHIN THE ACTIVITY CENTER, THE COMPONENT POSITIVE ZONING ORDINANCE ALSO SUMMARIZES THE SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE USE COMPONENT TO SERVE AS A TRANSITION BETWEEN THOSE MODERATE SIZE, LOTS AND HIRED, UH, TO HIGHER DENSITY AREAS, UH, AS PART OF A LARGER PLANS COMMUNITY AND A TYPICALLY A HUNDRED ACRES IN SIZE AND THE SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE USED COMPONENT COMPRISING LESS THAN 10% OF THOSE LAWNS.

AND SO IF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PORTION IS NOT APPROVED, THEN, UH, THE ZONING WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

AND I THINK THERE'S THIS SHORT PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

THANK YOU, MICHAEL CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

THANKS FOR TONIGHT.

IT'S CALLED TRY TO BE BRIEF.

UM, LET'S SEE IF I PRESS THIS AT WORKS.

YES, Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE EXISTING ZONING ON THE PROJECT, UM, RECENTLY, UM, UH, READ THE PROPERTY AROUND IT, UH, WAS ADDITIONALLY ZONE GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH AREA.

YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT CROP PROPERTY THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF IT'S ALL, UM, SINGLE FAMILY RESERVE OR RESERVE AND SINGLE FAMILY.

UM, WHAT IS THE, UH, YEAH, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS, UM, WELL LET ME, LET ME BACK UP.

SO WE PRESENTED TO YOU IN, UH, SEPTEMBER THE NINTH OF LAST YEAR, UM, UH, PROPOSED ZONING CASE WHERE WE WERE DOING TOWNHOUSE ALL THROUGH THE MIDDLE.

SO WHAT THAT WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE IS TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE.

THIS WAS TOWNHOUSE AND THIS WAS TOWNHOUSE AND I'VE ADDED ON HERE.

THE, THE ARTERIALS THAT WOULD BE CONNECTED THROUGH THAT PROPOSAL WAS ALSO PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED THAT PROPOSAL AND THEY WANTED TO AMEND OUR PROPOSAL AND REMOVE THIS TRAPEZOIDAL PORTION AND CONVERTED TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND KEEP THIS AS TOWNHOUSE.

THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS HEARD BY HER, BY US.

AND WE AGREED TO COME BACK AND PRESENT THAT TO YOU.

AND SO TODAY YOU CAN SEE THAT TODAY'S ZONINGS IS MATCHES EXACTLY WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDED.

AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE.

I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU

[00:10:03]

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NOW? I DO HAVE, I HAVE ONE CARD FROM A TYLER SOMMERFELD WHO, UM, COULD NOT STAY, BUT SHE ASKED TO HAVE HER COMMENTS READ INTO THE RECORD AND SHE WOULD LET GO ON RECORD AS BEING AGAINST THIS IRON BECAUSE OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION AND ALSO DISPLACEMENT OF WILDLIFE.

THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION.

YEAH.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, JUST SO, UM, I LOOKED AT THE SEPTEMBER CASE AS WELL, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM VERSUS WHAT H WHAT HAPPENED.

NOW, THIS LITTLE PIECE DOWN HERE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SEPTEMBER CASE.

SO EVERYTHING ELSE WAS, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE, AT THE SEPTEMBER, UM, SEPTEMBER 23RD CASE, AND I'VE GOT IT UP HERE, BUT IT IT'S JUST A SMALL CORNER.

IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL, BUT, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT, WHAT WAS BROUGHT TO US BEFORE, BUT IT IS A SIMILAR CONCEPT AS TO WHAT WAS BROUGHT TO US BEFORE.

THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE I CAN SEE OTHER THAN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL BEING CHANGED.

SO THAT BEING SAID, MY QUESTION IS FOR STAFF IN THE SEPTEMBER 23RD CASE, UH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STAFF NOTES, IT SAID AT THE TIME THAT IT COMPLIED WITH THE INTENT STATEMENTS OF THE COMPOSITE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND IT COMPLIED WITH THE GOAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IT DIDN'T WANT ANY SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS, NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED EXCEPT THEY'VE COMING BACK FOR DIFFERENT PIECES OF IT.

SO WHY TODAY IN THE STAFF NOTES OR THE PLANNING ANALYSIS, IT SAYS THE OPPOSITE.

UM, HOW WAS IT PART OF A HUNDRED TRACT LAST TIME? SO, SO YOU'RE SAYING, BECAUSE HE'S BROKEN IT UP AT NOW, DOESN'T MEET THE INTENT OF THE STATEMENTS, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A PART OF A, MORE THAN A HUNDRED ACRE TRACT.

SO I THINK THAT PROBABLY TOUCHES ON IT.

UM, I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IN THIS.

YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING? YEAH.

AND I THINK, UM, PART OF IT IS WE'VE TAKEN A HARDER LOOK AT THE INTENT STATEMENTS AND WHEN, WHEN YOU READ THEM, IT DOESN'T COMPLY.

UM, WE WERE VERY FOCUSED ON THE COMMERCIAL PORTIONS OF IT IN SEPTEMBER, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT WATER, AND WE SEE THIS LARGE AMOUNT OF TOWNHOUSES AS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FIT.

SO TOWNHOUSES ARE MEANT TO BE INFILL OR A SMALLER PORTION OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THIS IS A BIG, AND I, AND I GET THAT.

UM, I GET THAT MR. GRIFFON, BUT WHAT I'M REALLY WHAT I'M ASKING IS, IS THAT NOW HE'S COMING BACK, UM, THE, THE APPLICANT IS REDUCING THE ACREAGE.

HE'S HAS THE LEAST DENSE PRODUCT THAT HE CAN PUT IN AN ACTIVITY CENTER BECAUSE IT'S MULTI-FAMILY, OR, OR SFT IN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER OR IN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER.

IT DOES SAY THAT UP TO 20% RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A CLASSIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL FOR THAT EMPLOYMENT CENTER.

HE'S ONLY ASKED HIM FOR PROBABLY EIGHT TO 10 ACRES IN THAT SPOT ANYWAY, JUST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT IN OUR NICE, PRETTY ROUND CIRCLE THAT WE'VE DESIGNATED AS AN ACTIVITY CENTER, I THINK IS CONTIGUOUS.

AND I DON'T, I DON'T SEE WHY IT DOESN'T MEET WITH THE INTENT, UM, UNLESS WE WANT THEM TO DO MULTIFAMILY.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

UM, SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT'S BEING AMENDED TO ADD ACTIVITY CENTER, RIGHT.

AND THAT IT DOES ALLOW FOR TOWNHOUSES, CORRECT.

W W WHAT? UM, CAUSE WHEN I, WHEN I LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE WAY WE HAVE IT, YOU KNOW, AND, AND SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IS THAT THIS IS THE ONLY ACTIVITY CENTER RIGHT HERE.

THIS PORTION, ALL OF THIS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE TOWNHOMES BECAUSE IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T FEED INTO A LARGER, UH, RESIDENTIAL AREA BECAUSE THE PURPLE IS OF COURSE, UM, YEAH, THE PURPLE IS EMPLOYMENT CENTER.

SO THAT MEANS ANYONE ON THE WEST OF, OF, UH, REAGAN HERE THAT THEY WANTED TO BUILD TOWNHOMES.

WE WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T MEET THE INTENT OF A TOWNHOME BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BUMPING INTO A LARGER RESIDENTIAL, BUT ANYONE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OR THE EASTERN SIDE OF REAGAN, IT WOULD BE OKAY.

RIGHT.

BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S A BUFFER BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND THE HIGHER DENSITY.

YEAH, I GET THAT.

BUT, BUT HE'S NOT ASKING FOR HIGHER DENSITY, HE'S ASKING FOR ONE TYPE OF PRODUCT.

AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S THE LEAST DENSE PRODUCT.

SO, SO I, AND I, AND I, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR CONSTRAINTS WITH WATER AND, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE, THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT THE APPLICANTS COME WITH THE LEAST DENSE PRODUCT THAT HE CAN ASK FOR.

AND I, AND I GET THEM TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT, I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT IT FROM AN EIGHT ACREAGE, YOU KNOW, EIGHT TO 10 ACRES.

AGAIN, THAT'S JUST MY, MY GUESSTIMATE OUT OF A 50 ACRE REQUEST.

[00:15:01]

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE COMMISSIONER, MAY I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT ON THE WHOLE PROPERTY, WHAT IS THAT LIKE 90% OF IT IS WITHIN THE ACTIVITY CENTER ON THE TOP AND THE VERY LOWER PORTION, WHICH IS ABOUT FIVE TO 10% OF IT.

THAT THAT'S THE PORTION THAT'S IN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER THAT WE HAVE TO DO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR.

OKAY.

SO IT'S NOT THE WHOLE THING THAT WE'RE CHANGING BECAUSE I I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

GIVEN THE, WE APPROVED IT LESS THAN A YEAR AGO, WAS IT MAY OF LAST YEAR WE APPROVED IT.

RIGHT.

AND ALREADY MAKING CHANGES, BUT THE, THIS IS BECAUSE THE CIRCLE AND THE, UM, BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY DON'T MATCH, THEY, THEY DON'T OVERLAY.

EXACTLY.

SO HE ACTUALLY HAS PROPERTY THAT'S WITHIN TO BOTH THE ACTIVITY CENTER AND THAT'S RIGHT.

YEP.

OKAY.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE COMMISSIONER MOSS, NO QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, NO QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER LANTRIP.

MY NAME IS NOT REALLY A QUESTION, BUT JUST TO COMMENT, UM, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGED FOR JUST A SMALL PORTION OF THIS, YOU KNOW, SQUARES DON'T OFTEN FIT IN THE CIRCLE, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT SOME EDGES HERE.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST, IT'S ON THE EDGE OF IT.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I, I GUESS WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT IT AND IT WAS KIND OF FLIPPED WITH MORE RESIDENTIAL AND LESS COMMERCIAL THAN WHAT WOULD FIT INTO AN ACTIVITY CENTER, UH, YOU KNOW, I HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THAT.

AND HOWEVER, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY CENTER, IT'S ONLY RAISING THE RESIDENTIAL TO 21% AND, YOU KNOW, IDEALLY IT'S A 70 30.

SO THAT MEANS THAT OTHER PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DEVELOP, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY ABOUT 9% LEFT, BUT HE GOT HERE FIRST.

SO I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

COMMISSIONER CARPENTER, DOES THIS OWNER HAVE OTHER PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THIS THAT ARE GOING TO COME AT US DOWN THE ROAD? THANK YOU.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

THIS IS THE LAST AND FINAL OF THE ARIZONA IN CASES WERE PRESENTED.

SO THIS IS THE LAST PIECE OF THAT GREAT BIG PROJECT THAT HAD YES, SIR.

THAT THE DOCTOR OWNS.

AND LET ME CLARIFY, I DO APOLOGIZE.

IT IS 3.3 ACRES THAT WE DID ADD IN THE VERY CORNER ON THE BOTTOM.

AND WE DID THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE WANTED, WE'RE HAVING TO BUILD THE ROAD.

AND SO WE WANT IT TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY BUILDING THE ROAD SO WE CAN DEVELOP THAT PART TOO.

THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.

I SAID, YOU HAVE A QUESTION NOW YOU WISH YOUR HAMPTON BACK TO YOU, SIR.

UM, SO THE PROJECTED ROAD, WOULD WE SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD? OR COULD WE TELL WHAT THAT IS GOING TO BE NOW? IT'S A COLLECTOR CLASS ROADWAY.

UM, WE'RE LUCKY TO HAVE OUR CITY ENGINEER HERE TODAY.

SO HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TELL US THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH FOR THAT COLLECTOR.

IT'S LIKE A STAB AT THIS.

I THINK I'LL STOP COMING TO THESE.

I CLICK A ROADWAY 74 FOOT OF RIGHT AWAY.

AND I BELIEVE 50 FOOT OF PAYMENT SECTION, WHICH IS DEPENDING IF IT'S RESIDENTIAL OR AN INDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR, THERE MAY BE ROADSIDE PARKING OR THE, JUST TWO LANES OF TRAVEL WITH THE CENTER TURN LANE AND THEN BIKE LANES ON THE ROADWAY AS WELL.

IT WOULD VARY SOMEWHAT, BUT THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT THE ROADWAY IS.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR.

AND ONE MORE QUESTION FOR MICHAEL.

UM, YOU MADE A COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT THE 350.

I'M PROBABLY GOING TO BUTCHER THIS, BUT 350 TOWNHOMES.

THAT WAS JUST A, AN ESTIMATE BASED ON THE SIZE OF ACREAGE OF RESIDENTIAL.

OKAY.

COULD IT GO LARGER THAN THAT OR BASED OFF THE ESTIMATE? IT SHOULD BE SHORTER.

PROBABLY.

IT WOULD BE SHORTER.

OKAY, PERFECT.

THAT'S ALL I GOT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CARPENTER.

I'M SORRY.

UM,

[00:20:02]

YEP.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

SORRY.

WE'RE BACK TO YOU COMMISSIONER.

UH, SO I GUESS THIS WOULD BE A HYPOTHETICAL CAUSE BASED OFF IF WE APPROVED THE ZONING, IF THEY WERE GIVEN THE ZONING AT THIS POINT, AT THAT, AT THAT POINT, COULD WE TALK ABOUT WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE FIRST OR IS THAT KIND OF GOING TO THE NEW ORDINANCE? SO THEY, UM, DID NOT DO A PUD, SO WE CAN'T REQUIRE THAT COMMERCIAL HAPPENS FIRST, BUT THE CHANGES TO OUR ORDINANCE WITH THE PHASING WOULD APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.

I AM, UH, NOT OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE COMP PLAN TO JUST ADJUST THAT ARBITRARY CIRCLE A LITTLE BIT.

I, UH, I, I DON'T THINK THAT ZONING IS IDEAL, BUT I THINK IT IS.

I AGREE WITH THE VICE CHAIR THAT IT IS PROBABLY THE LOWEST DENSITY PRODUCT THAT WE CAN GET IN THERE.

UM, PROBABLY WHY I WAS IN FAVOR OF PUTTING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

UH, BUT UH, THAT BEING SAID, IF THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS, I HAVE ONE QUICK.

SO, SO MR. , WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, UM, NUMBERS, WHEN COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, SOMEBODY, YOU WERE, YOU RAISED YOUR HAND.

SO I HAD TO TOUCH IN MY HEAD SOMETHING TO SAY BEFORE, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS.

YES, SIR.

THANKS FOR THAT.

UM, I JUST, IT SOUNDS SCARY THE NUMBERS, BUT THE REALITY IS WHEN, WHEN YOU BRING IN A PARKWAY THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY AND ONE THAT COMES THROUGH THE SIDE AND WE ALSO HAD, YOU KNOW, TALKED SOME ABOUT THE DRAINAGE.

THERE IS A WATERWAY THAT COMES THROUGH HERE AS WELL.

ALTHOUGH THOSE THINGS HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON HOW MUCH YOU CAN GET ON THE PROPERTY.

AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER IS GOING TO BE.

THE NUMBER THAT YOU ARE QUOTED OR HERE IS THE NUMBER THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS GOING TO HOLD IT TO WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN ACTUALLY DO IT IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

THAT WAS IT.

IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

THIS IS AN ACTION ITEM.

I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE HAVING A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM THE VICE CHAIR.

SECOND, I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MOSS, ALL IN FAVOR.

ALL OPPOSED THE VOTE IS 6 2, 1 COMMISSIONER HAMPTON, OPPOSE COMMISSIONER HAMPTON.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD? THE REASON? NOPE.

OKAY.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM

[9. Discuss policy related to a potential roadway impact fee ordinance for the 2022 Roadway Impact Fee Study.]

CONSIDER ASHTON ON THE DRAFT LAND, USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE 2022 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY KJ PRESENTATION THAT HAD A LOT OF SLIDES.

WELL, I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THERE'S FEWER SLIDES TONIGHT.

UH, THE FIRST ONE'S ALWAYS A HUMDINGER, AS I LIKE TO SAY.

UH, THERE'S JUST A LOT OF STUFF TO COVER.

UM, SO IT SHOULD BE SIMPLER.

I'LL GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY, BUT I DO HAVE TWO ITEMS, SORRY FOR THAT.

AND I KNOW THE REPORT WAS VERY LONG TO BE IN THERE, BUT WE DO HAVE A POSSIBLE ACTION ON THIS ITEM, SO I WOULDN'T INCLUDE IT THERE.

UM, SO TONIGHT THE PURPOSE OF, OF THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS, UH, A RECOMMENDATION FROM Y'ALL.

UM, YOU COULD NOT MAKE HER ALSO NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IF YOU WANT.

UM, BUT, UH, BASED ON THE PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR THE LANEY'S ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, THAT'S TENTATIVELY MARCH 17TH, UH, BY STATEWIDE, THEY WOULD NEED, UH, COUNSEL WOULD NEED COMMENTS FROM Y'ALL BY MARCH 10TH, FIVE BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR.

SO, UM, WE DO HAVE THAT OPTION.

UM, SO, UH, AGAIN, JUST KIND OF A REMINDER, PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING IN THE ASTERISKS ON HERE, THE SERVICE AREAS, LANEY'S ASSUMPTIONS, SERVICE UNITS, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN.

THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION IS ABOUT TONIGHT.

UM, THERE'S STILL A, UH, FINAL MAXIMUM FEE AND THEN THE POLICY PIECE, WHICH WE'LL GET INTO ON THE NEXT ITEM, UH, TO DISCUSS FROM HERE ON, BUT WE'LL GET TO MOVE PAST THOSE THINGS FOR GOOD.

UH, HOPEFULLY AFTER, AFTER THIS, UH, ITEM TONIGHT, UM, WE DID HAVE A DRAFT COMPLETE LAST TIME.

Y'ALL WANTED US TO GO LOOK AND SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FOUR AND FIVE SERVICE AREA SCHEMES.

UM, THE MAIN

[00:25:01]

UM, UH, IN THAT AREA IN THERE, I HAD A LOT OF DENSITY, UH, OVER HALF OF THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ANTICIPATED GROWTH FOR ALL OF THE GREEN ON THE MAP.

SO WE DID BREAK THAT OUT.

UM, AND SO THAT'S NOW STARTING TO SERVICE AREA E UH, JUST FOR, FOR CLARIFYING THAT, UH, IT DID HAVE THE RESULT THAT WE EXPECTED.

UM, AND SO I'LL JUST KIND OF QUICKLY HIGHLIGHT ON HERE.

UM, SO, UH, MAGNIFYING GLASS, UM, SO THE, UH, THE FEES PRETTY MUCH REMAIN RELATIVELY THE SAME FOR SERVICE AREAS, A C AND D THE MAIN CHANGE WAS B CAUSE WE SPLIT IT UP.

UH, BUT WHAT IT DID IS, UM, IT BASICALLY RAISED, UH, THAT MAXIMUM FEE FOR THE AREA EAST OF , UH, BY ABOUT 70% OR SO.

UH, AND SO BASICALLY WHAT THAT DOES IS IF YOU DID WANT TO GO WITH A FLAT RATE ACROSS THE CITY, UH, AND THE AREAS OUTSIDE OF THAT TRIANGLE, UM, YOUR, UH, YOUR CEILING OF SORTS WOULD BE ROUGHLY FOUR TIMES THE 44 NUMBER FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, JUST FOR CONTEXT.

SO THAT'S ROUGHLY ABOUT 3,200 TO 3,500 SOMETHING IN THAT RANGE.

UM, PER HOUSE WOULD BE THE, IF YOU WENT WITH A FLAT RATE, THAT WOULD BE YOUR MAXIMUM FOR THE WHOLE CITY, EXCEPT FOR THAT TRIANGLE.

SO, UM, AND THEN TH THE RATE IN THE SERVICE AREA IS TO BE EXPECTED TO BE A LITTLE BIT LOWER BECAUSE THERE'S NOT MANY PROJECTS, A LOT OF GROWTH.

UM, SO WITH THAT, UM, I'LL KIND OF STOP HERE AND SAY THAT THE, WE CAN MOVE TOWARDS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR YES.

COMMISSIONER? OKAY.

UM, SO I READ SOMEWHERE IN HERE THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO GO WITH A SINGLE NUMBER, YOU KNOW, YOU DECIDED YOU WERE GOING TO, YOU HAVE TO GO WITH THE LOWEST CORRECT NUMBER.

SO GOING WITH THIS SCENARIO THAT HAS, HAS THE AREA IAN, IT WOULD THE, WOULD WE BE GOING ON $300? SORRY.

YEAH.

SO IT'S A GREAT POINT.

AND I'M SORRY THAT I DIDN'T CLARIFY THAT.

SO, UM, THE, THE INTENT OF GOING TO FIVE WAS THAT YOU COULD SET A FLAT RATE EVERYWHERE, BUT THE TRIANGLE AROUND NORTH LINE, BUT YES, IF YOU DID WANT A FLAT RATE ACROSS ALL FIVE OF THOSE, THEN YEAH, YOU WOULDN'T BE LIMITED BY THAT BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T GO BEYOND THAT, BUT YOU COULD DO TWO SETS OF RATES, LIKE ONE INSIDE OF THE, BY ITSELF, AND THEN THE REST OF THE CITY COULD BE YES, YOU CAN.

YEAH.

OKAY.

SO WE CAN FLAT RATE A THROUGH D AND NATI.

YES, EXACTLY.

YEAH.

JUST WHEN WE GET INTO THE POLICY DISCUSSION, YOU'LL SEE, ON THE NEXT ONE, IF YOU WANT IT TO BE RELATIVELY UNIFORM, THE CHALLENGE WITH THE FOUR SERVICE AREAS IS THAT ALMOST 25% OF THE CITY IS REALLY HAMPERING THAT MAXIMUM CEILING A LOT.

AND THE IDEA WAS, OKAY, WELL, THIS IS A PRETTY HIGH DENSITY AREA ANYWAYS.

SO LET'S, LET'S ISOLATE THAT.

AND THEN THE REST OF THE CITY IS MORE HOMOGENOUS WITH THE SECOND OPTION.

I, I, THAT HAD A, AN IMPACT ON, YOU KNOW, WHETHER I VOTE TO INCLUDE HE OR NOT INCLUDE.

CORRECT.

YES.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

I RECOGNIZE THE VICE-CHAIR.

YEAH.

SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE SET OUR RATE, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME WE CAN INCENTIVIZE, UH, UH, DEVELOPMENT BY REDUCING THE RATE THAT THEY HAVE.

WE JUST CAN'T REDUCE IT TO ZERO, CORRECT.

UM, FOR PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT OR PARTICULAR AREA OR LANELESS DEVELOPMENT.

SO, SO ONCE YOU SET A COLLECTION RATE, WHICH WE'LL GET INTO ON THE NEXT ITEM, AND I CAN TALK MORE ABOUT IT THERE, BUT, UH, WHEN YOU START A COLLECTION RATE, YOU CAN'T WAIVE THE FEE FOR ANY PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

SO SOME SORT OF FUNDING WOULD HAVE TO COME IN PLACE FROM SOMEPLACE TO MAKE UP THAT FEE.

BUT LIKE, IF WE COULD REDUCE AN AREA, THOUGH, YOU CAN REDUCE AN AREA.

LIKE IF THERE'S AN ADOPTED DISTRICTS THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE FOR CERTAIN THINGS, YOU COULD SET A LOWER RATE THERE BY LAND USE.

SO THERE'S A PARTICULAR LAND USE YOU WANT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO WE CAN'T SPLIT, WE CAN'T SPECIFY A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, BUT WE CAN REDUCE A CERTAIN AREA TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA.

CORRECT.

OKAY.

DEFINITELY.

AND BY THE WAY, COMMISSIONER BREWING.

BRILLIANT QUESTION.

LOVE IT.

YEAH, THAT DOES.

THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT.

SINCERELY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? NO EMOTION FOR ACTION OR NO ACTION.

I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE THE FIVE SERVICE AREA APPROACH.

I HAVE AN APPROVED THE VICE CHAIR AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LANE TRIP, ALL IN FAVOR.

ALL OPPOSED CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT.

I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT THING OR, SORRY, I CAN'T DO THAT.

Y'ALL DO THAT.

THERE'S A, THERE'S ANOTHER ITEM.

I THINK THAT HAS TO BE MOVED INTO, RIGHT.

THERE'S AN EXTRA ITEM RIGHT ON THE AGENDA.

ALL RIGHT.

I DON'T THINK SO.

[00:30:04]

[10. Discuss and consider action on the draft land use assumptions and capital improvements plan for the 2022 Roadway Impact Fee Study. KHA Presentation Discussion Consider Action]

ALL RIGHT.

SO NOW IT COMES ALL THE FIREWORKS, AS I LIKE TO SAY, AND THIS IS WHERE WE WOULD DO A LOT OF ROLLING UP THE SLEEVES AND WORK.

UM, SO JUST WANT TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH WHERE WE'RE HEADED FROM HERE AFTER THE LAST ACTION TONIGHT.

I'M JUST HERE TO REALLY TALK ABOUT, UM, SOME OF THE GENERAL, UH, POLICY DECISIONS, MOST OTHER FOLKS THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED THESE PROGRAMS TALK ABOUT, UH, IN THESE FORUMS. SO I'M GOING TO KIND OF GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF A FRAMEWORK FOR SOME DECISION-MAKING.

OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE POLICIES THAT ARE CUSTOMIZABLE AND I CAN HELP INFORM YOU.

ALL OF, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE LAW.

UH, BUT REALLY THE HOPE IS THAT WE CAN COME BACK IN OUR NEXT SESSIONS AND REALLY TALK THROUGH SOME COMPARISON CITIES AND OTHER ORDINANCES AND, AND GET INTO THE WEEDS OF ALL THAT.

UM, WE CAN CERTAINLY GET INTO TALKS TONIGHT, BUT I'LL LET YOU ALL, UM, DIRECT THAT.

SO, UM, WHERE WE'RE AT IS WE, WE DID CHOOSE AT THE, UM, JANUARY MEETING TO GO WITH A KIND OF ROUGHLY JUNE FINISHED SCHEDULE.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE HEADED.

UH, AND THEN, UM, REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS WE'RE, WE'RE STARTING OUR STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PHASE AND POLICY DELIBERATION.

THERE'S A, UM, TO PULL THIS UP, THERE IS A STAKEHOLDER OPEN HOUSE, UH, WHERE WE'VE REACHED OUT TO, UH, THE FOLKS IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, UH, TO COME TO CITY HALL ON MARCH 9TH, OVER LUNCH, UM, AND ASK THEM ABOUT, UM, FEARS, CONCERNS, OR HOPES FOR SUCH A PROGRAM IF IT WERE TO BE ADOPTED.

AND SO WE'RE GONNA GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THEM AND HOPEFULLY BRING A SUMMARY BACK TO Y'ALL WHEN WE COME, UH, ONE MONTH FROM NOW ON MARCH 24TH.

UM, AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TO, UM, WE CAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY MEET MORE FREQUENTLY SINCE THIS BODY MEETS EVERY TWO WEEKS, IF Y'ALL WOULD LIKE.

UM, BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, UH, WE DO NEED, UH, MOTIONS ON A POLICY, UH, AND ANYTHING RELATED TO THE COLLECTION RATES AND MAXIMUM FEE RATES, UH, BY THE MAY 28TH, UH, PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING MAY 20 ON MAY 20TH.

IT'S, UH, THE LAST, THE LAST MAY MEETING, UH, TO BE COMPLIANT, TO HAVE STUFF READY IN TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU.

YES.

SO 26 TO BE READY FOR THE JUNE 2ND, UH, COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE TARGETING FOR THAT, THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS PROCESS.

UM, SO GOING THROUGH A POLICY PRIMER, I ALWAYS LIKE HAVING THIS SLIDE JUST AS KIND OF A REMINDER OF A LOT OF TIMES WHY THESE PROGRAMS ARE CONSIDERED AS A PREDICTABILITY, UH, HENCE KIND OF THAT FIVE SERVICE AREA OPTION.

IF YOU HAVE MORE OF A HOMOGENOUS, UM, FEE, SOMETIMES THAT WORKS WELL.

UM, BUT REALLY IT'S A, UM, YOU KNOW, AN EQUITABLE AND TRANSPARENT.

PROGRAM'S GOOD.

UM, SO THAT KIND OF, AGAIN, BOILING THIS DOWN TO KIND OF WHAT THE DECISION POINT IS WHEN IT COMES TO THE COLLECTION RATE ITSELF, UM, THE MAXIMUM FEES ARE GONNA SET THE CEILING AND EACH OF THOSE FIVE AREAS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, BUT REALLY THE DECISION POINT, UH, THAT I LIKE TO BRING UP IS IT'S WHERE DO YOU DRAW A LINE IN TERMS OF THE COLLECTION RATE ON THE GREEN AND THE YELLOW PIECE OF THE PIE? UH, BECAUSE A LOT OF OTHER STUFF GETS DISCOUNTED OUT.

SO THE ACTUAL NEEDS IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL IMPROVEMENTS IS THE WHOLE PIE, BUT WE'RE ALREADY DISCOUNTING IT FOR FUTURE PROPERTY TAXES, UH, AND THE GROWTH IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS, WHICH IS THAT PURPLE ISH KIND OF BLUEISH PIECE, I'M SORRY, THE BLUE PIECE, UM, HAVING TO, TO ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE ALREADY ON THE ROADS, IF YOU'RE WINDING THEM AS THE RED PIECE, THAT COSTS ME AN EXISTING DEMANDS.

AND THEN SOME OF THE ROADS THAT GET BUILT ARE IMPROVEMENTS THAT GET BUILT TO THE INTERSECTIONS IS FOR TRAFFIC BEYOND 10 YEARS.

SO THAT'S THE PEAK PIECE.

SO REALLY THE DECISION POINT IS OF THE REMAINDER, UM, THAT'S THAT MAXIMUM FEE, WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? SO BETWEEN THE YELLOW AND THE GREEN, THE COLLECTION, AND THEN NOT COLLECT.

UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF, UH, IF A SCHEME WAS WENT WITH, UH, ROUGHLY A 50, 50 SPLIT, UH, IT WOULD BE, UM, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, ABOUT HALF OF THAT, UH, OR SOMETIMES ONE OF THE THINGS WE'D LIKE TO SAY IS THAT PART OF THE DECISION OF THAT SPLIT, UM, THE YELLOW PART IS ASSUMING THAT SOMETHING ELSE WILL COME UP WITH THE MONEY ON THAT.

UH, AND SO IF THE MONEY DOESN'T COME FROM SOMETHING ELSE, UH, THEN A LOT OF TIMES THINGS DON'T GET BUILT.

SO THAT'S JUST KIND OF THE REALITY, THE BRASS TAX THING, IF YOU'D LIKE TO FRAME IT THAT WAY, JUST AS A REMINDER, BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S CITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AROUND GROWTH AND HOW TO MANAGE THAT.

AND SO THERE DEFINITELY IS A BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

AND THEN THE THING I ALWAYS LIKE TO SAY HERE AND PAUSE AND BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT IS THAT, UM, IMPACT FEES ARE A TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX THAT USUALLY WILL NOT SOLVE YOUR NEEDS.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS PIE, EVEN IF YOU DID ALL THE GREEN AND YELLOW, YOU'RE STILL NOT EVEN GETTING, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL THE WAY THERE, UH, IF YOU WERE TO ADOPT SOMETHING LIKE A MAXIMUM FEE.

SO, SO I MENTIONED A POLICY FRAMEWORK.

UM, THERE'S A FOURTH THING I'LL MENTION, UH, AT THE END THAT I DIDN'T PUT ON HERE ABOUT, UM, ANNEXATIONS.

I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT JUST EARLY AND OFTEN, UH, BECAUSE IT'S COME UP A LOT IN OTHER COMMUNITIES RECENTLY WITH DO WE IMPACT FEES.

UM, BUT THE GENERAL KIND OF THINGS, I LIKE TO SAY A DATE,

[00:35:01]

UM, SO REALLY WHAT THAT MEANS IS A LOT OF TIMES WE TALK ABOUT HOW DO YOU, UM, DEAL WITH PAST, UH, OR IN PROCESS DEVELOPMENTS VERSUS FUTURE.

WHAT'S THE KIND OF TIMING OF WHEN THE COLLECTIONS START, UM, WHAT KIND OF GRANDFATHERING IS THERE, IF ANY, UH, COLLECTION RATE IS AGAIN, THE NUMBER WHAT'S, WHAT DOES THAT NUMBER MAKE SENSE? UM, AND BY WHAT, HOW DO YOU DO THAT UP? AND THEN REDUCTIONS ARE KIND OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A MINUTE AGO, UH, WITH, ARE THERE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WOULD HELP ADVANCE CITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR GROWTH, WHETHER THAT'S GEOGRAPHIC OR LAND USE TYPE? UM, SO IT'S WHAT'S IS THAT IT IS A CUSTOMIZABLE PROGRAM, UH, BUT THAT ALSO OFTEN LEADS TO LOTS OF DISCUSSION IN THESE MEETINGS.

SO WE'LL, WE'LL GET INTO IT.

WE HAVE A LOT OF GOOD, UM, TOOLS THAT WE CAN BRING TO THESE CONVERSATIONS AS WE GO.

UM, SO THE EFFECTIVE DATE, AND THEN REALLY THERE, AGAIN, THIS IS TO GET YOUR KIND OF WHEEL SPINNING FOR THE FUTURE MEETINGS TO START THINKING ABOUT THESE THINGS.

BUT THE STATE LAW REQUIRES AT A, AT A MINIMUM, IF SOMEONE HAS PLANTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE, UH, THEY HAVE A YEAR TO PULL BUILDING PERMITS, CAUSE THESE FEES ARE COLLECTED AT BUILDING PERMIT.

SO IF A FEE WAS ADOPTED IN JUNE, THEN EVERYONE THAT HAD A PLATZ FINAL PLAT IN PLACE AT A MINIMUM WOULD BE ABLE TO PULL BUILDING PERMITS FOR A YEAR BEFORE ANY FEES WERE COLLECTED.

YOU CAN EXPAND THAT IN TERMS OF THE LENGTH, YOU CAN EXPAND THE COVERAGE TO BE BEYOND JUST PREVIOUSLY PLOTTED PROPERTIES.

I'LL BRING YOU A LOT OF EXAMPLES OF THAT AND HOW DIFFERENT CITIES HAVE HANDLED IT.

IT'S ACTUALLY FAIRLY BROAD.

UM, SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IS SAYING, OKAY, LET'S JUST SET THE EFFECTIVE DATE, NOT THE DATE THAT IT'S ADOPTED, BUT MAKE IT FURTHER OUT AND THEN MAYBE, OR MAYBE NOT HAVE A GRACE PERIOD THERE, AS LONG AS IT MEETS THIS MINIMUM.

UM, SOME FOLKS WILL SAY, HEY, LET'S MAKE THE, UM, GRACE PERIOD LONGER.

UM, SO THEY'LL SAY, WELL, WE WANT IT TO BE 18 MONTHS OR TWO YEARS BEFORE WE START COLLECTING.

SO WE HAVE TIME TO GET THE PROGRAM READY TO RECEIVE FUNDS.

UM, AND THEN OTHERS STILL HAVE DONE THINGS WHERE THEY'LL ACTUALLY SET DIFFERENT RATES OVER TIME.

SO THEY'LL EASE IN, UH, TO A NUMBER THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TO YOU, BUT DON'T DO IT ON YOUR ONE OR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS.

SO AGAIN, IT'S VERY CUSTOMIZABLE.

THE ONLY LIMITATION SIMILAR TO THE MAXIMUM FEE BEING THE ONLY LIMITATION ON COLLECTION RATE IS THE MINIMUM GRACE PERIOD, BEYOND THAT IT'S UP TO, UP TO THE CITY TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IN TERMS OF HOW IT'S ROLLED OUT.

UM, I WILL SAY THAT THE, UH, I'M SURE WE'LL GET SOME FEEDBACK ON THIS, ON OUR MARCH 9TH MEETING WITH THE STAKEHOLDER COMMUNITY AND COULD CERTAINLY BRING WHAT THEY THINK, BUT, UM, IN TERMS OF RANGE OF OTHER CITIES, I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE, A LITTLE SNEAK PEEK OF, UM, UH, PFLUGERVILLE.

THEY WERE PROBABLY THE MOST AGGRESSIVE LOCALLY.

THEY ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER OF 2020.

AND THEY GAVE A, UM, ESSENTIALLY A GRACE PERIOD FOR PRODUCT PROPERTIES TO MARCH 1ST.

SO IT WAS PRETTY SHORT, UH, PERIOD FOR THAT.

SO THEY, THEY EXTENDED THE EFFECTIVE DATE A COUPLE OF MONTHS TO LET PEOPLE GET THEIR PLATS THEN, UH, AND THEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY COLLECTING THREE MONTHS AFTER ADOPTION, UH, FOR FOLKS THAT WERE PLANTING AFTER THAT MARCH 1ST DATE, UH, THIS PAST YEAR, UM, ON THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM, UH, CITY OF GEORGETOWN'S POLICY, UH, THEY WENT SO FAR AS TO, UH, DELAY, UM, ANYTHING FOR TWO YEARS.

AND THEN THEY ACTUALLY SAID ANYBODY WHO GETS A PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMISSION AND BY THE TWO YEAR MARK WOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM IMPACT FEES.

SO THEY WERE PRETTY BROAD IN BOTH COVERAGE OF APPLICANTS AND LENGTH OF TIME.

UH, SO YEAH, THERE'S A VERY BROAD RANGE THERE AND THAT'S JUST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HERE NEARBY ALL.

SO JUST KIND OF AS A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT FOR THAT QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE, KEEP GOING.

OKAY.

UM, THIS IS WHERE THE WHOLE LIMITATION BY THE MAXIMUM FEE AND EACH SERVICE AREA.

THANK YOU FOR, FOR THE QUESTION ON THE PREVIOUS ITEM.

UM, REALLY WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT, UH, DEPENDING ON THE SCHEMA THAT YOU MIGHT WANT, IT COULD BE A FLAT RATE.

IT COULD BE A PERCENTAGE OF THE MAXIMUM IN EACH AREA.

IT COULD BE ANY, ANY KIND OF ONE, YOU COULD DO SOMETHING ON THE EAST SIDE VERSUS THE WEST SIDE THAT THERE'S REALLY NO LIMIT ON THAT.

OTHER THAN YOU JUST CAN'T EXCEED THAT MAX NUMBER AND NEEDS OF THE AREAS ON WHATEVER RATE YOU CHOOSE.

UM, SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE HAD A PRETTY DECENT MIX OF FLAT VERSUS PERCENTAGE CHOICE, UM, COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE GONE WITH MORE OF A FLAT RATE, UH, ROUND ROCK AND PFLUGERVILLE, UH, BOTH WITH MEMORIAL OF A FLAT RATE.

UH, WHEREAS, UM, AUSTIN DID UP WHAT I WOULD CALL HYBRID.

THEY ACTUALLY DID LIKE A, THEY BACKED INTO AN, A CITYWIDE AVERAGE TO GET THEIR FLAT RATE, BUT IT WAS KIND OF BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF THE MAXIMUM ON THE CITYWIDE AS A WHOLE.

SO PEOPLE HAVE DONE A LOT OF DIFFERENT STUFF TO COME UP WITH THE NUMBER ON WHAT THEY CHOSE.

UM, AND YET STILL OTHERS HAVE JUST SAID, WE, ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT A PERCENTAGE OPTION IS, UH, THE FOLKS THAT ARE PROPONENTS OF THAT SAY THAT THE NEEDS IN A CITY ARE DIFFERENT IN THE DIFFERENT AREAS.

SO IF YOU GO WITH THE PERCENTAGE, UM, YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO NOT GET BEHIND OR TOO FAR AHEAD IN ANY AREA COMPARED TO ANOTHER, BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTUALLY FUNDING THE NEEDS AT THE SAME RATES THROUGHOUT THE

[00:40:01]

UM, SINCE THOSE NUMBERS ARE ACTUALLY BASED ON NEEDS AND GROWTH.

UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE, USUALLY THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE PERCENTAGE CHOICE.

UM, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS WHERE YOU CAN GET REALLY GRANULAR, UH, AS YOU CAN VARY BY LAND USE OR GET DOWN EVEN INTO THE FINITE OF HAVING DIFFERENT RATES FOR MULTI-FAMILY VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY OR, UH, TOWNHOMES VERSUS, YOU KNOW, HIGH RISES.

AND YOU CAN GET REALLY, REALLY DETAILED ON THAT, UH, THAT FRONT.

A LOT OF FOLKS USUALLY FIND, UM, WHEN THEY'RE STARTING OUT FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE, UM, STICKING WITH A COUPLE OF CATEGORIES AND SEEING HOW THAT GOES AND THEN PULLING LOVERS AS THE PROGRAM MATURES, UH, TEND TO WORK WELL WHEN ONE COMMUNITY DID, UM, SOUTH LAKE UP IN THE DALLAS AREA, THEY ACTUALLY DID BURY IT BY EVERY SINGLE WAY IN USE, UM, POSSIBLE THAT THEY COULD THINK OF.

AND THEN YET OTHERS HAVE CHOSEN A SPECIFIC LANE AS THEY REALLY DIDN'T WANT AND DROPPED IT REALLY, OR SORRY, RAISED IT TO THE MAXIMUM OR VICE VERSA, DROPS IT TO AUSTIN.

AND ACTUALLY, UM, ON THEIR EAST SIDE, THEY FELT THAT IT WAS A LACK OF GROCERY STORES.

THERE ARE SOME FOOD DESERTS, SO THEY ACTUALLY SET GROCERY STORES AT ZERO IN CERTAIN AREAS, AS AN EXAMPLE OF PICKING TARGETED LAND USES HOW PERMANENT ARE THE 3 27.

THEY'RE ALWAYS ADJUSTABLE AFTER, AFTER, UH, ONCE YOU ADOPT A STUDY, UM, AND, AND HAVE THOSE MAXIMUM FEES IN PLACE.

THAT'S YOUR LIMITATION FROM THAT ON? YOU CAN ACTUALLY CHANGE IT EVERY SIX MONTHS, IF YOU WANTED TO.

I DON'T ADVISE THAT BECAUSE ADMINISTRATIVELY IT GETS CHALLENGING, BUT YES, YOU CAN CHANGE IT AT ANY TIME, BUT WHAT, WHAT'S THE, UH, PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES FOR CHANGING? YEAH.

SO THE, IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN IMPACT FEE FOR ROADWAYS, LIKE YOU DO, DON'T NOW IT'S, UH, TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND TWO READINGS OF AN ORDINANCE AFTER THAT TIME, IT'S A SINGLE PUBLIC HEARING AND HOWEVER MANY READINGS ARE REQUIRED BY YOUR CHARTER.

SO, UM, IT'S, IT'S A SHORTER PROCESS.

IT STILL TAKES ABOUT TWO TO THREE MONTHS TO AMEND IT, BUT IT'S NOT, UM, IT'S REALLY CUMBERSOME.

AND IT ALWAYS COMES BACK TO THIS GROUP AS THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON ANY CHANGES FOR AN ORDINANCE.

SO YOU ALWAYS GET A LOOK AT IT.

UM, PROCEDURALLY SPEAKING FOR THE, FOR THE PERCENT OPTION, BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT THE, IT CAN BE A FLAT PERCENTAGE ON THE MAXIMUM.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE MAXIMUM FOR THE AREA OR THE LOWEST MAXIMUM FOR THE AREA? SO, OKAY.

SO LIKE A WAS A HIGHER MAXIMUM THAN WHAT THE LOWEST MAXIMUM WOULD BE.

THEN IF WE DID 25% OF THAT, THEN IT WOULD BE OF THAT, WHATEVER THE FOUR TIMES, YEAH.

THE NUMBER WOULD VARY, BUT IT WOULD BE A PERCENTAGE THAT'S STILL THE SAME PERSON.

THAT'S WHERE I WAS GETTING AT.

SOMETIMES FOLKS ARE LIKE, WE LIKE THE IDEA OF SAYING IN EVERY AREA WE'RE TRYING TO FUND 25% OF THE GROWTH FOR THIS PROGRAM.

AND THEN THEREFORE IT COMES OUT WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS WHEN YOU LOOK AT A RATE SCHEDULE, BUT THEORETICALLY THE CONCEPT'S, THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE.

OKAY.

LAST ONE WE'RE ALMOST DONE.

UM, SO FOR, FOR MY DEDUCTIONS, UM, AGAIN, I HATE TO KEEP SAYING THIS, THERE, THERE REALLY ARE ENDLESS POSSIBILITIES HERE.

WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF DIFFERENT ONES.

I'LL HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF THEM HERE AND EXPLAIN WHAT THEY ARE.

UM, REALLY WHAT WE USUALLY FIND THESE TO BE IS IT'S, IT'S WAYS TO FURTHER THINGS LIKE YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY FOR, FOR HOW YOU WANT TO MANAGE AND, AND, UM, UH, HANDLE GROWTH, UM, AND FUND INFRASTRUCTURE.