* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. OKAY, [00:00:02] WELCOME TO [Planning & Zoning Briefing 031124] THE STAFF BRIEFING OF THE CITY OF GRAND CL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 11TH, 2024. I'M CHERYL SMITH, CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THIS STAFF BRIEFING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING IS HEREBY CALLING THE ORDER AT 6:23 PM THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS WHERE THE STAFF FREES THE COMMISSION AND PREVIEWS THE CASES UP TO MIKE. AGENDA COMMISSION MEMBERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT MAY FACILITATE THE MEETING AND THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASES. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN DURING THE BRIEFING. PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE TO THE REGULAR MEETING, WHICH WILL BEGIN TO EARLY AT 6:30 PM I'LL NOW CONDUCT YOUR ROYAL CALLS MEMBERS TO THE FIRM, THE PRESIDENT FORUM. AFTER I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY HERE CHERYL SMITH. HERE. CARL RAMEZ. MICHELLE MADDEN. HERE. TY CHAPMAN. HERE. FRANK GONZALEZ. JULIA PEREZ. ANNA COKA. HERE. JOHN ERCO. CHRISTOPHER OLEY. YES. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT EXCEPT FOR PAUL RAMIREZ, FRANK GONZALEZ, JULIA PEREZ, AND JOHN PERKO. COMMISSIONERS. PLEASE REMEMBER TO TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONES BEFORE THIS SPEAK TO ENSURE EVERYONE CAN HEAR YOU. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS WHICH NEED TO BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TODAY? I DON'T HAVE A MICROPHONE. ? NO. MADAM CHAIR. OKAY, SAM, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT? YES. OKAY. I'M GONNA MOVE KIND OF FAST FOR THIS ONE. OKAY. OKAY. SO THESE ARE AGENDA ITEMS. NUMBER FOUR AND FIVE. THEY ARE GONNA BE PRESENTED TOGETHER. IT'S A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AND A ZONING CHANGE FOR 8 2 1 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD. SO FIRST, QUICKLY, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. SO THIS BLACK OUTLINE HERE ARE UH, THIS IS SUBJECT PROPERTY. CURRENTLY IT'S ZONED OR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP HAS IT DESIGNATED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THEY ARE COMING THROUGH FOR A ZONING CHANGE FOR COMMERCIAL. UH, THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY IS PARTIALLY COMMERCIAL, PARTIALLY SINGLE FAMILY FOUR, AND I'LL TOUCH ON THAT IN JUST A SECOND. UM, SO THEY ARE PROPOSING TO AMEND THE PLUM TO THE DESIGNATION COMMERCIAL RETAIL OFFICE TO ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING. SO THIS IS WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING LOOKS LIKE. I'M GONNA JUST SKIP RIGHT THROUGH THIS THOUGH 'CAUSE I'M ABOUT TO TOUCH ON IT ON THE NEXT PRESENTATION. SO STAFF IS UNABLE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST SINCE THE PROPOSED USE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FLUME. HOWEVER, STAFF DOES NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USES OF ABUTTING PROPERTIES. SO ONTO THE ZONING CHANGE, THIS IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE. SO THIS IS THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST. UM, SO THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY ZONED BOTH SINGLE FAMILY FOUR AND COMMERCIAL. SO THESE TWO PARCELS RIGHT HERE ARE CURRENTLY COMMERCIAL. AND THIS PORTION, THIS LOT HERE AS WELL IS COMMERCIAL. SO THIS IS A PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN TRACK THAT IS SINGLE FAMILY FOUR. SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT TO COME THROUGH AND PURSUE AN SUP FOR THIS, UH, PORTION IN PARTICULAR. HOWEVER, BECAUSE PART OF THAT BUILDING IS IN THE SINGLE FAMILY FOUR ZONING, THEY CAN'T PURSUE THE SUP UNTIL THEY, UH, GET THE ZONING CHANGE. SO THE BLACK HATCH PART IS THE PART THAT'S ACTUALLY THE ONLY PART THAT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE CHANGING THE ZONING. SO THIS IS THE CURRENT LOT. AND SO IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN USED FOR INDUSTRIAL USES FOR A WHILE NOW. I BELIEVE THE MOST RECENT USE IS ACTUALLY A MACHINE SHOP. UM, AND SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING FOR A COMMERCIAL ZONING. SO ANY OF THOSE TYPE OF HEAVIER USES WON'T BE ALLOWED. UM, OR THEY'LL REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. AND I ALSO DO JUST WANT TO NOTE, UM, WHICH I'LL GO HERE. SO THIS IS THE SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED. SO THE MAJORITY OF THES PROPERTY IS ALREADY ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL USES. THE ONLY PORTION OF THES PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE CHANGED FROM SINGLE FAMILY FOUR TO COMMERCIAL IS AGAIN THAT ADJACENT LITTLE PORTION OF THE SOUTHERN TRACK. THAT'S SF FOUR. AGAIN, HISTORICALLY THIS HAS BEEN USED FOR INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES AND TO THE SOUTH IS ACTUALLY A CEMETERY. SO THAT PORTION THAT'S SF FOUR STAFF DOESN'T EVER SEE IT EVER BECOMING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO STAFF IS UNABLE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH ITS REQUEST. SINCE THE COMMERCIAL CLASSIFIED LAND USE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FLU HOVER, THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATIONS. DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, . ALL RIGHT. THIS NEXT ITEM IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO OUR ARTICLE 22 FEE SCHEDULE. UH, RIGHT NOW ENGINEERING DOESN'T HAVE ANY ENGINEERING REVIEW FEES. SO ANY REQUESTS THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU A ZONING CHAIN, A SITE PLAN, AN SUP, WE HAVE THOSE FEES. ENGINEERING DOES NOT. SO THE FIRST ITEM IS TO IMPLEMENT THOSE ENGINEERING REVIEW FEES AND THE PROPOSED FEES ARE BASED ON THE ACTUAL STAFF TIME THAT IT TAKES FOR ENGINEERING TO REVIEW THOSE PLANS. UM, SO THOSE PLANS WON'T COME BEFORE YOU, BUT BECAUSE THE FEE SCHEDULE LIVES WITHIN THE UDC, IT REQUIRES THE TAX AMENDMENT. UH, THE SECOND COMPONENT IS TO AMEND INSPECTION FEES TO COMPLY WITH HOUSE BILL 34 92. WE CURRENTLY CHARGE 4% OF THE COST OF WORK. UM, BUT THE HOUSE BILL STATES THAT A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT CONSIDER THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING OR IMPROVING THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF FEE. UM, SO THAT'S TO COMPLY WITH THAT HOUSE BILL. [00:05:01] THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. UM, THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE OF THE, THE CALCULATIONS OF THOSE FEES. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO. OKAY. I'M SORRY. UH, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE LAST MM-HMM . SO AMENDED TO COMPLY. IT'S CURRENTLY 4% OF THE COST OF THE WORK YET. YES. AND YET THE SECOND BULLET, IT SAYS YOU CAN'T CONSIDER THE COST OF THE WORK TO FIGURE OUT THE FEE. RIGHT. SO WE HAVE TO CHANGE OUR CURRENT THING, WHICH SAYS IT'S 4% OF THE COST OF THE WORK. THIS IS A NEW, A NEW STATE LAW. AND SO THE THING ISN'T UP THERE THOUGH. CORRECT. OKAY. I WAS LOOKING THINKING THAT THAT'S NO, THE SECOND ONE WAS, AND I THOUGHT, WELL, THAT JUST SAID THAT IT'S NOT. NO, THAT IS WHY, WHY WE ARE AMENDING IT RIGHT THERE. OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE CALCULATION. IT'S BASED ON, UH, LINEAR FEET. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. MM-HMM . THE FEES THAT WE'RE CHARGING, I KNOW YOU SAID THEY'RE GONNA BE LOWER THAN WHAT THE NORM IS, BUT HOW ARE THEY COMPARABLE TO OTHER CITY MUNICIPALITIES? WHAT ARE THEY CHARGING OR ARE THEY CHARGING FOR THAT? SO ANYTIME WE DO A FEE ADJUSTMENT OR LOOK AT UPDATING OUR FEES, WE DO A SURVEY OF OUR BENCHMARK CITIES. AND SO WE LOOK AT THAT AND TYPICALLY GRAND PRAIRIE IS KIND OF RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. WE'RE NOT THE, THE CHEAPEST AND WE'RE NOT THE MOST EXPENSIVE. EXCELLENT. MM-HMM . UM, WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY CHARGING ANY ENGINEERING FEES. CORRECT. AND ANY ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW FEES, ANY ENGINEERING . AND WHY ARE WE SUDDENLY ADDING ENGINEERING ? I THINK THIS IS JUST A STANDARD PRACTICE THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE CITY HAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED THAT. UM, BUT IT'S SIMILAR TO LIKE A ZONING CASE. UH, THAT FEE IS CALCULATED BASED ON STAFF TIME THAT TAKES TO REVIEW THAT PUBLIC NOTICE, ALL OF THAT. AND SO THAT'S JUST TAKING THAT AND, AND IMPLEMENTING THOSE ENGINEERING PLANS. THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT RAN IN THE PAPERWORK THAT BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME BEING USED TO DO ALL OF THIS WORK, YOU DECIDED TO ADD THAT IN THERE BECAUSE OF THE TIME. IS THAT, IS THAT GONNA CUT DOWN? JUST SAY YOU START CHARGING, PUTTING A CUT DOWN ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY GOT SUBPOENAED ACTUALLY, UH, REVIEWING THOSE? NO, THAT, THAT'S IS REALLY, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE MONEY HERE. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, UM, CHARGE THE FEE THAT REFLECTS THE AMOUNT OF STAFF TIME THAT GOES INTO THE REVIEWS OF THESE DIFFERENT PLANS. SO I PER HOUR, WE JUST, IT'S BASED ON WHETHER IT'S TWO HOURS OR 10 HOURS. YOU CHARGE IT, IT'S BASED ON WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN. I'M JUST SAYING THAT. SO TAKE FOUR, FIVE HOURS GONNA BE BLACK, RIGHT? NO MATTER WHAT. YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE SITTING THERE FIGURE OUT LIKE AN ATTORNEY FIGURES OUT THIS EVENT. NO, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE MONEY. OKAY. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY WE COULD NO LONGER USE EVALUATION FOR, COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PERMIT, MULTIPLE PERMITS FOR, UH, VALUE COST OF CHARGE, WHICH TYPICALLY BASED ON THE VALUATION, NO LONGER CAN DO THAT. SO THIS IS A SIM A SAME SCENARIO, ALTHOUGH WE'RE TALKING PLAN REVIEW FEES HERE, BUT THE 4% ESPECI THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, THAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT CHANGE. IT'S JUST TRANSITIONING INTO ENGINEERING. NOW THIS HERE, MOST CITIES DO HAVE A PLAN REVIEW FEE FOR, FOR REVIEW OF, UH, CIVIL PLANS. UM, WHY GRAND PRAIRIE HAS NEVER HAD IT. I COULDN'T, I COULDN'T ADDRESS THAT FOLLOW UP. SO ARE WE THINKING THIS IS HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS OR ARE WE THINKING THIS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO, TO THE EXTENT OF I COULD NOT ANSWER THAT. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE YEAH, RYAN, PROBABLY THIS IS THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST. SO I HAVEN'T GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. JUST, JUST TO ADD SOME LIGHT ON IT. UM, WHEN I FIRST STARTED AT THE CITY, WE USED TO CHARGE KIND OF LIKE A PASS THROUGH FOR CERTAIN REVIEWS. USUALLY DOING WITH MORE DETAILED DESIGN WAS, UH, AN ESCROW BASED PIECE. SO THE DEVELOPER WHO PAID AN ESCROW AMOUNT, AND WE WOULD TRACK HOW MUCH TIME WE SPENT. OKAY. AND THAT WAS BECAUSE WE USED THIRD PARTY TO HELP US AT THAT TIME. AND THAT WAS REALLY, IT WAS NOT AS GOOD AS THE FLAT FEE APPROACH. THIS WILL BE A LOT BETTER BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRACK TIME, THE [00:10:01] FLAT FEE, WHAT TO EXPECT. UM, BUT IT, IT WOULD BE PROBABLY, I WOULD SAY SO THAT FOR T FAMILY SUBDIVISION IS AROUND $800 UHHUH FOR THE VENDOR VP. AND THEN IF IT HAS ADDITIONAL COMPLEXITY MM-HMM . IT'S KIND OF LIKE A, A LA CARTE. OKAY. YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE A DETENTION POND, IT'S GONNA ADD SO MUCH. OKAY. UM, IF IT INCLUDES A DETAILED, UM, HYDROLOGY MODEL MM-HMM . THEN IT'S, IT'S AROUND 2,500 TO 3000. OKAY. SO THAT'S, THAT'S NORMALLY WHEN YOU'RE IN A FLOOD PLANE AREA OR WHEN THEY DO NOT WISH TO PROVIDE ATTENTION AND THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PROVE BY NOT DEPENDING FLOWS, YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE ANY IMPACT ON ANYBODY. SO THOSE ARE SOMEWHAT OPTIONAL. UM, BECAUSE THEY COULD CHOOSE NOT TO DEVELOP ANY IN THE FLOOD PLAN OR PROVIDE ATTENTION. RIGHT. UM, BUT SINCE, SINCE I JOINED IT WAS, IT WAS TWO OF US DOING THE REVIEWS AND BECAUSE OF THE WORKLOAD WE'VE ADDED STAFF, WE WOULD NEVER, WE'VE NEVER GONE BACK TO CHARGE FOR THOSE THREE FEES. SO TWO QUICK QUESTIONS THEN. SO THE ESCROW, IF YOU GUYS DIDN'T USE ALL THE FUNDS THAT WERE IN THE ESCROW, WAS THAT REFUNDED TO THE DEVELOPER OR WHATEVER IT WAS? IT WAS. AND THEN ALSO IT'S INTERESTING TO ME, AND I DON'T, I'M JUST PLAYING, IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT WE'VE GONE FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS OF GENERAL FUND OR SOMETHING ELSE. THE PEOPLE DOING THAT SUDDENLY WE'RE GONNA, WE WANT NOT SUDDENLY IT'S SAID TO ME, BUT MAYBE NOT TO Y'ALL. SUDDENLY WE WANT PUT THIS FEE ON, YOU KNOW, GIVE IT TO SOMEBODY. WHEREAS IT WAS COVERED BEFORE IN THE, FROM CITY FROM, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT. BUT THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THE, THESE ARE BASE FEES, THE BASE FEE, THE ENGINEERS NOT GONNA SPECIFICALLY GET THIS AMOUNT, THIS MONEY THAT THE BASE IS GONNA BE FOR. YOU GONNA PUT IN THE PACKET, I'M ASSUMING IT'S GONNA BE IN A PACKET WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES ONE TO UH, OR REVIEW, ALL THESE FEES ARE GONNA BE INCLUDED THERE. RIGHT. IT'LL BE IN ARTICLE 22 OF OUR UDC AND ENGINEERING HAS SPECIFIC HANDOUTS. I MEAN, THE INFORMATION WILL BE AVAILABLE RIGHT. IN SEVERAL PLACES FOR ME. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS YES, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A BASE FEE, BUT THAT'S NOT GONNA BE ENGINEERED HIMSELF IS NOT GONNA GET ADDED TO HIS CHECK. IT'S, IT'S, RIGHT. IT'S JUST PART OF THE APP. YEAH. OKAY. SO I, MICHELLE SAID SOMETHING THAT, UM, ABOUT A REFUND. WE'RE NOT REFUNDING ANYTHING. NO, NO. THAT WAS THE ESCROW ALONG THE PROJECT. NO, NO, NO, NO. I, I TYPICALLY PAID BACK WHEN, YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER BRINGING IN AND, AND WHATEVER. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, FOR MY HOUSE TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK GREAT. THIS WILL BE THE SAME. IT JUST COVERING AGAIN, ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. I AGREE THAT YES, WHAT WE DOING BEFOREHAND, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS A THIRD PARTY AS MENTIONED HANDLING THAT SO PEOPLE WERE BEING CHARGED. WHETHER OR NOT IT'S THE, I ANSWER THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS GONNA BE BECAUSE, 'CAUSE THE STRAIGHT FEE, UM, BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THEN READING A SMALL PRINT THERE THAT'S BASED ON THREE ACRES. IF IT'S MORE THAN THREE ACRES, THERE'S A MULTIPLIER APPLIED, WHICH IS 1.5 TIMES THE PROJECT. EIGHT GROUPS DIVIDED BY 100. SO THEY'LL BE ABLE TO CALCULATE THE FEES AND GIVE AN EXACT AMOUNT. WELL THIS IS THE MOST POSITIVE THING I'VE HEARD ABOUT ALL THE APARTMENT FEES. UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. AND WE, AND WE STILL USE A THIRD PARTY REVIEWER FOR MANY OF OUR REVIEWS, BUT WE'VE JUST BEEN PAYMENT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND OR WHATEVER THE SOURCE, I DUNNO, WE'VE JUST ABSORBED THAT COST. YEAH. WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN OFFSETTING THAT. SO I'M TRYING TO OFFSET THAT. NOW THIS WILL BE CLEANER. I, IT'LL, IT'LL MAKE, IT'LL, IT'LL MAKE MONEY FOR THE CITY, BUT IT'LL COVER A TRUE, BUT IT'LL STILL MAKE MONEY BECAUSE OF USED TO COVER AN EXPENSE. IT'S NOT A PROFIT. NO, NO. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IT'S COVER COST. JUST COVER COSTS. RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THINK WE'RE GOOD ON THAT? I, WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED IF THAT'S OKAY WITH, DO WANT A BREAK FOR FIVE MINUTES? GO AHEAD. BUT WE HAVE TO, WE GOTTA GO BACK. OH, THAT'S RIGHT. I TRYING TO GET US IN AND OUT. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.