City Council - Regular Meeting

Tell me when you're on.

You're good?

Okay, yeah, we don't know, so we are past the witching hour, I guess. I don't know. Any of you want to volunteer or volunteer somebody else to be our acting chair unless and until he shows up?

I'd like to volunteer Jennifer.

Ooh, I second that.

We have a first and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? We've got one opposed, obviously. Okay, motion passed. It is now yours. Do you have the agenda in front of you? I do. Sweet.

Okay.

Yeah, welcome to the Planning Commission meeting. Turn your mic on. Turn on your mic.

Yeah, well, do I have to? Yes. So welcome to Planning Commission meeting.

When you do something that you don't want to say,

Yeah, yeah. Mr. Burgess, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I will. Just trying to get out of everybody's way at the same time.

Okay, thank you very much. Can I get an approval of minutes dated May 5th, 2026? Sure.

I move we approve the minutes dated May 5th, 2026.

I'll second it.

Okay, all in favor? Aye. Okay, any opposed? Everybody good? Okay. Moving forward, we have a public hearing. It's for a development agreement. for public improvements at 1150 North, 3900 West, Magnolia Fields.

Good evening, Darrell Brown with Watson Engineering. Good to be here with you tonight. So this item we are bringing is a deferral of public improvements along 3900 West. Right now we are in the process of applying approval for phase two. Magnolia fields phase ones here on the south south side of phase two. So phase two is just on the north side It does not physically front 3900 West but according to the current ordinance because of our our north boundary of phase two and we have to, per the ordinance, improve all of 3900 West to the north boundary of our phase. We're asking for a deferral, and this deferral of installing these improvements is not a matter of is he going to put it in or not, because he will, but we're asking if we can defer that to be installed as a part of phase three, which physically fronts 3900 West. A few items, a part of that to consider is that, one, Phase 2 doesn't physically front 3900 West. But also, I know there's been some concern of 3900 West and some of the zigzagging because of the different developments going on on either side of the road. The current existing edge of asphalt runs right along our basically proposed edge of asphalt all the way up 3900 West. So really, whether we develop this right now or not, there's no zigzagging on our side of 3900 West. And then also, up here on the north end of 39 Erie West as we tie into, what is that called? Equestrian Point. We would have to, if we improve to about this point here that I'm showing on the screen, we'd have to tie back to the existing asphalt, which makes it a little awkward. If we were to install these improvements during phase three, it could all be installed all at once and be very clean, a clean transition and not have to worry about any zigzaggy maneuvering or anything like that. So those are a couple of things to consider as we look at a positive recommendation for this deferral. As a part of that, Our phase line ends here at the north end, but we are being required by the engineering, one of the comments is to run our water line and loop it and tie it back into 3900 West. Right now, we don't have the exact numbers of how much pressure we have out there, but the contractor who's working out there says that they actually do have quite a bit of pressure. We're planning on getting an actual number on that, how much pressure we actually have out there. But the point from the city is to loop it back into this, into 3900 West, just so that we have enough pressure in these two streets for phase two. But what we're actually seeing out there is that It appears that there is quite a bit of pressure right now without having to tie or to loop that back into 3900 West. So we would request that the installation of that water line also be deferred to be installed as a part of phase three.

Just a quick clarification. Yeah. You'll bond it.

Yes, that will be a part of the bond for phase two, but he would defer the actual installation of improvements as a part of phase three. And currently phase three, we are currently in process to get that approved through the city. So it's just we want to get phase two approved right now and this is all a part of that. Are there any questions?

When is phase two? What's your date? Do you have a date on phase two when you want to start?

Yeah, four months ago.

Four months ago? Yeah. That's fair. That's perfect.

But just as soon as possible. That's what we're trying to get all of this approved as soon as possible. We want to be able to get our plat recorded. There's some interest in property out here. And so as soon as we can get a plat recorded.

And phase three, do you have a date?

guesstimate a guest date phase three where I mean we're currently in our in our first cycle of City review and approval So I I mean we're hoping to be able to move dirt here in the next You know by the end of the year or if not first part of the year are there any improvements on the other side of your property to 3900 No, so Point West right now, so this kind of drive approach or this street approach here leads to Point West. Point West Phase 2 right now is in the city getting their approval as well. So that's the only thing across the street from us that is in progress.

Okay, but none of that's been improved either?

It has not been improved yet.

Have you discussed some of your plans for deferment on these improvements with the city?

We have.

What are their concerns?

I don't know all of the concerns right now. I know that it has to be done as a part of the current ordinance. Right. And so... you know, we don't, phase two doesn't physically front that, and so we wanted to defer this as a part of a future phase. But I think the main concern is that it's a part of the current ordinance to improve that road as a part of a phase, even though it doesn't physically front it. So, yeah.

Okay. Two things, if I may. Yes. So number one, in looking at the agreement, it does not refer to the water line. So we would need to add that in. The agreement doesn't refer to the water line. So if they're asking to defer that as part of this, then we'd need to add that in. The next part is, and maybe this is just more of an engineering question for you. For the engineering side and for your client, why don't you have phase two go all the way up to Laurel Street?

Because that's already part of phase one, isn't it? It looks like it's part of phase three. So Laurel Street is part of phase three. So phase three is kind of this L shape or seven.

So what's the benefit to your client in drawing a weird line like that? Rather than just doing phase two all the way up?

So if we do phase two all the way up, then we'd have to improve everything along that street. And so right now it's just, I don't know whether pencil's out or not, but it... it makes more sense to end the phase here. We don't have to have a second access into the development because we are well under 80 lots.

So even if you added those four lots, you'd still be under?

If we added, I believe it's the four lots or if it's just the two lots, we would still be under that. If we added those, we'd have to improve. And it just doesn't make sense to improve a small section of street right now, just to sit there and not improve it all the way out to 3900 West.

And this is, by the way, part of, and again, I'm not for or against. I don't really care because you're bonding. This is one of the reasons why the ordinance exists is because smart developers draw these lines. Sometimes that, I mean, clearly it's to benefit your client, which is awesome. That's exactly what you're paid to do. Sometimes in odd situations, it can result in the road just never getting done.

They don't necessarily have to be smart to do that, though.

Yeah. I'm not going to say anything. I think Daryl's smart. So I'm going to say Daryl's doing it because he's smart for his client. But just so you know, the goal when we were doing this was to try and have a little bit more orderly construction as they go through it. If these phases weren't so close, I think we'd have a bigger issue. Right. Yeah. But, yeah, you get these odd drawings because they're trying to avoid some of the improvements, sometimes just for a little while longer, some for a long, long term. Sorry, third question for you. I hadn't thought of this one before. So the easterly side of Phase 3, those lots, are they the same depth? Well, one more over. All the way over to the 3900. Oh, the easterly side.

Sorry. Yes.

I'm assuming that's east. This is facing north, I assume. Yes, that is correct. Are those the same depth as the other lots across the street? Not that direction, you are out of the way. Are they the same? Okay, perfect. One of the issues we ran into, and no, this isn't yours, Tom, 4B Ranch was one of the reasons why we passed the ordinance, and one of the concerns was is they had created that last strip as a separate phase, And it was going to be, I think, less than 90 feet deep and right on to a 100-foot master plan road, meaning no private driveways would work on it anyway. So that's one of the things that we want to make sure as these go through, because you'll get more, please make sure you're not allowing them to leave a remainder that is essentially unbuildable. And that does include your stone. Just things to consider as you go through these, please.

So on 3900, your driveways... would not exit 3900, they would have to exit that, whatever the name is.

I don't know about 3900. What's the width for 3900?

It's a 75 foot.

Oh, 75. So yeah. Yep.

So at 3900, there's just going to be a fence for all those backyards?

That is correct. Yep. So there's no backing out onto... 75 foot right away. Also, a part of this, the water line, because of construction sequencing, typically the sewer is installed first because it's lower in elevation and then the water. If we were to install the water now, coming back in and installing the sewer on the opposite side of the street. It's just a little more dangerous and doesn't make sense to install something at a higher elevation then come back in and install the sewer at a lower elevation. I know the city's comment is that then you just install both at the same time. It just doesn't make sense to do that.

So Laurel Street right now, I'm trying to remember what it looks like currently. So is it currently already in there at all?

No, it's not. It's not platted right now, and there's no improvement right now on that. So right now, the only thing that's platted and that's improved is everything south of this line, which is phase one.

Oh, I'm looking at the way wrong side. That helps me a lot because this whole time I was thinking that above was phase one.

Yep. And then also a reason why we also had to, originally we had these lots as a part of the phase, but we have a temporary ditch. So Point West here on the east side of the street drains over here into a storm drain up the street and then it crosses. We've got a private detention pond right now at the very west side of Magnolia Fields. Originally we were in discussion with the city and that was going to be a public detention pond but after recent meetings it's been decided that that pond would be a private pond. The storm drain here was going we were going to run the master plan storm drain in our Laurel Street, but because the city didn't want to take over the pond, that master plan storm drain line would then need to run along our north property line, which is how it's shown on the master plan. And so because of that, we've got some temporary ditches that need to run over to the pond and and our cul-de-sacs would run into that and just make that not as workable. Do you own both sides of Laurel Street? Yes. Your phase three will be... Yeah, phase three would do this.

Both sides?

Yep, both sides.

Is that just north? Is that phase four or is that just future phase undetermined?

Is that phase three?

So he does not own north of this line. Right. So phase three would include...

So phase three includes that one line on Laurel Street but not anywhere north of that. Yep, that's correct. Yep.

So come phase three, he's gonna have some major. He's gonna have major expenses.

And because of that storm, the discussion of the storm drain, we don't know what really what the city is going to have us do here at this intersection here. And currently it's a highline ditch, so the ditch sits three or four feet above natural ground. And so in order to install that, we need to come up with a plan or the city needs to come up with a design of that storm drain and that would affect this intersection. And so that's one of the reasons why we would ask to defer this until phase three when things can be decided upon.

Do we as a city have a right to put a date on this phase three by date?

I doubt you could do it for phase three, but you could do it as a trigger for when the bond, the completions have to be done, right? So, I mean, they're trying to defer their public improvements.

Yeah, we'll grant your deferment based upon phase three being started or approved by a certain date.

Well, and again, you'd probably just do it as two different triggers. You'd do it as phase three or by this date, whichever comes sooner. That's how we've worded it on the previous one. Because we don't want to force them to do phase three if the market doesn't support it, because that's millions.

We don't want to get caught with unimproved roads. Right.

So, yeah, you just add it as a trigger that you say, okay, let's give them, you know, they got a bond for, say, 18 months, and if in 18 months they haven't put it in as far as phase three, then they're going to put it in and we're going to pull the bond.

Have you talked about that with your client, having a time limit to... I understand he wants to do phase two, and I understand why he started at the back of the property and works forward. Phase three is the most expensive.

Yeah, and we didn't necessarily start at the... So this actually, we've got four more streets that go all the way to the back of the development. And so we're starting at the front end of it.

You're trying to get a war chest so when you do go into phase three, there's going to be some money there. Yeah, for sure. Because that's a big expense.

Because it is a big expense, yep. You're right.

You think you're the developer?

I'm just thinking. If we said 48 months, that's the trigger? Well.

I think so. I mean, that's well, yeah. I mean, that is a big time frame. I would see phase three going in before then.

Do you know what kind of bonding your client wants to use?

Letter of credit.

Letter of credit. Okay, you might want to check with the bank, see if they'll let you do one for four years.

Yeah, I don't know if they... Yeah, for sure.

I mean, you can renew it, but just know that that's the expense. Every time they renew it, it's 3%. So that's an added expense if you go too long.

Because it'd be a letter of credit.

I had a quick question. Obviously, we're going to bond for the roadway improvements, but if phase three never happens, the city cashes the bond, we do the improvements. Does that leave any other issues hanging as far as those master plan improvements, those ditches, that infrastructure that would impact the remaining folks that are living there on phase two besides the extra long cul-de-sacs there?

No, I mean our ditches would be, they're pretty big ditches. They're pretty deep because we were planning to install large 36 to 42 inch storm drain pipes and so those are pretty big ditches. I don't see there being any impact to the folks in phase two from any drainage there.

Because no one's going to go that way because their access is from the south of there anyway. Access would be from the south. It would just be like the field to the west of them.

For example, where is phase two draining to if it's not done?

So phase two, we've got ditches that go from these cul-de-sacs out to the west to the private detention.

You'll already have those in place.

Yeah, so that will be a part of phase two because we have to get the drainage out. We've got underground storm drain that we need a daylight out there.

I would be in favor of this, but I think we need to share the risk The developer and the city needs to share the risk. I don't know that four years is too long.

Let me tell you my logic. is they're sitting on millions of dollars in real estate right now. They have no financial reason not to completely develop this as fast as possible. I mean, there's none for them not to try to get this so they can buy another condo in Boca Ton, which is great. That's what I want to see. That means success. So to give peace of mind, and Jennifer had a very good, valid, comment about can they get a bond that long? Is this a cash bond he's doing? Is this a letter of credit? And they could always get that extended possibly at their financial institution or switch to a cash if they wanted. But I don't want to be us if things have a hiccup that causes more grief because Stress adds price and cost for mitigation. Developers go, well, it's going to be this much of a risk, and Jason knows this morning, then they're going to add cost to offset their, mitigate their risk. So that's the only reason. Jim, I don't disagree with you. That's the only reason I'm saying.

I just don't want the city to get stuck with a bunch of zigzaggy roads out there as each little individual... phase goes in, whether it's your property or somebody else's, we're going to end up with that.

Yeah, for sure.

With that wide, narrow, wide, narrow stuff again that we don't want.

Yeah, and part of my point early on was right now the existing edge of asphalt runs right, I mean, whether we develop or improve this right now or not, it's going to be the same edge of asphalt. It's not expanding the size of that road. We're not expanding it. On our side, it's going to be in the same location.

Daryl?

You just don't have a sidewalk.

What is your client actually seeking? How long does he want this deferred for? We're throwing out timelines, but it probably doesn't matter if your client doesn't actually even want that.

Yeah. So two years, I think, would be adequate.

And keep in mind, if in two years he comes back, needs more time, he's convincing you and he's convincing the council. Right. It's not an impossibility, it just means he's gotta come back and justify why.

Four years doesn't put any urgency on it, but where maybe two years, maybe two years would say, let's get in, let's go to the city, let's go through Watson's, let's get it done. I realize it's a big expense, but if he's gonna sell phase two lots, then he needs to develop a war chest

And if it's bonded for, I mean, it doesn't bother me.

Yeah, then what's the risk?

I mean, I'll support a motion on two years. I just, you know, sometimes we keep on pointing to the developer as a boogeyman, and it comes back to bite us later on.

Because, like, in... If the world continues on as is, it's not going to be two years before it's done anyway. Two years is a ceiling, and I think I would be comfortable with that as long as they're moving up on.

Well, you're a developer. As a developer, and you look at these phases and the amount of work that has to go in there, would you be comfortable with that?

Yeah, and I would probably try to do the exact same thing they're doing. kind of defer that until I actually have to tie in that water line. And I don't have more than 80 lots, so I don't need a second access, so it's not going to affect anybody that lives there, because they're all going to enter and exit from the south anyway. And so yeah, then once you sell all of phase two and you start working towards phase three, then you've already got all your crews out there. It's better to do it all at once than to do half of it now and half of it then.

You would prefer to just tear up the roads once, put it in, and...

And it would be one thing if 3900 was suffering because of it, but I think that's moot because it's the same size currently as it will be.

I just have a question. If this is deferred, there would be a time later on that the improved water line would go in, correct?

Correct, as a part of phase three.

I got a kick out of your phrase, there's quite a bit of pressure. I'm not sure what that means.

Right, and that's why I said, no, I totally understand.

Quite a bit is not a legal term, I don't think, is it?

Yeah, and we'll have an actual number, but contractors are always, they're dealing with water on a regular basis, and they see the pressures that are that are there in different areas and they know what low pressure looks like and they know what high pressure looks like.

Is there for sure enough water pressure to handle the phases you want to put in now without the improvement?

Between this meeting and the normal council meeting, is there enough time to get those pressures?

That doesn't bother me either because I know that everybody who doesn't have pressure is going to be calling the developer and not the city during that period of time. I feel like they're going to get more calls themselves in the meantime.

But yes, I mentioned early on that we will get a pressure test and know an exact number on that.

And if the pressure, maybe we ought to make it contingent on making sure that there's enough pressure to handle the development you want to put in first. I don't know.

Darrell, this is in the Northwest Water Reimbursement Area, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah, so we have kind of a special section of town that even if it has enough pressure, doesn't have enough fire flow. This is in that area. So they're actually going to have to pay an extra fee, $1,500 per unit to essentially help pay for and reimburse once the city gets it in to add that extra water usage. Because our choices were basically stop everybody from building out there. make one developer put a bunch of it in. Which was gonna be our developer. Yeah, it was gonna be you guys, yeah. Good job, Tim. Or the city was willing to take some risk and they're working on putting it in. So that's part of our process right now. So you're right, and everybody going in needs to know that there's not enough fire flow for everything that everybody wants. You guys got to know that going in. The city will be working on it. We're trying to get compensation for that to make it happen sooner rather than later.

TODD BANDUCCI- Now, the board may not know this, but the city council has approved something to correct that problem in the interim for the next couple of years or three years till this new pipeline goes through. Phil Schmidt came up with a pretty genius idea of reconnecting and re-diverting some water over near his project. And it's gonna give more than adequate fire flow and water pressure. But it's not a fix forever, it's just a fix so we can get the other system up and going.

Any other questions?

So this is a public hearing, and so we'll see if there are any public comments. We'll open the public hearing. That's what I'm supposed to say. I'm not the regular person.

She does a good job.

I don't know what I'm doing. Okay, so seeing there are no comments, we're going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion.

Well, since I made the motion last time to shut you down on one of your projects, and I still feel bad over that, I'll make a motion that we give a two-year extension contingent upon water pressure verified Second. And bonded. And Randall, I was going to ask you something about the water line. Can I correct a few things on that?

Yeah.

I withdraw my second until corrections are made.

Oh, did you say something? Well, I just, for one, the water pressure one, like I said, is part of the Northwest Water Reimbursement Area. Yeah. So I would beg you, perhaps is the correct word, to leave that to that process. Okay. Council's going to follow through, I'm assuming, on what they've already approved for that one.

Yes.

I wouldn't worry about the water pressure fire flow question. Even though it's a great question, we have solutions coming.

So let me reword that.

So is your motion then to recommend that they approve the deferral agreement?

Approve the deferral agreement for two years, bonded, current, and... Yeah, I think that's about it.

And I'm assuming add the water line?

Oh, thank you. That's what I was going to ask you, and add the water line into the development agreement.

Sorry, I just became my motion.

No, no, I appreciate that.

It's okay. That's why we have you here.

You should sign off on all motions.

Yeah, you should. I'll give that a second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Make it happen.

Make it happen.

Okay. So thank you.

So Madam Chair, if I may, the applicant for item number two, they are looking at other options. This is the easement, right?

Uh-huh.

Okay. And they're not pursuing it at this time. So we can move on to item three.

Okay. So we'll skip over item three and move to four, amended plat, Cottonwood Hollow.

Make a negative recommendation. Oh, sorry.

You don't have to take that.

It's fine. I'm just glad to not be in those seats. It's nice. Tyler Melling, Velocity Homes. We're building out this Cottonwood Hollow subdivision. I don't know if some of you may not have been on the Planning Commission at the time. So some time ago, the minimum lot widths were adjusted in the ordinance down to 50 feet for R2 from 70. As a practical matter, that's hard to do. The market... wants about 60 feet, 60 to 62 feet. People want 12 feet on one side to pull in trailers, everything else. So anyway, on the far west side of this subdivision, does this work? Yeah, okay. On the far west side, you're fine, of the subdivision, and then on the far south, we made some smaller, narrower lots that were great for kind of a detached townhome, so two-story garage and living area on the bottom, bedrooms above, and we could still fit that 12 foot so people could get trailers and RVs, whatever, toys on the side yard. But what we're seeing is a lot of our market does not want stairs. The folks whose hair may be going a little lighter, they want a three-bed, two-bath Rambler.

Or disappearing.

Yep. Or disappearing, right? And so what we're asking is to eliminate one lot on the south side and just adjust the widths accordingly so we can fit that building envelope and then the same thing on this far west side. We did that already on the, you know, these middle lots are a little wider already. We've got the building envelope we need and then we've already built almost I think one, two, three, yeah, almost half of the lots here, and we're comfortable with those lot lines, so it's just those. So we'll lose two lots in the subdivision, and then get some wider lots. As part of that, we're also not sure as part of that how much or to what extent we'll need to shift some sewer laterals and some stuff like that. They are public streets. We're asking to make the sewers however private and we'll just put them on an annual jetting schedule and we already have an HOA because there's a PUD as part of that and so we have the legal framework in place. We'll be assessing dues for that. It'll cost about little under $2 a month per household to jet that once a year.

Are you suggesting private for the entire Cottonwood subdivision or just for one portion?

The sewers will be throughout. Yeah, because the sewer, I can show you. The sewer comes from the townhomes, goes through that cul-de-sac, it turns, and then it just follows that street straight into 3000 North. And then the other one picks up these south units, and then it goes to the west, and then straight into 3000 North from there, and it picks up these lots as well.

But you're suggesting the entire subdivision, not just one street?

Right, so we would have the entire subdivision have private sewers and that way too with the jetting, if anything dislodges, it's not dislodging into an eight-inch city pipe. It dislodges and goes into the 24, I think it's a 24-inch pane in 3000 North. So it's a big one. It can handle it. I saw it myself the other day. So there's plenty of flow in there.

So my question goes, I'm not sure who to ask. Did it cost the developer more in fees to install the public sewer versus a private sewer line? So do we have a reimbursement back to you that we may since you're going into a private system?

No, because we still pay the same impact fees because it's still part of the same collection system. So there's developer and building permit, right?

Yes.

So on the developer side, no, there's no difference other than I think We don't have to do manholes or clean outs quite to the same spec, but we did them to the public spec anyway. The clean outs and the manholes just because the guys maintaining them generally want that anyway. So you can eke by, but it's...

I just want to make sure we're not taking something that's not rightfully ours as a city.

No, I mean, yeah, so the streets are still public. So on the development and therefore home building and budget standpoint, the one that gets really expensive is when the street is private, right? Or sorry, the streets. So yes, it costs more to put in a public street. compared to private. But on the flip side, if you're resurfacing, rechip sealing, maintaining that road, plowing it on the private side, that demands a much higher HOA due, which then lowers the borrower's ability, you know, because that counts against their income limits when they're applying for their loan for So the streets it costs a lot more sewer not so much because the lifespan of that sewer is far beyond 30 years So it's just whatever the maintenance schedule would be but again, that's a couple bucks a month. That's not going to Impact their their ability to borrow for that house. I

Just as a point of interest for me, that northwest lot up there, is that one great big lot?

No, that's one giant hole of water. Oh, yeah. Fence around it.

Yeah. So in this area.

A real swimming pool.

So as you may know. Very deep. The city will not accept or convey stormwater or a basin unless it services more than 160 acres. So in this area of town, there's nowhere that does that. So every subdivision has to take care of its own stormwater.

How do you get the water out of that?

You don't. You have to let it percolate, which is why we oversized it 40% above city spec. It's so big.

It's big.

It's a big one. Yeah, it was expensive.

I didn't know if there was a pump or something.

No. No, it'll percolate. And if it won't, it can hold a lot more than what the city asks for.

Yeah. Hazard.

Okay. Any other questions?

No, bro.

Okay, it sounds like this is a staff decision, so we don't need to do anything with it. And is that our last item on the agenda?

I believe so.

Do I need to do a motion to adjourn?

Let's go watch basketball. Do you want to, or just enough of you leave?

Okay, yeah, we could just do that. Enough of you leave.

As soon as we're down to three of you, the meeting's over.

Okay, a motion. Can I get a motion to adjourn the meeting? I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second. Along with an invitation to come to the South Elementary. We're celebrating 66 years of the South Elementary.

Is that all that is? Whoever seconds it is seconding that part, too. Second? I'll second.