[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:09] This is a problem in subject to the issue of a delegation meeting.
[0:14] And then, I'm also going to mention the water, the streambursts.
[0:20] And then, I look at the evidence that this is not accurate.
[0:25] This should be the one that is required for final action.
[0:36] So all this other stuff we've got is a claimer and we need it for the construction
[0:40] claims and everything else.
[0:41] That's all true.
[0:44] But they can have a plan so they have to have a plan.
[0:47] Well, the number has to be five.
[0:50] Five, right?
[0:51] Until it's...
[0:52] I think it really exists.
[0:56] I'm saying it's part of the agreement, except the fact that there's no body on the front line.
[1:06] No.
[1:08] What's the
[1:15] point of view?
[1:17] Billy has been introduced myself.
[1:21] Absolutely.
[1:22] Let's talk about that.
[1:24] That's a lot of things though.
[1:30] The big challenge that we've encountered over the last 10 years is great.
[1:35] Why don't you just pass it around?
[1:37] That's the big challenge.
[1:39] Amber's got a sign-up sheet.
[1:42] Is that right?
[1:43] For anyone who wants to speak tonight.
[1:46] So, since we didn't have it out there when he came in,
[1:49] why don't you just pass it around so they don't have to all get up from their chairs?
[2:36] If you want to speak during the public hearing, you need to be on that sign-up sheet.
[2:42] So, it's a rum that has to be sent, you know, right here, except it's in the 7th inning.
[2:51] But it just confirms that probably was the right set for a brighter, or that right one.
[2:56] So, it's in the 7th page over there.
[2:59] It's right in the 8th page over there.
[3:04] I don't know.
[3:09] Oh, no, I was going to say it should be a fact.
[3:42] I'm just going to have to get an engineer to sign off until it's going to feel good about it again,
[3:52] and it could take one.
[3:54] But it's all a good room, so it's a speed thing.
[4:05] It's just going to take a little
[4:11] break tonight.
[4:19] It's going to take a few days.
[4:44] Oh yeah, they're going to swarm with the mumps of the
[4:58] ants again.
[5:04] Good to
[5:14] see
[5:41] you.
[5:59] Well, I will, but it's truly in here, you see.
[6:13] Yeah, this is something I said we need to make sure it's in the mail.
[6:19] Truth is strung in the kitchen.
[6:44] I'm going to call to order the Planning and Zoning Commission a special called meeting
[6:48] for the town of Shady Shores, and we've got a quorum here and just so that everyone
[6:55] who's listening online can recognize a voice, I'm going to ask we start over here to my
[7:00] right with Tanya and state your name loud enough that everybody, make sure you turn on
[7:05] your mic when you do it.
[7:07] I'm Tanya Cruz.
[7:10] Nathan Abado.
[7:11] I'm Alan Lee, Chairman.
[7:14] Paul Brown.
[7:16] William Roussell.
[7:17] Thank you.
[7:18] so we do have a quorum. We've got a pretty simple agenda tonight. We've got a public hearing on
[7:27] requests for a major subdivision preliminary plaque and then to take action on that.
[7:35] So bear with me some of this is kind of tedious and legally but we'll get started with it.
[7:44] We're going to conduct a public hearing relative to a request for a major subdivision preliminary
[7:49] plat of the property known as A0330A, West Durham, TR135, 1.93 acres, Old Denton County
[8:03] Appraisal District TR-22C-A-033A-W-West Durham TR-136-2.003 acres, all dental appraisal
[8:18] District TR21A, A0330A, West Durham, TR137, 4.759 acres, Old Denton County
[8:33] Appraisal District AB 300, TR21G, Arrelson Edition Lot 2R1, Arrelson Edition Lot 2R2,
[8:45] Arrelson Edition Lot 3R, Arrelson Edition Lot 1, A0330A West Durham TR-141, 10.612 acres,
[9:00] all dental central appraisal district to our 19a 21c 21d 21f 22c the total
[9:14] acreage is 31.805 acres thank you okay first item is a staff report on this
[9:26] and I'm going to ask our engineers to give their report first and I have a couple of questions
[9:32] for you.
[9:33] Is that okay?
[9:36] If y'all will come on up to the microphone it would or use your microphone whichever.
[9:48] Governor, the Commission, James George, residents.
[9:53] This preliminary plat has been submitted and it encompasses 47 relots, three of which
[10:02] or common space areas so that total lots are going to be 41.
[10:08] Complies with the thing on just a second.
[10:11] We're having trouble hearing.
[10:15] I'm going to have to speak louder or get closer to the microphone.
[10:19] Thank you.
[10:19] Okay, so 47 total lots through which are common space areas.
[10:25] And it means all the current zoning requirements for lot size,
[10:29] a lot of acreage, dimensions,
[10:34] waterway dedication, the proposed street for the subdivision
[10:40] is basically a U-shaped loop that can mix to West Shady Shores, plain, just east of
[10:47] the HBA entrance, and it involves interior drainage, water,
[11:00] and floodplain reclamation
[11:02] for a portion of the area that's encompassed by the cell division.
[11:08] The proposed development is
[11:12] planning on bringing some of the lots that would be currently in the floodplain,
[11:17] raising them out of the floodplain,
[11:19] but also excavating in other areas to mitigate the
[11:25] fill in those areas where they're raising the lots to be out of the floodplain.
[11:30] And currently West Shady Shores is also under a preliminary reconstruction design, and
[11:37] that's at 30% and this individual likely take place before that project occurs.
[11:45] And so we'll be coordinating with the developer and the designer for West Shady Shores to make
[11:51] sure any drainage or other improvements are mentioned together.
[12:03] I guess that's about it.
[12:06] That's kind of the basic nuts and bolts of it.
[12:09] I would refer to the developer if he had something additional to add as far as the-
[12:15] We'll get to him in a minute.
[12:17] Okay.
[12:19] Amber, do you need anything to add to that right now?
[12:22] Okay.
[12:23] I'm just like to clarify that this is for a preliminary plat.
[12:29] David, could you explain the difference between a preliminary
[12:33] plat and what comes next?
[12:37] Yes, the team's subdivision ordinance is based on
[12:43] development styles, specifically a number of lots.
[12:46] If you're proposing a number of subdivision that has a number of
[12:50] lots that are for or for, and the town engineer determines that
[12:54] But it's a minor plat that doesn't require any type of substantial public improvements
[13:00] to support the subdivision, then a preliminary plat is not needed.
[13:06] However, if the subdivision is over 5 lots and there is substantial public improvements
[13:11] required to support the subdivision, then you require the developer to submit what's
[13:16] called a preliminary plat.
[13:18] The preliminary plan is not filed with the county, it doesn't dedicate any readily, it doesn't
[13:25] create any labs, it's simply a planning document to ensure that the basic subdivision layouts
[13:33] meet the town's standards with respect to lot size, street size, circulation requirements,
[13:42] Maternity needs, drainage needs, those type of things, that is what's requested from
[13:48] the developer as part of the preliminary plan.
[13:52] As well as any future requirements that are needed to ultimately develop a full set
[13:58] of construction plans to build the subdivision and to prepare a final plan for dedication
[14:04] to the town with regards to easements right away in utilities.
[14:11] So a part of this preliminary plan or denial of the plan is simply just checking to make
[14:19] sure that the planning phase meets the town's requirements to proceed with further development
[14:26] of the subdivision.
[14:27] So it does not include a drainage plan, is that correct?
[14:33] It includes conceptual utility improvements, such as generic layouts of water, drainage.
[14:42] No, no final drainage plan.
[14:44] No, we do require a hydrologic study to where they present the methodology for determining the existing and proposed runoff.
[14:56] All in the conceptual plans that are included as part of the deployment.
[15:00] I plan the developer did include drainage plans, which consists of surface collection for streets. Underground
[15:10] conduit to convey those collections to the ultimate discharge point, which in this case are going
[15:18] to be detention ponds, because the ordinance requires the developer not to either a,
[15:29] increase
[15:29] increasing the one-off, then they do a downstream drainage study to determine the downstream
[15:34] capacity and see outline any proposed and permits needed to make sure the downstream facilities
[15:41] have the capacity to handle the additional one-off.
[15:44] In this case, the developer has decided to use detention to meet the subdivisions drainage
[15:50] ordinance and as part of that, they have prepared a detention pond layout in addition to grading
[15:58] plans that show the overall capacity of the ponds that would be required based on the
[16:06] hydrologic studies that outline the increase in runoff from proposed to existing.
[16:13] So to answer that question, they do include drainage design documents as part of the preliminary
[16:22] It's a supplemental document, so they submitted preliminary drainage, preliminary grading and the hydrologic report.
[16:31] It's still a planning document.
[16:34] Yes, absolutely.
[16:37] But that way we can identify the areas that are going to be needed for their proposed plan to meet the drainage ordinance to make sure there's
[16:47] and space dedicated to meet those requirements and then that's the basis for the final design
[16:54] to meet the actual ordinance itself.
[16:59] Okay, thank you.
[17:00] So at this time we're going to open the public hearing and the first to speak on this will be the applicant.
[17:09] If you would come up to the podium and tell us your name and give us your presentation.
[17:14] Absolutely. If I may, I would like to provide some exhibits, some documents to you all so that you can have them in front of you.
[17:22] Sure. Okay. So there's some files.
[17:25] I'm going to describe them eventually.
[17:31] Alrighty.
[17:34] So, no culture.
[17:41] Thank you.
[17:42] Better?
[17:44] Like, let me try not to need too much.
[17:46] I actually have surgery this a couple weeks ago, so I'm trying to avoid that.
[17:51] I won't be able to hold it.
[17:53] Let's see if I can move it a little bit.
[17:56] There we go.
[17:57] There we go.
[17:58] As well.
[18:02] How's that?
[18:03] There are.
[18:03] All right.
[18:05] Okay.
[18:06] Thank you very much.
[18:06] My name is George Nunez.
[18:08] I am the applicant for this preliminary plaque and I thank you all the commissioners for
[18:15] being here and for allowing me the opportunity to present this.
[18:18] So with that, I'll begin.
[18:21] First of all, I kind of wanted to just, I think, the engineer, David did a great job of explaining the preliminary plan, and just kind of wanted to establish that very quickly.
[18:30] First of all, we're really trying to just get an overall subdivision layout, streets, utility, corridors, and drainage concepts, which I think we've provided some of that.
[18:39] The preliminary plan begins, and it's not complete.
[18:43] We, the detailed engineering process on the right over there, I show that we're just in
[18:47] the very starts of things, so we still have to do some additional engineering and continue
[18:51] some review processes as well as agency coordination with some of the utilities, then construction
[18:58] plans before we get to final plat.
[19:00] So there's still some work to do and I just wanted to kind of raise that point.
[19:03] Today, what I'm hoping to accomplish is that we have, first of all, I want to mention that
[19:08] We want to respond to every engineering comment, there's a comment in the last letter that
[19:13] we received that stated a little bit differently, so we wanted to kind of address that.
[19:17] Second, the sub-responses explain why certain requested items are typically addressed during
[19:23] the final plan or construction plan, so I'd like to kind of express that and show that as
[19:28] well.
[19:29] And then lastly, there's some conflicting direction we've received in terms of sanitary sewage.
[19:37] We respectfully request coordination so the preliminary platt could be at first evaluated
[19:42] and then we can work through those discrepancies and you know make sure that we're consistent.
[19:48] So the preliminary platt serves as a foundation for detailed engineering technical review and
[19:54] agency coordination that occurs before final platt approval and a construction.
[19:59] So we still have a ways to go.
[20:00] I'm just looking for preliminary platt at this point, preliminary platt approval at this
[20:05] point.
[20:05] Okay, just to give a quick glance, as the engineer mentioned, 32 acres, approximately 44
[20:13] home sides, half acre lots, single family residents.
[20:17] We hope to complete the plenary plaque today.
[20:21] Current status, we completed a plenary plaque design, initial engineering, preliminary drainage
[20:27] analysis, which was discussed earlier, utility coordination initiated, and town staff review
[20:32] have had a great time meeting several of you all and working with you. Thank you for that.
[20:37] The current phase is in progress. We just need to do some final engineering review and agency coordination.
[20:43] Just to give you a little bit of location in our beautiful Sadie Shores town. We all know where it's at.
[20:49] The major cross-street is, of course, Sadie Shores Road, West Sadie Shores Road, right beside the school.
[20:58] Here's an overlay of the property with, as Andrew mentioned, a U-shaped type of approach,
[21:03] and so just a really quick conceptual layout of that of the plan.
[21:09] And this is where I'd like to actually get into the nuts and bolts.
[21:12] So today's request, first of all, I do want to appreciate the work with the town staff
[21:17] and the consultants.
[21:19] We have made a good faith effort to address every review comment.
[21:25] And if I made it, let me just mention real quick, because in the latest letter that we received, there was a statement.
[21:34] So, let's see.
[21:36] So, one point that was being in the engineering in London, it states that almost all of the comments from the previous preview were not addressed.
[21:44] Respectfully, we disagreed with that characterization.
[21:47] We prepared a written response to every comment and provided it to the city, to the town on August 7.
[21:52] I have provided a hard copy if you see the document there.
[21:57] There were 16 points and we replied to every each point one by one of the points.
[22:02] 11 of the 16 points we believe we've answered.
[22:06] The other five either we discussed as we're actively working on it
[22:11] or that we will be working with the engineers and working with the City
[22:16] to finalize those as part of the final plat.
[22:18] The next point, we respectfully ask that the Commission distinguish between preliminary
[22:24] plat requirements and items appropriately completed during final plat as David had
[22:29] the engineer had mentioned and the construction plan review.
[22:33] We're written information from reviewing agency conflicts.
[22:37] We ask that this agency, that those agencies reconcile that and that not be considered a deficiency
[22:43] in our application.
[22:45] And of course, we remain committed to working collaboratively with the town, with the
[22:49] city towards a quality development for shady shores. Our objective today is simply to
[22:54] obtain approval, not simply to obtain approval, but to work collaboratively with the town
[22:59] to ensure that the final development is fully engineered, compliant, and a quality addition
[23:04] to the shady shores community.
[23:09] So, as as of now, current status, we've completed
[23:12] red response to every engineering comment, as I mentioned earlier, utility will serve letters
[23:16] which I will discuss a little bit later on,
[23:18] because there's some key points there.
[23:20] Updated engineering materials, which we provided
[23:23] to the city on, excuse me, to the town on August 7.
[23:27] In progress, we have floodplain, female coordination,
[23:30] traffic analysis, detailed draining engineering,
[23:32] which is finalizing the drainage plan,
[23:36] environmental and utility coordination.
[23:39] Some outstanding discussions, which is a
[23:42] appropriate phase for several engineering requirements,
[23:44] as well as reconciliation of some of the conflicting sanitary,
[23:49] pseudo-guidances from LCMUA.
[23:54] And again, I just want to reiterate that this is
[23:56] an initial preliminary plat. What we're hoping to accomplish today,
[24:00] we have a big block there of things that we need to do to finish,
[24:03] engineering review, agency coordination and construction plans,
[24:06] and then move towards the final plat, which is the final approval with all,
[24:10] where everything should be, all the T's crossed, and the I's dotted.
[24:14] and then of course moving towards development.
[24:17] So before I make my, take any questions if this is a proper type to receive questions.
[24:23] I'd like to make a closing statement as though we appreciate the time and effort
[24:28] invested by the time staff, the consulting engineers, and I'm buzzing that craze in my apologies.
[24:36] And of course, in the commission, our commissioners were not asking you to wave any
[24:40] engineering requirements, we're not asking for any variance, we're not asking to avoid
[24:44] completing any work, we're simply asking that this preliminary plan be evaluated based
[24:49] on the requirements applicable to a preliminary plan.
[24:53] We have responded to every engineering comment and good faith, and with our disagreements,
[24:58] they concern timing and interpretation, not our willingness to comply.
[25:03] If additional and we expect additional engineering will be required, before final planning,
[25:07] We're fully expect to complete it.
[25:10] We simply ask that today's discussion reflect the purpose of the preliminary plot and that the record has been as a record has been developed.
[25:17] And with that, I'll take questions if it's appropriate or next steps.
[25:21] We'll do questions at a later time.
[25:24] Okay.
[25:24] Not in the public hearing.
[25:30] If you're done, I'm done.
[25:31] We'll move on to the next part.
[25:34] at this time if someone would like to speak in favor of this development.
[25:44] Oh, I've got
[25:46] my sign-up sheet here.
[26:02] Mr. Lynette, this doesn't say who's in favor and who's not.
[26:07] So I'm just going to call on if you want to come on up and state your name and
[26:13] your address and tell us your thoughts. You've got three minutes.
[26:16] Mike, when at 140 Hidden Valley Airport,
[26:19] George is my neighboring friend and so is Odie and Gary Bills.
[26:25] I guess I'm unique in that I boarded both
[26:31] at Kissinger Ranch and this new development.
[26:36] And so there are a couple of questions I have on the plans that we were given.
[26:41] The specifics of the deed at access between Gary Bills, Odie Harrelson property and Lynette
[26:47] property.
[26:48] It's kind of confusing to us, that little note there.
[26:52] And the Atkison Ranch development, Don Plunk, did that one.
[26:59] The engineers was Richard.
[27:02] We gave you guys the plan we paid for about the water and the 90 degree turn.
[27:07] that 90-degree turn still floods and it floods into you and your neighbor's yards.
[27:13] It becomes right through us, it goes down about, goes past our trees and into the bills and voting
[27:20] health and property. We have heard about the Water Detention Pond at Atkinson Ranch.
[27:28] It's not working correctly from people living there. How will the Water Detention Ponds be handled
[27:33] and approved in the new development.
[27:36] You said about the water flow you've addressed that.
[27:39] When Actus and Ranch was developed,
[27:41] when that fence was reached many times,
[27:45] will the new development pay for and replace
[27:46] the shared fence with new fence?
[27:48] That was the Actus and Anderson fence that we share,
[27:51] which as you know, it gets broken all the time by our animals.
[27:55] What type of fence will the new development be putting in?
[27:58] A new fence must prevent steers
[28:00] from entering the suburban neighborhood.
[28:01] will the new fence insulation affect the one that steers. And for your information and
[28:08] I remember this, but there was an eight-foot solid wall that was supposed to be built
[28:12] between the Atkis Ranch and our HVA property was never built. The new development will
[28:19] affect traffic on shady shores and you're going to study on that. And then other roads and
[28:26] Atkis and Ranch, we understand we're not built to city specifications, they will provide
[28:30] to provide waivers after the roads were installed.
[28:35] And I want to make sure that the roads meet the current
[28:37] specifications so that instead of providing waivers after
[28:40] the fact.
[28:43] So and then again, the water flow on shady shores of the
[28:47] ready floods.
[28:48] So we need to take care of that.
[28:49] That's it.
[28:50] Hopefully I was under three minutes.
[28:51] Thank you.
[28:54] Mr. Craig Thomas.
[29:06] So Craig Thomas, I live at 139 Hidden Valley Air Park,
[29:10] which is just north. From a drainage perspective, I think there's two ways to locate this.
[29:19] One is just the outline of the area being cladded. At which point you deal with runoff and retention of that runoff,
[29:28] and you can do calculations and reach an answer. The problem that I would ask you to address
[29:36] is that's not what this property does.
[29:41] Today, the choke point for water is in the southeast corner of this property,
[29:48] where it flows under the road and downstream.
[29:51] That choke point does not have sufficiently sufficient capacity for even a medium level of rain.
[30:00] Consequently, the water from most of Hidden Valley Airport and the pond to our west in the
[30:09] development adjacent, which whose name I can't remember at the moment, all that water flows
[30:15] through the pond at the front of Hidden Valley, through the woods that were in the diagram,
[30:21] expands in the floodplain that is currently there and waits for the capacity to be available
[30:29] to flow under the road. It spreads out, there's a picture in there showing the extent of flooding
[30:38] on this land. If we fill that in, it just moves the choke point. I understand that we're going
[30:45] to do work on Shady Shores Road. I don't know that we are increasing the capacity of the downstream
[30:53] stream and putting a lot more water through there. So this area on the southern side of
[30:59] the proposed development takes the water from approximately 250 acres depending on how
[31:04] the calculation. It's fast moving, it slows down in this area and spreads out. I'd ask
[31:13] for three things. Number one, we need to consider the total flow of water both on the land and
[31:20] larger. Number two, raising the area on the western side, there is a deep ditch
[31:29] there. It's shown in the plattus relatively sheer wall. It's going to road
[31:34] very quickly without some sort of wall or retention structure in that space.
[31:41] And then as someone living on the north side, I would like assurances that no
[31:47] So the land will be graded such that no water flows to the north.
[31:53] It needs to flow from the north side down to the street and into the area and retention
[32:03] ponds to be built as part of this development.
[32:06] Thank you.
[32:07] Thank you very much.
[32:12] Gary Bills.
[32:14] My
[32:19] name is Gary Bills.
[32:19] I actually live in the property on the west side of the property we'll be looking at.
[32:26] The flow of water through there has changed substantially over the last 20 years that
[32:32] I've lived out there, actually 26 now.
[32:36] Number of years ago, when the Hind Valley purchased some land from the people north of us, they
[32:48] They actually just filled in two detention ponds that rule those properties, and then they
[32:52] dug a trench down along the western border of our property.
[32:57] And that's when the erosion started in the south part toward the heart.
[33:03] And I just want to point that out, it's a whole old problem.
[33:07] And it started many years ago and was never properly addressed at that point.
[33:13] So at that particular time when we started having rains during the rainy part of the year and all of a sudden there was all this water.
[33:22] Who is this coming from? Because there are a number of years and never had any water flowing like that.
[33:27] And it was because they dug a big trench all the way from the north side where Kevin's property used to be.
[33:34] Down through there kind of ran along the side of our border and then took it.
[33:38] I thought I understood to take it to the road.
[33:42] No, they stopped about 200 feet or 300 feet from there
[33:45] and just let it flow in that little dry creek bed
[33:49] that was up there.
[33:51] That creek bed used to be you went down like that
[33:54] just to go across it with your tractor if you wanted to mo.
[33:56] Now it's about three and a half to four foot deep
[33:58] and four foot wide.
[34:00] So it's an ongoing problem that started a minute and a year
[34:03] ago when the flow was not addressed accordingly
[34:07] should have been. So we can do what we can do to try to eliminate that, but as
[34:14] the gentleman said just a moment ago it comes down and flows into that little
[34:19] creek it comes to the up close to the road and it makes a 90 degree turn. Right
[34:24] there goes the adding comes into those big culverts in the there those culverts
[34:28] need to be addressed through rusting out. George has been washed away from them
[34:34] We've had to pull stumps out of the inside of them where it's flowed down from from wherever into that area
[34:41] So I would strongly recommend that that be looked at as well. Well, it's not part of this particular
[34:48] Development, but something that's ongoing that we need to go back and look at if there's a better way to handle what was handy back then
[34:55] Can you tell me again exactly where your residence is today?
[34:59] My residence sets on the, if we had the screen, I could walk up there and point it to you.
[35:05] There's three families living there. We live on the west side.
[35:09] So do you live on this land that is going to be going on?
[35:14] We live on that land, okay, got it.
[35:16] We live on the land. We've been there since 2000.
[35:21] Yeah, we moved there in 2000,
[35:24] so that's a life.
[35:26] Thank you. And I have a letter from a citizen that could not be here tonight.
[35:31] they've asked that I read this, just please allow this to serve as my formal
[35:37] notice of my unequivocable dispute and rejection of the proposed development
[35:42] referred as Harrelson edition. The current plan and engineering of the proposed
[35:47] water runoff does severely and detrimentally impact effect and especially
[35:53] negatively caused damages from stormwater runoff as well as other causing
[35:59] potential damages from this current defective engineering plan. I hear by
[36:05] request that the city's own in committee as well as all other council members
[36:10] unanimously vote to reject and deny this current development proposal sign
[36:16] Gerald Marshall 430 Fritz Lane, Shady Shores, Texas.
[36:22] Is there anyone else that would
[36:24] like to speak before I close that part of the public hearing?
[36:31] Okay.
[36:37] Mr.
[36:37] There's an opportunity here to rebut anything that was spoken in the public hearing if you'd like.
[36:47] Absolutely. So one of the first things that our engineer has looked at is the flood.
[36:52] And that was the first concern that they addressed and looked at very, very carefully.
[36:57] We are completely aligned and open to work with the city, especially with the new development that's going on there.
[37:05] We're proposing an increase in the culvert size because agreed that that
[37:10] culvert is just way too small and so we're open to make some engineering changes
[37:14] and work with the city to to get that corrected. We have some options that we
[37:18] have discussed. Again, this is just a preliminary request. Those details can be
[37:23] worked out. Studies still need to be made in terms of FEMA and we're going to be
[37:30] working through that, making sure that everything, all the change we make, all
[37:35] solves those problems in terms of what we can solve in terms of the air that is consistent with our location, of course, as Gary mentioned, there might be some other things, but in terms of what, you know, the FEMA calculations and the things that are being done that are consistent with what we're doing, we're committed to get those resolved to make sure that they're engineered property.
[37:52] Thank you.
[37:57] I'm going to close the public hearing and we're going to next item on the agenda is take
[38:04] action regarding the public hearing and the request for a major subdivision at the
[38:11] description that I gave earlier.
[38:16] With that, let me just make a couple of comments on my own and we're going to have some discussion.
[38:23] I think all of us know that drainage is the biggest problem in our town.
[38:29] We've been dealing with it for years and we will continue to deal with it for years
[38:33] because the place is flat so it's not that nobody knows that drainage is an issue.
[38:43] We have a duty what we're going to do tonight is we're going to make a recommendation to the
[38:50] council. We don't approve anything on a major development. We make a recommendation for
[38:57] or against. And in speaking with our attorney prior to this, she made it real clear if whatever
[39:07] we do, we have to have real reasons for whether we're approving it or recommending that they
[39:14] don't approve it. So with that let me just let's open it up for discussion. Who's got something
[39:23] to say first?
[39:31] There seems to be a disagreement between the applicant and our engineering staff
[39:36] about the response to the initial comments because according to the August 13th letter from our
[39:43] engineering firm. As you mentioned, sir, it is stated that almost none of the
[39:50] comments were addressed, and you disagreed with that statement. So I'd like some
[39:55] clarification on what we're dealing with here.
[40:14] Does one work? Okay. So, in turn, there's two components to the plans that were
[40:21] submitted. One is the preliminary plat sheets, and then there's the preliminary
[40:28] engineering plans, which comprises preliminary drainage and utility layouts, things like that as far as the preliminary engineering sheets, the applicant is correct that most of those comments were addressed.
[40:44] However, the preliminary plat, the comments that were on the plat itself were almost fully not addressed.
[40:55] And that plan is, I don't want to speak for the outcome, but it's handled by a different
[41:01] company.
[41:03] It's handled by a server where the engineering plans were drafted by their engineer.
[41:09] So I don't know if that has something to do with why they were addressed on something
[41:13] out the other.
[41:14] And then we're just given the applicants response.
[41:17] And it's kind of our attention that we did not see those responses prior to this meeting.
[41:24] And in looking back through the submittal, they were embedded in the email that we received.
[41:30] But we didn't realize that they were embedded in the emails.
[41:32] So that was just kind of a miscommunication on our part.
[41:35] And upon reviewing them, some of the comments are ongoing.
[41:40] For example, they've requested, you know, we'll serve letters from Atmos, but they haven't received them yet.
[41:46] So some of these things are just works in progress that they haven't completed yet, but they will need to complete as part of the conditional approval of this preliminary plat, which I believe David will get to, at some point on what these conditions are.
[42:08] one exactly did you receive the response was it just now the town received it on
[42:16] August 7th and you personally did David and I saw it for the first time
[42:20] during this meeting okay thank you I
[42:34] have lots of questions but in general on
[42:37] the preliminary plot I don't know this this gets into drainage but I need a
[42:44] little bit more understanding on this drainage what I'm gonna call the west
[42:48] two through eight lots because there's duplicate lot numbers on here and so it's
[42:55] the furthest west and the grading it appears in the back of these eight
[43:00] lots or these seven lots appears it's just topography grading and drainage
[43:07] through there that would a road out but also it takes up a very large piece of
[43:12] the plat of these slots?
[43:17] It goes into even the development area. How can that be counted
[43:22] as drainage area?
[43:34] In response to your first question, the proposed grading that you're
[43:39] seeing on the western edge of those slots is a reclamation of valley storage.
[43:54] There's
[43:55] to provide an offset for the fill that's being added to raise the portion to the lots that are
[44:02] sure to be raised out of the floodplain. So there's not a lot of conveyance going through there.
[44:07] There may be some erosion closer to the floodway portion but the majority of that is just to hold standing water basically.
[44:17] So, I mean, if it's to hold standing water, I think the way it's designed here, once you
[44:23] sell these lots off, you build and so what prevents anybody from going in there, filling
[44:27] it in, or putting their raised beds in there, anything that kind of blocks more water to
[44:36] back up their areas.
[44:38] Yeah, okay.
[44:38] So, that's the second part of your question, I was just making sure that I address the first
[44:42] part.
[44:42] Okay.
[44:43] So yeah, secondly, it's one of those, I don't want to call it a loophole, but it's kind of a loophole.
[44:52] So, every municipality has standard lot requirements for...
[45:00] Specific zoning. And in a lot of cases, easements are dedicated upon those lots that encumber the
[45:10] lot, such as floodplain easements or drainage easements or things like that. And they don't
[45:16] change the actual lot size. They don't change the fee simple lot dimensions or anything
[45:22] like that. So it's technically still part of the lot. Now, if you want to look at developable
[45:29] area of a lot? Yes, it is reduced, but the zoning standards and the minimum lot size
[45:37] is really based on a density requirement. So you're saying you're going to develop
[45:44] a hundred acres of land and you've got minimum half-ig of a lot size. Well, guess what?
[45:49] You can only fit so many lots on that development, by the time you get all the streets and
[45:54] all the other stuff put in there, right? So it's really a density-controlled mechanism.
[45:57] So now, moving on to your specific question, yes, it does impact the development and usable frankly area of that lot.
[46:06] So those lots are encumbered by easements and other restrictions.
[46:12] So therefore, it's likely that those lots may not fetch as high of a price or more of a demand as the other ones.
[46:19] But, technically, to the letter of the law, they still meet the lot requirements.
[46:24] And so I see what you're saying, I agree with what you're saying, but those story jails that we're talking about, the grading being in, those will be inside a detention.
[46:37] I mean, I'm sorry, a floodplain easement basically.
[46:40] So the owner will not be allowed to do any improvements in those areas by definition of a floodplain easement.
[46:48] You can't build in a floodplain easily.
[46:50] You can't, you know, what I'm saying?
[46:51] So there are encompasses and restrictions associated
[46:55] with that.
[46:56] But there's no check and balance down the road.
[47:02] Check and balance, meaning that once they're built sold off
[47:06] and because it does impact the floodplain and put things
[47:11] in there.
[47:11] And again, it may not be.
[47:12] Oh, yeah, but it's just like in the other lot, though.
[47:14] I mean, anybody else that lives in a lot that has a portion
[47:16] of the floodplain, they can.
[47:17] That's what I'm saying. The floodplain area that's kind of impacting that is what it appears to me.
[47:23] We have many lots in shady shores and other communities in the lake cities that have floodplain in their life.
[47:35] Yeah, isn't the ongoing surveillance or whatever is you know if you want to build in that you have to go get a
[47:45] Permit to build in it and you're not gonna get that permit. Yeah, but nobody's gonna stand all of these people policing
[47:53] Right, and that's that's kind of my concern because this is kind of a pinch point of where we get a lot of this flooding
[47:59] I mean, it's the main
[48:01] floodway but it's also this pinch point of going under the road and backing up
[48:07] into existing properties that are out there now. Yeah so floodplains have two
[48:14] components to them. They have what they call a floodway which is basically the
[48:20] center of the conveying body of water and that's primarily used for
[48:25] or conveyance, meaning moving the water downstream.
[48:29] The other portion of the floodplain
[48:31] that's outside the floodway is usually just for storage.
[48:35] It's what happens when the water just flows through
[48:38] and it backs up and, you know,
[48:41] if the water's flowing through the river,
[48:42] most of it's going right through the scenery
[48:44] and there's some of the sides that are kind of stagnant.
[48:46] Well, a floodplain is similar to that
[48:47] except it's a lot different shape, you know.
[48:50] And so I understand what you're saying
[48:52] about the pinch point.
[48:53] But as long as the valley storage is not in the dedicated flood way, then it's not part
[49:05] of the quote-unquote pinch point, what it is part of is providing additional storage
[49:09] that's been lost by filling in other locations in the flood plain.
[49:13] Now back to your other question about the main answer, the incandence and stuff.
[49:17] Yes, it's definitely an incandence to that lot, no doubt about it.
[49:22] and the detention, I'm sorry, keeps in detention.
[49:25] The floodplain easement dedication will,
[49:29] is, will govern any development within that location
[49:34] as well as providing access and routes to,
[49:41] if maintenance is needed or something to get down there,
[49:43] then that will also need to be provided.
[49:55] The war?
[49:58] I had a question.
[49:59] Regarding the sanitary sewer service to the location, per the letter handed to us
[50:10] dated July 22nd, it said LCMUA currently does not have the ability to provide sanitary
[50:18] sewer service to this location, but then per the letter that we received from the 13th of
[50:27] August, it does give two potential options, which is correct, is it that we do have the
[50:39] listation north west corner of Garza and shady shores and do our manholes northeast
[50:45] of the site?
[50:47] Yeah, so I discussed the, we'll serve letter from LCUMUA with Devon Shields, who's their
[50:56] development coordinator, and he stated to me that the letter isn't particularly clear
[51:01] what he's stating is that there is currently no existing sewer that comes to the site,
[51:06] which is accurate.
[51:07] There is not sewer within the frontage or on the site, however there is existing sewer that
[51:13] is near to the site that could be accessed by the site and used by the site if they were
[51:20] to install offsite sewer. And the amount of offsite sewer needed is not an unreasonable
[51:27] amount in our opinion. And so, oh, go ahead,
[51:35] use the microphone. Sorry, the distance that
[51:38] the subdivision is from an available sewer that has capacity is within the required distance
[51:44] per the ordinance for the sub divider to extend their sewer line to that available sewer.
[51:51] So what Luke said, it reasonable, yes, and I think that's in fact maybe some of the
[51:58] language in the ordinance, but the ordinance also defines the distance required
[52:03] to have a minimum distance and that falls within that distance.
[52:10] Does that answer your question?
[52:12] Okay.
[52:14] Have a question, Chairman.
[52:16] One is a 30-day shot clock up on this plat.
[52:19] So,
[52:29] if we...
[52:30] For P&D, and then we'll be...
[52:32] From here, we'll go sit down.
[52:34] So, 30 days for P&D and then 30 days for...
[52:42] I...
[52:43] I'm just going to express my opinion.
[52:45] I don't feel comfortable about this at all.
[52:48] There seems to be a lot of unanswered questions.
[52:51] There hasn't been enough time to review comments that were just received or just found.
[53:00] I share the sentiments of some of our residents here.
[53:05] I just don't feel confident.
[53:07] I don't think we've had enough eyes on this.
[53:10] At a minimum, I'd like to have the latest
[53:12] round of comments reviewed by engineering staff.
[53:17] What does everyone else think?
[53:19] I'm in agreement.
[53:21] I think there's a lot of...
[53:22] Yeah, I've got something I'd like to kind of clarify
[53:25] because I don't feel like I might be out of touch.
[53:28] I kind of agree with Nathan, but, you know, in our ordinances, it says that our
[53:36] drainage requirements shall be based on the city of Denton Drainage Design
[53:40] Criteria Manual. Okay? In that manual, it says,
[53:46] developments which impact designated federal emergency management agency FEMA
[53:51] flood lines in the city will be required to submit the minimum data which
[53:56] should be sent to FEMA for conditional approval of the proposed project.
[54:03] The conditional letter of map revision, which is a CLOMR, that David was talking about,
[54:10] should be submitted to the city prior to the approval of any preliminary plan.
[54:17] Do we have that in hand, David,
[54:20] from FEMA?
[54:22] No, we're wasting our time here because that should be in our hands and it's on a flood
[54:30] plane issue here and I think that we should be following what's required.
[54:37] I'm not a last poll.
[54:39] I know Richard had reviewed that and I know he had had conversations with staff regarding
[54:44] the applicability of the criminal being submitted at the preliminary what?
[54:54] I know
[54:54] the Richard had reviewed that requirement and discussed it with staff regarding
[55:00] the applicability of the criminal being submitted at the preliminary
[55:03] plat stage and what I recall is he couldn't find the requirement for that to
[55:13] be submitted at the preliminary flat stage.
[55:16] So it's on the website if you want to look on the website.
[55:21] Like I said, I'm not lost then because there was not my
[55:24] understanding that that was.
[55:26] Well, I see that's where I agreed with Nathan.
[55:28] I think we're getting the cart for the horse here.
[55:30] Then we're going to get in way too far.
[55:32] And I realize from the developer standpoint,
[55:34] time is a vessels.
[55:35] And I appreciate that.
[55:37] And I appreciate everything you've done to cooperate
[55:41] with the engineers.
[55:42] but I feel like that, you know, we need to make sure because this is in the FEMA
[55:47] plan, we make sure that we're following the federal regulations here, as
[55:53] well as our town regulations. And I don't know if anybody here's qualified to do
[55:58] me. I'm counting on having that from FEMA that says, okay, this is all right,
[56:04] their plan is great, y'all take off with it. So I think what may have been the
[56:09] The current is that there's also a statement in our drainage ordinance that says, if there's
[56:14] a conflict between Shady Shores ordinance and Denton, then Shady Shores will control.
[56:21] And so therefore, I think that was why that we were saying the climmer was not required
[56:27] at the preliminary flat stage.
[56:32] So Shady Shores has its own drainage ordinance, but some of the design requirements are
[56:39] the city of Denton and if there's a conflict or discrepancy between the two then the town of
[56:46] Shady Shores controls.
[56:50] I just want to make sure that you know we're following that we've got a
[56:53] lot of questions, the drainage is a huge issue there also I don't see any comments in Richard's
[57:01] letter about off-site improvements and that's a huge deal. The middle school and they developed the
[57:08] middle school they paid to have off-site improvements to control the water. And I see this being the
[57:16] very neighbor, the next door neighbor to the middle school that the developer should be responsible
[57:23] for off-site improvements. That's how I'm okay. Yeah, the drainage ordinance has three different ways
[57:31] for the increase in runoff to be met. And then this is the increase in runoff that's caused by the
[57:36] developer, and so they have the option of detaining, they have the option of improving
[57:45] the downstream facilities, and they have the option of diversion, but there's not a requirement
[57:54] that there be downstream improvements if the drainage ordinance is met with different
[58:03] approaches such as detention. So, in layman's terms, the developer has designed a system
[58:12] to where he's not releasing any additional rather than what's existing because he's
[58:17] detained, unfortunately, but on site, then the ordinance doesn't require him to improve
[58:22] the downstream. Have we validated their numbers? We validated the inverse, basically, yes,
[58:28] the hydrology report and their grading plan because what Mr. Lynette says it just it's
[58:35] no way that's going to happen.
[58:41] Currently right now it floods shady shores
[58:44] around you have a five-inch ring. Yes and if you look if you look at the
[58:51] film in that and the base flood elevations the flood panels over West
[58:56] Shady Shoes route. That's what exists now. I want to make it easy for the staff and
[59:04] I want to make it easy for the developer to save his time and that we address each one
[59:11] of these issues without straining it along and make it easy for the council so they can
[59:16] sign off on it. He can build his development and move on. And I'm like Nathan, there's too
[59:23] any unanswered questions for us to do something tonight.
[59:37] Okay.
[59:40] I'm not sure the dent in ordinance is requiring the
[59:45] climber at the preliminary plant stage. We see the dent in
[59:50] drainage criteria that requires the climber with the
[59:55] submitter of the engineering plans but not the preliminary
[59:58] a very planned and
[1:00:00] It was it that you heard the FEMA requires it? No, the city of Denton, that's what they're requiring, FEMA, provide the conditional letter, just like we were doing right now, but it's got to be done par to the preliminary plat. We're trying to approve the preliminary plat tonight, and I don't see anything from FEMA.
[1:00:24] And I would suggest you, and I think you pretty much get with Richard, have a long discussion about the middle school.
[1:00:31] Okay.
[1:00:32] They're all safe some time.
[1:00:36] Okay.
[1:00:38] Any further?
[1:00:40] Nathan?
[1:00:42] If they're not sure what's going on, I'm really not sure what's going on.
[1:00:47] I'd like to make a motion at this time.
[1:00:50] Okay.
[1:00:50] Hey, before you make your motion, your motion will have to be very explicit as to why we are not recommending.
[1:01:02] understood. So, okay. Why didn't say what my emotional? No, okay, go ahead. I'll go ahead, go ahead.
[1:01:11] So, if the commission determines that it intends to deny the preliminary
[1:01:18] plot, I would respectfully ask that specific reasons and ordinances, provisions,
[1:01:25] supporting that decision be clearly identified on the record. I raised this
[1:01:30] because Texas law places particular importance on the shared,
[1:01:33] excuse me, on the stated basis for a plan disapproval.
[1:01:37] Under Texas law, a government code section 212.0099,
[1:01:42] if a plan disapproval is challenged,
[1:01:45] the municipality bears the burden of providing,
[1:01:49] of providing by clear and convincing evidence
[1:01:52] that the disapproval complies with applicable statutory requirements
[1:01:56] and reviewing the, and the reviewing court may not apply a differential standard.
[1:02:01] For this reason, I think it's important for both the town and us as the applicant
[1:02:06] that any basis for denial will be precise and supported by applicable ordinances
[1:02:12] and the record before the commission.
[1:02:15] We would rather resolve these issues here and continue moving the project forward.
[1:02:20] We're asking for approval.
[1:02:29] We're making a recommendation, one way or the other, we're not making an approval or rejection, we're making a recommendation to the council, and in any motion that we vote on, we'll have specific reasons why we're going to do it.
[1:02:54] Go ahead, Nick.
[1:02:55] OK.
[1:02:56] I make a motion to recommend to town council
[1:02:59] to deny the preliminary plat for the subdivision,
[1:03:02] currently called Shady Acres at 420 West Shady Shores.
[1:03:05] The reason is primarily the fact that our engineering firm
[1:03:10] has just found the comment responses an hour ago.
[1:03:17] And I'm not quite sure how we could
[1:03:19] recommend approval on something that our engineering firm
[1:03:22] has not reviewed yet.
[1:03:23] simply that manner, simply that reason.
[1:03:30] Paul, the piece you cited from the Denton ordinance is
[1:03:42] fine, but we probably need to have
[1:03:47] something in this that references our ordinance saying we follow Denton's rules.
[1:03:57] Does that make sense?
[1:03:58] No.
[1:03:59] Okay. Our ordinance says for drainage purposes, we follow the rules of debt.
[1:04:10] You know what ordinance that is?
[1:04:24] Is it a ordinance number?
[1:04:55] The city follows the ordinance specifically, town incorporates Texas OSSF regulations.
[1:05:04] So those are the ordinances that we need to apply with, we do not see where it applies anything with Denton specifically.
[1:05:20] Just for reference, that's 13.02.005 state OSSF rules incorporated.
[1:05:41] So in the town's ordinance under Drainage, it states that we follow the city of
[1:05:51] Ditton's Drainage and Design Manual.
[1:05:57] Within that manual, it states that the
[1:06:01] the cloner is not to be submitted at the preliminary plant stage. It's supposed to be submitted
[1:06:10] with the engineering plans.
[1:06:13] So our ordinance didn't adopt Denton's ordinance, but it does
[1:06:21] adopt their drainage design manual. So if there's something within the city of Denton's
[1:06:28] ordinance that requires a cloner to be submitted, the town's ordinance doesn't specifically adopt
[1:06:33] That but that does adopt the design criteria manual for the city of Denver and if there's any discrepancies between that in the town and the town's control
[1:06:48] Do that helper hurt or clarify?
[1:07:00] Yeah final dreams
[1:07:02] Final plan, okay, so
[1:07:09] We don't have an ordinance there to reference
[1:07:14] Okay, well
[1:07:17] If you'll restate your motion one more time.
[1:07:24] I recommend I make a motion to recommend to town council the denial of the preliminary
[1:07:31] plan for the subdivision called Shady Acres at 420 West Shady Shores Road solely for the
[1:07:38] reason that our engineering firm has not had a chance to review the comments they had just
[1:07:46] that was just bound or just was presented to them an hour ago. I don't know how
[1:07:51] we can make a recommendation without our third party engineering firm which is
[1:07:56] the one that's supposed to be doing all these figures. Put it in the form of a
[1:08:00] motion she can write down. That's it. Thank you. Okay a second to that.
[1:08:05] Second. You can't vote because you're an alternate and we got a second.
[1:08:17] Okay
[1:08:30] I just want to reiterate I would not feel comfortable recommending approval with our engineering firm not being able to see all the information. Thank you.
[1:08:42] I'm going to vote against the motion because I believe that this is a preliminary plan.
[1:08:51] And those things will get worked out between now and the final plan.
[1:08:58] I understand.
[1:09:00] I can't.
[1:09:03] I don't disagree with you.
[1:09:07] You're logic.
[1:09:08] This is what was presented in tonight's agenda and packet.
[1:09:12] This raises alarm.
[1:09:15] I'm following this.
[1:09:16] They're at a loss multiple times.
[1:09:19] We have a lot of unanswered questions.
[1:09:21] If you feel comfortable, you go right ahead.
[1:09:24] Okay, well, that's it, let's pardon.
[1:09:39] Yes, they are in violation of, in order to...
[1:09:45] I'd be happy to do so, reference based on engineering if they had a chance to review
[1:09:51] the latest comments.
[1:09:52] I'd be happy to give those to you, but they don't have it, so that means I don't have it.
[1:09:57] If we want to push this through, I will change my motion.
[1:10:00] I have a question, so if I understand this correctly because we don't have an actual
[1:10:07] ordinance to quote here, even if we have concerns, many of them, if we don't have an actual
[1:10:14] ordinance it will be deemed approved as is tomorrow, correct?
[1:10:21] How to give what you need to be very specific which ordinance they are violating or reason
[1:10:28] and why you were not present in the approval.
[1:10:32] I would love to do that, but how can we, if our engineering firm has not had a chance
[1:10:38] to review, because the last thing I have from the engineering firm is 14 points
[1:10:43] that have not been addressed according to them, of concern.
[1:10:49] Well, I'm kind of, it seems like Lyron has set up, let me make a suggestion.
[1:10:53] You could, would you be willing to approve it, subject to the resolution of those points?
[1:11:12] Is conditional approval, yeah, warrant?
[1:11:19] Yes.
[1:11:20] Would a modifier motion?
[1:11:24] I withdraw my motion and I'm not making another motion.
[1:11:29] I guess.
[1:11:31] I'll make a motion to recommend the town council to conditionally approve the preliminary
[1:11:37] plan for the subdivision currently called Shady Acres at 420 West Shady Shores Road.
[1:11:42] The developer must meet the seven conditions as outlined in the letter from the town engineer
[1:11:47] and additionally needs to include the navigation easement on the plan.
[1:11:56] Is there a second to that?
[1:11:58] I
[1:12:01] have a question on that. Does that include the seven additional comments?
[1:12:07] Or is that for the future next step? Okay, that's fine. That's satisfying.
[1:12:13] I second that.
[1:12:15] Any further discussion?
[1:12:21] We'll do a roll call, Tonya.
[1:12:23] I'm in favor of the motion.
[1:12:26] Nathan?
[1:12:27] I'm in favor, but I want to make a statement after.
[1:12:29] Okay.
[1:12:30] I'm in favor, and I'm in favor, so it passes.
[1:12:37] Nathan?
[1:12:38] I'm extremely disappointed in tonight's meeting.
[1:12:42] We should not be bickering back and forth.
[1:12:45] He says they sent comments.
[1:12:47] They said no.
[1:12:48] Hope they just found them.
[1:12:49] A lot of on the answer, it should be a lot smoother than this tonight.
[1:12:56] That's it.
[1:12:57] Thank you.
[1:12:59] With that, I will adjourn our meeting.