[00:00:02]
[A. CALL TO ORDER]
IT IS 6:36 P.M.. IF I CAN GET YOU ALL TO STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE.ALL RIGHT. STARTING OFF PUBLIC APPEARANCE, SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO RESPOND OR TO DISCUSS ANY ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT UP DURING THIS SESSION THAT ARE NOT SECTION, THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA, OTHER THAN TO MAKE STATEMENTS OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO A SPEAKER'S INQUIRY, OR TO RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO ANY INQUIRY.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE FOR PUBLIC APPEARANCE TONIGHT? ALL RIGHT.
AND I HAVE JUST BEEN ADVISED THAT I FORGOT TO TAKE OUR ROLL CALL TODAY.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET OUR ROLL CALL DONE. MISS RILES-SHAVERS.
PRESENT. AND MR. COOPER. PRESENT. MISS ELLIS.
[D. CONSENT AGENDA]
AND WILL BE ENACTED IN ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS A COMMISSIONER SO REQUESTS, IN WHICH EVENT THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED IN ITS NORMAL SEQUENCE ON THE AGENDA. THE ONLY THING WE HAVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT ARE THE MINUTES FROM OUR PREVIOUS MEETING. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES.I MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE MEETING MINUTES AS IS.
I'LL SECOND. I'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND THAT DOES PASS 4 TO 1. MOVING ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING.
[F. REGULAR AGENDA]
ITEM NUMBER ONE, PL 20253110. PRELIMINARY PLAT.KIDDIE ACADEMY. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING REQUEST FROM DELTA REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A PROPERTY BEARING A 2.099 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED ON THE DAVID CHERRY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 166, CITY OF PRINCETON, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS. GOOD EVENING.
THE INTENDED USE IS FOR A CHILD CARE FACILITY.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C-1 THE USE IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT, CITY STAFF AND ENGINEERS HAVE REVIEWED THE SUBMITTAL, AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL HAVE AND THE APPLICANTS HERE AS WELL.
I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. LOOKING AT THE MAP.
THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE BY THE PUMP STATION.
HOW? HOW CLOSE IS THAT IN REGARDS TO THIS FACILITY? THE PUMP STATION? THE PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PUMP STATION, AS WELL AS THIS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD MASONRY SCREENING WALL OF EIGHT FEET, IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG BORDERS OF ALL RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREAS AS WELL.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.
PL20253110 FOR KIDDIE ACADEMY. I'LL SECOND. I'VE GOT A MOTION IN A SECOND. WE CAN OPEN UP FOR A VOTE. AND IT PASSES 4 TO 0.
MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM. FP20244618 FINAL PLAT PRINCETON PEDIATRIC ADDITION.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A REQUEST FROM PRINCETON Q920 FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR A PROPERTY BEARING A 0.960 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE HARDIN WRIGHT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 957, CITY OF PRINCETON, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS. THIS REQUEST IS FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF ROUGHLY A ONE ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 136 SOUTH SECOND STREET.
THE USES FOR A MEDICAL OFFICE. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED C-2 AND THE USE IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT.
[00:05:03]
THIS PROJECT WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PREVIOUS CITY ADMINISTRATION AND CURRENT STAFF, AS WELL AS CURRENT ENGINEERING. NEVER REVIEWED THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS FOR THIS PROJECT. ULTIMATELY, THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON SITE DOES NOT MEET CITY ORDINANCES, SPECIFICALLY DRAINAGE, AS WELL AS THERE'S NO MAINTENANCE BOND AND THE FIRE CODE IS ALSO NOT MET. AND FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THIS FINAL PLAT.I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE IN THE APPLICANTS HERE AS WELL.
YEAH, I'M CURIOUS AS FAR AS WHAT IS THE, HOW ARE WE REMEDYING THAT PROCESS THAT WASN'T, I GUESS, DONE PROPERLY BEFORE? WHAT IS THE, WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP FOR THE APPLICANT? WELL, THE NEXT STEP FOR THE APPLICANT, ULTIMATELY PENDING YOUR DECISION WOULD BE TO ADDRESS ANY POTENTIAL CONCERNS THAT RELATE TO THIS PROJECT BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY CITY COUNCIL. I NOTICED THAT AS OF SEPTEMBER 9TH, JUST BASICALLY SIX DAYS AGO, THAT KIMLEY-HORN DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CONSTRUCTION PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED.
HAVE ANY OF THAT BEEN COMPLETED AS OF YET? I KNOW IT'S SIX DAYS AGO, BUT KIMLEY-HORN HAS REVIEWED VARIOUS SORT OF INDIVIDUAL SUBMITTALS. THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE PREVIOUS CITY ADMINISTRATION IN THE SPRING OF 2023, AND IT THEN STARTED CONSTRUCTION. ULTIMATELY, STAFF WENT OUT THERE FOR AN INSPECTION IN MARCH OF 2025, WHERE WE THEN DISCOVERED THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ON SITE IN THAT KIMLEY-HORN NEVER REVIEWED THE CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS. IT WAS HANDLED INTERNALLY AND AN ENGINEER DID NOT REVIEW THESE PLANS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
SO I GUESS JUST A FOLLOW UP TO MY PREVIOUS QUESTION.
IF WE RECOMMEND NOT APPROVAL TONIGHT, THEY'RE NOT APPROVED.
WHAT DO THEY DO? A WORK STOPPAGE ORDER WHERE THEY ARE CURRENTLY OR ARE THEY ALLOWED TO PROCEED UP TO A CERTAIN POINT AND THEY GET APPROVAL CONDITIONAL BY PHASING? I'M ASSUMING A LOT. SO YEAH. SO THIS PROJECT IS COMPLETELY CONSTRUCTED.
IT'S IT'S BEEN 100% BUILT PENDING A PHASE TWO THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE.
RIGHT NOW THERE THERE'S NO BUSINESS OPERATIONS GOING ON.
THAT WAS CONTINGENT UPON SOME OF THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY THAT THEY RECEIVED WAS THIS FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, SO IF CITY COUNCIL OR IF YOU IF THIS BODY RECOMMENDS DENIAL TO CITY COUNCIL AND CITY COUNCIL TAKES THAT RECOMMENDATION AND DENIES THE PLAT, THEN ULTIMATELY THEY'LL HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS PRIOR TO ANY BUSINESS OPERATIONS RESUMING.
I HAVE A. ISSUE, ESPECIALLY WITH SOME NOT MEETING THE CITY REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALSO NOT MEETING THE FIRE AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. TO ME, THOSE ARE TWO VERY LARGE ONES.
SO WITH THAT, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO NOT APPROVE.
OKAY. PRIOR TO THAT. OKAY. RYAN.
MY NAME IS ZHEENO ROSTAM, I AM THE PRINCIPAL OF ARCHITECHTON LLC, WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE ARCHITECT, THE DEVELOPER, AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR THE PRINCETON PEDIATRICS. I'D LIKE TO SAY I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME FROM YOUR BUSY SCHEDULES, BUT THIS PROJECT CAME TO US BACK IN 2021. LATE 2021 IS WHEN WE APPLIED FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMO WHATEVER WE HAD ON SITE.
WE DID OUR FIRST PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING WITH CITY OF PRINCETON BACK IN JANUARY OF 2022.
WE WENT THROUGH SEVERAL DIFFERENT ITERATIONS OF THIS SITE PLAN, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, EVERYTHING FOR THIS PARTICULAR ADDITION THAT WE WERE DOING PREVIOUS CITY STAFF OR CITY ADMINISTRATION DID GIVE US OR GRANT US APPROVAL.
AND I DO BELIEVE WE DO HAVE AN EMAIL AS WELL, DATED OCTOBER 26TH, 2023, THAT THE CORRESPONDENCE CAME FROM CITY PRINCETON THAT A TEAM OF ENGINEERING FROM KIMLEY-HORN HAS COMPLETED THEIR REVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE HORIZONTAL PLANS, WITH ONLY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE TEXDOT ITEMS REMAINING TO BE ADDRESSED, WHICH ULTIMATELY WE SUBMITTED ALSO THE VERTICAL PLANS BACK IN MARCH OF 2024, AND WE WERE GRANTED COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ON MAY 8TH, 2024.
WE COMPLETED THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION IN JUST FIVE MONTHS.
WE GOT OUR FIRST TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024.
[00:10:01]
WITH A NEW ENGINEERING TEAM COMING INTO PLAY, REVIEWING WHAT THE PREVIOUS ENGINEERING TEAM HAD DONE AND DID NOT APPROVE OF THAT VERY SAME APPROVAL THAT WE WERE GRANTED. SO THAT LED US INTO GOING BACK AND REVISING SOME OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT WE HAD.IN ADDITION TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ISSUE THAT MRS. ELLIS IS CONCERNED ABOUT, WE DID DISCUSS THAT WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL, MR. JERRY MILLER. DUE TO NOT HAVING THE FUNDS THAT WE NEEDED TO TAP IN TO ACROSS THE STREET UNDER TEXDOT STREET, WE WERE GRANTED THAT NOT TO PUT THE FIRE HYDRANT. AT THE MOMENT, WE DO HAVE A FIRE HYDRANT DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PRINCETON PEDIATRICS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF SECOND STREET WITHIN 500 MILE RADIUS. THAT WOULD ALLOW A FIRE APPARATUS TO TAP IN AND FOR ANY EMERGENCY SERVICES.
BUT WE DO HAVE AN EMAIL FROM MR. JERRY MILLER STATING THAT HE IS OKAY WITH IT NOT BEING DONE NOW, BUT FOR FUTURE PHASE TWO THAT WE ARE PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO PUT THAT IN PLACE PRIOR TO MOVING ON.
BASICALLY THAT IS WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE DRAINAGE ISSUES.
THE INITIAL STUDY THAT WE'VE DONE ON THE DRAINAGE THAT WE DID HAVE SOME EXTRA RUNOFF TO GO INTO THE TEXDOT STORM DRAIN THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED WITH TEXDOT THROUGH MULTIPLE APPROVALS PREVIOUS AND THE REVISED ONES THAT TEXDOT HAS APPROVED, THIS DRAINAGE RUNOFF FROM OUR LOT TO THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE, WE HAVE APPROVAL FROM TEXDOT AS WELL. AND I BELIEVE AT THIS POINT, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE STANDING.
SO WE WOULD LIKE TO KINDLY ASK THE COMMISSION TO ALLOW US TO CONTINUE THIS BUSINESS OPEN IT BACK UP AND MAY PUT A CONDITION ON SECOND PHASE PRIOR TO DOING ANYTHING THAT WE WILL CONSTRUCT A FIRE HYDRANT AND ANY ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT MAY COME ACROSS OR COME ABOUT DURING THAT DEVELOPMENT.
I THANK YOU ALL. SO A QUESTION FOR FIRE.
THANK YOU, CHIEF STEPHENS. ABSOLUTELY. SHANNON STEPHENS.
PRINCETON FIRE CHIEF. SO WITH THE WAY THAT THIS IS CONSTRUCTED RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, HOW DOES ESPECIALLY ON SECOND STREET, WHICH CAN BE A VERY BUSY STREET, HOW DOES NOT HAVING THE FIRE HYDRANT IN THE PROPER PLACE IMPACT IF, GOD FORBID, SOMETHING HAPPENED? IT'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
I CAN ATTEST AND I CAN CONFIRM THAT JERRY MILLER DID SEND APPROVAL AT THE TIME.
I DON'T HAVE THE DATE. HOWEVER, HE DID EMAIL COLE A CONFIRMATION OF THIS ON APRIL 3RD OF THIS YEAR.
I CAN LET YOU KNOW THAT AS THE FIRE CHIEF, I WOULD NOT HAVE APPROVED THIS PRIOR TO ME BEING HERE, JUST IN THE FACT THAT THE FIRE HYDRANT IS ACROSS THE STREET.
THE APPLICANT DOES SAY IT'S IN CLOSE PROXIMITY.
SO IT'S NOT A RELIABLE FIRE HYDRANT AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED.
THANK YOU. COLE, I GUESS I HAD A QUESTION AS FAR AS, I GUESS, HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE GET HERE? AS FAR AS 2001, WE HAD THE PRELIMINARY REVIEW, THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED, I'M ASSUMING OFF SOME CONDITIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY RECORD OR KNOWLEDGE OF WHY THAT WAS APPROVED? WHY WE OKAYED IT? THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED.
I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION IN MAY OF 2024.
OUR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW IS A LOT LESS DETAILED THAN CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.
THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION THAT I CANNOT ANSWER.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS REVIEWED PRETTY MUCH SOLELY BY THE PREVIOUS CITY ADMINISTRATION, AND I HAD NO INVOLVEMENT IN IT, AND I DON'T BELIEVE MR. FISHER, ANY CURRENT CITY STAFF DID AS FAR AS THE APPROVAL GOES EITHER.
[00:15:02]
ALL RIGHT. I GUESS THE LAST QUESTION I WOULD HAVE WOULD BE ABOUT THE CO THAT WAS ISSUED.I HAD NOTED I MAY HAVE MISHEARD. THERE WAS A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, A CO THAT WAS DONE IN 2024.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. TYPICALLY TCOS ARE CONDITIONAL FOR THIS ONE.
OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I CAN TELL YOU THERE HAVE BEEN, I BELIEVE, THREE COS THAT WERE ISSUED FOR THIS PROJECT. IN THE MOST RECENT ONE, I BELIEVE THE CONDITIONS WERE THAT THEY HAD A TCO FOR 30 DAYS PENDING COMPLETING THE SITE WORK, SPECIFICALLY DRAINAGE AND GRADING, AS WELL AS FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, AND THAT TCO HAD SINCE EXPIRED AND THIS PROJECT HAD TO CEASE BUSINESS OPERATIONS.
AND SINCE THAT TIME, WE PROVIDED THE CONDITIONAL CO ON THAT ONE, THE 30 DAYS EXPIRED, HAVE WE FOLLOWED UP TO SEE IF THOSE ITEMS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED OR WILL BE ADDRESSED? YES. WE'VE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT AS BEST WE COULD.
ULTIMATELY, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE DEALS WHERE THE DEEPER YOU DIG, THE MORE THINGS YOU FIND. UNFORTUNATELY, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN AS FAR AS THE THE DRAINAGE GOES THE REASON IT DOESN'T MEET OUR DRAINAGE CRITERIA IS BECAUSE OUR DRAINAGE CRITERIA ESSENTIALLY STATES THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE INCREASED RUNOFF BASED ON YOUR PROJECT.
AND THE RUNOFF THAT'S GOING INTO THE TEXDOT STORM SYSTEM IS INCREASED SLIGHTLY.
TEXDOT HAS SIGNED OFF ON IT. THE OTHER REASON IT DOESN'T MEET OUR DRAINAGE CRITERIA IS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO THERE'S NO DETENTION ON SITE AND THERE WAS NO DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED EITHER. SO BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW, IT DOESN'T MEET OUR ORDINANCE.
IF THIS PROJECT ULTIMATELY WAS TO RESUBMIT PLANS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO EITHER PROVIDE A DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENT THAT PROVES THAT DETENTION IS NOT REQUIRED OR HAVE ON SITE DETENTION. I GUESS MY LAST STATEMENT GOES OUT MORE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.
IT'S ANYTIME AN APPLICANT COMES, HE GOES BY THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SET FORTH.
SO IF WE BYPASS OR WE APPROVE SOMETHING AND DIDN'T ALLOW THAT APPLICANT TO GO THROUGH THE CHANNELS, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO TO FAULT THE APPLICANT FOR THAT.
SO IF SOMETHING DOESN'T MEET CODE OR COULD CREATE A RISK, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT COMPLIES.
BUT WE NEED TO TRY TO WORK WITH THAT APPLICANT IN THE CURRENT CONDITION THAT THEY'RE IN, NOT TO HARM THEIR BUSINESS, BUT TO TRY TO HELP THEM AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. I HATE TO BE ABLE TO SAY NO TO APPROVE THIS.
I DO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOT OF CONDITIONS THAT NEEDS TO BE MET, OR NOT, YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S ONLY THAT'S ONLY A STATEMENT THAT THAT I HAVE TO MAKE TOWARDS THE COMMISSIONERS. IF WE DECIDE IF YOU GUYS DECIDE APPROVAL, WE DECIDE APPROVAL.
THAT'S ALL I HAD. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COMMISSIONER COOPER.
IT'S JUST, HOW MANY CONDITIONAL TCO'S HAVE THEY HAD? THEY'VE HAD ROUGHLY THREE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
OKAY, SO APPROXIMATELY THREE TCOS AND WE'RE STILL IN THE SAME POSITION.
SO I KIND OF PERSONALLY HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH THAT.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, NO FIRE SAFETY IS A BIG ONE FOR ME.
AND IF THAT FIRE HOSE ISN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAFELY GET TO THEM, YOU KNOW THAT'S A CONCERN.
I WILL ALSO STATE THAT I BELIEVE THE FIRST TCO FOR THIS PROJECT WAS ISSUED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024.
IT'S ALMOST BEEN A YEAR ON THE DOT SINCE THE FIRST TCO WAS ISSUED.
AND WE'RE STILL BASICALLY IN THE SAME POSITION WE WERE THEN.
OVERALL, I WOULDN'T SAY THE SAME POSITION. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PROGRESS MADE ON THE SITE.
THE FIRST TIME WE WENT OUT THERE IN MARCH, THERE WAS THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE. A LOT OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE, BUT ULTIMATELY, AS IT SITS TODAY, THIS PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE DRAINAGE ORDINANCE.
SO I CAN'T SIT UP HERE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SOMETHING THAT I KNOW DOESN'T MEET CITY ORDINANCES.
THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK IT'S IF IT WAS ONE OF ONE VIOLATION OR ONE ISSUE THEY HAD TO SOLVE, I THINK IT'D BE GREAT. I THINK YOU BRING UP A GREAT POINT.
IT'S MULTIPLE ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
THAT'S MORE CONCERN THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
[00:20:07]
THE ONLY ISSUE WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH SINCE MARCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE DRAINAGE.IT'S NEVER BEEN FIRE DEPARTMENT. IT'S NEVER BEEN ANYTHING ELSE.
THAT WAS NEVER THE CASE SINCE WE DID HAVE THAT ADDRESSED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL.
AGAIN, I DO RESPECT THE FIRE CHIEF'S DECISION, NOT WHETHER HE'S SEEN IT OR NOT.
I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT. I DO BELIEVE THAT WE ACTED UPON THAT APPROVAL.
AND THIS WAS IN REALLY THE RELATION, YOU KNOW, HOW THAT COMES INTO PLAY IS WE DID HAVE FROM THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION SOME SORT OF A PROMISE THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF ECONOMIC RELIEF FOR THE DOCTOR AND US AT THE TIME, WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TAP INTO THE CITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT WAS SUPER EXPENSIVE AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAD TO DO SOMETHING.
SO WE DID APPEAR BEFORE THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER AND THE PREVIOUS DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 2023, MORE THAN TWO, TWO YEARS AGO, WE WERE GIVEN A PROMISE THAT WAS ONLY VERBAL.
IT WAS NOT PUT IN WRITING, UNFORTUNATELY, AND IT WAS NEVER ACTED UPON BY CITY COUNCIL.
SO WE ASSUMED ALL THE RISK AND WE ASSUMED ALL OF THE COSTS FOR THIS PROJECT, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL.
I DO NOT WANT TO COME AND TALK NUMBERS WITH EVERYBODY, BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, WE WERE UNABLE TO TAP IN AND BORE UNDERNEATH SECOND STREET, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE A VERY BUSY STREET, AS WE ALL KNOW OF.
AT THAT POINT IS WHEN WE MADE A CASE WITH THE CITY AND THEY DID COME AND GRANTED US THAT WE STILL DO HAVE OUR PIPE UNDERNEATH ALLOWED TO BE READY TO TAP IN TO ACROSS THE STREET. SO ON OUR SIDE, ON OUR PRIVATE SIDE, WE STILL HAVE THE PIPE AND WE STILL HAVE THE FIRE HYDRANT.
WE HAD TO DISCONNECT IT, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACTIVE. SO WE DO HAVE ALL OF THAT.
HOWEVER, I AM ASKING ALL OF YOU THAT SINCE WE WERE GRANTED A TCO AND WE DID MAKE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS, MAINLY THE DRAINAGE. THAT WAS THE ISSUE THAT WE HAD ON SITE.
WE REACHED OUT TO OUR NEIGHBOR ASKING FOR A DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
WE WERE DENIED BY OUR NEIGHBOR FOR DRAINAGE EASEMENT, SO ULTIMATELY WE HAD TO REGROUP AND PUT DRAINS ON OUR PRIVATE SIDE TO ALLOW THAT RUNOFF TO GO ALL THE WAY TO A TEXDOT RIGHT OF WAY.
AGAIN, TEXDOT INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH WE PROVIDED ALL THE CALCULATIONS BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FOR TEXDOT, AND THEY APPROVED IT. SO AGAIN, THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THIS FIRE HYDRANT CAME ABOUT IS AT THE END OF EVERYTHING WE'VE DONE TO POINT, BUT WE HAVE ADDRESSED ALL OF THE DRAINAGE.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT MR. COLE DAVENPORT SAYS IT DOESN'T MEET THE CITY'S ORDINANCES, BUT WE HAVE NOT GONE AWAY FROM THE CITY ORDINANCES. WE HAVE PRETTY MUCH DONE EVERYTHING.
WE'LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU TO DECIDE, BUT I THINK THAT IS REALLY THE CASE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE HERE.
HE'S HELPED THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN FROM CITY OF PRINCETON.
SOME WITH SEVERE CASES, SOME WITH SUICIDAL CASES, UNFORTUNATELY.
BUT IT IS THE SITUATION. BUT HE HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN COMPLETELY SINCE MAY OF THIS YEAR.
AND NOW WE'RE GOING INTO OUR FIFTH MONTH OF HIM NOT HAVING A BUSINESS WITH A PROJECT THAT'S THAT CONTINUES COSTING AND IT WILL COST US IN THE LONG RUN AS A DEVELOPER AND A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, BECAUSE EVERY DAY WE ARE WITHOUT POWER AND WITHOUT UTILITIES, WE ARE ASSUMING A RISK. SO WE APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR AND ALLOWING US TO SPEAK.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LAST CALL, I GUESS. I JUST WANT TO GET CLARITY ON.
THIS IS BASICALLY SAYING KIMLEY-HORN HASN'T REVIEWED THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN TO DATE.
HAVE THEY REVIEWED IT OR THEY OR. IT'S STILL IN.
IT'S STILL NOT REVIEWED. YES. I'M TRYING TO GET THE STATUS OF KIMLEY-HORN.
HAVE THEY REVIEWED IT TO SEE WHAT OTHER VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BESIDES THE DRAINAGE AND THE FIRE? KIMLEY-HORN HAS NOT DONE A FULL SCOPE REVIEW OF THESE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
[00:25:06]
BUT BUT NO, KIMLEY-HORN HAS NOT DONE A FULL SCALE REVIEW OF THESE PLANS LIKE THEY TYPICALLY WILL ON DEVELOPMENT.SO THERE COULD BE OTHER ISSUES AFTER THEY COMPLETE THEIR FINAL REVIEW.
THEORETICALLY, YES. AM I CORRECT THAT IN THE COMMUNICATION FROM KIMLEY-HORN IT SAYS THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. SO THESE ARE CHALLENGES THEY'VE IDENTIFIED INCLUDE A TEN FOOT HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL, SANDY SANITARY SEWER MAIN AND MANHOLES WITHIN 15FT.
PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE A FIRE LANE, PAVEMENT, PARKING, PAVEMENT, WATER SERVICE, SEWER.
ARE THESE ITEMS THAT ARE OUTSTANDING OR. NO. THAT'S JUST SIMPLY THE CITY'S ENGINEER DIFFERENTIATING WHAT'S PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND WHAT'S PRIVATE ON THE SITE.
THANK YOU. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE KIMLEY-HORN DO THEIR FULL REVIEW. I SECOND THAT.
SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, ARE WE ARE Y'ALL WANTING TO.
MAKE THE MOTION TO DENY THIS. CAN WE TABLE IT INTIL KIMLEY-HORN DOES THEIR FULL REVIEW? YOU COULD, BUT THEORETICALLY IT WOULD TAKE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME FOR THIS PROJECT TO GET REVIEWED AND RE-APPROVED BY KIMLEY-HORN.
SO IT WOULD BE PRETTY LENGTHY. OKAY. WE ALSO HAVE THE SHOT CLOCK TO CONSIDER.
SO Y'ALL NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO EITHER RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR RECOMMEND DENIAL.
I THINK I'M LOOKING MORE OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE ISSUES MORE THAN THE DRAINAGE.
AND I'M SORRY, I KNOW DRAINAGE IS PROBABLY ON SOME PEOPLE'S HIGHER PRIORITY THAN OTHERS.
THE FIRE THING IS MORE OF THE ISSUE THAT I'M CONCERNED WITH.
THAT WOULD BE MY CONDITIONAL APPROVAL THAT IT IS A, IT WOULD BE APPROVED ON THE CONDITION THAT ANY HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE ISSUES RELATING TO FIRE, THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I KNOW AT THE TIME IS ADDRESSED.
WITHIN A, I DON'T KNOW, A TIME FRAME TO BE REASONABLE, I GUESS WITHIN 30 DAYS.
LEANING TOWARDS THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION. GO AHEAD.
SORRY. THE MAIN ISSUE IS THAT SO THIS PROJECT IS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED.
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE CITY WOULD RECOMMEND A DENIAL BASED ON NOT MEETING THE DRAINAGE CRITERIA, THE FIRE CODE AND A LACK OF PROVIDING MAINTENANCE BONDS FOR THE PROJECT.
COMMISSIONER I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE. THAT'S MY THIRD TIME COMING TO THE PODIUM.
IF THESE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED, WHICH THEY WERE SUBMITTED ON TIME TO THE CITY, WHY WERE THEY NOT SUBMITTED TO KIMLEY-HORN FOR A PROPER REVIEW? THAT IS SIMPLY OUR QUESTION. WHY DO WE HAVE TO WAIT NOW TO SUBMIT THEM TO KIMLEY-HORN TO KIMLEY-HORN FOR REVIEW? THEY WERE REVIEWED BY THE PREVIOUS TEAM. THEY WERE APPROVED PRELIMINARY BY THE PREVIOUS TEAM.
SO WHY WERE THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S ONLINE PORTAL WERE NOT PRESENTED, AND WE DID GET THE APPROVAL TO CONTINUE CONSTRUCTING.
SIMPLY, THAT IS MY QUESTION. ALL I'M ASKING IS TO PLEASE ALLOW US A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, THAT WE CAN ADDRESS ANYTHING ELSE ON PHASE TWO, OR ALLOW US THE AMPLE TIME TO TO ADDRESS WHATEVER ELSE WE DO KNOW FOR A FACT THAT DRAINAGE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED FROM OUR SIDE. AND THAT FINAL REPORT ON SEPTEMBER 9TH BY KIMLEY-HORN DOES STATE THAT ALL THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND THEY HAVE BEEN TESTED. THEY HAVE BEEN. I DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT THAT HAVE THEY BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CITY OR NOT,
[00:30:02]
BUT THEY HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED. AND IT'S BEEN INSPECTED BY THE CITY.AND OF COURSE, TEXDOT HAS ALSO INSPECTED THEIR WORK AND THEY HAVE SIGNED OFF ON IT.
SO WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING FOR AN OCCUPANCY ALLOWANCE FOR DOCTOR MCGEE TO CONTINUE HIS PEDIATRIC CLINIC.
WE ARE ASKING FOR A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. WE ARE AT YOUR MERCY FOR THAT.
WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION IN THAT.
AT THAT MOMENT, WE WILL ADDRESS ANY OTHER FIRE SAFETY ISSUES THAT MAY ARISE FROM IT.
I BELIEVE AS FAR AS THE BOND GOES, THE MAINTENANCE BOND WE HAVE BEEN IN BACK AND FORTH WITH THE CITY AND MR. COLE DAVENPORT FOR THAT REASON EVERY SURETY COMPANY PROVIDES A BOND WHEN A JOB IS ACCEPTED BY A CITY OR ANY MUNICIPALITY.
THIS JOB HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. WE HAVE DID THAT FINALLY DID GET AN ACCEPTANCE LETTER.
WE DO NOT KNOW IF THAT IS AN ACCEPTANCE LETTER OR JUST A COMPLETION LETTER.
IT DOES SAY IT'S COMPLETED THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS YET.
THE SURETY COMPANY. I'M STILL WAITING TO GET THE FINAL BOND FROM THEM.
ACCORDING TO MR. COLE DAVENPORT, THAT THAT BOND HAS TO BE AN OPEN DATED BOND.
MOST SHORTLY. COMPANIES DO NOT ALLOW THAT. THEY HAVE TO HAVE A DATE FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S JUST NOT HOW SHORT THE COMPANIES SEE IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I LEAVE THE PODIUM? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY. COMMISSIONERS. I DON'T HAVE ANY AT THIS TIME.
MRS. ELLIS. NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME FOR THE BUILDER.
ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM DOCTOR MULJI HIMSELF? HE'S AVAILABLE TO SPEAK AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NECESSARILY NEED TO SPEAK WITH HIM, SINCE HE'S NOT HAVING TO DO WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OR ANYTHING OF THE COMPANY.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S A HARDSHIP, BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S A BIG HARDSHIP.
IT'S A SITUATION WE'RE IN. UNFORTUNATELY, WE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN, BUT WE ARE IN IT, AND WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN IN OUR POWER TO ADDRESS, AND WE HAVE DONE THAT. I THINK PART OF MY CONCERN WOULD BE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING ABOUT ADDRESSING THE FIRE ISSUES, THAT THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED IN PHASE TWO. CORRECT.
BECAUSE WE LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE NOT CONSTRUCTED MORE THAN 4000FT².
WE'VE ONLY CONSTRUCTED AT 1700 SQUARE FEET. CORRECT.
BUT IF WE'RE SAYING THAT WE THAT WE NEED THE FIRE HYDRANT PUT OUT IN FRONT OF THE BUSINESS ON YOUR SIDE OF THE STREET, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WOULD NOT DO UNTIL PHASE TWO? WELL, BECAUSE WE ACTED UPON THAT LETTER BY THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THAT WAS GRANTED TO US, RIGHT NOW, WE JUST DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS TO PUT THAT FIRE HYDRANT IN.
WE DIDN'T REALLY GET THAT. WE ENDED UP DOING THE INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSION OF THE SANITARY SEWER ON OUR OWN COST AND THE CLIENT'S COST. I THINK THAT'D BE PART OF MY BIGGEST CONCERN, THOUGH, IS THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, SECOND STREET BEING AS BIG AS IT IS.
CORRECT. AND THIS IS, THIS IS AN ARGUMENT WE MADE AS WELL.
SO I DO UNDERSTAND THE CITY STANCE FROM THERE.
AND WHETHER THIS WAS ADDRESSED WITH THE COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING AND ZONING, I DO NOT KNOW.
PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, NEW ADMINISTRATION. YOU KNOW, ALL I KNOW IS THAT WE WE HAVE BEEN GRANTED SOMETHING AND WE'RE ASKING THAT THAT BE GRANDFATHERED IN UNTIL PHASE TWO AND ALLOW US A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.
SO THAT WOULD BRING MORE TO THE CITY. AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE A FUTURE DESIGN ALREADY DONE FOR THIS,
[00:35:04]
FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. THAT IS ALL WE'RE ASKING.JUST CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO HAVE HIM RESUME HIS BUSINESS.
HE JUST STARTED HAVING TO SEE PATIENTS AND, YOU KNOW, CEMENT HIS BUSINESS TO BE ONLY SHUT DOWN FIVE, SIX MONTHS LATER. IT'S VERY HARD. I'M SURE YOU ALL UNDERSTAND HOW DIFFICULT IT COULD BE FOR SOMEONE TO TRY TO OPEN A BUSINESS AND SPEND ALL THAT MONEY INTO IT AND NOT BE ABLE TO USE IT. SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION, BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THAT'S A HARDSHIP FOR THE FIRE REQUIREMENT, AND YOU WEREN'T SURE IF YOU'D BE ABLE TO EVEN DO THE FIRE REQUIREMENT FOR PHASE TWO.
SO IF WE GIVE YOU A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, WHAT'S TO SAY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE BACK IN 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS THAT YOU STILL CAN'T MEET THE FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
I AM NOT SAYING WE'RE NOT MEETING THE FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS. I AM SIMPLY SAYING THAT THE NOT MEETING FIRE CODE REQUIREMENT DID NOT COME UP UNTIL A FEW DAYS BEFORE THIS MEETING, SO WE WERE OPERATING UNDER THE PRETENSE THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
NOW WE'RE NOT ALLOWED ANYMORE. SO THAT IS WHERE OUR FRUSTRATION IS.
OR MY FRUSTRATION AT LEAST THAT WE WERE OKAY TO DO IT.
NOW. WE'RE NOT OKAY TO DO IT. WHAT ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS WHAT CHANGED FROM, YOU KNOW, 4 OR 5, SIX MONTHS PREVIOUS TO TO TODAY. WHY WAS IT ALLOWED? AND NOW IT'S NOT ALLOWED. THAT'S ALL. I'M ASKING SIMPLY.
THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT. YES, MA'AM, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.
OUR CONCERN IS WHERE WE'RE AT NOW AND WHERE WE WILL BE WHEN YOU GET TO THIS PHASE TWO.
CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. THE FACT IS THAT WE HAVE TO GET A PERMIT FROM TEXDOT, NUMBER ONE.
IT WILL TAKE TIME TO GET DONE. AND IF THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO GET DONE, YOU WOULD WANT TO ALLOW US A CONDITIONAL PERMIT TO DO IT, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO DO IT. I WILL SPEAK WITH THE CLIENT AND WE SEE IF WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME WE CAN GET IT DONE. BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DONE IN A MONTH OR TWO. IT WILL TAKE TIME. WE DO HAVE AND WE'VE BEEN SHUT DOWN FOR SIX MONTHS WITHOUT ANY KIND OF, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING TO MOVE FROM THAT POINT.
I MEAN, SIX MONTHS, IT'S A LOT THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH.
THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S MY CONCERN IS IF IT'S NOT 30 DAYS, IF IT'S NOT 60 DAYS, IT'S 90.
THAT'S A LONG TIME PERIOD FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN.
AND WE DON'T WANT TO BE WHAT WE WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.
BUT THEN WE'RE ALSO PUTTING OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES IN DANGER, RIGHT? SO HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE HAS TO COME BEFORE ANYTHING HAS TO COME BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE.
THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT ABOUT THE FIRE. SO WHAT DO YOU SEE AS A REASONABLE TIME FRAME TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT THAT FIRE HYDRANT INSTALLED? I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, THAT BUILDING HAS BEEN STANDING THERE FOR A YEAR WITHOUT ANY ISSUES.
THEY'VE OPERATED FOR SIX MONTHS WITHOUT ANY ISSUES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BUILDING THAT ALREADY HAS A FUTURISTIC FIRE SPRINKLER ROOM THAT'S ALREADY DESIGNED AND HAS A WATER IN IT, TWO INCH WATER LINE. SO IF PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, WE CAN TAP INTO IT IF THAT IS THE SITUATION.
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BRICK BUILDING HERE.
SO GOD FORBID NONE OF THAT NATURE. THERE'S NOTHING HAZARDOUS BEING DONE ON THE INSIDE.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE KNOW COULD BE DONE. THERE'S NO COOKING OR ANY KIND OF GREASE WHATSOEVER.
SO IN A YEAR, NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. YES, I DO.
I CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE, WHAT WILL HAPPEN, BUT SINCE WE OPERATED UNDER THOSE PRETENSES AND THE APPROVAL, PREVIOUS APPROVAL THAT WE HAD, WE THOUGHT WE WERE IN THE CLEAR AND WE'RE OKAY.
BUT AGAIN, THAT GOES BACK TO, YOU KNOW, A PROMISE THAT WAS NOT DELIVERED, UNFORTUNATELY.
ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR HERE IS, IS A CONDITIONAL.
SO, I MEAN, IF. GO AHEAD. MA'AM. I'M SORRY. I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR FIRE CHIEF.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. CHIEF STEVENS, HAVE YOU OR YOUR FIRE MARSHAL OR ANYONE BEEN INSIDE THE BUILDING THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS TO CONFIRM WHAT THEY ARE SAYING SPRINKLER, FUTURISTIC SPRINKLER, HOSE, ETC.. SO WE WENT BY THERE TODAY PRIOR TO THIS MEETING JUST TO CONFIRM SEVERAL THINGS.
[00:40:05]
AND THAT'S WHERE I WENT OVER TO SPEAK WITH MY COLLEAGUE TO CONFIRM WHAT THE GC HAD SAID IN TERMS OF SPRINKLER SYSTEM WAS PRESENT EARLIER IN HIS PRESENTATION. HE SAID IT WASN'T REQUIRED.IT MAY BE PLUMBED FOR IT, BUT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY SPRINKLER SYSTEM WITHIN THE BUILDING.
THIS SQUARE FOOTAGE DOES NOT REQUIRE IT. IT DOES REQUIRE A CERTAIN GPM FLOW GALLONS PER MINUTE, WHICH REQUIRES A FIRE HYDRANT. BUT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS ZERO SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS WITHIN THE BUILDING.
AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT COULD HAPPEN. ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN IN THAT SITUATION.
IT'S ALWAYS AFTER THE FACT. EVERYONE LOOKS TO WHAT? DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT PROTOCOL? DO WE HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE? AND I HATE FOR THE CITY OR FOR THAT OWNER TO BE WHAT? WE DIDN'T MAKE SURE WE PROVIDED THAT FIRE HYDRANT.
SOMEBODY DID SOMETHING. THE FIRE'S ON BUILDING.
WHOEVER FIRE WAS CAUSED DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
IT HAPPENED. AND THEN SOMEONE LOOKS TO BLAME.
WHY DIDN'T WE HAVE A FIRE HYDRANT THERE? WHY DIDN'T WE HAVE THE RESOURCES? SO THAT'S MORE THE CONCERN FOR ME THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
IT'S NOT JUST A RISK FOR THE OWNERS, FOR THE BUILDERS, BUT IT'S ALSO THE CITY AT RISK FOR THEM NOT BEING COMPLIANT IF, GOD FORBID, SOMETHING HAPPENED. SO I WOULD CHALLENGE THIS PANEL TO CONSIDER THAT ANY GRANTING OF A VARIANCE OR ANY LACK OF CODE ENFORCEMENT MAKES ALL CODE ENFORCEMENT A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO APPLY, WHETHER IT'S LIFE SAFETY OR BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT.
SO WITH THAT, I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY A CONSIDERATION.
WE ARE AS A FIRE DEPARTMENT, AS A CITY, WE ARE VERY BUSINESS FRIENDLY.
WE WANT BUSINESSES TO COME IN HERE. WE WANT TO BE GREAT COMMUNITY PARTNERS.
HOWEVER, WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS.
HOWEVER, THE FIRE CODE AND LIFE SAFETY CODE DOESN'T ALLOW FOR FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS.
THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE COMMUNICATED EARLY AND OFTEN WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
JUST IN THE FACT THAT WE DON'T LOWER OUR STANDARDS AS A CITY.
SO I DO APOLOGIZE. SO TO CONFIRM, YOU WERE JUST UP HERE AND STATED THAT THERE ARE SPRINKLERS IN THERE CURRENTLY AND THERE IS A 2.5IN. NO, MA'AM. THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. I SAID, WE ARE PREPARED TO RUN A SPRINKLER OR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM INTO THIS BUILDING UPON EXPANSION. OKAY. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRE CHIEF I'M NOT SURE HOW HE HAS NOT SEEN THAT EMAIL FROM THE I'M NOT SURE IF MR. JERRY MILLER IS A IS A FORMER FIRE MARSHAL NOW, SO MAYBE WE HAVE A NEW FIRE MARSHAL WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT, BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING CONCERNING TO ME AS WELL.
HOW THIS WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE FIRE CHIEF.
IF YOU ASK ME, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT.
BUT WE ARE. LIKE I SAID, WE ARE GRANTED THAT.
BUT WE DO HAVE THE PROPER LINES IN PLACE FOR THAT DESIGNED FOR SUCH EXPANSION.
SO WE BASICALLY DID SPEND MORE THAN WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE FOR A FUTURISTIC EXPANSION AS WELL.
WE HAVE A, AND MR. COLE DAVENPORT CAN ATTEST TO THAT.
WE DO HAVE A SANITARY SEWER LINE THAT'S THERE FOR THE FUTURE AS WELL.
WE HAVE A WATER SUPPLY LINE THAT'S THERE FOR THE FUTURE, AND IT'S PLUGGED AND IT'S CAPPED, SO WE ARE PREPARED FOR THAT. EVERY PRECAUTION HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR THIS.
WE DO NOT NEED TO DO ANY MORE WATER OR SANITARY SEWER UTILITIES WISE.
[00:45:06]
AND I RESPECT THAT. YES, SIR. AGAIN, THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST IS THAT AT THIS POINT RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T MEET FIRE CODE. CORRECT. WE ARE TAKING A RISK.IT'S ONLY A FIRE HYDRANT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
WE HAVE A LINE THAT'S PLACED IN THERE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO GO ACROSS THE STREET.
IF THERE IS ONE, WE WOULD GLADLY DO IT, BUT GOING UNDERNEATH A TEXDOT, IT WILL TAKE TIME.
I'M BEING AS HONEST AS I CAN WITH EVERYONE HERE, AND I BELIEVE THE CITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES UNDERSTANDS THAT TEXDOT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN JUST OVERNIGHT GET A PERMIT FROM. THEY HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
IF THERE IS A FIRE HYDRANT NEARBY, WE WOULD LOVE TO GIVE IT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE 60 DAYS, 30 TO 60 DAYS, I WOULD SAY MORE ON THE 60 DAY SIDE TO TAP IN.
BUT GOING THROUGH TEXDOT IS GOING TO BE AT LEAST 90 DAYS, IF NOT MORE, FROM MY SIDE AT LEAST.
AND AGAIN, YOU'RE, WE WOULD BE TAKING A RISK BY SAYING, YES, WE CAN CONTINUE.
WE CAN OCCUPY THIS BUILDING WITH THIS NOT BEING IN PLACE.
RIGHT. WE'RE TAKING WE WOULD BE TAKING A RISK BY DOING THAT. BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU SAID THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE DONE UNTIL PHASE TWO. OKAY. SO AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE'RE TAKING A RISK BY THIS BEING A PEDIATRIC LOCATION, NOT ONLY ARE WE PUTTING KIDS AT RISK AND THEIR FAMILIES AT RISK, BUT THEN IF A FIRE DOES HAPPEN NOW, WE'RE PUTTING OUR FIREFIGHTERS AT RISK JUST AS WELL, BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING TO STRETCH A HOSE ACROSS SECOND STREET.
THAT ONE CAR BUMPS INTO THE HOSE IS NOW BUSTED.
I RESPECT THE FACT THAT YOU'VE DONE ALL THIS FUTURISTIC STUFF, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, MY CONCERN IS THE FACT THAT WE DON'T MEET THIS FIRE CODE AND WE WILL BE PUTTING PEOPLE AT RISK BY BEING THERE. AND I KNOW THAT YOU SAID THAT IT'S BEEN STANDING FOR A YEAR. NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. BUT ALL IT TAKES IS ONE TIME. MR. SHIFLET, IF I MAY ADD TO THIS, WE'VE HAD A YEAR TO ASK US TO DO THAT.
WHY NOW? THAT IS SIMPLY MY QUESTION, RIGHT? IF WE WERE SHUT DOWN FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES AND THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE SHUT DOWN FOR, NOT MEETING THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS ON THIS PLOT, ON THIS PLOT.
A FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS EVER AN ISSUE. IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP.
SO WE CAN'T REALLY BE PENALIZED FOR, YOU KNOW, A NEW OR CURRENT ENGINEERING TEAM NOT REVIEWING THE PLANS THAT WE SUBMITTED AND PRELIMINARY APPROVED. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, PREVIOUS FIRE MARSHAL OR CURRENT FIRE MARSHAL, I DON'T KNOW NOW AT THIS POINT APPROVED IT. SO WE ARE WHERE WE ARE NOW.
IF IT WAS NOT APPROVED, IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT TO US.
IT'S BEING BROUGHT TO US NOW AT THIS MEETING.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR THE HELP FROM ALL OF YOU.
I MEAN, ASK THAT QUESTION TO YOURSELVES. WHY WAS THIS NOT BROUGHT UP? WELL, AGAIN, A YEAR AGO, WE WERE NOT PART OF THAT. RIGHT.
UNDERSTOOD, SIR. AND SO I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.
MY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE RIGHT. SO YOU'VE YOU'VE BUILT HOW MANY STRUCTURES IN YOUR LIFETIME IN YOUR CAREER? I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 22 YEARS. OKAY. SO IN 22 YEARS, RIGHT.
DO YOU GO OFF OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THEN YOU BUILD YOUR YOU BUILD YOUR STRUCTURE FROM THERE.
RIGHT. SO THIS MAY NOT HAVE COME UP BEFORE. CORRECT. BECAUSE IT WAS UNDER THE AGREEMENT A HANDSHAKE THAT WAS DONE PREVIOUS WITH THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. OKAY. IT WASN'T HANDSHAKE. THE EMAIL. RIGHT. NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.
OKAY. IT WAS NOT IT DID NOT COME TO US AND APPROVED BY THAT.
CORRECT. OKAY. SO NOW THAT YOU'RE AT THE VERY END, YOU WANT THE FINAL PLAT.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE INSPECTION DONE. NOW WE REALIZE, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS DOES NOT MEET THE FIRE CODE. OKAY. SO I GET IT THAT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, YOU WERE OPERATING UNDER WHAT YOU WERE TOLD PREVIOUSLY.
THIS IS A NEW COMMISSION. IF THIS IS A NEW COMMISSION, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. BUT A YEAR AGO, WHEN WE GOT OUR FIRST TCO. WE'VE HAD TWO TCO SINCE THEN.
EACH FOR I BELIEVE THREE MONTHS EACH. AND THAT SIX MONTHS PERIOD THAT WE WERE IN OPERATION, WE WERE WE WERE ASKED TO GET, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE THAT WE HAVE.
WE MAY HAVE DRAINAGE RUNOFF TO OUR NEIGHBORS, AND WE WERE TO ADDRESS THAT.
[00:50:01]
AGAIN, I DID SPEAK ABOUT IT EARLIER THAT WE COULD NOT GET DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM OUR NEIGHBOR.HE HAS GRANTED IT TO HIS OTHER NEIGHBORS BUT REFUSED IT TO US.
WE DON'T KNOW WHY HE REFUSED IT, BUT HE DID. AND WE CAN'T PERSUADE SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT WANT TO GIVE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, THOUGH WE DID FIND AT THE VERY LEAST, A DRAINAGE EASEMENT HAD BEEN IN EXISTENCE THIS WHOLE TIME THAT WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT.
THIS WAS NEVER PROVIDED TO US. SO WE HAD TO DIG SOME INFORMATION UP, AND WE FOUND IT, AND WE WERE ABLE TO VERIFY THEIR CALCULATIONS THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO TAP IN JUST A LITTLE BIT TO, YOU KNOW, TO ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE.
THE REST WAS ADDRESSED BY TEXDOT AND IT WAS APPROVED.
SO DRAINAGE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE AGAIN. THAT FIRE HYDRANT IS THE ONLY THING THAT'S STANDING NOW.
AND LIKE I SAID, HAD WE KNOWN ABOUT THIS THREE MONTHS AGO OR SIX MONTHS AGO, I MEAN, THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE FINAL INSPECTION WOULD KIMLEY-HORN OR THE NEW ENGINEERING TEAM. IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP. IT WAS BROUGHT UP.
WHY? THE HYDRANT IS ON THE PLAN, BUT IT WAS NEVER DONE.
WE DID ASK. WE PROVIDED THE LETTER FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL THAT THIS IS THE REASON.
NOW, LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE ADDRESSED IF IT WAS GIVEN TO US THREE, FOUR MONTHS AGO. BUT WE'VE LOST SO MUCH TIME.
WE'VE LOST SIX MONTHS OF NOTHING. AND THAT BUILDING IS COLLECTING DUST AS WE SPEAK.
IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, UNOCCUPIED FOR SIX MONTHS.
SO. LIKE I SAID, I AM ASKING. I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO TAKE A RISK.
I WOULD NOT DO THAT. I'M SIMPLY SAYING IF THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO ADDRESS THIS, THEN LET'S DO IT.
WE'RE READY TO GET IT DONE. YOU GIVE US AN AMPLE TIMELINE TO GET IT DONE.
WE WILL ADDRESS IT, BUT WE COULD HAVE ADDRESSED THIS THREE MONTHS AGO.
FOUR MONTHS AGO, EVEN TWO MONTHS AGO. TODAY COMES UP AS A NEW ITEM TO US.
IT IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT WE CANNOT ADDRESS AT THE MOMENT.
AS I WAS ASKED FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS TO GET THINGS DONE, IT GOT DONE.
THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. YEAH, I WILL CLARIFY AS WELL.
AS FAR AS ANY SORT OF EXPANSION OR PHASE TWO GOES, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT EVER HAPPENS.
SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WELL. YEAH, I THINK IN GENERAL, I'M KIND OF STUCK ON THAT LAST STATEMENT ABOUT JUST THE APPROVAL FOR INSPECTIONS.
IF IT'S ONE CODE ISSUE, THEY ALL KIND OF CONNECT TOGETHER.
ANYWAY, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY.
MY CONCERN IS THE FIRE. IF THERE WERE SPRINKLERS, A HOSE.
MY CONCERN IS THE FIRE. YES. IN A YEAR THERE'S BEEN NONE.
BUT WE ALL KNOW IT JUST TAKES ONE LITTLE THING.
COULD BE EVEN A CHILD THAT ACCIDENTALLY GOT A MATCH.
COULD BE ANYTHING THAT COULD SPARK A FIRE. AND THEN THAT'S.
YEAH. SO THAT'S MY CONCERNS. SO WE'RE GOING TO NEED A MOTION EITHER TO APPROVE OR DENY FP20244618. UNFORTUNATELY, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD HAVE TO DENY A APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR FP20244618. PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I'M VERY SORRY ABOUT THAT, BUT THE SAFETY OF OUR RESIDENTS AND ANY OTHER PERSON THAT COMES INTO THAT OFFICE IS MY CONCERN.
MISS, CAN YOU PLEASE SPECIFY YOUR THE BASIS FOR DENIAL, NOW NOT MEETING THE FIRE ORDINANCE AND OTHER CODE VIOLATIONS, BUT THE MAIN ONE IS NOT MEETING FIRE CODE.
AND I'D LIKE TO ADD THE NON REVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
I'LL SECOND. I'VE GOT A MOTION IN A SECOND. CAN I OPEN UP FOR A VOTE.
[00:55:03]
AND WE ARE IN AGREEMENT 4 TO 0. ALL RIGHT MOVING ON TO INFORMATION.[G. INFORMATION]
OUR NEXT MEETING IS GOING TO BE MONDAY, OCTOBER 6TH, 2025.REQUEST FOR FUTURE ITEMS. ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO PUT ON THE FUTURE AGENDA? NO. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
SO REAL QUICK, RYAN, BEFORE WE DO THAT TO THE BUILDER AND THE PEDIATRICIAN, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COME BACK TO US WITH OPTION FOR THE FIRE CODE. BUT I DO APOLOGIZE.
WE NEED TO MEET FIRE CODE STANDARDS FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL.
SO THIS FINAL PLAT WILL BE ON A FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA.
I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO WITH THAT, I MOTION TO ADJOURN.
I'LL SECOND. I'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND IT PASSES FOUR NONE.
WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 7:32. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.