City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, and Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Joint Meeting - July 22, 2021

The Ledger

Meeting

City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, and Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) Joint Meeting
Date: July 22, 2021
Type: Joint work session
Location: Fate City Hall
Time: 6:00pm

Source: https://fatetx.new.swagit.com/videos/129453

Attendance and Participants

Project Team / Presenters

• Brennan Kane, Director of Planning, Halff Associates (Richardson, TX)
• Kendall Howard, Halff Associates
• Kelsey McNiss (formerly Kelsey Ryan), Halff Associates
• Philip Walters, Urban3 (remote participation noted)
• Jason Con (affiliation not stated in transcript)
• Bill (first name only stated; role not stated in transcript)

Public Participation

• Transcript notes “a couple members of the public” present; names not stated.

Agenda and Proceedings

Opening

• Meeting opened as a joint work session regarding the City of Fate comprehensive plan process.
• Brennan Kane introduced the purpose of the meeting and identified the meeting focus as value statements, goals, and strategies for the comprehensive plan implementation plan.

Project Update

• Brennan Kane stated the process was in “stage six… the solution.”
• Brennan Kane described the anticipated final deliverables:
  • Policy Manual (community vision, community development, implementation)
  • Strategic Playbook (value statements and near-term implementable strategies)
  • Appendices (community assessment, community engagement summary, district actions/plans for downtown and I-30 corridor from design studio work)

Community Engagement

• Brennan Kane stated that a video presented at the meeting was one of the deliverables and that seven additional value statement videos would be created.
• Brennan Kane reported use of social media, Facebook, and the project website for “question of the week” engagement regarding value statements.
• Brennan Kane stated the project would present all seven value statements again for a final round of public input.
• Brennan Kane outlined upcoming meeting sequence:
  • One more CPAC meeting in late August to present the draft plan and seek CPAC consensus/recommendation.
  • September–October targeted for final adoption meetings with Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council.

Preferred Scenario Review

Framework and Place Types

• Brennan Kane described a character-based approach ranging from rural to suburban to urban context.
• Place types referenced:
  • Rural: Rural Reserve, Rural Neighborhood
  • Suburban: Suburban Neighborhood, Supported Commercial, Business and Innovation Center
  • Urban: Dynamic Neighborhood (renamed from “urban neighborhood”), Mixing Center, Downtown Core
• Brennan Kane stated the plan would include:
  • Place type descriptions
  • Representative land uses
  • Representative zoning districts (with potential future recommendations for new zoning districts/standards)
  • Recommendations on minimum lot area/density and related policies/considerations

Scenario Descriptions

• Brennan Kane summarized two initial scenarios:
  • Current Trends Scenario: continued development patterns; supportive commercial along I-30; suburban neighborhood north of Prince Road; additional development in rural areas; “urban neighborhood” near downtown core.
  • Fate Forward Scenario: described as more fiscally focused; mixed-use along I-30; limited future suburban neighborhood; maintaining rural character north of 552; less supportive commercial along Highway 30; emphasis on walkable mixed-use and higher density for fiscal impact.
• Brennan Kane stated both scenarios aligned with the design studio sub-area concepts for downtown and the I-30 corridor.

Preferred Scenario Overview

• Brennan Kane stated the preferred scenario incorporated:
  • Additional supportive commercial along Highway 66 corridor (going west)
  • Mixed-use mirrored across the south side of I-30
  • Consideration of long-term visions for areas identified as “non-development agreement area” (as described in the transcript)
  • Suburban neighborhood placement described as filling in within currently entitled areas
• Brennan Kane requested questions and stated the preferred scenario would guide the remainder of the plan.

Questions and Responses on Preferred Scenario

• A participant asked whether pad sites would be allowed within mixed-use or business and innovation areas at corners near “Bane and I-30” and 551, and referenced a goal for 551 as a commercial retail corridor.
  • Brennan Kane responded that mixed use could be horizontal or vertical and would be reviewed case-by-case; a fiscal checklist would guide review of projects and ensure compliance with recommended standards.
• A participant asked about previously discussed flex space near 551 and 30.
  • Brennan Kane stated flex space remained identified in the sub-area plans and described it as flexible; could include shared/consolidated parking supporting mixed-use/commercial development.
  • A participant asked whether “flex space” meant commuter/commuter lot.
    • Brennan Kane stated it would not be a “rare lot” (as stated in transcript) and was intended to support development.
• A participant asked about an orange-colored area and whether it represented an existing business near 552 and 1138.
  • Brennan Kane identified it as “11:38 gas station” representing existing development character.
• A participant asked about the yellow area and what “ETJ” meant.
  • Brennan Kane stated ETJ stands for extraterritorial jurisdiction and described it as outside city limits but potentially annexable at property owner discretion.
• A participant asked about supportive commercial designation along Highway 66 and effects on existing houses.
  • Brennan Kane stated the designation reflected a long-term character vision and that single-family homes could potentially be redeveloped into supportive commercial uses in the future.
• A participant summarized the distinctions between scenarios, describing the trend scenario as “business as usual,” the fate forward scenario as maximizing tax base and limiting infrastructure costs, and asked whether the preferred scenario was “in between.”
  • Brennan Kane stated the preferred scenario provided flexibility, included dynamic neighborhoods, and reflected public input including potential missing middle housing options (e.g., duplexes/triplexes) near the downtown core.

Fiscal Implications Presentation (Urban3)

Presenter

• Philip Walters, Urban3

Key Points Presented (as stated)

• Philip Walters described Urban3’s work as economic modeling and presented an approach describing cities as businesses/farms, with property taxes characterized as a “crop.”
• He discussed value per acre and productivity, stating that stacking building stories increases taxable value per acre.
• Philip Walters compared productivity examples, referencing:
  • Lake-view areas (noted as likely higher value)
  • A main street building example (“along came tamalei,” as stated)
  • Walmart example in Rockwall used to illustrate comparable tax productivity per acre
• Philip Walters described modeling categories:
  • Commercial land
  • Residential land with varying density/value per acre
  • Mixed use including both
• Philip Walters presented a comparison of scenarios, stating:
  • Preferred scenario value per acre was 2.4 million (as shown/presented)
  • The preferred scenario was “in the middle” between trend and fate forward in value per acre productivity
  • Public cost per acre was assumed consistent across scenarios; ratios varied due to acreage differences
  • Preferred scenario described as approximately “50% better” than trend scenario in private-to-public ratio (as stated)
• Philip Walters presented a per-person cost comparison and stated that the preferred scenario and fate forward scenario showed lower per-person costs relative to trend, which could reduce need to raise tax rates or allow more public services.

Discussion / Questions

• A participant asked about the presentation being “based on data and purp” (as stated in transcript).
  • Philip Walters responded that estimates are uncertain; stated he intentionally stayed conservative and suggested providing methodology so it could be applied case-by-case.
• Meeting facilitator stated, in the interest of time, Philip Walters would be released and the meeting would move to the main implementation plan discussion.

Draft Implementation Plan Review

Introduction and Structure

• Bill introduced review of the draft implementation plan and referenced materials provided to attendees including a large spreadsheet chart.
• Bill stated the comprehensive plan would be organized around seven value statements:
  1. Managed Growth
  2. Distinctive Identity
  3. Quality Housing Choices
  4. Connected Transportation System
  5. Places to Play
  6. Economic Opportunity
  7. Vibrant Downtown
• Bill described plan structure:
  • Value statements → goals → strategies
  • Strategies described as policy actions, regulatory changes, investments, or additional studies

Implementation Plan Columns (as described)

• Strategy language
• Type of strategy
• Time frame (short, medium, long term; ongoing where applicable)
• High priority indicator
• Implementing agency
• Partners
• Corresponding strategies cross-references

Strategy Type Definitions (as described)

• Investment: new or adjusted expenditure
• Study: follow-up study requiring more analysis
• Regulation: changes requiring City Council approval to modify procedures/ordinance (subject to state law constraints as noted)
• Operations: new/modified program, partnership, or staffing arrangement
• Policy: new/modified process or policy

State Law Note

• A participant raised a concern that “regulation” and “policy” depend on state law and suggested noting that the city is operating within state constraints.
• Bill acknowledged the point and indicated a note could be added to reflect state influence.

Value Statement Discussions

(Content unchanged from prior version; speaker attributions reflect Brennan Kane where applicable.)

Closing and Next Steps

• Staff stated the project website would be updated and that comments from the meeting would be incorporated into the implementation plan and comprehensive plan report.
• Staff referenced upcoming public hearings and adoption meetings in the coming months.
• Staff stated a Public Summit #3 would occur after adoption as a celebration and introduction to implementation.

Motions

• Transcript reflects motions were made and seconded, with votes recorded as “All in favor say I… passes,” including:
  • Motion and second not specified
  • Motion to council meeting referenced near the end; details not specified

Record Note

This Ledger entry records the publicly observable proceedings of the meeting listed above. It does not offer analysis or commentary.