(a) 
Prior to a decision by the planning and zoning commission on a preliminary plat application, or if no preliminary plat application is required, on a final plat application, or any other application for which an exaction requirement is imposed as a condition of approval, the city engineer shall prepare a written statement affirming that each exaction requirement to be imposed as a condition of approval is roughly proportionate to the demand created by the subdivision or development on the applicable public facilities system of the city, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the development proposed. In making this determination, the city engineer may consider:
(1) 
Categorical findings and recommendations of the North Central Texas Council of Governments in developing standard specifications for public infrastructure improvements and stormwater management;
(2) 
The proposed and potential use of the land;
(3) 
The timing and sequence of development in relation to availability of adequate levels of public facilities systems;
(4) 
Impact fee studies, traffic impact studies, both geometric and capacity oriented, drainage studies; fire protection, consumption and irrigation water needs; solid or liquid waste collection and disposal or other studies or standards that measure the demand for services created by developments and the impact on the city’s public facilities system;
(5) 
The level of service and functionality of both on-site and off-site public infrastructure improvements in serving the proposed subdivision or development;
(6) 
The degree to which public infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the proposed subdivision are supplied by other developments;
(7) 
The anticipated participation by the city in the costs of necessary public infrastructure improvements;
(8) 
The degree to which acceptable private infrastructure improvements to be constructed and maintained by the applicant will offset the need for public infrastructure improvements;
(9) 
Any reimbursements for the costs of public infrastructure improvements for which the proposed subdivision is eligible; and/or
(10) 
Any other information relating to the impacts created by the proposed subdivision or development on the city’s public facilities systems.
(b) 
Based upon the proportionality determination, the city engineer shall affirm that the exaction requirements of the subdivision regulations, or other ordinance requiring the permit, as applied to the proposed subdivision or development, do not impose costs on the applicant for public infrastructure improvements that exceed those roughly proportionate to the impact of the proposed subdivision or development.
(c) 
The city engineer may require that the applicant, at its expense, submit reasonable information or studies that may assist in making the proportionality determination.
(Ordinance 002-2013 adopted 2/19/13)
(a) 
The planning and zoning commission and city council shall consider the city engineer’s report concerning the proportionality of the exaction requirements in making a decision on a plat or other development application. The commission and the city council may consider the city engineer’s report in granting a variance to the requirements of the subdivision regulations.
(b) 
The city official responsible for issuing a permit for which an exaction requirement is imposed as a condition of approval shall consider the city engineer’s report concerning the proportionality of the exaction requirements in making its decision as to whether to grant the permit or to modify or waive an exaction requirement.
(Ordinance 002-2013 adopted 2/19/13)
(a) 
An applicant for a preliminary or final plat or for a permit which imposes an exaction requirement as a condition of approval may file an appeal to contest any exaction requirement, other than impact fees, imposed as a condition of approval or in which the failure to comply is grounds for denying the plat or other development application pursuant to the subdivision ordinance or other city regulations. The procedures for appeal of a rough proportionality determination apply to all city permits.
(b) 
The purpose of a proportionality appeal is to assure that an exaction requirement imposed on a proposed plat or development as a condition of approval does not result in a disproportionate cost burden on the applicant, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the demands created by the proposed subdivision or development on the city’s public facilities systems.
(Ordinance 002-2013 adopted 2/19/13)
(a) 
An applicant for a preliminary or final plat or an applicant seeking approval for any other permit or zoning for which an exaction requirement is imposed shall file a written appeal with the city secretary within 10 days of the date the planning and zoning commission or the city official responsible for issuing the permit takes action applying the exaction requirement. This may include denial of the permit or plat. The applicant shall submit 5 copies of the appeal.
(b) 
A separate appeal form shall be submitted for each exaction requirement for which relief is sought. The city secretary shall forward the appeal to the city council for consideration.
(c) 
The applicant may request postponement of consideration of the applicant’s plat application by the city council pending preparation of the study required by subsection (f) below, in which case the applicant shall also waive the statutory period for acting upon a plat for the time necessary for the city council to decide the appeal.
(d) 
No developer’s agreement may be executed by the city until the time for appeal has expired or, if an appeal is filed, until the city council has made a determination with respect to the appeal.
(e) 
The appeal shall state the reasons that application of the exaction requirement is not roughly proportional to the nature and extent of the impact created by the proposed subdivision or development on the city’s public facilities systems and does not reasonably benefit the proposed subdivision or development.
(f) 
The appellant shall submit to the city engineer 5 copies of a study in support of the appeal that includes, with respect to each specific exaction requirement appealed, the following information within 30 days of the date of appeal, unless a longer time is requested:
(1) 
Total capacity of the city’s water, wastewater, roadway, drainage, or park system, as applicable, to be utilized by the proposed subdivision or development, employing standard measures of capacity and equivalency calculations relating the type of development proposed to the quantity of system capacity to be consumed by the subdivision or development. If the proposed subdivision is to be developed in phases, such information also shall be provided for the entire development, including any phases already developed;
(2) 
Total capacity to be supplied to the city’s public facilities systems for water, wastewater, roadway, drainage or parks, as applicable, by the exaction requirement. This information shall include any capacity supplied by prior exaction requirements imposed on the development;
(3) 
Comparison of the capacity of the applicable city public facilities systems to be consumed by the proposed subdivision or development with the capacity to be supplied to such systems by the proposed exaction requirement. In making this comparison, the impacts on the city’s public facilities systems from the entire subdivision or development shall be considered;
(4) 
The amount of any city participation in the costs of oversizing the public infrastructure improvements to be constructed by the applicant in accordance with the city’s requirements;
(5) 
Comparison of the minimum size and capacity required by city standards for the applicable public facilities systems to be utilized by the proposed subdivision or development with the size and capacity to be supplied by the proposed exaction requirement; and
(6) 
Any other information that shows the alleged disproportionality between the impacts created by the proposed development and the exaction requirement imposed by the city.
(g) 
The city engineer shall evaluate the appeal and supporting study and shall make a recommendation to the city council based upon the city engineer’s analysis of the information contained in the study provided by the applicant in support of his appeal and utilizing the same factors considered by the city engineer in making the original proportionality determination.
(Ordinance 002-2013 adopted 2/19/13)
(a) 
The city council shall decide the appeal within 30 days of the date of final submission of any evidence by the applicant. Upon receipt of the final submission of evidence from the applicant, the city secretary shall schedule a time and date for the city council to consider the appeal and shall cause the applicant to be notified at the address specified in the appeal form of the time, date and location at which the city council shall consider the appeal.
(b) 
The applicant shall be allotted a reasonable amount of time, to present testimony at the city council meeting. The city council shall base its decision on the criteria listed in sections 10.04.071(a) and 10.04.074(f) and may:
(1) 
Deny the appeal and impose the exaction requirement in accordance with the city engineer’s recommendation or the planning and zoning commission’s decision on the plat or other development application;
(2) 
Grant the appeal, and waive in whole or in part an exaction requirement to the extent necessary to achieve proportionality; or
(3) 
Grant the appeal, and direct that the city participate in the costs of acquiring land for or constructing the public infrastructure improvement.
(c) 
In deciding an appeal, the city council shall determine whether application of the exaction requirement is roughly proportional to the nature and extent of the impact created by the proposed subdivision on the city’s public facilities systems for water, wastewater, roadway, drainage, or park facilities, as applicable, and reasonably benefits the subdivision. In making such determination, the city council shall consider:
(1) 
The evidence submitted by the applicant;
(2) 
The city engineer’s report and recommendation, considering in particular the factors identified in sections 10.04.071(a) and 10.04.074(f); and
(3) 
If the property is located within the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, any recommendations from the county, or if the property abuts a state highway, any recommendations from the state.
(d) 
The city council may require the applicant or the city engineer to submit additional information that it deems relevant in making its decision.
(Ordinance 002-2013 adopted 2/19/13)
(a) 
If the city council finds in favor of the applicant and waives the exaction requirement as a condition of plat approval, or modifies the exaction requirement to the extent necessary to achieve rough proportionality, the applicant shall resubmit the plat application to the planning and zoning commission or city official responsible for issuing the permit within 30 days of the date the city council takes action, with any modifications necessary to conform the plat with the city council’s decision. The applicant shall not be deemed to have prevailed in the event that the city council modifies the exaction requirement.
(b) 
If the city council finds in favor of an applicant for any other permit and waives the exaction requirement as a condition of permit approval, or modifies the exaction requirement to the extent necessary to achieve rough proportionality, the applicant shall resubmit the permit application to the responsible official within 30 days of the date the city council takes action, with any modifications necessary to conform the application with the city council’s decision. Failure to do so will result in the expiration of any relief granted by the city council.
(c) 
If the city council denies the appeal and the applicant has executed a waiver of the statutory period for acting upon a plat, the city shall place the plat application on the agenda of the planning and zoning commission within 30 days of the city council’s decision.
(d) 
If the rough proportionality appeal was submitted appealing the imposition of an exaction requirement for a plat application, and city council grants relief to an applicant but the applicant fails to conform the plat to the city council’s decision within the 30-day period provided, the relief granted by the city council on the appeal shall expire.
(e) 
If the plat application is modified to increase the number of residential dwelling units or the intensity of nonresidential uses, the city engineer may require a new study to validate the relief granted by the city council.
(f) 
If the plat application for which relief was granted is denied on other grounds, a new appeal shall be required on any subsequent application.
(Ordinance 002-2013 adopted 2/19/13)
An applicant may appeal the decision of the city council to the county or district court of the county in which the development is located within 30 days of the date that the city council issues its final decision. In the event that the applicant prevails in such action, the applicant will be entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees.
(Ordinance 002-2013 adopted 2/19/13)