Commissioners table Tarkenton Downs preliminary plat, request more drainage review

County commissioners on Tuesday tabled consideration of the preliminary plat for Tarkenton Downs Phase 1 and a related variance request to allow wet-bottom detention ponds, saying they want additional drainage analysis and clearer written review from the county’s engineering reviewer before approving the subdivision.

The decision came after Ripley Woodard, a technical engineer representing the developer, described the full project as “about 750 lots” to be built in three phases, with Phase 1 proposing 322 single-family lots, an on-site wastewater treatment plant and roughly 56 acre-feet of stormwater detention. Woodard said the overall development would “produce about 785 equivalent single-family connections.”

County commissioners said the subdivision raised questions about cumulative drainage impacts beyond the Phase 1 footprint. Commissioner Greg (first name used in the public record) said he wanted LJA Engineering to review the entire master drainage plan, not only the Phase 1 study. Greg moved to table both the preliminary plat and the variance; Commissioner David seconded the motion and it carried.

Why it matters: commissioners said the site sits in an area with existing flooding concerns and that downstream effects must be demonstrated in writing by the county’s outside reviewer before the court will permit the subdivision to proceed. County staff explained that the plat review process begins when an application is submitted to permitting staff; the county then forwards the plat to LJA Engineering, which issues a written approval or list of deficiencies and restarts the county’s 30-day review clock each time revisions are submitted.

Developers’ presentation and questions: Woodard told the court the project would include three TxDOT connections and that typical house footprints would be roughly 1,900–2,200 square feet, with 50-foot lots comprising about 65% of the plan. Commissioners asked whether Tarkenton Independent School District had been informed; the developer’s representative said he had not personally spoken with the district. The judge and staff advised the developer to contact the school district to allow the district to plan for increased student enrollment if the project proceeds.

Variance request for wet-bottom ponds: The variance request would allow “wet-bottom” (retention) ponds rather than the county’s usual dry-bottom detention ponds with concrete pilot channels. A county engineer explained that the county’s regulation typically requires a concrete pilot channel to avoid mosquito breeding and to give low-flow conveyance; developers said a wet-bottom pond is intended as an amenity and would be clay-lined and maintained to avoid odor and stagnation. Commissioners discussed whether the regulation should be changed so similar requests would not require repeated variances; staff said LJA had issued letters of no objection in prior cases but the written rule still requires a variance.

Next steps: The court directed staff to request a written clarification from LJA Engineering that addresses cumulative drainage and downstream impacts for the entire master plan, and to return the plat and variance to the court once that documentation is provided. The action taken was to table both items until the next meeting.