1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,880
 I want to welcome everyone to the Development Code Review Committee meeting.

2
00:00:10,880 --> 00:00:13,920
 We do have a quorum present, it is 1.02.

3
00:00:13,920 --> 00:00:20,720
 We are, by order of the Governor, doing this remotely, or able to do this remotely.

4
00:00:20,720 --> 00:00:29,240
 The first item on the agenda is consider approval of the October 19th, 2020 minutes.

5
00:00:29,240 --> 00:00:30,240
 Council Member Briggs.

6
00:00:30,240 --> 00:00:33,240
 I will move approval.

7
00:00:33,240 --> 00:00:40,160
 Alright, and I'll go ahead and second it, and we can do the roll call.

8
00:00:40,160 --> 00:00:43,080
 Council Member Briggs, I'll say you.

9
00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:44,080
 Aye.

10
00:00:44,080 --> 00:00:45,080
 Mayor Watts.

11
00:00:45,080 --> 00:00:48,080
 Mayor Watts, I'll say you.

12
00:00:48,080 --> 00:00:49,080
 Sorry.

13
00:00:49,080 --> 00:00:50,080
 Aye.

14
00:00:50,080 --> 00:00:58,560
 I was on mute, sorry about that, and I'm sitting here just talking.

15
00:00:58,560 --> 00:01:02,000
 And the Chair is an aye, so it passes unanimously.

16
00:01:02,000 --> 00:01:06,800
 Next item up is to receive a report, hold a discussion regarding an overview of House

17
00:01:06,800 --> 00:01:07,800
 Bill 3167.

18
00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:08,800
 Hey, John.

19
00:01:08,800 --> 00:01:09,800
 Yes.

20
00:01:09,800 --> 00:01:14,320
 I'm going to just step off just for a second, I think you still got a quorum because I got

21
00:01:14,320 --> 00:01:17,800
 a text, somebody's thinking I'm supposed to be in another meeting, so I need to get that

22
00:01:17,800 --> 00:01:19,520
 squared away, so I'll be right back.

23
00:01:19,520 --> 00:01:20,520
 Okay.

24
00:01:20,520 --> 00:01:21,520
 Yep.

25
00:01:21,520 --> 00:01:22,520
 Alright, sorry.

26
00:01:22,520 --> 00:01:24,840
 Yeah, I'll just continue on without me.

27
00:01:24,840 --> 00:01:26,480
 Thank you, Chair.

28
00:01:26,480 --> 00:01:32,600
 I'm going to share my screen PowerPoint presentation, but we will have a presentation by Ms. Robin

29
00:01:32,600 --> 00:01:35,520
 Miga to make this presentation for this item.

30
00:01:35,520 --> 00:01:43,120
 So let me go ahead and share my screen, and then once it's up, I'll turn it over to Robin.

31
00:01:43,120 --> 00:01:53,920
 Okay, hopefully everybody sees the presentation, and Robin, if you can go ahead and get started.

32
00:01:53,920 --> 00:01:56,760
 Okay, thank you, Ron.

33
00:01:56,760 --> 00:01:57,760
 Good afternoon.

34
00:01:57,760 --> 00:01:58,760
 I'm Robin Miga.

35
00:01:58,760 --> 00:02:03,760
 I guess I just wanted to give you a little bit of background on myself, just before we

36
00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:04,760
 begin.

37
00:02:04,760 --> 00:02:09,600
 I have been a planner for about six years, and I've spent the bulk of that time on staff

38
00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:15,240
 with cities that were experiencing rapid growth, and our firm works for about 30 cities across

39
00:02:15,240 --> 00:02:19,960
 Texas.

40
00:02:19,960 --> 00:02:22,840
 So we'll just get into House Bill 3167 and our agenda.

41
00:02:22,840 --> 00:02:27,240
 Most of you are familiar with the bill that passed during the last legislative session.

42
00:02:27,240 --> 00:02:31,480
 However, given the nature of some of the changes that are proposed for the DDC amendments,

43
00:02:31,480 --> 00:02:37,360
 we thought now is a good time for a refresher on how that bill affected subdivision applications.

44
00:02:37,360 --> 00:02:41,720
 While I'll be presenting on the bill, if there are any specific questions, I will defer to

45
00:02:41,720 --> 00:02:48,680
 the appropriate department to answer any questions that may arise.

46
00:02:48,680 --> 00:02:52,080
 Some of this is probably familiar to you all, but I thought it was kind of important to

47
00:02:52,080 --> 00:02:54,520
 paint the picture of how development works in Denton.

48
00:02:54,520 --> 00:02:58,600
 I wanted to start by the introduction to the development assistance team.

49
00:02:58,600 --> 00:03:03,080
 This team is in charge of reviewing plans that are submitted to the city and are tasked

50
00:03:03,080 --> 00:03:07,880
 with ensuring that all of them meet the city's adopted ordinances, state laws, as well as

51
00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:11,480
 any adopted manuals or standard details or criteria.

52
00:03:11,480 --> 00:03:17,600
 If they do not meet that criteria, it's their job to cite appropriately to the deficiency

53
00:03:17,600 --> 00:03:24,400
 in the coder law and provide that information to the applicant in order to get it corrected.

54
00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:28,920
 This is a brief look at the sequence as they come in through the planning department, and

55
00:03:28,920 --> 00:03:32,720
 to make note that not all applications that come through the development department are

56
00:03:32,720 --> 00:03:34,480
 subject to House Bill 3167.

57
00:03:34,480 --> 00:03:41,040
 So you can see these items in green, the annexation, zoning, and zoning compliance plans, those

58
00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:45,800
 all aren't subject to the shot clock, but the other three, your preliminary plot, engineering

59
00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:49,040
 plans, and final plot are subject to the shot clock.

60
00:03:49,040 --> 00:03:59,000
 And then I went ahead and added who the approval authority is for these.

61
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:04,400
 These are the three different types of plotting applications, preliminary plots, civil engineering

62
00:04:04,400 --> 00:04:06,520
 plans, and final plots.

63
00:04:06,520 --> 00:04:10,960
 Once the applications have been deemed administratively complete and are filed, they are required

64
00:04:10,960 --> 00:04:13,680
 to be reviewed within 30 days.

65
00:04:13,680 --> 00:04:19,840
 The applications that, if these applications require P&Z approval, that approval is also

66
00:04:19,840 --> 00:04:21,760
 required within 30 days.

67
00:04:21,760 --> 00:04:27,000
 So if P&Z does not take action within 30 days, the plot is considered approved even if it

68
00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:29,640
 doesn't meet the city's standards.

69
00:04:29,640 --> 00:04:35,360
 And I'll get into what the law says about that a little later.

70
00:04:35,360 --> 00:04:39,080
 So I just wanted to give you all a glimpse of the different manuals and plans that are

71
00:04:39,080 --> 00:04:42,960
 utilized in the review of subdivision applications.

72
00:04:42,960 --> 00:04:47,080
 All of the reviewers on your development assistance team are reviewing these plans or plots that

73
00:04:47,080 --> 00:04:52,400
 are submitted to the city based on the code of ordinances and the DVC state laws, as well

74
00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:56,960
 as the different criteria manuals and plans that have been adopted by the city.

75
00:04:56,960 --> 00:05:01,440
 So these are all the manuals that the applicant is also required to utilize when they are

76
00:05:01,440 --> 00:05:05,440
 drafting their plans that are to be approved by the city.

77
00:05:05,440 --> 00:05:12,840
 Okay, so now I'll kind of get into HB 3167, the shot clock bill.

78
00:05:12,840 --> 00:05:18,160
 Before this bill went into effect, the shot clock existed in state law, but it allowed

79
00:05:18,160 --> 00:05:21,360
 for cities to request a waiver from the requirement.

80
00:05:21,360 --> 00:05:27,320
 So following that new law being enacted, cities are no longer allowed to ask applicants for

81
00:05:27,320 --> 00:05:33,240
 this waiver, but the applicant is able to request an extension for up to 30 days.

82
00:05:33,240 --> 00:05:36,920
 And it's my understanding that the city of Denton still has some applicants who request

83
00:05:36,920 --> 00:05:41,360
 that extension so that they don't have to go through a complete resubmittal for their

84
00:05:41,360 --> 00:05:49,080
 application and pay new fees and things like that.

85
00:05:49,080 --> 00:05:56,120
 So this is the language that was added to 212 for subdivision approval.

86
00:05:56,120 --> 00:06:00,080
 Cities are no longer able to request that an applicant waive the 30-day requirement

87
00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:04,860
 and the municipal authority responsible for approving a plan or plot has to do so within

88
00:06:04,860 --> 00:06:05,860
 30 days.

89
00:06:05,860 --> 00:06:10,400
 And so they're required to take action by approving, approving with conditions or disapproving

90
00:06:10,400 --> 00:06:17,120
 with an explanation.

91
00:06:17,120 --> 00:06:22,320
 So sorry to be reading from slides for you, but I just want to be specific.

92
00:06:22,320 --> 00:06:27,480
 The law defines the municipal authority responsible for approving a plot as the planning commission,

93
00:06:27,480 --> 00:06:32,540
 or if the city doesn't have a planning commission, the governing body of the city, and Denton,

94
00:06:32,540 --> 00:06:36,360
 your municipal authority is P&Z for a plan or plot.

95
00:06:36,360 --> 00:06:41,380
 And so the law does allow that the city is able to delegate approval for engineering

96
00:06:41,380 --> 00:06:44,920
 plans and certain plots to city staff.

97
00:06:44,920 --> 00:06:50,440
 And so that is done in some situations as well.

98
00:06:50,440 --> 00:06:54,720
 Many cities, I would say, struggle to implement this bill in order to meet the shot clock

99
00:06:54,720 --> 00:06:55,940
 for subdivisions.

100
00:06:55,940 --> 00:07:01,040
 For some applications, 30 days is probably enough time, but for many of these complicated

101
00:07:01,040 --> 00:07:05,880
 plans that are submitted as part of a subdivision application, 30 days is nowhere near enough

102
00:07:05,880 --> 00:07:10,480
 time, which is why I think you saw cities, especially those that are experiencing rapid

103
00:07:10,480 --> 00:07:15,360
 growth such as Denton, take the approach that the key was to improve their development process

104
00:07:15,360 --> 00:07:18,160
 in order to ensure compliance with state law.

105
00:07:18,160 --> 00:07:25,320
 And the reason is because the following language was added to state law, which was 212-0091.

106
00:07:25,320 --> 00:07:30,080
 The approval procedure, so the municipal authority or governing body that conditionally approves

107
00:07:30,080 --> 00:07:35,640
 or disapproves a plan or plot under the subjector shall provide the applicant a written statement

108
00:07:35,640 --> 00:07:40,560
 of the conditions for the conditional approval or reason for disapproval.

109
00:07:40,560 --> 00:07:45,920
 And then you get into B, which states that each condition or reason specified in the

110
00:07:45,920 --> 00:07:50,920
 written statement must be directly related to a requirement under this subchapter and

111
00:07:50,920 --> 00:07:55,600
 include a citation to the law, including a statute or municipal ordinance that is the

112
00:07:55,600 --> 00:08:04,560
 basis for the conditional approval or disapproval, if applicable, and that it may not be arbitrary.

113
00:08:04,560 --> 00:08:11,700
 So under HB 3167, subdivision applications have to be acted on within 30 days for filing.

114
00:08:11,700 --> 00:08:17,920
 And if not approved, the commission is required to cite a reason pursuant to 212-0091, which

115
00:08:17,920 --> 00:08:20,680
 is what I stated on the previous slide.

116
00:08:20,680 --> 00:08:25,120
 Plots subject to commission approval are presented to P&Z with a report from staff detailing

117
00:08:25,120 --> 00:08:30,920
 the deficiencies of state law and/or the city ordinances, if there are any, and that plan

118
00:08:30,920 --> 00:08:35,400
 or plot shall be approved if it complies with your standards.

119
00:08:35,400 --> 00:08:40,160
 Unlike P&Z's broad discretion in zoning matters, the discretion in subdivision plotting matters

120
00:08:40,160 --> 00:08:41,720
 is limited.

121
00:08:41,720 --> 00:08:46,800
 Once applicable rules are satisfied, the approval process is ministerial in nature.

122
00:08:46,800 --> 00:08:53,280
 And P&Z is the final decision on plots.

123
00:08:53,280 --> 00:08:57,640
 And this slide is just kind of to explain that the report that is provided to P&Z regarding

124
00:08:57,640 --> 00:09:02,960
 an application and its deficiencies is also required by city staff for those applications

125
00:09:02,960 --> 00:09:05,040
 that are administrative.

126
00:09:05,040 --> 00:09:09,680
 For all plans or plots that the law allows for an administrative approval, staff has

127
00:09:09,680 --> 00:09:14,840
 to cite the exact deficiency from state law or an adopted ordinance for the reason of

128
00:09:14,840 --> 00:09:17,040
 denial as well.

129
00:09:17,040 --> 00:09:21,960
 If staff does not approve or deny or approve with conditions within 30 days of the filing

130
00:09:21,960 --> 00:09:24,480
 date, it is also considered approved.

131
00:09:24,480 --> 00:09:31,760
 So that's why the shot clock was kind of -- it was a difficult one for cities to implement.

132
00:09:31,760 --> 00:09:38,880
 Thank you for your time, and we would be happy to answer any questions you guys have.

133
00:09:38,880 --> 00:09:42,520
 >> Okay.

134
00:09:42,520 --> 00:09:43,520
 Any questions?

135
00:09:43,520 --> 00:09:49,400
 And again, I only see nine people up here, so if you've got your hand raised and I don't

136
00:09:49,400 --> 00:09:55,760
 call on you, just unmute and let me know.

137
00:09:55,760 --> 00:09:56,760
 >> I've got one, John.

138
00:09:56,760 --> 00:09:57,760
 >> Okay.

139
00:09:57,760 --> 00:09:59,240
 Go ahead, Chris.

140
00:09:59,240 --> 00:10:05,080
 >> So I just want to make sure, if I remember correctly from our time before, that the plan

141
00:10:05,080 --> 00:10:09,320
 and plat -- this has nothing to do with rezoning or anything.

142
00:10:09,320 --> 00:10:16,160
 This is a subdivision plan or some type of plat, which is a plan.

143
00:10:16,160 --> 00:10:17,160
 Is that my understanding?

144
00:10:17,160 --> 00:10:18,160
 >> Yes, sir.

145
00:10:18,160 --> 00:10:19,480
 >> Okay.

146
00:10:19,480 --> 00:10:20,840
 Okay.

147
00:10:20,840 --> 00:10:24,960
 >> All right.

148
00:10:24,960 --> 00:10:30,320
 Anyone else have any questions?

149
00:10:30,320 --> 00:10:35,680
 Not seeing anything -- anyone or hearing from anyone, we'll move on to the next agenda item,

150
00:10:35,680 --> 00:10:41,240
 which is agenda item C, receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff directions regarding

151
00:10:41,240 --> 00:10:45,040
 code amendments related to planning and zoning commission operations and procedures.

152
00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:48,520
 >> Thank you, Chair, I will take this presentation.

153
00:10:48,520 --> 00:10:58,120
 Let me pull up my slides here real quick and we can get started.

154
00:10:58,120 --> 00:10:59,840
 Okay.

155
00:10:59,840 --> 00:11:05,120
 Hopefully you all can see the presentation as mentioned.

156
00:11:05,120 --> 00:11:10,000
 This is for a number of code amendments that we will be hopefully bringing forward in the

157
00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:11,400
 near future.

158
00:11:11,400 --> 00:11:16,460
 The first one is related to less than four affirmative votes.

159
00:11:16,460 --> 00:11:23,440
 By way of background, the first column here is really what we have to date per section

160
00:11:23,440 --> 00:11:26,860
 2.29 of the code of ordinances.

161
00:11:26,860 --> 00:11:33,400
 It states that an affirmative vote of four members is necessary to take any final or

162
00:11:33,400 --> 00:11:36,080
 official action.

163
00:11:36,080 --> 00:11:43,560
 So what that means is that under Robert's rule, that anything less than four shall be

164
00:11:43,560 --> 00:11:46,280
 considered a denial.

165
00:11:46,280 --> 00:11:53,080
 That causes issues with regards to house bill or platts per se and subdivision applications

166
00:11:53,080 --> 00:11:57,720
 because if there is an application that's being considered by the planning and zoning

167
00:11:57,720 --> 00:12:04,280
 commission, most of those are considered on or just before the 30-day deadline and it's

168
00:12:04,280 --> 00:12:13,240
 difficult to schedule or bring it back an item if, say, there is a 3-1 or 3-2 vote and

169
00:12:13,240 --> 00:12:15,440
 the applicant would like to postpone it.

170
00:12:15,440 --> 00:12:21,040
 That can't happen because, again, the 30-day shot clock is at play and we need to make

171
00:12:21,040 --> 00:12:27,640
 a decision on what that is.

172
00:12:27,640 --> 00:12:34,200
 So for example, if there is a 3-1, 3-2, and there's no code amendment, looking at option

173
00:12:34,200 --> 00:12:40,960
 one, if there's no change, the P and Z vote of 3-1 or 3-2 shall be considered a denial

174
00:12:40,960 --> 00:12:43,140
 and actually we don't want that.

175
00:12:43,140 --> 00:12:48,700
 We want to be able to address the comments that is from staff and/or from the planning

176
00:12:48,700 --> 00:12:57,440
 zoning commission and so what staff is recommending is that we take option two, which is to codify

177
00:12:57,440 --> 00:13:02,040
 in the development code as well as the code of ordinances because, again, it needs to

178
00:13:02,040 --> 00:13:09,880
 be clear that the planning and zoning commission, if voted, voting is less than four, that it

179
00:13:09,880 --> 00:13:15,760
 is an official action and that motion, whatever it is, is passed.

180
00:13:15,760 --> 00:13:20,600
 So again, it's going to be different from the rest of the boards and commission that

181
00:13:20,600 --> 00:13:22,280
 we have in the city.

182
00:13:22,280 --> 00:13:25,720
 It's also going to be different from city council, as I understand it.

183
00:13:25,720 --> 00:13:33,920
 So the planning zoning commission, due to the House Bill 3167, any vote less than four,

184
00:13:33,920 --> 00:13:39,720
 again, if option two is taken forward and considered and approved by city council, would

185
00:13:39,720 --> 00:13:44,880
 be a vote for a motion that passes.

186
00:13:44,880 --> 00:13:54,200
 So let me share real quickly what we are proposing under the Section 233 of the then development

187
00:13:54,200 --> 00:13:55,200
 code.

188
00:13:55,200 --> 00:13:57,240
 We are proposing to add this language here.

189
00:13:57,240 --> 00:14:02,300
 As you can see here, I'm going to read it out just for the record.

190
00:14:02,300 --> 00:14:08,560
 If at the conclusion of a P&Z vote, the planning zoning commission has or have reached reaches

191
00:14:08,560 --> 00:14:14,480
 a majority but less than four affirmative votes to approve, approve with conditions

192
00:14:14,480 --> 00:14:19,800
 or disapprove with reason, whatever that motion is, that passes.

193
00:14:19,800 --> 00:14:25,920
 And it's important to note that in addition to this code amendment to the DDC, we would

194
00:14:25,920 --> 00:14:33,400
 also need to amend or add language to the code of ordinances to also state that the

195
00:14:33,400 --> 00:14:41,120
 planning zoning commission may make a decision or have a final decision if it is less than

196
00:14:41,120 --> 00:14:44,680
 four affirmative votes.

197
00:14:44,680 --> 00:14:49,280
 That is really our code amendment recommendation proposal.

198
00:14:49,280 --> 00:14:53,280
 Do you have any questions for this item?

199
00:14:53,280 --> 00:14:58,160
 >> I do.

200
00:14:58,160 --> 00:15:03,920
 >> Just for clarification, it feels like this has come back to us and council in different

201
00:15:03,920 --> 00:15:11,740
 ways or forms previously and recently, if I'm not mistaken, and from what I remember

202
00:15:11,740 --> 00:15:16,880
 is that council decided that it would be denied still.

203
00:15:16,880 --> 00:15:19,120
 Am I not remembering correctly?

204
00:15:19,120 --> 00:15:21,480
 Or is this different?

205
00:15:21,480 --> 00:15:26,080
 >> Aaron, do you -- >> Yes, this council made an amendment to

206
00:15:26,080 --> 00:15:31,760
 the tie vote provision about a year ago, if I'm not mistaken, and you're correct, councilmember

207
00:15:31,760 --> 00:15:37,120
 Briggs, that for both city council and for boards and commissions, any matters which

208
00:15:37,120 --> 00:15:40,000
 end up in a tie vote will be considered now.

209
00:15:40,000 --> 00:15:45,840
 For council, it's on the second meeting where it's considered if it's also a tie vote.

210
00:15:45,840 --> 00:15:51,620
 And for the regular boards and commissions, it's one time, if it's at that meeting.

211
00:15:51,620 --> 00:15:59,360
 You also adopted an exception for the DDC, which is the PNZ, to outline the process for

212
00:15:59,360 --> 00:16:04,760
 the recommendations, which is a zoning, not a non-zoning item, which is what they're here

213
00:16:04,760 --> 00:16:05,760
 for.

214
00:16:05,760 --> 00:16:06,760
 But you are correct.

215
00:16:06,760 --> 00:16:11,680
 That's what the council voted for about a year ago to treat it as a denial.

216
00:16:11,680 --> 00:16:16,360
 >> Just a point of clarification, Aaron, that is for tie votes, correct?

217
00:16:16,360 --> 00:16:20,080
 Anything of less than four affirmative vote?

218
00:16:20,080 --> 00:16:21,080
 >> That is correct.

219
00:16:21,080 --> 00:16:26,440
 The issue that Ron just spoke about, where you, under Roberts, you would have a motion

220
00:16:26,440 --> 00:16:34,900
 that passes is something this council didn't discuss at all.

221
00:16:34,900 --> 00:16:39,060
 >> And just to follow up, so then it's coming through this board and then eventually go

222
00:16:39,060 --> 00:16:45,280
 to PNZ and then council, so this is the first time we're hearing of it in this, in this

223
00:16:45,280 --> 00:16:46,280
 forum?

224
00:16:46,280 --> 00:16:47,280
 >> Correct.

225
00:16:47,280 --> 00:16:55,360
 We intend, obviously, to take any code amendments through the DCRC to get your input and recommendation

226
00:16:55,360 --> 00:16:59,760
 and then ultimately it will be presented to the full Planning Zoning Commission and also

227
00:16:59,760 --> 00:17:03,840
 to the full city council for final action or consideration.

228
00:17:03,840 --> 00:17:06,840
 >> Thank you.

229
00:17:06,840 --> 00:17:10,360
 Any other, Mayor Watts?

230
00:17:10,360 --> 00:17:12,920
 >> I think Margie was before me.

231
00:17:12,920 --> 00:17:13,920
 >> Okay.

232
00:17:13,920 --> 00:17:14,920
 >> Yeah.

233
00:17:14,920 --> 00:17:15,920
 >> Margie.

234
00:17:15,920 --> 00:17:16,920
 >> Sorry.

235
00:17:16,920 --> 00:17:17,920
 >> Thanks.

236
00:17:17,920 --> 00:17:18,920
 Thank you, Mayor.

237
00:17:18,920 --> 00:17:24,060
 Hey, Ron, so obviously this is brought up because of the shot clock bill, but if we

238
00:17:24,060 --> 00:17:28,040
 change this, this is for anything that PNZ votes on, correct?

239
00:17:28,040 --> 00:17:29,040
 >> That's correct.

240
00:17:29,040 --> 00:17:34,960
 It does cover everything, does not separate between subdivision applications or non-subdivision

241
00:17:34,960 --> 00:17:37,360
 applications.

242
00:17:37,360 --> 00:17:39,520
 So it will apply for all.

243
00:17:39,520 --> 00:17:40,520
 >> Okay.

244
00:17:40,520 --> 00:17:46,720
 And technically, with what we just heard with regard to the shot clock bill, PNZ shouldn't

245
00:17:46,720 --> 00:17:54,800
 necessarily be denying platts in the first place if they meet.

246
00:17:54,800 --> 00:17:56,400
 >> Correct.

247
00:17:56,400 --> 00:18:01,760
 However, we do know that, you know, that there may be some situations where there is, so

248
00:18:01,760 --> 00:18:03,200
 we want to make sure we're covering it.

249
00:18:03,200 --> 00:18:04,200
 >> Oh, yeah.

250
00:18:04,200 --> 00:18:05,200
 >> The same, the light.

251
00:18:05,200 --> 00:18:07,520
 I mean, this has happened, and we have to fix it.

252
00:18:07,520 --> 00:18:15,460
 My concern is I don't know if this is the fix because we're changing -- we're changing

253
00:18:15,460 --> 00:18:17,760
 more than what seems to be the problem.

254
00:18:17,760 --> 00:18:22,000
 I don't necessarily know what the fix is, but I do have a concern that we're suddenly

255
00:18:22,000 --> 00:18:28,360
 now kind of blanket making this rule when we really have one thing that we need to address

256
00:18:28,360 --> 00:18:32,760
 with regard to the shot clock bill, and that's what we're not addressing.

257
00:18:32,760 --> 00:18:38,400
 >> It may be that we're addressing more than the shot clock, and if we need to -- that's

258
00:18:38,400 --> 00:18:42,440
 the recommendation or comment from the DCRC.

259
00:18:42,440 --> 00:18:49,960
 We can certainly pare down the recommendation and just affect only the subdivision applications

260
00:18:49,960 --> 00:18:59,000
 that are subject to the 3167 or 212, and maybe that's the recommendation we can bring forward.

261
00:18:59,000 --> 00:19:05,320
 Again, just to limit it to the subdivision applications, and as Rob mentioned, those

262
00:19:05,320 --> 00:19:10,440
 are the preliminary plots, the final plots, that is brought forward to the Planning Zoning

263
00:19:10,440 --> 00:19:11,440
 Commission.

264
00:19:11,440 --> 00:19:12,440
 >> Yeah.

265
00:19:12,440 --> 00:19:16,400
 To me, that seems like the problem that we're trying to fix here, but I mean, obviously,

266
00:19:16,400 --> 00:19:19,000
 I'm one voice here, so I'd love to hear other input.

267
00:19:19,000 --> 00:19:20,000
 >> Sure.

268
00:19:20,000 --> 00:19:23,120
 >> Mayor, go ahead.

269
00:19:23,120 --> 00:19:28,880
 >> No, I agree with Margie's assessment.

270
00:19:28,880 --> 00:19:34,000
 I couldn't support sort of a blanket change to change the rules for PNZ on approvals or

271
00:19:34,000 --> 00:19:37,520
 non-approvals because I think something would get caught up in it that's not meant to get

272
00:19:37,520 --> 00:19:40,600
 caught in that net, and I guess so.

273
00:19:40,600 --> 00:19:45,000
 Maybe I need to understand a little bit more of why you're seeking this.

274
00:19:45,000 --> 00:19:48,880
 Because of the shot clock issue and because of our four affirmative votes, what do we

275
00:19:48,880 --> 00:19:52,120
 -- refresh my memory -- what are we trying to avoid here?

276
00:19:52,120 --> 00:19:58,240
 Like, let's say a plat comes in, I thought plats were -- if their final plat was ministerial

277
00:19:58,240 --> 00:20:02,760
 in nature anyway in approving at the PNZ level.

278
00:20:02,760 --> 00:20:03,760
 Is that not correct?

279
00:20:03,760 --> 00:20:08,120
 I mean, I thought it -- there's really not a whole lot of leeway in that regard, but

280
00:20:08,120 --> 00:20:14,240
 am I mistaken in that?

281
00:20:14,240 --> 00:20:24,920
 >> If I may, we had an instance at PNZ where we had I think it was five members in attendance,

282
00:20:24,920 --> 00:20:31,640
 and the vote for the plat, an item was pulled off consent for an individual vote, and while

283
00:20:31,640 --> 00:20:37,320
 we were recommending approval, it went -- the vote was 3-2, and so because it didn't have

284
00:20:37,320 --> 00:20:40,880
 the four affirmative, it failed.

285
00:20:40,880 --> 00:20:45,340
 At that point, the applicant asked, well, how do I cure this?

286
00:20:45,340 --> 00:20:46,340
 How do I fix it?

287
00:20:46,340 --> 00:20:53,080
 How do I get -- what do I need to do since it's -- the reasons need to be stated, and

288
00:20:53,080 --> 00:20:57,160
 the reasons really had to do with our procedures.

289
00:20:57,160 --> 00:21:00,680
 What we ended up doing was putting it on the next agenda.

290
00:21:00,680 --> 00:21:04,440
 They just sort of resubmitted it, so we had it on the next PNZ.

291
00:21:04,440 --> 00:21:08,540
 But what -- I mean, it could continue and go on and on.

292
00:21:08,540 --> 00:21:09,920
 That was just our concern.

293
00:21:09,920 --> 00:21:10,920
 >> Okay.

294
00:21:10,920 --> 00:21:18,680
 So I want to make sure from a legal perspective.

295
00:21:18,680 --> 00:21:25,840
 Are final plats, if they meet all the criteria, a ministerial act of the Planning and Zoning

296
00:21:25,840 --> 00:21:26,840
 Commission?

297
00:21:26,840 --> 00:21:29,320
 >> That is under the law.

298
00:21:29,320 --> 00:21:30,320
 That is correct.

299
00:21:30,320 --> 00:21:31,320
 >> All right.

300
00:21:31,320 --> 00:21:36,880
 So if then -- in other words, it's -- does the law say that if they meet all the requirements,

301
00:21:36,880 --> 00:21:42,320
 they must be approved or there has to be an approval or -- I mean, okay.

302
00:21:42,320 --> 00:21:47,840
 So I would much rather address that particular issue.

303
00:21:47,840 --> 00:21:53,320
 I mean, so, Erin, let's say this thing that happened, and I guess, you know, Andrew and

304
00:21:53,320 --> 00:21:56,440
 Margie and Tim, you all might have been there for this.

305
00:21:56,440 --> 00:22:00,840
 So let's say that happens again.

306
00:22:00,840 --> 00:22:07,880
 What is the remedy from the city's perspective, from the city attorney's office, that if we

307
00:22:07,880 --> 00:22:17,560
 are doing something, if somehow there's a vote taken that does not comply with the law,

308
00:22:17,560 --> 00:22:21,120
 what's the remedy outside of trying to change our rules?

309
00:22:21,120 --> 00:22:24,560
 Because I'm going to be very hesitant to say that things can be approved.

310
00:22:24,560 --> 00:22:30,000
 If we're trying to just specifically address this issue that came up, in other words, for

311
00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:34,120
 plats at a ministerial and things such as that, we just -- we don't want to get caught

312
00:22:34,120 --> 00:22:35,120
 in this trap again.

313
00:22:35,120 --> 00:22:40,240
 I don't think this is the solution for that, especially if the law says you can't really

314
00:22:40,240 --> 00:22:43,040
 do that and it be valid.

315
00:22:43,040 --> 00:22:47,620
 Is that what I'm understanding the law says?

316
00:22:47,620 --> 00:22:48,920
 >> That is correct.

317
00:22:48,920 --> 00:22:49,920
 >> Okay.

318
00:22:49,920 --> 00:22:57,360
 So what would you say, Erin, then, is the -- I mean, so we have a law that somehow we're

319
00:22:57,360 --> 00:23:03,400
 trying to work around and change our procedures because we didn't want to say P&Z, you can't

320
00:23:03,400 --> 00:23:08,920
 do that, or -- I mean, if you're in a meeting, I mean, if Andrew is there chairing the meeting

321
00:23:08,920 --> 00:23:14,620
 and this happens, what is the city attorney's office going to be saying to say how do we

322
00:23:14,620 --> 00:23:19,080
 get past this because we cannot vote like this based upon state law?

323
00:23:19,080 --> 00:23:20,080
 What's the remedy?

324
00:23:20,080 --> 00:23:25,120
 >> Well, in the meeting, or before even the meeting, it's education, making sure that

325
00:23:25,120 --> 00:23:29,800
 the P&Z commissioners understand the nature of the law with respect to platting -- platz.

326
00:23:29,800 --> 00:23:36,680
 Second, in the meeting, if this comes up, if not, you know, Richard or the attorney assigned

327
00:23:36,680 --> 00:23:43,080
 to P&Z, one of them should raise this issue and remind the chair and the P&Z commission.

328
00:23:43,080 --> 00:23:45,280
 That takes care of a lot of issues.

329
00:23:45,280 --> 00:23:51,640
 I think where the problem, as I've studied this, is likely to come up is the approval

330
00:23:51,640 --> 00:23:54,080
 with conditions.

331
00:23:54,080 --> 00:24:00,560
 That itself lends to the dilemma or potential dilemma that a couple of P&Z members may feel

332
00:24:00,560 --> 00:24:05,620
 that those conditions are -- shouldn't be tied to a motion to approve, but rather for

333
00:24:05,620 --> 00:24:08,880
 denial because in their minds, they may not believe it.

334
00:24:08,880 --> 00:24:13,880
 That is the portion that has straight away from the general rule under state law that

335
00:24:13,880 --> 00:24:20,620
 gives P&Z that authority provided they can cite something within the development requirements.

336
00:24:20,620 --> 00:24:26,280
 So I understand the situation that Richard has presented, and it's a valid one, but I

337
00:24:26,280 --> 00:24:33,720
 do see the potential for even other problems in the future based on that because they now

338
00:24:33,720 --> 00:24:38,880
 have the authority to approve with conditions or disapprove with the reasons why, which

339
00:24:38,880 --> 00:24:40,840
 are going to be failure to meet certain conditions.

340
00:24:40,840 --> 00:24:44,720
 You can see where that can flip-flop at a P&Z meeting.

341
00:24:44,720 --> 00:24:50,640
 I hope I didn't confuse you all, but there's a lot more than -- the problem can be much

342
00:24:50,640 --> 00:24:52,520
 greater than what it appears.

343
00:24:52,520 --> 00:24:55,880
 Eventually, some cities are going to run into that problem.

344
00:24:55,880 --> 00:24:58,760
 And then I've got one other question that I'll yield the floor because I'm trying to

345
00:24:58,760 --> 00:25:02,800
 really get an idea of the picture.

346
00:25:02,800 --> 00:25:07,440
 So we've got a final plaque that's coming forward.

347
00:25:07,440 --> 00:25:12,000
 And what I'm hearing you say is that what if someone -- would it be staff, would it

348
00:25:12,000 --> 00:25:13,000
 be P&Z?

349
00:25:13,000 --> 00:25:20,080
 Because, well, we -- this final plaque has been submitted, but we are going to put conditions

350
00:25:20,080 --> 00:25:25,600
 on it, meaning we being, let's just say, the P&Z members.

351
00:25:25,600 --> 00:25:31,740
 First of all, is that lawful?

352
00:25:31,740 --> 00:25:35,840
 >> If the conditions are related to the development requirements and all the rules and regulations

353
00:25:35,840 --> 00:25:42,300
 that have been incorporated in our DDC, if they're valid -- and I can't tell you whether

354
00:25:42,300 --> 00:25:47,120
 they will be or won't be until the situation occurs and what's being proposed.

355
00:25:47,120 --> 00:25:48,120
 >> Okay.

356
00:25:48,120 --> 00:25:50,800
 All right.

357
00:25:50,800 --> 00:26:00,600
 So then what I'm hearing you say is that -- >> Put it another way, Mayor, the final plaque

358
00:26:00,600 --> 00:26:06,560
 is not -- no longer meeting every single requirement we have in there, if you have an approval

359
00:26:06,560 --> 00:26:11,880
 with conditions, because the conditions technically mean that they haven't met that specific

360
00:26:11,880 --> 00:26:15,560
 requirement, but that you're requiring them to do so.

361
00:26:15,560 --> 00:26:18,920
 >> So then can I make a suggestion on that?

362
00:26:18,920 --> 00:26:24,320
 Because what I'm hearing you say is that if a final plaque comes before the P&Z, it technically

363
00:26:24,320 --> 00:26:27,120
 should meet all the conditions.

364
00:26:27,120 --> 00:26:31,960
 And that the only reason a condition should be put on it is if somebody notices or somebody

365
00:26:31,960 --> 00:26:42,720
 has reason to know, oh, wait, this is a part of our code that is necessary, and you haven't

366
00:26:42,720 --> 00:26:43,720
 met this condition.

367
00:26:43,720 --> 00:26:48,360
 It's not like an SUP where you can just put stuff on that's not really based in the code.

368
00:26:48,360 --> 00:26:57,460
 So I don't know -- if the conditions are put on it, they've got to resubmit it anyway,

369
00:26:57,460 --> 00:26:58,640
 don't they?

370
00:26:58,640 --> 00:27:06,680
 >> Under the law, yes, under the HPIL 3167, but the problem, this problem that you're

371
00:27:06,680 --> 00:27:10,320
 describing is most likely not going to come up in a final plaque, it's going to come up

372
00:27:10,320 --> 00:27:11,880
 at the preliminary plaque phase.

373
00:27:11,880 --> 00:27:15,640
 >> Okay, and that's not ministerial.

374
00:27:15,640 --> 00:27:22,440
 >> It's also ministerial exercise as well, however, the conditions being added under the

375
00:27:22,440 --> 00:27:28,780
 new law that allows them -- the way that the law was designed, before it was ministerial,

376
00:27:28,780 --> 00:27:31,920
 they met all the requirements, preliminary plaque approved.

377
00:27:31,920 --> 00:27:38,000
 Now the law allows flexibility that they don't have to meet all the requirements if staff

378
00:27:38,000 --> 00:27:43,200
 recommends the conditions that they need to meet before construction plan approval or

379
00:27:43,200 --> 00:27:45,000
 final plaque.

380
00:27:45,000 --> 00:27:46,500
 That's what the law has created.

381
00:27:46,500 --> 00:27:50,160
 It's no longer -- if they meet all the requirements, it's got to be approved.

382
00:27:50,160 --> 00:27:55,560
 Now you have -- they meet most of the requirements, and as long as they meet these other conditions,

383
00:27:55,560 --> 00:27:56,560
 they're okay.

384
00:27:56,560 --> 00:27:59,320
 >> Well, okay, and I'll say my final say.

385
00:27:59,320 --> 00:28:04,840
 I think that I'm going to be hard pressed to vote to change the rules, because I think

386
00:28:04,840 --> 00:28:11,480
 when we do that, what we're doing is we're trying to work around something that if these

387
00:28:11,480 --> 00:28:16,520
 are the rules, and the commissioners obviously have been doing this a while and they understand

388
00:28:16,520 --> 00:28:21,520
 the implications, if they want to vote against it, and it's less than four votes, then we

389
00:28:21,520 --> 00:28:22,520
 got 30 days.

390
00:28:22,520 --> 00:28:23,520
 This shot clock starts.

391
00:28:23,520 --> 00:28:27,480
 In other words, I just trust the process, and I think as people understand that these

392
00:28:27,480 --> 00:28:33,500
 are the consequences of our decision, well, then we'll get it resolved.

393
00:28:33,500 --> 00:28:38,240
 So maybe I just don't understand the nature of the problem that we're trying to resolve

394
00:28:38,240 --> 00:28:45,440
 other than I guess to me, if you deny it, if it's 3-2 and it's a denial, then what they

395
00:28:45,440 --> 00:28:49,960
 do, they come back, set it again, and you're saying if you never get four people to vote

396
00:28:49,960 --> 00:28:52,480
 for it, is that what you're saying?

397
00:28:52,480 --> 00:28:55,440
 Is that what somebody's saying?

398
00:28:55,440 --> 00:28:59,920
 >> We're saying that if there is a denial, there should be some reason associated with

399
00:28:59,920 --> 00:29:05,260
 it, and that's obviously that's important to have, but you're right, Mayor, if they

400
00:29:05,260 --> 00:29:12,920
 do not get a four vote and 30 days passes, it's a denial, meaning that their project

401
00:29:12,920 --> 00:29:16,480
 has to be resubmitted, and they can resubmit.

402
00:29:16,480 --> 00:29:22,160
 But again, what happens if it comes back and again, it's a 3-2 vote from that point on.

403
00:29:22,160 --> 00:29:28,520
 So it's just really to settle it as soon as we can and we can find a remedy, then that's

404
00:29:28,520 --> 00:29:29,520
 what we're trying to do.

405
00:29:29,520 --> 00:29:30,520
 >> Okay, all right.

406
00:29:30,520 --> 00:29:31,520
 Sorry to take so much time.

407
00:29:31,520 --> 00:29:35,440
 >> Sorry, just for clarification, resubmittals are 15 days under 3160, so the resubmittal

408
00:29:35,440 --> 00:29:44,560
 need to come back before PNC in 15, not 30, just wanted to clarify.

409
00:29:44,560 --> 00:29:48,560
 >> Commissioner Smith, I think you had your hand up.

410
00:29:48,560 --> 00:29:49,560
 >> I did.

411
00:29:49,560 --> 00:29:52,520
 I just had a couple of points, thank you, Chair.

412
00:29:52,520 --> 00:29:54,400
 To Mayor Watt's point, I'd agree.

413
00:29:54,400 --> 00:29:58,880
 I think that that's been the biggest issue with us on the commission standpoint, is that

414
00:29:58,880 --> 00:30:03,120
 we see there needs to be a remedy for it, but the fact that there needs to be a cause

415
00:30:03,120 --> 00:30:06,920
 for the denial in the first place, the one thing I would just give you guys information

416
00:30:06,920 --> 00:30:12,640
 since you guys on council do not see these, and Andrew Margie and I have seen this firsthand,

417
00:30:12,640 --> 00:30:19,800
 is now there is, whenever there are votes against a preliminary plot or a final plot,

418
00:30:19,800 --> 00:30:21,560
 people do reference code.

419
00:30:21,560 --> 00:30:27,340
 It's not in detail and it's not necessarily in a way that is supporting.

420
00:30:27,340 --> 00:30:32,960
 So that would be an issue as well I'd raise on this, Ron, you know, and to what Mayor

421
00:30:32,960 --> 00:30:37,760
 Watt is saying, yes, it is a ministerial process, if there is a denial, there really needs to

422
00:30:37,760 --> 00:30:43,800
 be more than anything else, not a rule about how to handle three, two votes, but more of

423
00:30:43,800 --> 00:30:48,380
 what's the rule, regulation, check, and balance for the reason and the cause for the denial

424
00:30:48,380 --> 00:30:53,080
 to make sure that it is truly legal because my understanding of the House bill is that

425
00:30:53,080 --> 00:30:56,280
 unless you have cause, that's truly rooted in code rather than just saying, well, I don't

426
00:30:56,280 --> 00:31:01,320
 agree with it because of code, four point whatever it is, and there's not definite rule

427
00:31:01,320 --> 00:31:05,800
 that legal has looked at and approved saying, yes, you're right, this is an error here,

428
00:31:05,800 --> 00:31:12,140
 but even then, that's kind of a catch 22 because if it doesn't meet the code, then city staff

429
00:31:12,140 --> 00:31:17,920
 should be recommending it for approval in the first place, so it kind of makes us redundant.

430
00:31:17,920 --> 00:31:21,860
 The other point to bring up that really probably just adds more depth to this than we need

431
00:31:21,860 --> 00:31:26,580
 to because we're kind of at a surface level now with this, but tie votes can still occur

432
00:31:26,580 --> 00:31:34,740
 on that, so if you do have a four-person quorum, a two-two tie vote could happen, and to reference

433
00:31:34,740 --> 00:31:42,140
 what Aaron said earlier, tie votes are currently right now only applying it to zoning cases

434
00:31:42,140 --> 00:31:49,120
 and not non-zoning cases, so if we were to continue and not take Mayor Watts' conversation

435
00:31:49,120 --> 00:31:54,000
 deeper into is a rule really needed, more about this is a ministerial action than anything

436
00:31:54,000 --> 00:31:59,900
 else, this rule would probably also need to address tie votes within that to address that

437
00:31:59,900 --> 00:32:06,100
 tie vote shouldn't be necessarily denial within that as well, so just a point to bring up.

438
00:32:06,100 --> 00:32:11,160
 Okay, all right, Commissioner Rosent.

439
00:32:11,160 --> 00:32:13,600
 Thank you, Chair.

440
00:32:13,600 --> 00:32:19,640
 Just to add my viewpoint real quick, I agree with Margie 100%.

441
00:32:19,640 --> 00:32:24,880
 If the issue at hand is due to shot clock reasons, then the solution should be also

442
00:32:24,880 --> 00:32:27,440
 tied to shot clock reasons explicitly.

443
00:32:27,440 --> 00:32:33,160
 I don't think this is an opportunity to cover a blanket non-zoning issues.

444
00:32:33,160 --> 00:32:37,620
 If the solution is an amendment to the code, then it needs to be very specific to address

445
00:32:37,620 --> 00:32:42,500
 the problem that has been kind of brought to our attention first.

446
00:32:42,500 --> 00:32:47,840
 More broadly, I agree with the Mayor, and to Mayor Watts' point, he's not over-complicating

447
00:32:47,840 --> 00:32:52,760
 it, although his explanation might sound too logical, it's spot on.

448
00:32:52,760 --> 00:32:58,480
 The process works, I think, in my opinion as the Chair of P&Z, if we actually had some

449
00:32:58,480 --> 00:33:04,600
 teeth behind Commissioner's citing rule to create a new condition or where they've missed

450
00:33:04,600 --> 00:33:06,600
 it, I think that solves the problem.

451
00:33:06,600 --> 00:33:11,960
 Right now, there's been two commissioners that I know of who have said, "I deny this,"

452
00:33:11,960 --> 00:33:17,040
 and then they reference a section, but there's not any sort of verification that that section

453
00:33:17,040 --> 00:33:21,720
 being referenced is, in fact, in violation of the plat being put forth, and so if there's

454
00:33:21,720 --> 00:33:23,400
 actually just...

455
00:33:23,400 --> 00:33:29,240
 If a commissioner came to the dais and said, "This doesn't meet this section, it's verifiable,"

456
00:33:29,240 --> 00:33:33,480
 then all of the commissioners should be aligned in that vote, and right now, that's just not

457
00:33:33,480 --> 00:33:34,480
 the case.

458
00:33:34,480 --> 00:33:39,280
 They say, "I deny it, it's due to this section," and then they feel protected or justified

459
00:33:39,280 --> 00:33:40,400
 in the denial.

460
00:33:40,400 --> 00:33:44,380
 If you shore up that portion, again, it goes back to Ron's point of education about why

461
00:33:44,380 --> 00:33:49,160
 you can deny this, then this resolves itself, and we won't have three, two votes.

462
00:33:49,160 --> 00:33:58,360
 We'd have four, zero, five, zero votes if that denial reason was actually validated,

463
00:33:58,360 --> 00:34:03,160
 so those are my two cents on it.

464
00:34:03,160 --> 00:34:04,600
 - Councilmember Perks.

465
00:34:04,600 --> 00:34:06,440
 - Thank you.

466
00:34:06,440 --> 00:34:12,800
 Yeah, so I agree with a lot of what's been said here, but listening to the conversation

467
00:34:12,800 --> 00:34:17,520
 it feels kind of like deja vu, because I really think council had this conversation when we

468
00:34:17,520 --> 00:34:23,160
 were talking about the votes and conditions.

469
00:34:23,160 --> 00:34:28,520
 Councilman Ryan, you may remember not too long ago, we were talking about specifically

470
00:34:28,520 --> 00:34:36,040
 adding these conditions onto it to a denial and to make sure that it was done legally,

471
00:34:36,040 --> 00:34:42,780
 and we did not want to change this or change the procedure because of the unintended consequences

472
00:34:42,780 --> 00:34:45,320
 that could likely happen.

473
00:34:45,320 --> 00:34:55,280
 So I just wanted to comment that I'm in agreement here on not changing this broadly, and feel

474
00:34:55,280 --> 00:35:03,880
 like as long as those conditions are required legally, that it should be covered.

475
00:35:03,880 --> 00:35:08,320
 - Anyone else?

476
00:35:08,320 --> 00:35:13,520
 - I'll just say I agree with most everything that's been said on the subject.

477
00:35:13,520 --> 00:35:17,720
 I don't think changing the voting aspect of it is the better way to go.

478
00:35:17,720 --> 00:35:23,440
 I think it's more of if legally we can require that the commissioner who is voting against

479
00:35:23,440 --> 00:35:30,560
 it must state where in the code they're referencing that it's not following the code properly.

480
00:35:30,560 --> 00:35:35,640
 It's a better way to go around to handle this.

481
00:35:35,640 --> 00:35:40,480
 I think the biggest concern again with the 3-1 vote is if you've only got four commissioners

482
00:35:40,480 --> 00:35:42,600
 there, you don't have that.

483
00:35:42,600 --> 00:35:46,680
 You've got one outlier.

484
00:35:46,680 --> 00:35:47,880
 That's where you can run into problems.

485
00:35:47,880 --> 00:35:53,040
 I definitely don't want to put it the way that it's referenced up on the screen or you

486
00:35:53,040 --> 00:35:55,320
 had it on the screen.

487
00:35:55,320 --> 00:36:02,400
 If we did do a change and make three votes passing or a majority passing, it would need

488
00:36:02,400 --> 00:36:06,120
 to be just for subdivision issues.

489
00:36:06,120 --> 00:36:14,800
 - Margie, I think you had your hand up while I was talking, so I'm calling you first, Commissioner

490
00:36:14,800 --> 00:36:15,800
 Ellis.

491
00:36:15,800 --> 00:36:16,800
 - Okay, I appreciate it.

492
00:36:16,800 --> 00:36:17,800
 Thank you.

493
00:36:17,800 --> 00:36:23,000
 Yeah, so I was chairing the meeting where this all came up and it was a 3-2 vote on

494
00:36:23,000 --> 00:36:24,560
 a plaque.

495
00:36:24,560 --> 00:36:30,800
 And I think what we have to figure out here is, is there a way procedurally we can tell

496
00:36:30,800 --> 00:36:36,560
 the Planning and Zoning Commission that you are voting for a preliminary plat or a final

497
00:36:36,560 --> 00:36:41,920
 plat if staff says it meets all the conditions, that you cannot deny it?

498
00:36:41,920 --> 00:36:47,200
 Or if we're saying that you can deny it and cite something, then we're going to have to

499
00:36:47,200 --> 00:36:53,420
 fix what happened that evening, which was a 3-2 vote that ended up in a denial.

500
00:36:53,420 --> 00:36:56,080
 So it's got to be one of the two things.

501
00:36:56,080 --> 00:36:59,760
 This blanket measure is an overcorrection of something that does not need to happen in

502
00:36:59,760 --> 00:37:02,440
 my opinion.

503
00:37:02,440 --> 00:37:08,680
 So if we can't fix the procedure legally by telling the commissioner they can't do this,

504
00:37:08,680 --> 00:37:13,920
 or if they feel so strongly about it, is there a way we can say procedurally, you have to

505
00:37:13,920 --> 00:37:18,560
 talk to staff about your concerns first to see if you have merit behind what you're trying

506
00:37:18,560 --> 00:37:25,200
 to cite, not just because you don't think you want it to go there or whatever their

507
00:37:25,200 --> 00:37:26,720
 reasoning is.

508
00:37:26,720 --> 00:37:32,040
 But if we can't fix it procedurally and we have to fix it this way, then it's got to

509
00:37:32,040 --> 00:37:36,040
 just be tied to the shot clock thing, period.

510
00:37:36,040 --> 00:37:37,040
 >> Understood.

511
00:37:37,040 --> 00:37:38,040
 >> Okay.

512
00:37:38,040 --> 00:37:42,120
 >> Council Member Brinks?

513
00:37:42,120 --> 00:37:46,840
 >> I'm just curious why there was five members that night anyway.

514
00:37:46,840 --> 00:37:49,960
 Was it recusals or was it just absences?

515
00:37:49,960 --> 00:37:54,440
 Or -- >> It was just absences.

516
00:37:54,440 --> 00:37:58,080
 >> Yeah, I don't recall, but I think maybe they were just not present.

517
00:37:58,080 --> 00:38:00,680
 >> Yeah, we had two absences.

518
00:38:00,680 --> 00:38:01,680
 >> I was absent.

519
00:38:01,680 --> 00:38:02,680
 >> Okay.

520
00:38:02,680 --> 00:38:03,680
 Thank you.

521
00:38:03,680 --> 00:38:04,680
 >> Okay.

522
00:38:04,680 --> 00:38:05,680
 Mayor Watz?

523
00:38:05,680 --> 00:38:16,520
 >> So, Aaron, and I guess this really comes down to a very basic question.

524
00:38:16,520 --> 00:38:23,920
 If whether it's P&Z or City Council or whoever, there's a member of a body that does something

525
00:38:23,920 --> 00:38:29,720
 -- what is it called in the corporate world, ultra virus, is that it, where you step outside

526
00:38:29,720 --> 00:38:34,320
 your authority to do something.

527
00:38:34,320 --> 00:38:38,880
 Is there a remedy at law during the actual meeting?

528
00:38:38,880 --> 00:38:46,960
 Let's say in Commissioner Ellis' example, it's like, well, you can't do that, and therefore,

529
00:38:46,960 --> 00:38:47,960
 that means what?

530
00:38:47,960 --> 00:38:53,720
 I mean, is there a way -- or do you take a vote and you have to deal with it on the back

531
00:38:53,720 --> 00:38:55,840
 end?

532
00:38:55,840 --> 00:38:59,120
 Because it seems like what we're trying to -- I'm just going to be honest.

533
00:38:59,120 --> 00:39:03,440
 It seems like what we're trying to do is craft a rule to try to deal with people who might

534
00:39:03,440 --> 00:39:06,080
 not be following the rules.

535
00:39:06,080 --> 00:39:12,600
 And that -- is there a -- what is the remedy at law to say -- I mean, does that mean they'd

536
00:39:12,600 --> 00:39:13,640
 have to sue us?

537
00:39:13,640 --> 00:39:20,400
 Does it mean that, you know, somehow we can deem it approved?

538
00:39:20,400 --> 00:39:24,600
 Maybe that's what we're trying to do here is say, okay, no, if somebody does something

539
00:39:24,600 --> 00:39:30,440
 ultra virus and you can't really make this condition because you can't, you know, anchor

540
00:39:30,440 --> 00:39:38,080
 it to some policy or procedure in our code that's legitimate, then it's approved.

541
00:39:38,080 --> 00:39:44,380
 So when you're in a meeting and this is happening, what, if any, are the remedies that can be

542
00:39:44,380 --> 00:39:53,200
 taken at the dais or during the meeting that would be valid and enforceable to say, well,

543
00:39:53,200 --> 00:39:58,800
 I mean, when somebody's just doing something they've been told they can't do, why should

544
00:39:58,800 --> 00:40:00,760
 the applicant suffer?

545
00:40:00,760 --> 00:40:06,180
 And if we're trying to craft a rule to avoid that happening, there's got to be a different

546
00:40:06,180 --> 00:40:10,080
 way because then what we're just saying is we're trying to craft a rule to get somebody

547
00:40:10,080 --> 00:40:12,120
 because somebody doesn't follow the rule.

548
00:40:12,120 --> 00:40:14,680
 So does that make sense, what I'm trying to ask?

549
00:40:14,680 --> 00:40:15,680
 It does.

550
00:40:15,680 --> 00:40:17,120
 And there's various ways to address that.

551
00:40:17,120 --> 00:40:22,240
 I think that the suggestion that commissioner Ellis has suggested is a very good one.

552
00:40:22,240 --> 00:40:26,760
 You know, that when the commissioners get their agenda, that they should identify any

553
00:40:26,760 --> 00:40:32,880
 items that they feel that they don't agree with staff's recommendation and identify those

554
00:40:32,880 --> 00:40:37,640
 early and possibly do that in a work session at the beginning to address those topics.

555
00:40:37,640 --> 00:40:43,800
 So hoping to avoid the vote later on in the meeting, if failure to do that, then when

556
00:40:43,800 --> 00:40:51,440
 the motion is made and seconded during the discussion, that information should probably

557
00:40:51,440 --> 00:40:59,240
 also be elicited so that the commissioners can internally debate what one or two may

558
00:40:59,240 --> 00:41:02,880
 want and the other three don't.

559
00:41:02,880 --> 00:41:04,200
 That's another way to do it.

560
00:41:04,200 --> 00:41:08,360
 We don't want to get into a situation where without doing those things, because if it

561
00:41:08,360 --> 00:41:14,200
 does come three to two and it fails and it ends up in a denial court of a rules procedure,

562
00:41:14,200 --> 00:41:23,740
 then the developers, their remedy is to resubmit that again if they want or to sue the city

563
00:41:23,740 --> 00:41:26,640
 and to force us to follow the law.

564
00:41:26,640 --> 00:41:32,060
 And so when you get to that point, it's too late.

565
00:41:32,060 --> 00:41:37,560
 So there's different ways that that can be addressed internally with PNZ and staff working

566
00:41:37,560 --> 00:41:43,080
 together or the developer going on their own initiative after the vote.

567
00:41:43,080 --> 00:41:47,360
 Yeah, because what I'm hearing you say, you're trying to address the three to two issue that

568
00:41:47,360 --> 00:41:54,560
 came up in practice, but it didn't really even matter about the numbers.

569
00:41:54,560 --> 00:42:04,240
 Because if you had three people that were making a condition that is not valid, and

570
00:42:04,240 --> 00:42:09,840
 you got five members and it gets voted down two to three, it's still valid.

571
00:42:09,840 --> 00:42:17,320
 I mean, it still should not have been denied because the conditions were not ruled upon

572
00:42:17,320 --> 00:42:21,080
 by legal to be legitimate conditions.

573
00:42:21,080 --> 00:42:24,200
 So it really doesn't matter what the numbers are.

574
00:42:24,200 --> 00:42:29,360
 The key is what happens when you've got members who are doing things that they have been told

575
00:42:29,360 --> 00:42:33,000
 legally they are not able to do.

576
00:42:33,000 --> 00:42:36,820
 And what I'm hearing you say is during the meeting, there is no remedy.

577
00:42:36,820 --> 00:42:40,800
 You can't say, we're not going to take your vote or we're going to ascribe a vote to you

578
00:42:40,800 --> 00:42:43,040
 that you don't make.

579
00:42:43,040 --> 00:42:46,000
 You can't create something else.

580
00:42:46,000 --> 00:42:51,600
 I mean, yeah, that's, man, that's, that's not a good situation.

581
00:42:51,600 --> 00:42:56,120
 There's always, if this does continue to be a problem, remember you as the council can

582
00:42:56,120 --> 00:42:59,600
 remove and reappoint commissioners if this.

583
00:42:59,600 --> 00:43:00,600
 And you know something?

584
00:43:00,600 --> 00:43:05,560
 I think that right there, I think that is one of the things that we need to look at

585
00:43:05,560 --> 00:43:07,800
 as a remedy to begin with that.

586
00:43:07,800 --> 00:43:13,600
 I mean, if we were to, I would rather codify that if you've been told that you, that this

587
00:43:13,600 --> 00:43:18,640
 condition is not valid and you still vote for it and it causes somebody to resubmit that,

588
00:43:18,640 --> 00:43:23,840
 that we change our code to make that that is immediate cause for removal.

589
00:43:23,840 --> 00:43:30,880
 If you've been told with an illegal opinion that you can't do this because in the end,

590
00:43:30,880 --> 00:43:35,480
 we have to have people who are serving on our boards and commissions that follow the

591
00:43:35,480 --> 00:43:37,120
 rule of law.

592
00:43:37,120 --> 00:43:41,140
 And if they're not following the rule of law, we shouldn't be creating a bunch of kind of

593
00:43:41,140 --> 00:43:46,720
 other processes in order to try to mitigate that.

594
00:43:46,720 --> 00:43:52,240
 So this conversation has probably gone a lot longer than what we had all anticipated, but

595
00:43:52,240 --> 00:43:54,200
 I think it's a very good conversation.

596
00:43:54,200 --> 00:43:59,840
 I really appreciate everybody's input because it's just, this is a very fundamental issue

597
00:43:59,840 --> 00:44:05,180
 that we need to figure out.

598
00:44:05,180 --> 00:44:06,180
 Commissioner Smith.

599
00:44:06,180 --> 00:44:07,180
 Thank you, Chair.

600
00:44:07,180 --> 00:44:12,480
 Hey, Ron, can you remind me real quick the in regards to this and the shock lock rule,

601
00:44:12,480 --> 00:44:18,840
 I know that we Robin went over this a minute ago, but the 30 day extension, like if, like,

602
00:44:18,840 --> 00:44:22,640
 you know, whenever we see, we do see plastic come up, haven't met all the requirements

603
00:44:22,640 --> 00:44:27,120
 yet, which we asked, we asked for an extension be sent in front of us just to see if this

604
00:44:27,120 --> 00:44:28,960
 could maybe be a solution to it.

605
00:44:28,960 --> 00:44:38,040
 But if a three, two or a less than four affirmative is treated as then an immediate motion to,

606
00:44:38,040 --> 00:44:42,720
 to approve an extension for 30 days to maybe then remedy it with a full commission at that

607
00:44:42,720 --> 00:44:43,720
 time.

608
00:44:43,720 --> 00:44:49,440
 And then I guess I remember the slightly within the rule that only one extension can be can

609
00:44:49,440 --> 00:44:50,720
 be approved.

610
00:44:50,720 --> 00:44:55,880
 And there is no withering within the law to where we could add in there in this, in this

611
00:44:55,880 --> 00:44:58,680
 code that a second extension could be given.

612
00:44:58,680 --> 00:44:59,680
 Is that is that correct?

613
00:44:59,680 --> 00:45:01,420
 Am I understand that correctly?

614
00:45:01,420 --> 00:45:05,160
 You are muted by the way, Ron.

615
00:45:05,160 --> 00:45:06,160
 Thank you for that.

616
00:45:06,160 --> 00:45:08,000
 You're correct.

617
00:45:08,000 --> 00:45:13,520
 The third extension, if they haven't already applied or receive one, they can certainly

618
00:45:13,520 --> 00:45:18,680
 do that now that has to be done, obviously in advance or prior to that vote being in

619
00:45:18,680 --> 00:45:19,680
 play.

620
00:45:19,680 --> 00:45:22,080
 That's, that's one factor.

621
00:45:22,080 --> 00:45:26,560
 But again, the other one is if they already have a 30 day extension, and they wanted to

622
00:45:26,560 --> 00:45:31,640
 extend it, they would not be able to and us and that decision would be final at that point,

623
00:45:31,640 --> 00:45:34,200
 whatever that whatever is decided.

624
00:45:34,200 --> 00:45:38,880
 So the way I understood the law was that the that the applicant can request an extension.

625
00:45:38,880 --> 00:45:42,600
 Is there anything that the city can do within their guards of what we can't even we can't

626
00:45:42,600 --> 00:45:43,600
 grant an extension?

627
00:45:43,600 --> 00:45:44,600
 Correct.

628
00:45:44,600 --> 00:45:45,800
 It has to come from the applicant.

629
00:45:45,800 --> 00:45:46,800
 Okay.

630
00:45:46,800 --> 00:45:47,800
 All right.

631
00:45:47,800 --> 00:45:48,800
 Okay.

632
00:45:48,800 --> 00:45:54,920
 And there's nothing we can do I know like a resubmission correct Richard was 15 days

633
00:45:54,920 --> 00:45:57,800
 there's nothing that can be done to change it to where it can be a resubmission.

634
00:45:57,800 --> 00:46:01,880
 And I'll just say this because I think what Mayor Watts said very, very in there is his

635
00:46:01,880 --> 00:46:10,840
 conversation is 100% truthful that that the job of the commission is to abide by the DDC.

636
00:46:10,840 --> 00:46:14,880
 That's what the planning and zoning job is, is to make sure the DDC is being upheld at

637
00:46:14,880 --> 00:46:20,200
 the end of the day, and that the voted body of the council and the and the mayor are the

638
00:46:20,200 --> 00:46:25,920
 ones to interpret what the citizens say, and how that should be be what should be best

639
00:46:25,920 --> 00:46:30,000
 done for the city in regards to its citizens, planning and zoning should take that into

640
00:46:30,000 --> 00:46:34,360
 account, but our job is to make sure the code is being upheld as it's written, and then

641
00:46:34,360 --> 00:46:38,120
 to make changes and where we can see fit.

642
00:46:38,120 --> 00:46:43,480
 But with the resubmission piece, Richard, that we couldn't have that in there where

643
00:46:43,480 --> 00:46:48,400
 a three one or three two could end up forcing a resubmission to buy another 15 days for

644
00:46:48,400 --> 00:46:52,720
 to come back in front of a board where it could be seen again.

645
00:46:52,720 --> 00:46:56,040
 I think in those instances, I mean, that's how we treated the last one.

646
00:46:56,040 --> 00:46:59,640
 We didn't treat it as a denied application, you're going to have to resubmit and go through

647
00:46:59,640 --> 00:47:02,920
 the whole plat review at that point, I don't know, I mean, there's, what else would we

648
00:47:02,920 --> 00:47:06,240
 review for if we were had already reviewed it.

649
00:47:06,240 --> 00:47:10,940
 And so unless that just becomes an administrative policy that in those instances where there

650
00:47:10,940 --> 00:47:13,640
 might be a, hopefully, we don't have it again.

651
00:47:13,640 --> 00:47:19,640
 But if we do, it's treated as as a resubmittal, and then it's put on the on the agenda within

652
00:47:19,640 --> 00:47:23,440
 within at the very next meeting, essentially, and then that's that's how we treated the

653
00:47:23,440 --> 00:47:24,440
 last one.

654
00:47:24,440 --> 00:47:28,160
 Are those resubmittals infinite, hopeful, and this is we're talking about a very small

655
00:47:28,160 --> 00:47:31,480
 percentage that we're talking about here, where we're having to worry about, which might

656
00:47:31,480 --> 00:47:35,880
 be way too long a conversation for a very small portion of the applications that come

657
00:47:35,880 --> 00:47:43,520
 in front of us, but could it could foreseeably, or could there be possibly a infinite resubmittal

658
00:47:43,520 --> 00:47:49,600
 process where it is 15 days, another three to vote 15 days out of three to vote.

659
00:47:49,600 --> 00:47:50,600
 Could that happen?

660
00:47:50,600 --> 00:47:54,660
 Is there anything in the law that that that keeps it keeps that from happening?

661
00:47:54,660 --> 00:47:59,280
 That was essentially our initial concern with with what we were proposing.

662
00:47:59,280 --> 00:48:01,360
 Hopefully it never happens.

663
00:48:01,360 --> 00:48:04,040
 But I've seen a lot of strange things happen.

664
00:48:04,040 --> 00:48:05,040
 So.

665
00:48:05,040 --> 00:48:11,360
 Well, I mean, I think a combination of what what Mayor Watts said then of a removal of

666
00:48:11,360 --> 00:48:16,200
 commissioner who is not abiding by the law and then on one side of it and the other side

667
00:48:16,200 --> 00:48:20,080
 of if there hasn't been an extension, it's already been granted that a less than four

668
00:48:20,080 --> 00:48:23,760
 affirmative would then give a would give an extension and then if the extension has already

669
00:48:23,760 --> 00:48:28,760
 been granted, then a less than four affirmative again would be given a resubmission and that

670
00:48:28,760 --> 00:48:33,280
 resubmission process would be continued until the other side of this rule that was created

671
00:48:33,280 --> 00:48:36,920
 where that commissioner is replaced by the council person appointed them because they're

672
00:48:36,920 --> 00:48:40,120
 no longer following the law of the development code.

673
00:48:40,120 --> 00:48:42,000
 That that might be a thought there.

674
00:48:42,000 --> 00:48:43,000
 So thanks.

675
00:48:43,000 --> 00:48:52,200
 Let me try and figure something out here on the if we're approving with conditions, it's

676
00:48:52,200 --> 00:48:58,160
 basically just parts of the code that they missed putting in their plans when they submitted

677
00:48:58,160 --> 00:48:59,160
 to us.

678
00:48:59,160 --> 00:49:00,720
 Is that correct?

679
00:49:00,720 --> 00:49:05,840
 Yes, anything that, you know, as mentioned earlier, if it was identified by a planning

680
00:49:05,840 --> 00:49:10,120
 zoning commissioner, we can certainly add that condition and or if it's a condition

681
00:49:10,120 --> 00:49:15,520
 that staff is recommending and maybe something minor that can be addressed, that's something

682
00:49:15,520 --> 00:49:18,480
 that we would also make a condition upon.

683
00:49:18,480 --> 00:49:24,000
 But if it's a major item, certainly that's got to be a recommendation for denial.

684
00:49:24,000 --> 00:49:29,200
 Okay, is that I'm just wondering if to make things a little bit easier all the way around

685
00:49:29,200 --> 00:49:34,200
 that if there is rather than even putting conditions on it, I believe staff has some

686
00:49:34,200 --> 00:49:38,320
 power to do a kind of a pre denial.

687
00:49:38,320 --> 00:49:43,440
 I mean, it's making sure that everything is is complete, that we just send it back to

688
00:49:43,440 --> 00:49:49,400
 the developer to correct it prior to going on to P&Z so that there everything will either

689
00:49:49,400 --> 00:49:54,560
 come in as a denial because they refuse to put it in there or, you know, all conditions

690
00:49:54,560 --> 00:49:56,560
 have already been met.

691
00:49:56,560 --> 00:50:03,720
 Richard, if I may just add a little bit, it's been our practice internally that we don't

692
00:50:03,720 --> 00:50:07,700
 bring any plats with conditional approvals.

693
00:50:07,700 --> 00:50:11,280
 Part of it is just the vast number of plats that we're seeing, keeping track of all of

694
00:50:11,280 --> 00:50:12,960
 those conditions.

695
00:50:12,960 --> 00:50:15,460
 We just don't want to put that onerous on staff.

696
00:50:15,460 --> 00:50:21,640
 And so just trying to hold everyone to a higher standard of when you submit, you should submit

697
00:50:21,640 --> 00:50:25,680
 and think that you're going you should be submitting to meet the code.

698
00:50:25,680 --> 00:50:32,240
 But what we do, still being flexible is we do allow folks to make those changes up until

699
00:50:32,240 --> 00:50:33,300
 the meeting.

700
00:50:33,300 --> 00:50:38,660
 So there's instances where we are recommending denial and it might be something minor.

701
00:50:38,660 --> 00:50:43,760
 I can think of one where there was a plug gas well and we were waiting for the closeout

702
00:50:43,760 --> 00:50:46,480
 report from the Railroad Commission.

703
00:50:46,480 --> 00:50:50,060
 We did not want to do a conditional approval on that.

704
00:50:50,060 --> 00:50:55,060
 It was a we were still recommending denial because technically they weren't meeting the

705
00:50:55,060 --> 00:50:58,920
 code until that report was was final.

706
00:50:58,920 --> 00:51:03,800
 But we've had had instances where they where there's been other minor items and they have

707
00:51:03,800 --> 00:51:10,160
 made those changes and there's times where on Monday or Tuesday, sometimes it's Wednesday

708
00:51:10,160 --> 00:51:16,120
 morning of the meeting, we we provide PNZ with an update of that plat and then how they

709
00:51:16,120 --> 00:51:18,120
 met those met those conditions.

710
00:51:18,120 --> 00:51:25,080
 But it's really been our practice to not not bring forward those plats with with conditions.

711
00:51:25,080 --> 00:51:36,300
 Commissioner Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just to clarify, I mean, when PNZ gets a preliminary

712
00:51:36,300 --> 00:51:40,520
 plat or a final plat, you know, staff has already vetted it.

713
00:51:40,520 --> 00:51:43,560
 By the time we get it, it's in consent.

714
00:51:43,560 --> 00:51:50,060
 It's you know, so again, the issue that I guess is not being addressed is when someone

715
00:51:50,060 --> 00:51:56,820
 on the commission wants to go be you know, beyond what staff has is recommending with

716
00:51:56,820 --> 00:52:02,040
 regard to a plat or a final plat and that's the issue at hand and that's what that's what

717
00:52:02,040 --> 00:52:05,040
 has to stop.

718
00:52:05,040 --> 00:52:16,280
 So if it can be so then, John, if I may, then why why can't we not put in our rules of procedure

719
00:52:16,280 --> 00:52:22,260
 that you that final plats can only appear on consent agenda that I mean, if the issue

720
00:52:22,260 --> 00:52:26,400
 becomes they're getting pulled and that they can be voted on separately and we run into

721
00:52:26,400 --> 00:52:32,360
 this issue, then I just don't think that I mean, I think that they should just stay on

722
00:52:32,360 --> 00:52:36,400
 consent and if there's an issue that's presented, then you know, you can figure out how to do

723
00:52:36,400 --> 00:52:41,800
 it. But I mean, this is this is crazy. I mean, I'll be honest with you, this conversation

724
00:52:41,800 --> 00:52:46,720
 is I mean, we've been talking about this for an hour. And that's not a criticism. It's

725
00:52:46,720 --> 00:52:55,560
 just an observation that we're trying to create this whole kind of process because someone

726
00:52:55,560 --> 00:53:00,680
 wants to do something that's outside the rules. I don't know why we couldn't just say look

727
00:53:00,680 --> 00:53:05,960
 unless you can provide a justification of a code condition that is verifiable by the

728
00:53:05,960 --> 00:53:12,960
 legal department in real time, that those plats are automatically approved. I mean,

729
00:53:12,960 --> 00:53:17,040
 is there is there some kind of rule that you can just say, No, I mean, I mean, if we make

730
00:53:17,040 --> 00:53:21,620
 the rules, I don't know what the state law is. But if something gets pulled, and it's

731
00:53:21,620 --> 00:53:26,360
 not verifiable that it's a valid condition, it gets put back on the consent agenda and

732
00:53:26,360 --> 00:53:33,000
 it gets voted on. I would think we'd be able to make a rule like that that I mean, next

733
00:53:33,000 --> 00:53:38,120
 legal department would have to verify that and attest to it. And I mean, seriously, I

734
00:53:38,120 --> 00:53:44,840
 mean, there'd have to be something that that we got to have some kind of definitive statement

735
00:53:44,840 --> 00:53:51,600
 from an authority who's charged with making those definitive statements. And if it can't

736
00:53:51,600 --> 00:53:57,500
 be proved up, it just goes back on the consent agenda. I mean, can we make a rule like that?

737
00:53:57,500 --> 00:54:02,540
 You would have to amend your consent agenda rule that you have in your rules procedure

738
00:54:02,540 --> 00:54:07,120
 right now. That allows Council and all the courts and commissions to pull any item off

739
00:54:07,120 --> 00:54:12,480
 consent onto a individual consideration. It's easy to carve that out. Yeah, it's easy to

740
00:54:12,480 --> 00:54:17,360
 carve that out. I mean, just for PNZ for these type of shot clock issues where we put callers

741
00:54:17,360 --> 00:54:24,480
 around it, we put a fence around it. And because, man, that'll shut it down real quick. If

742
00:54:24,480 --> 00:54:28,420
 the legal department says no, that's not valid, it's going back on consent, then it goes on

743
00:54:28,420 --> 00:54:33,000
 consent and it gets voted on. And if the person who's wanting to deny it wants to vote against

744
00:54:33,000 --> 00:54:39,600
 the entire consent agenda, so be it. That's their issue. I mean, that's just my thought.

745
00:54:39,600 --> 00:54:46,440
 But I mean, anyway, sorry. And I'm part of the one who's extending this time. So I will

746
00:54:46,440 --> 00:54:51,720
 be accountable for that and own that. So I'm not referring to anybody but myself, actually.

747
00:54:51,720 --> 00:55:03,720
 So forgive me. Councilmember Briggs. So after hearing, so why does this even come to PNZ

748
00:55:03,720 --> 00:55:09,060
 for a vote? Like if PNZ is not allowed to discuss it, they're not allowed to disagree

749
00:55:09,060 --> 00:55:14,660
 with staff. They're not allowed to talk about it or make a recommendation or wish that something

750
00:55:14,660 --> 00:55:20,640
 was different. We're discussing all of these things. We're talking about removing planning

751
00:55:20,640 --> 00:55:27,200
 and zoning commissioners from their chair if they, you know, bring up a certain condition

752
00:55:27,200 --> 00:55:35,060
 that I don't know, I'm just trying to figure out why does that even have to come to planning

753
00:55:35,060 --> 00:55:44,660
 and zoning for this process if it's not actually a process, if it's just a stamp, you're done.

754
00:55:44,660 --> 00:55:49,320
 Quick answer there, and it might be incorrect here, but it's per state law that all subdivision

755
00:55:49,320 --> 00:55:54,040
 applications have to be approved by the governing body and that being the planning and zoning

756
00:55:54,040 --> 00:56:00,740
 commission. But it also says that they have to be approved no matter what, basically.

757
00:56:00,740 --> 00:56:12,160
 In addition to that, yes. To some respect. So why not?

758
00:56:12,160 --> 00:56:17,760
 Could we put in there that in order to pull any subdivision item off of consent agenda

759
00:56:17,760 --> 00:56:24,800
 that the commissioner must cite the code that it's in violation of before polling. So if

760
00:56:24,800 --> 00:56:31,600
 there was an actual problem with something that didn't get caught in the last minute,

761
00:56:31,600 --> 00:56:36,800
 that you still had that option that it didn't take out the whole consent agenda just because

762
00:56:36,800 --> 00:56:45,240
 of one item that was there. Chair, if I can, I know that we have another

763
00:56:45,240 --> 00:56:49,760
 code amendment that we're going to be talking about that actually speaks to that about providing

764
00:56:49,760 --> 00:56:57,800
 citation that's related to a subdivision requirement pertaining to that particular plat.

765
00:56:57,800 --> 00:57:04,320
 So we have something proposed. And I don't know if the planning, zoning commissioner,

766
00:57:04,320 --> 00:57:08,840
 whoever it may be, if they were to pull it off the agenda or if it was already off the

767
00:57:08,840 --> 00:57:15,760
 consent agenda or if it was already on the consent and they decide to vote against it,

768
00:57:15,760 --> 00:57:22,360
 it's still going to be something that we need to verify real-time during the meeting so

769
00:57:22,360 --> 00:57:28,200
 that we can confirm that that citation is valid. So I think that's where the challenge

770
00:57:28,200 --> 00:57:33,600
 is going to be is making sure that that citation is valid during the meeting or prior to the

771
00:57:33,600 --> 00:57:42,760
 vote being finalized. Okay. And I guess I would think that if staff

772
00:57:42,760 --> 00:57:49,280
 needed a few minutes to figure out if it was valid or not, that the chair would have the

773
00:57:49,280 --> 00:57:53,360
 option of either taking a break or moving on to something beyond consent and then coming

774
00:57:53,360 --> 00:57:57,880
 back to consent. That's just going to be a standard procedure as well.

775
00:57:57,880 --> 00:58:05,600
 Correct. That could be an option to give staff the ability to confirm that that citation

776
00:58:05,600 --> 00:58:10,200
 is valid and can be verified prior to a vote being finalized.

777
00:58:10,200 --> 00:58:15,480
 Okay. I don't know if that's something that needs

778
00:58:15,480 --> 00:58:20,320
 to be codified or that just needs to be a practice that the planning, zoning commission

779
00:58:20,320 --> 00:58:29,240
 does on subdivision applications. Yeah, I would think so. Any other questions

780
00:58:29,240 --> 00:58:33,200
 on this? I know the mayor, I hate to say this, but the mayor is going to hate me when I do.

781
00:58:33,200 --> 00:58:37,680
 We're on slide three of 23. Yeah, and I have a three o'clock meeting that

782
00:58:37,680 --> 00:58:43,240
 I had to push off here so I may have to jump off at three, but yeah, no. Hey, I take full

783
00:58:43,240 --> 00:58:46,560
 responsibility for that. Absolutely.

784
00:58:46,560 --> 00:58:51,080
 So what I'm hearing, if I can chair, just to summarize what we're going to be doing

785
00:58:51,080 --> 00:58:56,440
 with this particular code amendment, we're not going to do anything right now with the

786
00:58:56,440 --> 00:59:01,960
 less than four affirmative votes and try to work with the planning, zoning commission

787
00:59:01,960 --> 00:59:08,240
 to make sure that citations are relevant and take any actions that we need to get to that

788
00:59:08,240 --> 00:59:16,960
 point prior to any votes being finalized, if that's a fair assessment of the discussion.

789
00:59:16,960 --> 00:59:26,480
 Yeah, that would be my understanding of it. Okay, all right, so we'll move on to the next

790
00:59:26,480 --> 00:59:32,560
 agenda or next item on the agenda and that is sort of related, but I'll summarize it

791
00:59:32,560 --> 00:59:53,360
 briefly if I can share my screen. Okay, so I know we already talked about tie vote indirectly.

792
00:59:53,360 --> 00:59:59,600
 This is something that we will take as part of what we just summarized in the last code

793
00:59:59,600 --> 01:00:04,480
 amendment or last discussion, that is, we won't take any actions with regard to tie

794
01:00:04,480 --> 01:00:12,640
 vote. And again, the main issue or main concern here is making sure that the citations are

795
01:00:12,640 --> 01:00:18,360
 a valid citation. And hopefully that takes care of any situations that will result in

796
01:00:18,360 --> 01:00:24,360
 a tie vote. So the only thing that I want to highlight when it comes to tie vote, tie

797
01:00:24,360 --> 01:00:32,360
 votes that is, is that we do have a provision in the DDC currently that addresses tie votes

798
01:00:32,360 --> 01:00:39,920
 for zoning map amendments, basically rezonings, but just rezonings. And I think this is what

799
01:00:39,920 --> 01:00:45,440
 you're referring to, Councilman Briggs, is that we did discuss this. However, it only

800
01:00:45,440 --> 01:00:58,360
 applies to zoning applications. It does not apply to SUPs or all ESAs or any other recommendation

801
01:00:58,360 --> 01:01:05,040
 that gets forwarded to the City Council. So right now we only have wording in the development

802
01:01:05,040 --> 01:01:10,440
 code that talks about if there's a tie vote under a rezoning application. What we would

803
01:01:10,440 --> 01:01:20,800
 like to do as part of this code amendment is to expand that to also include the SUPs,

804
01:01:20,800 --> 01:01:25,680
 the all ESAs and any other recommendation that comes from planning zoning commission

805
01:01:25,680 --> 01:01:32,200
 brought forward. If it is a tie vote, it would follow the same procedures that we initially

806
01:01:32,200 --> 01:01:40,120
 approved back in 2018 when it comes to rezonings. Does that make sense? And let me get to the

807
01:01:40,120 --> 01:01:46,540
 code amendment itself. And if I can just provide just a little more background. If you recall,

808
01:01:46,540 --> 01:01:59,240
 we had this in the 2002 DDC. Part of the issue has been, or is really, that in the new DDC,

809
01:01:59,240 --> 01:02:07,240
 every application has a specific process. The 2002 DDC SUPs, all ESAs, all follow the

810
01:02:07,240 --> 01:02:11,600
 zoning amendment procedure. And so that's why it covered all of those applications in

811
01:02:11,600 --> 01:02:17,920
 the old code, because they all just refer to that procedure to follow, and that's where

812
01:02:17,920 --> 01:02:24,200
 that tie vote provision was contained. Now that we've established procedures for SUPs

813
01:02:24,200 --> 01:02:32,440
 and all ESAs, I think those are the only ones that really get referred or changes to razor,

814
01:02:32,440 --> 01:02:37,880
 that just was not incorporated in the 2019 DDC. And so that really is one of these cleanup

815
01:02:37,880 --> 01:02:40,480
 items that we're looking to do, if that helps.

816
01:02:40,480 --> 01:02:50,680
 Thanks, Richard. Yeah, that does help, because when we probably considered it back in 2018,

817
01:02:50,680 --> 01:02:57,680
 the application was more universal. As Richard mentioned, this development code that we have

818
01:02:57,680 --> 01:03:04,960
 today is a little bit more separated in regards to applications. So again, what you see here

819
01:03:04,960 --> 01:03:12,960
 on the screen is basically what is under the zoning situation. If there is a tie vote,

820
01:03:12,960 --> 01:03:19,680
 what we would do is just carry it forward for SUPs and all ESAs and other recommendations

821
01:03:19,680 --> 01:03:25,320
 that is brought forward. So I just want to make that clear that if we were to take a

822
01:03:25,320 --> 01:03:35,300
 code amendment, it would just be for adding a tie vote direction or determination for

823
01:03:35,300 --> 01:03:43,520
 SUPs and all ESAs, similar to what we already have under the zoning requirements or zoning

824
01:03:43,520 --> 01:04:02,520
 process. And I'll stand for any questions. Any questions? Yes, Mayor Watts. Is this just

825
01:04:02,520 --> 01:04:08,000
 codifying what the councils, I mean, similarly, I mean, what I'm hearing you say is that on

826
01:04:08,000 --> 01:04:14,160
 a public hearing matter, if it's a tie vote three to three, it gets resubmitted if it's,

827
01:04:14,160 --> 01:04:19,540
 I think there's two looks at it. Is that right? Correct. It would be the same. Correct. Yeah.

828
01:04:19,540 --> 01:04:28,920
 And so if it's another tie vote, it's a denial, but it avoids the supermajority requirement.

829
01:04:28,920 --> 01:04:38,240
 That is correct. Okay. I can share that if you'd like. Yeah. And the reason is because

830
01:04:38,240 --> 01:04:42,980
 it's really not an affirmative denial. Is that what I'm hearing? It's not a affirmative

831
01:04:42,980 --> 01:04:49,800
 for vote denial, which would tend to indicate that it really is. I mean, that sentiment

832
01:04:49,800 --> 01:04:55,600
 is we don't want it, and therefore the supermajority would be required. Is that right? That's how

833
01:04:55,600 --> 01:05:02,560
 it was drafted or approved in 2018. And we're not going to change that, and that's going

834
01:05:02,560 --> 01:05:06,400
 to be consistent. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Yep. Yes. And the last bullet

835
01:05:06,400 --> 01:05:10,720
 does address that, and it will address that. If again, this is actually taken forward,

836
01:05:10,720 --> 01:05:22,960
 we will make sure that's also part of that code amendment. Okay. Okay. Any other questions?

837
01:05:22,960 --> 01:05:30,200
 All right. Just going to move on to the next section. Yes, sir. Okay. So the next section

838
01:05:30,200 --> 01:05:41,160
 is related to back to House Bill 3167. This is where we're codifying the provisions that

839
01:05:41,160 --> 01:05:53,360
 are part of what was approved under HB 3167. And again, sorry, this is not it. Let me scroll

840
01:05:53,360 --> 01:06:01,720
 down. Here it is. So as mentioned earlier, Robin was presenting the House Bill 3167.

841
01:06:01,720 --> 01:06:10,600
 It's under that provision that a citation for any denial must be directly related to

842
01:06:10,600 --> 01:06:17,480
 the subdivision requirements or development code. Currently, it is under Texas local government

843
01:06:17,480 --> 01:06:23,440
 code. However, that we feel that it should be included in the DDC. I think Commissioner

844
01:06:23,440 --> 01:06:28,680
 Smith mentioned that part of the planning zoning commission is to uphold the DDC. So

845
01:06:28,680 --> 01:06:36,040
 we want to make sure that this reference or these requirements that you see here are in

846
01:06:36,040 --> 01:06:44,200
 the DDC and can be used to help, you know, get to where we want it to be where, again,

847
01:06:44,200 --> 01:06:55,200
 if there is any denial that the reasons must be provided and those reasons must be related

848
01:06:55,200 --> 01:07:02,300
 to the subdivision application. And it has to be verified. And that's why we're proposing

849
01:07:02,300 --> 01:07:14,840
 adding these languages into the DDC. Any questions?

850
01:07:14,840 --> 01:07:24,440
 >> Councilmember Briggs. >> Just on timing, at what point would those

851
01:07:24,440 --> 01:07:29,160
 be added? >> We would have to take this forward to the

852
01:07:29,160 --> 01:07:34,600
 planning zoning commission and ultimately to City Council in the next, you know, month

853
01:07:34,600 --> 01:07:40,720
 or so. Hopefully we can get it. We do need to notify and provide public hearing notifications.

854
01:07:40,720 --> 01:07:45,200
 So that would add a couple more weeks. So the soonest probably would be City Council

855
01:07:45,200 --> 01:07:50,780
 in about a month and a half. >> Right. And I guess that answers one question.

856
01:07:50,780 --> 01:07:59,880
 But when in the process would these denials or citations be added? Before or after? When

857
01:07:59,880 --> 01:08:06,240
 they come through to the meeting? >> Hopefully, as Erin mentioned, that if there

858
01:08:06,240 --> 01:08:14,000
 is a citation from the planning zoning commissioner, we would get that in advance. But of course

859
01:08:14,000 --> 01:08:19,800
 we would need to have that verified prior to any vote being rendered or decided on.

860
01:08:19,800 --> 01:08:27,960
 >> Okay. And would it be would there I guess citation be presented to all of the commission

861
01:08:27,960 --> 01:08:35,240
 or would it be up to staff to decide? So would it be presented to the commission to hear

862
01:08:35,240 --> 01:08:39,840
 and then they could discuss that? Or is it we send it to staff and then staff looks at

863
01:08:39,840 --> 01:08:45,520
 it and says yes or no? Is that something to be discussed later on or?

864
01:08:45,520 --> 01:08:50,320
 >> I'll let Richard answer that. But I would think we would share it with all of them.

865
01:08:50,320 --> 01:08:51,320
 >> Okay. >> But Richard.

866
01:08:51,320 --> 01:08:56,520
 >> That would be correct. >> Okay.

867
01:08:56,520 --> 01:09:04,960
 >> Any other questions? >> Thank you.

868
01:09:04,960 --> 01:09:10,880
 >> So again, for this particular item, we're just going to bring forward a code amendment

869
01:09:10,880 --> 01:09:18,560
 that just basically puts into the development code those provisions that were approved per

870
01:09:18,560 --> 01:09:24,480
 House Bill 3167. When it comes to, again, making sure that the citations are related

871
01:09:24,480 --> 01:09:33,240
 and that they are not arbitrary and that we've illustrated or provided documentation or text

872
01:09:33,240 --> 01:09:43,880
 that state, you know, we need to follow these requirements. Okay. All right. Moving on.

873
01:09:43,880 --> 01:09:54,280
 We have the next code amendment and it's related to three way agreements required. As mentioned

874
01:09:54,280 --> 01:09:58,240
 in prior presentation, but I'll go through this again. Let me make sure this is full

875
01:09:58,240 --> 01:10:06,800
 view. Let me scroll down here. Right now we have a section of development code that speaks

876
01:10:06,800 --> 01:10:14,960
 to development contracts or also known as three way agreements. However, they are very

877
01:10:14,960 --> 01:10:21,040
 limited in as far as detail. Basically what it says is what you see here under rule and

878
01:10:21,040 --> 01:10:27,680
 requirement. It just is a very general overview. What we have heard and what we would like as

879
01:10:27,680 --> 01:10:34,880
 part of our development review process improvement is to provide the development community and

880
01:10:34,880 --> 01:10:41,640
 the community in general a better understanding of what is included and how the process for

881
01:10:41,640 --> 01:10:49,000
 getting a three way agreement through is codified in the DDC. So really is just trying to make

882
01:10:49,000 --> 01:10:55,640
 sure that we have enough information and sharing that information with the general public to

883
01:10:55,640 --> 01:11:04,060
 make sure they understand how three way agreements work. We also have payment in lieu of improvements.

884
01:11:04,060 --> 01:11:09,760
 Currently it is in several sections of the DDC. You see here on the right, I'm sorry,

885
01:11:09,760 --> 01:11:17,800
 the left. And what we're trying to do is eliminate some of the duplications and identify it only

886
01:11:17,800 --> 01:11:28,320
 in one location and what we're proposing is that it be located in the section 846. We

887
01:11:28,320 --> 01:11:33,960
 also recognize that there is a need for sidewalk construction alternatives for certain situations

888
01:11:33,960 --> 01:11:40,600
 where there is a small project and a sidewalk construction alternative could benefit from

889
01:11:40,600 --> 01:11:48,800
 something that is not as involved as a public -- sorry, a payment in lieu of improvements

890
01:11:48,800 --> 01:11:56,140
 and can be done through a separate process under a sidewalk construction alternative.

891
01:11:56,140 --> 01:12:02,720
 And what staff is proposing, all of this will be under a section called -- under section

892
01:12:02,720 --> 01:12:12,240
 846, what I'm showing here in front of y'all today is 846 is basically just these two sentences.

893
01:12:12,240 --> 01:12:19,040
 What we're proposing is adding or amending that is that section to include a little bit

894
01:12:19,040 --> 01:12:27,000
 more details on a three way agreement as well as adding the payment in lieu of improvements

895
01:12:27,000 --> 01:12:34,160
 as well as the provisions under what we are calling sidewalk escrow agreements. Now, you

896
01:12:34,160 --> 01:12:39,440
 all haven't had the opportunity to review the contents, the details specifically. We

897
01:12:39,440 --> 01:12:45,520
 just highlighted these sections. We are currently in the process of drafting those and making

898
01:12:45,520 --> 01:12:52,920
 sure that it complies with all of the department's requirements. But again, these are the main

899
01:12:52,920 --> 01:13:01,760
 sections that we will include under the amendment of section 846. And that concludes my presentation.

900
01:13:01,760 --> 01:13:16,680
 I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions? All right. I'm not seeing

901
01:13:16,680 --> 01:13:33,520
 any so we can move on to the next. >> Yes, sir. There you go. This just illustrates

902
01:13:33,520 --> 01:13:37,700
 where the three way agreements and those types of agreements are in the development process.

903
01:13:37,700 --> 01:13:46,640
 So it's between the preliminary plan and just before final plan or during final plan applications.

904
01:13:46,640 --> 01:13:54,040
 Okay. So now we're moving to the next agenda item, Chair Ryan, to talk about code amendments

905
01:13:54,040 --> 01:13:58,520
 related to subchapter 2. So if you can, if you can open up.

906
01:13:58,520 --> 01:14:03,020
 >> I'll go ahead and call that item. Item D, receive a report, hold a discussion, give

907
01:14:03,020 --> 01:14:07,720
 staff direction regarding code amendments related to subchapter 2 administrative end

908
01:14:07,720 --> 01:14:12,760
 procedures. >> Thank you, Chair. What we're doing, now

909
01:14:12,760 --> 01:14:16,520
 you see that some of the ones that are going to be coming up in the next few slides are

910
01:14:16,520 --> 01:14:23,140
 really opportunity to I would say clean up but also provide clarification on what is

911
01:14:23,140 --> 01:14:29,360
 currently in the DDC. As you can see here, anything that's underlined is what we're wanting

912
01:14:29,360 --> 01:14:37,760
 to add into the DDC as far as language or text. So this particular table is table 2.2A

913
01:14:37,760 --> 01:14:43,800
 that summarizes the development review procedures. We have one that's currently there now that's

914
01:14:43,800 --> 01:14:49,520
 in here that's shown in black, administratively approved plat. However, it's not clear as

915
01:14:49,520 --> 01:14:56,120
 to what that is. So what we would like to add to this table is what falls under that

916
01:14:56,120 --> 01:15:04,000
 particular application type. That is the following. Conveyance plat, minor plat, minor E plat

917
01:15:04,000 --> 01:15:11,320
 as well as amending final plat. So again, to help clarify, provide the reader a little

918
01:15:11,320 --> 01:15:16,400
 bit more understanding of what is an administratively approved plat. So I just wanted to make sure

919
01:15:16,400 --> 01:15:23,980
 that this is something you all know that this is something that we will be bringing forward.

920
01:15:23,980 --> 01:15:31,520
 This particular section, also under table 2.2A is for replats. There was a house bill

921
01:15:31,520 --> 01:15:38,560
 that was passed where replats are now going to be appealed under the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

922
01:15:38,560 --> 01:15:45,560
 So that's why we're adding that section or that demarcation here on the application table

923
01:15:45,560 --> 01:15:50,040
 so that anyone that's looking at this will know that any appeal would need to go through

924
01:15:50,040 --> 01:15:57,360
 the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The other sections or other piece to this table and

925
01:15:57,360 --> 01:16:02,240
 there's going to be a lot of these just to help, again, provide clarification to the

926
01:16:02,240 --> 01:16:09,960
 development community. We initially were going to implement a certificate of zoning compliance.

927
01:16:09,960 --> 01:16:15,560
 Now that is very similar to what a zoning verification letter is. So what we have decided

928
01:16:15,560 --> 01:16:22,320
 is to not implement a certificate of zoning compliance but rather continue with the zoning

929
01:16:22,320 --> 01:16:27,920
 verification letter. What that is, it just provides an applicant or property owner the

930
01:16:27,920 --> 01:16:33,720
 ability to verify their property zoning and what type of uses are approved and just to

931
01:16:33,720 --> 01:16:40,120
 confirm that their current use is either in compliance or in non-compliance. This provides

932
01:16:40,120 --> 01:16:47,880
 them the ability to do so. The next slide here just basically describes what a zoning

933
01:16:47,880 --> 01:16:54,480
 verification letter is. Again, basically what I stated earlier provides the confirmation

934
01:16:54,480 --> 01:16:59,360
 of the property zoning and ultimately the use that's allowed under that zoning and then

935
01:16:59,360 --> 01:17:07,400
 anybody can apply for it, a property owner and/or applicant if they choose to. Another

936
01:17:07,400 --> 01:17:12,760
 application type that the city is wanting to establish is referred to as a business

937
01:17:12,760 --> 01:17:18,520
 registration and currently it's not in the development code and of course if something

938
01:17:18,520 --> 01:17:24,600
 is wanting, if something that we want implemented, we want to make sure that it's documented

939
01:17:24,600 --> 01:17:30,280
 and it's included in the development code. So we're proposing to add this as an application

940
01:17:30,280 --> 01:17:36,240
 type and provide the procedures that it would need to follow for anybody that's submitting

941
01:17:36,240 --> 01:17:42,920
 an application or a business registration. So here's a purpose or summary, I was going

942
01:17:42,920 --> 01:17:49,000
 to say summary of what a business registration is and what the process is in order to get

943
01:17:49,000 --> 01:17:56,160
 a registration. Again, the business registration just ensures that the city has the updated

944
01:17:56,160 --> 01:18:03,360
 information as far as what that particular use is. As you all know, we have a CEO process

945
01:18:03,360 --> 01:18:10,560
 now. However, the CEO is related to certificate of occupancy. It doesn't really pertain to

946
01:18:10,560 --> 01:18:19,480
 the use of the unit itself. So we are trying to make sure that the certificate of occupancies

947
01:18:19,480 --> 01:18:25,880
 are just for that reason, for reviewing and making sure that the occupancy of that unit

948
01:18:25,880 --> 01:18:32,920
 or that building is up to code. However, there are other things that they need to comply

949
01:18:32,920 --> 01:18:39,920
 with and we want to make sure when they submit an application and get approved for use, that

950
01:18:39,920 --> 01:18:46,240
 use would be documented under a business registration. And again, any business registration can be

951
01:18:46,240 --> 01:18:52,120
 applied by a business owner or applicant or property owner. So this is something that

952
01:18:52,120 --> 01:19:00,600
 will help us in making sure that we have the right uses and again, this could be used for

953
01:19:00,600 --> 01:19:06,080
 the business for any purposes including obviously obtaining a loan or just making sure that

954
01:19:06,080 --> 01:19:12,760
 their use is legal and we will offer this to anybody that wants to obtain the business

955
01:19:12,760 --> 01:19:21,080
 registration. Our hope is to start this. If again, it is approved, our hope is to approve

956
01:19:21,080 --> 01:19:27,840
 these as we move forward. Obviously, those going backwards will be difficult to do. We

957
01:19:27,840 --> 01:19:33,160
 don't plan on making everyone submit an application for a business registration. We hope that

958
01:19:33,160 --> 01:19:38,600
 if we start to implement this, we will use this moving forward and maybe go back, retrofit

959
01:19:38,600 --> 01:19:50,400
 some of those at a timeframe that is more conducive for everybody. I'm going really

960
01:19:50,400 --> 01:19:55,320
 quickly on these items. I apologize if there are any questions, please let me know. Does

961
01:19:55,320 --> 01:20:00,440
 anybody have any questions related to the zoning verification letter or a business registration

962
01:20:00,440 --> 01:20:12,960
 application? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and move on to the next section of the table.

963
01:20:12,960 --> 01:20:21,840
 Civil engineering plans. This is often asked for during a final plan review. We know it's

964
01:20:21,840 --> 01:20:28,360
 needed. However, it's not listed in table 2.2A. Again, what we're doing is making sure

965
01:20:28,360 --> 01:20:33,680
 that it's clear and we're clarifying what is required and how it's processed. We're

966
01:20:33,680 --> 01:20:39,360
 adding an application type under the subdivision procedure simply called civil engineering

967
01:20:39,360 --> 01:20:46,480
 plans. What that is basically is the purpose is to make sure that we have plans that will

968
01:20:46,480 --> 01:20:54,200
 fit within the criteria of not just our development code, but our criteria manuals. This is what

969
01:20:54,200 --> 01:21:02,560
 it will allow us to do. Of course, it applies to any improvements, public improvements that

970
01:21:02,560 --> 01:21:08,960
 is being proposed. This is how we review it, again, through the civil engineering plans.

971
01:21:08,960 --> 01:21:15,060
 Again, this is our normal practice, but we want to make sure that it's available for

972
01:21:15,060 --> 01:21:20,600
 the general public in the development code, and that's why we're adding it into this section

973
01:21:20,600 --> 01:21:27,000
 of the code. I have a question about this. Yes, ma'am.

974
01:21:27,000 --> 01:21:34,800
 Just for clarification, because I remember that this is a pretty expensive requirement

975
01:21:34,800 --> 01:21:42,120
 for some, the civil engineering plans. Is it required for everything? Depending on if

976
01:21:42,120 --> 01:21:52,560
 you build a shed out back or a single-family home or you're doing renovations on a small

977
01:21:52,560 --> 01:22:03,600
 business, is it required for all of those? No. I don't know if we have Ken Smith on the

978
01:22:03,600 --> 01:22:09,920
 call if he can maybe address when a civil engineering plan is on the board.

979
01:22:09,920 --> 01:22:13,520
 Those are typically associated with a final plan if there's public improvements, whether

980
01:22:13,520 --> 01:22:22,200
 it be new streets, utility extensions. Generally, if a site plan is required, something

981
01:22:22,200 --> 01:22:28,520
 like the items that you mentioned, those typically would not require civil engineering plans.

982
01:22:28,520 --> 01:22:33,880
 I just wanted to make sure we weren't putting any extra cost by adding this into if we weren't

983
01:22:33,880 --> 01:22:41,640
 already doing it under something, so thank you. There was at one point, I think some

984
01:22:41,640 --> 01:22:47,240
 years ago, with the whole site plan process, there really wasn't a defined site plan process,

985
01:22:47,240 --> 01:22:53,600
 and at that point in time, staff was using the civil engineering plans as that site plan.

986
01:22:53,600 --> 01:22:59,800
 We have since removed that, and within the 2019 DDC, there is the provision and specific

987
01:22:59,800 --> 01:23:04,080
 procedures for site plans, so that there were instances when that happened in the past,

988
01:23:04,080 --> 01:23:08,240
 but that has since been corrected. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying

989
01:23:08,240 --> 01:23:17,400
 that. Thank you, Richard. That's it for today as

990
01:23:17,400 --> 01:23:24,320
 far as some of the code amendments. We anticipate some discussion with obviously those first

991
01:23:24,320 --> 01:23:28,840
 few, so although it took longer, I think it was helpful to go through that and discuss

992
01:23:28,840 --> 01:23:35,600
 it with the DCRC. We received, obviously, important information as we move forward with

993
01:23:35,600 --> 01:23:41,800
 our code amendments. I just wanted to highlight that we will be bringing forward additional

994
01:23:41,800 --> 01:23:48,440
 code amendments as we continue through our code amendment list, that is, and so I won't

995
01:23:48,440 --> 01:23:53,920
 go through this list. I just want to make sure that you all can see that in the next

996
01:23:53,920 --> 01:24:00,000
 meeting. Hopefully, we can get a quorum for next Wednesday. What we will be bringing forward,

997
01:24:00,000 --> 01:24:06,240
 at least the tentative agenda, is shown here on the screen. Again, a lot of this is either

998
01:24:06,240 --> 01:24:14,520
 cleanup and/or providing additional clarification, and if there are any other items that the

999
01:24:14,520 --> 01:24:20,000
 DCRC would like for us to bring up, we can certainly entertain that as well, but again,

1000
01:24:20,000 --> 01:24:27,800
 for next week, we're going to hopefully bring you what you see here on this list. If there's

1001
01:24:27,800 --> 01:24:36,440
 any questions or any input on any code amendments, please let us know, and we'll certainly bring

1002
01:24:36,440 --> 01:24:42,880
 that forward, but for now, the list that you see here is what we intend to bring at the

1003
01:24:42,880 --> 01:24:59,640
 next DCRC. Okay. Any questions, comments? Let me get back to my agenda here. Seeing none,

1004
01:24:59,640 --> 01:25:08,840
 any concluding items? Okay, if not, then we will adjourn this meeting at 2.27. Thank you.

1005
01:25:08,840 --> 01:25:09,840
 Thank you.

1006
01:25:09,840 --> 01:25:10,840
 Thank you, everyone.

1007
01:25:10,840 --> 01:25:11,840
 Thank you.

1008
01:25:11,840 --> 01:25:11,840
 Thank you.