WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.880 I want to welcome everyone to the Development Code Review Committee meeting. 00:00:10.880 --> 00:00:13.920 We do have a quorum present, it is 1.02. 00:00:13.920 --> 00:00:20.720 We are, by order of the Governor, doing this remotely, or able to do this remotely. 00:00:20.720 --> 00:00:29.240 The first item on the agenda is consider approval of the October 19th, 2020 minutes. 00:00:29.240 --> 00:00:30.240 Council Member Briggs. 00:00:30.240 --> 00:00:33.240 I will move approval. 00:00:33.240 --> 00:00:40.160 Alright, and I'll go ahead and second it, and we can do the roll call. 00:00:40.160 --> 00:00:43.080 Council Member Briggs, I'll say you. 00:00:43.080 --> 00:00:44.080 Aye. 00:00:44.080 --> 00:00:45.080 Mayor Watts. 00:00:45.080 --> 00:00:48.080 Mayor Watts, I'll say you. 00:00:48.080 --> 00:00:49.080 Sorry. 00:00:49.080 --> 00:00:50.080 Aye. 00:00:50.080 --> 00:00:58.560 I was on mute, sorry about that, and I'm sitting here just talking. 00:00:58.560 --> 00:01:02.000 And the Chair is an aye, so it passes unanimously. 00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:06.800 Next item up is to receive a report, hold a discussion regarding an overview of House 00:01:06.800 --> 00:01:07.800 Bill 3167. 00:01:07.800 --> 00:01:08.800 Hey, John. 00:01:08.800 --> 00:01:09.800 Yes. 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 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 00:01:17.800 --> 00:01:19.520 squared away, so I'll be right back. 00:01:19.520 --> 00:01:20.520 Okay. 00:01:20.520 --> 00:01:21.520 Yep. 00:01:21.520 --> 00:01:22.520 Alright, sorry. 00:01:22.520 --> 00:01:24.840 Yeah, I'll just continue on without me. 00:01:24.840 --> 00:01:26.480 Thank you, Chair. 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 00:01:32.600 --> 00:01:35.520 Miga to make this presentation for this item. 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. 00:01:43.120 --> 00:01:53.920 Okay, hopefully everybody sees the presentation, and Robin, if you can go ahead and get started. 00:01:53.920 --> 00:01:56.760 Okay, thank you, Ron. 00:01:56.760 --> 00:01:57.760 Good afternoon. 00:01:57.760 --> 00:01:58.760 I'm Robin Miga. 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 00:02:03.760 --> 00:02:04.760 begin. 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 00:02:09.600 --> 00:02:15.240 with cities that were experiencing rapid growth, and our firm works for about 30 cities across 00:02:15.240 --> 00:02:19.960 Texas. 00:02:19.960 --> 00:02:22.840 So we'll just get into House Bill 3167 and our agenda. 00:02:22.840 --> 00:02:27.240 Most of you are familiar with the bill that passed during the last legislative session. 00:02:27.240 --> 00:02:31.480 However, given the nature of some of the changes that are proposed for the DDC amendments, 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. 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 00:02:41.720 --> 00:02:48.680 the appropriate department to answer any questions that may arise. 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 00:02:52.080 --> 00:02:54.520 paint the picture of how development works in Denton. 00:02:54.520 --> 00:02:58.600 I wanted to start by the introduction to the development assistance team. 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 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 00:03:07.880 --> 00:03:11.480 any adopted manuals or standard details or criteria. 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 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. 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 00:03:28.920 --> 00:03:32.720 to make note that not all applications that come through the development department are 00:03:32.720 --> 00:03:34.480 subject to House Bill 3167. 00:03:34.480 --> 00:03:41.040 So you can see these items in green, the annexation, zoning, and zoning compliance plans, those 00:03:41.040 --> 00:03:45.800 all aren't subject to the shot clock, but the other three, your preliminary plot, engineering 00:03:45.800 --> 00:03:49.040 plans, and final plot are subject to the shot clock. 00:03:49.040 --> 00:03:59.000 And then I went ahead and added who the approval authority is for these. 00:03:59.000 --> 00:04:04.400 These are the three different types of plotting applications, preliminary plots, civil engineering 00:04:04.400 --> 00:04:06.520 plans, and final plots. 00:04:06.520 --> 00:04:10.960 Once the applications have been deemed administratively complete and are filed, they are required 00:04:10.960 --> 00:04:13.680 to be reviewed within 30 days. 00:04:13.680 --> 00:04:19.840 The applications that, if these applications require P&Z approval, that approval is also 00:04:19.840 --> 00:04:21.760 required within 30 days. 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 00:04:27.000 --> 00:04:29.640 doesn't meet the city's standards. 00:04:29.640 --> 00:04:35.360 And I'll get into what the law says about that a little later. 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 00:04:39.080 --> 00:04:42.960 utilized in the review of subdivision applications. 00:04:42.960 --> 00:04:47.080 All of the reviewers on your development assistance team are reviewing these plans or plots that 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 00:04:52.400 --> 00:04:56.960 as the different criteria manuals and plans that have been adopted by the city. 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 00:05:01.440 --> 00:05:05.440 drafting their plans that are to be approved by the city. 00:05:05.440 --> 00:05:12.840 Okay, so now I'll kind of get into HB 3167, the shot clock bill. 00:05:12.840 --> 00:05:18.160 Before this bill went into effect, the shot clock existed in state law, but it allowed 00:05:18.160 --> 00:05:21.360 for cities to request a waiver from the requirement. 00:05:21.360 --> 00:05:27.320 So following that new law being enacted, cities are no longer allowed to ask applicants for 00:05:27.320 --> 00:05:33.240 this waiver, but the applicant is able to request an extension for up to 30 days. 00:05:33.240 --> 00:05:36.920 And it's my understanding that the city of Denton still has some applicants who request 00:05:36.920 --> 00:05:41.360 that extension so that they don't have to go through a complete resubmittal for their 00:05:41.360 --> 00:05:49.080 application and pay new fees and things like that. 00:05:49.080 --> 00:05:56.120 So this is the language that was added to 212 for subdivision approval. 00:05:56.120 --> 00:06:00.080 Cities are no longer able to request that an applicant waive the 30-day requirement 00:06:00.080 --> 00:06:04.860 and the municipal authority responsible for approving a plan or plot has to do so within 00:06:04.860 --> 00:06:05.860 30 days. 00:06:05.860 --> 00:06:10.400 And so they're required to take action by approving, approving with conditions or disapproving 00:06:10.400 --> 00:06:17.120 with an explanation. 00:06:17.120 --> 00:06:22.320 So sorry to be reading from slides for you, but I just want to be specific. 00:06:22.320 --> 00:06:27.480 The law defines the municipal authority responsible for approving a plot as the planning commission, 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, 00:06:32.540 --> 00:06:36.360 your municipal authority is P&Z for a plan or plot. 00:06:36.360 --> 00:06:41.380 And so the law does allow that the city is able to delegate approval for engineering 00:06:41.380 --> 00:06:44.920 plans and certain plots to city staff. 00:06:44.920 --> 00:06:50.440 And so that is done in some situations as well. 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 00:06:54.720 --> 00:06:55.940 for subdivisions. 00:06:55.940 --> 00:07:01.040 For some applications, 30 days is probably enough time, but for many of these complicated 00:07:01.040 --> 00:07:05.880 plans that are submitted as part of a subdivision application, 30 days is nowhere near enough 00:07:05.880 --> 00:07:10.480 time, which is why I think you saw cities, especially those that are experiencing rapid 00:07:10.480 --> 00:07:15.360 growth such as Denton, take the approach that the key was to improve their development process 00:07:15.360 --> 00:07:18.160 in order to ensure compliance with state law. 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. 00:07:25.320 --> 00:07:30.080 The approval procedure, so the municipal authority or governing body that conditionally approves 00:07:30.080 --> 00:07:35.640 or disapproves a plan or plot under the subjector shall provide the applicant a written statement 00:07:35.640 --> 00:07:40.560 of the conditions for the conditional approval or reason for disapproval. 00:07:40.560 --> 00:07:45.920 And then you get into B, which states that each condition or reason specified in the 00:07:45.920 --> 00:07:50.920 written statement must be directly related to a requirement under this subchapter and 00:07:50.920 --> 00:07:55.600 include a citation to the law, including a statute or municipal ordinance that is the 00:07:55.600 --> 00:08:04.560 basis for the conditional approval or disapproval, if applicable, and that it may not be arbitrary. 00:08:04.560 --> 00:08:11.700 So under HB 3167, subdivision applications have to be acted on within 30 days for filing. 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 00:08:17.920 --> 00:08:20.680 is what I stated on the previous slide. 00:08:20.680 --> 00:08:25.120 Plots subject to commission approval are presented to P&Z with a report from staff detailing 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 00:08:30.920 --> 00:08:35.400 or plot shall be approved if it complies with your standards. 00:08:35.400 --> 00:08:40.160 Unlike P&Z's broad discretion in zoning matters, the discretion in subdivision plotting matters 00:08:40.160 --> 00:08:41.720 is limited. 00:08:41.720 --> 00:08:46.800 Once applicable rules are satisfied, the approval process is ministerial in nature. 00:08:46.800 --> 00:08:53.280 And P&Z is the final decision on plots. 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 00:08:57.640 --> 00:09:02.960 an application and its deficiencies is also required by city staff for those applications 00:09:02.960 --> 00:09:05.040 that are administrative. 00:09:05.040 --> 00:09:09.680 For all plans or plots that the law allows for an administrative approval, staff has 00:09:09.680 --> 00:09:14.840 to cite the exact deficiency from state law or an adopted ordinance for the reason of 00:09:14.840 --> 00:09:17.040 denial as well. 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 00:09:21.960 --> 00:09:24.480 date, it is also considered approved. 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. 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. 00:09:38.880 --> 00:09:42.520 >> Okay. 00:09:42.520 --> 00:09:43.520 Any questions? 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 00:09:49.400 --> 00:09:55.760 call on you, just unmute and let me know. 00:09:55.760 --> 00:09:56.760 >> I've got one, John. 00:09:56.760 --> 00:09:57.760 >> Okay. 00:09:57.760 --> 00:09:59.240 Go ahead, Chris. 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 00:10:05.080 --> 00:10:09.320 and plat -- this has nothing to do with rezoning or anything. 00:10:09.320 --> 00:10:16.160 This is a subdivision plan or some type of plat, which is a plan. 00:10:16.160 --> 00:10:17.160 Is that my understanding? 00:10:17.160 --> 00:10:18.160 >> Yes, sir. 00:10:18.160 --> 00:10:19.480 >> Okay. 00:10:19.480 --> 00:10:20.840 Okay. 00:10:20.840 --> 00:10:24.960 >> All right. 00:10:24.960 --> 00:10:30.320 Anyone else have any questions? 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, 00:10:35.680 --> 00:10:41.240 which is agenda item C, receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff directions regarding 00:10:41.240 --> 00:10:45.040 code amendments related to planning and zoning commission operations and procedures. 00:10:45.040 --> 00:10:48.520 >> Thank you, Chair, I will take this presentation. 00:10:48.520 --> 00:10:58.120 Let me pull up my slides here real quick and we can get started. 00:10:58.120 --> 00:10:59.840 Okay. 00:10:59.840 --> 00:11:05.120 Hopefully you all can see the presentation as mentioned. 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 00:11:10.000 --> 00:11:11.400 near future. 00:11:11.400 --> 00:11:16.460 The first one is related to less than four affirmative votes. 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 00:11:23.440 --> 00:11:26.860 2.29 of the code of ordinances. 00:11:26.860 --> 00:11:33.400 It states that an affirmative vote of four members is necessary to take any final or 00:11:33.400 --> 00:11:36.080 official action. 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 00:11:43.560 --> 00:11:46.280 considered a denial. 00:11:46.280 --> 00:11:53.080 That causes issues with regards to house bill or platts per se and subdivision applications 00:11:53.080 --> 00:11:57.720 because if there is an application that's being considered by the planning and zoning 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 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 00:12:13.240 --> 00:12:15.440 the applicant would like to postpone it. 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 00:12:21.040 --> 00:12:27.640 a decision on what that is. 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 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 00:12:40.960 --> 00:12:43.140 and actually we don't want that. 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 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 00:12:57.440 --> 00:13:02.040 in the development code as well as the code of ordinances because, again, it needs to 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 00:13:09.880 --> 00:13:15.760 is an official action and that motion, whatever it is, is passed. 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 00:13:20.600 --> 00:13:22.280 we have in the city. 00:13:22.280 --> 00:13:25.720 It's also going to be different from city council, as I understand it. 00:13:25.720 --> 00:13:33.920 So the planning zoning commission, due to the House Bill 3167, any vote less than four, 00:13:33.920 --> 00:13:39.720 again, if option two is taken forward and considered and approved by city council, would 00:13:39.720 --> 00:13:44.880 be a vote for a motion that passes. 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 00:13:54.200 --> 00:13:55.200 code. 00:13:55.200 --> 00:13:57.240 We are proposing to add this language here. 00:13:57.240 --> 00:14:02.300 As you can see here, I'm going to read it out just for the record. 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 00:14:08.560 --> 00:14:14.480 a majority but less than four affirmative votes to approve, approve with conditions 00:14:14.480 --> 00:14:19.800 or disapprove with reason, whatever that motion is, that passes. 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 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 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 00:14:41.120 --> 00:14:44.680 four affirmative votes. 00:14:44.680 --> 00:14:49.280 That is really our code amendment recommendation proposal. 00:14:49.280 --> 00:14:53.280 Do you have any questions for this item? 00:14:53.280 --> 00:14:58.160 >> I do. 00:14:58.160 --> 00:15:03.920 >> Just for clarification, it feels like this has come back to us and council in different 00:15:03.920 --> 00:15:11.740 ways or forms previously and recently, if I'm not mistaken, and from what I remember 00:15:11.740 --> 00:15:16.880 is that council decided that it would be denied still. 00:15:16.880 --> 00:15:19.120 Am I not remembering correctly? 00:15:19.120 --> 00:15:21.480 Or is this different? 00:15:21.480 --> 00:15:26.080 >> Aaron, do you -- >> Yes, this council made an amendment to 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 00:15:31.760 --> 00:15:37.120 Briggs, that for both city council and for boards and commissions, any matters which 00:15:37.120 --> 00:15:40.000 end up in a tie vote will be considered now. 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. 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. 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 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 00:16:04.760 --> 00:16:05.760 for. 00:16:05.760 --> 00:16:06.760 But you are correct. 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. 00:16:11.680 --> 00:16:16.360 >> Just a point of clarification, Aaron, that is for tie votes, correct? 00:16:16.360 --> 00:16:20.080 Anything of less than four affirmative vote? 00:16:20.080 --> 00:16:21.080 >> That is correct. 00:16:21.080 --> 00:16:26.440 The issue that Ron just spoke about, where you, under Roberts, you would have a motion 00:16:26.440 --> 00:16:34.900 that passes is something this council didn't discuss at all. 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 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 00:16:45.280 --> 00:16:46.280 forum? 00:16:46.280 --> 00:16:47.280 >> Correct. 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 00:16:55.360 --> 00:16:59.760 and then ultimately it will be presented to the full Planning Zoning Commission and also 00:16:59.760 --> 00:17:03.840 to the full city council for final action or consideration. 00:17:03.840 --> 00:17:06.840 >> Thank you. 00:17:06.840 --> 00:17:10.360 Any other, Mayor Watts? 00:17:10.360 --> 00:17:12.920 >> I think Margie was before me. 00:17:12.920 --> 00:17:13.920 >> Okay. 00:17:13.920 --> 00:17:14.920 >> Yeah. 00:17:14.920 --> 00:17:15.920 >> Margie. 00:17:15.920 --> 00:17:16.920 >> Sorry. 00:17:16.920 --> 00:17:17.920 >> Thanks. 00:17:17.920 --> 00:17:18.920 Thank you, Mayor. 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 00:17:24.060 --> 00:17:28.040 change this, this is for anything that PNZ votes on, correct? 00:17:28.040 --> 00:17:29.040 >> That's correct. 00:17:29.040 --> 00:17:34.960 It does cover everything, does not separate between subdivision applications or non-subdivision 00:17:34.960 --> 00:17:37.360 applications. 00:17:37.360 --> 00:17:39.520 So it will apply for all. 00:17:39.520 --> 00:17:40.520 >> Okay. 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 00:17:46.720 --> 00:17:54.800 necessarily be denying platts in the first place if they meet. 00:17:54.800 --> 00:17:56.400 >> Correct. 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 00:18:01.760 --> 00:18:03.200 we want to make sure we're covering it. 00:18:03.200 --> 00:18:04.200 >> Oh, yeah. 00:18:04.200 --> 00:18:05.200 >> The same, the light. 00:18:05.200 --> 00:18:07.520 I mean, this has happened, and we have to fix it. 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 00:18:15.460 --> 00:18:17.760 more than what seems to be the problem. 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 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 00:18:28.360 --> 00:18:32.760 with regard to the shot clock bill, and that's what we're not addressing. 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 00:18:38.400 --> 00:18:42.440 the recommendation or comment from the DCRC. 00:18:42.440 --> 00:18:49.960 We can certainly pare down the recommendation and just affect only the subdivision applications 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. 00:18:59.000 --> 00:19:05.320 Again, just to limit it to the subdivision applications, and as Rob mentioned, those 00:19:05.320 --> 00:19:10.440 are the preliminary plots, the final plots, that is brought forward to the Planning Zoning 00:19:10.440 --> 00:19:11.440 Commission. 00:19:11.440 --> 00:19:12.440 >> Yeah. 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, 00:19:16.400 --> 00:19:19.000 I'm one voice here, so I'd love to hear other input. 00:19:19.000 --> 00:19:20.000 >> Sure. 00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:23.120 >> Mayor, go ahead. 00:19:23.120 --> 00:19:28.880 >> No, I agree with Margie's assessment. 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 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 00:19:37.520 --> 00:19:40.600 caught in that net, and I guess so. 00:19:40.600 --> 00:19:45.000 Maybe I need to understand a little bit more of why you're seeking this. 00:19:45.000 --> 00:19:48.880 Because of the shot clock issue and because of our four affirmative votes, what do we 00:19:48.880 --> 00:19:52.120 -- refresh my memory -- what are we trying to avoid here? 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 00:19:58.240 --> 00:20:02.760 in nature anyway in approving at the PNZ level. 00:20:02.760 --> 00:20:03.760 Is that not correct? 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 00:20:08.120 --> 00:20:14.240 am I mistaken in that? 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, 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 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 00:20:37.320 --> 00:20:40.880 the four affirmative, it failed. 00:20:40.880 --> 00:20:45.340 At that point, the applicant asked, well, how do I cure this? 00:20:45.340 --> 00:20:46.340 How do I fix it? 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 00:20:53.080 --> 00:20:57.160 the reasons really had to do with our procedures. 00:20:57.160 --> 00:21:00.680 What we ended up doing was putting it on the next agenda. 00:21:00.680 --> 00:21:04.440 They just sort of resubmitted it, so we had it on the next PNZ. 00:21:04.440 --> 00:21:08.540 But what -- I mean, it could continue and go on and on. 00:21:08.540 --> 00:21:09.920 That was just our concern. 00:21:09.920 --> 00:21:10.920 >> Okay. 00:21:10.920 --> 00:21:18.680 So I want to make sure from a legal perspective. 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 00:21:25.840 --> 00:21:26.840 Commission? 00:21:26.840 --> 00:21:29.320 >> That is under the law. 00:21:29.320 --> 00:21:30.320 That is correct. 00:21:30.320 --> 00:21:31.320 >> All right. 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, 00:21:36.880 --> 00:21:42.320 they must be approved or there has to be an approval or -- I mean, okay. 00:21:42.320 --> 00:21:47.840 So I would much rather address that particular issue. 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 00:21:53.320 --> 00:21:56.440 Margie and Tim, you all might have been there for this. 00:21:56.440 --> 00:22:00.840 So let's say that happens again. 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 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, 00:22:17.560 --> 00:22:21.120 what's the remedy outside of trying to change our rules? 00:22:21.120 --> 00:22:24.560 Because I'm going to be very hesitant to say that things can be approved. 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 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 00:22:34.120 --> 00:22:35.120 in this trap again. 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 00:22:40.240 --> 00:22:43.040 do that and it be valid. 00:22:43.040 --> 00:22:47.620 Is that what I'm understanding the law says? 00:22:47.620 --> 00:22:48.920 >> That is correct. 00:22:48.920 --> 00:22:49.920 >> Okay. 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 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 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 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 00:23:14.620 --> 00:23:19.080 get past this because we cannot vote like this based upon state law? 00:23:19.080 --> 00:23:20.080 What's the remedy? 00:23:20.080 --> 00:23:25.120 >> Well, in the meeting, or before even the meeting, it's education, making sure that 00:23:25.120 --> 00:23:29.800 the P&Z commissioners understand the nature of the law with respect to platting -- platz. 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 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. 00:23:43.080 --> 00:23:45.280 That takes care of a lot of issues. 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 00:23:51.640 --> 00:23:54.080 with conditions. 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 00:24:00.560 --> 00:24:05.620 that those conditions are -- shouldn't be tied to a motion to approve, but rather for 00:24:05.620 --> 00:24:08.880 denial because in their minds, they may not believe it. 00:24:08.880 --> 00:24:13.880 That is the portion that has straight away from the general rule under state law that 00:24:13.880 --> 00:24:20.620 gives P&Z that authority provided they can cite something within the development requirements. 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 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 00:24:33.720 --> 00:24:38.880 have the authority to approve with conditions or disapprove with the reasons why, which 00:24:38.880 --> 00:24:40.840 are going to be failure to meet certain conditions. 00:24:40.840 --> 00:24:44.720 You can see where that can flip-flop at a P&Z meeting. 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 00:24:50.640 --> 00:24:52.520 greater than what it appears. 00:24:52.520 --> 00:24:55.880 Eventually, some cities are going to run into that problem. 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 00:24:58.760 --> 00:25:02.800 really get an idea of the picture. 00:25:02.800 --> 00:25:07.440 So we've got a final plaque that's coming forward. 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 00:25:12.000 --> 00:25:13.000 be P&Z? 00:25:13.000 --> 00:25:20.080 Because, well, we -- this final plaque has been submitted, but we are going to put conditions 00:25:20.080 --> 00:25:25.600 on it, meaning we being, let's just say, the P&Z members. 00:25:25.600 --> 00:25:31.740 First of all, is that lawful? 00:25:31.740 --> 00:25:35.840 >> If the conditions are related to the development requirements and all the rules and regulations 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 00:25:42.300 --> 00:25:47.120 they will be or won't be until the situation occurs and what's being proposed. 00:25:47.120 --> 00:25:48.120 >> Okay. 00:25:48.120 --> 00:25:50.800 All right. 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 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 00:26:06.560 --> 00:26:11.880 with conditions, because the conditions technically mean that they haven't met that specific 00:26:11.880 --> 00:26:15.560 requirement, but that you're requiring them to do so. 00:26:15.560 --> 00:26:18.920 >> So then can I make a suggestion on that? 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 00:26:24.320 --> 00:26:27.120 should meet all the conditions. 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 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 00:26:42.720 --> 00:26:43.720 met this condition. 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. 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, 00:26:57.460 --> 00:26:58.640 don't they? 00:26:58.640 --> 00:27:06.680 >> Under the law, yes, under the HPIL 3167, but the problem, this problem that you're 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 00:27:10.320 --> 00:27:11.880 at the preliminary plaque phase. 00:27:11.880 --> 00:27:15.640 >> Okay, and that's not ministerial. 00:27:15.640 --> 00:27:22.440 >> It's also ministerial exercise as well, however, the conditions being added under the 00:27:22.440 --> 00:27:28.780 new law that allows them -- the way that the law was designed, before it was ministerial, 00:27:28.780 --> 00:27:31.920 they met all the requirements, preliminary plaque approved. 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 00:27:38.000 --> 00:27:43.200 recommends the conditions that they need to meet before construction plan approval or 00:27:43.200 --> 00:27:45.000 final plaque. 00:27:45.000 --> 00:27:46.500 That's what the law has created. 00:27:46.500 --> 00:27:50.160 It's no longer -- if they meet all the requirements, it's got to be approved. 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, 00:27:55.560 --> 00:27:56.560 they're okay. 00:27:56.560 --> 00:27:59.320 >> Well, okay, and I'll say my final say. 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 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 00:28:11.480 --> 00:28:16.520 are the rules, and the commissioners obviously have been doing this a while and they understand 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 00:28:21.520 --> 00:28:22.520 got 30 days. 00:28:22.520 --> 00:28:23.520 This shot clock starts. 00:28:23.520 --> 00:28:27.480 In other words, I just trust the process, and I think as people understand that these 00:28:27.480 --> 00:28:33.500 are the consequences of our decision, well, then we'll get it resolved. 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 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 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 00:28:49.960 --> 00:28:52.480 for it, is that what you're saying? 00:28:52.480 --> 00:28:55.440 Is that what somebody's saying? 00:28:55.440 --> 00:28:59.920 >> We're saying that if there is a denial, there should be some reason associated with 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 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 00:29:12.920 --> 00:29:16.480 has to be resubmitted, and they can resubmit. 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. 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 00:29:28.520 --> 00:29:29.520 what we're trying to do. 00:29:29.520 --> 00:29:30.520 >> Okay, all right. 00:29:30.520 --> 00:29:31.520 Sorry to take so much time. 00:29:31.520 --> 00:29:35.440 >> Sorry, just for clarification, resubmittals are 15 days under 3160, so the resubmittal 00:29:35.440 --> 00:29:44.560 need to come back before PNC in 15, not 30, just wanted to clarify. 00:29:44.560 --> 00:29:48.560 >> Commissioner Smith, I think you had your hand up. 00:29:48.560 --> 00:29:49.560 >> I did. 00:29:49.560 --> 00:29:52.520 I just had a couple of points, thank you, Chair. 00:29:52.520 --> 00:29:54.400 To Mayor Watt's point, I'd agree. 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 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 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 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, 00:30:12.640 --> 00:30:19.800 is now there is, whenever there are votes against a preliminary plot or a final plot, 00:30:19.800 --> 00:30:21.560 people do reference code. 00:30:21.560 --> 00:30:27.340 It's not in detail and it's not necessarily in a way that is supporting. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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 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 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 00:31:34.740 --> 00:31:42.140 what Aaron said earlier, tie votes are currently right now only applying it to zoning cases 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 00:31:49.120 --> 00:31:54.000 deeper into is a rule really needed, more about this is a ministerial action than anything 00:31:54.000 --> 00:31:59.900 else, this rule would probably also need to address tie votes within that to address that 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. 00:32:06.100 --> 00:32:11.160 Okay, all right, Commissioner Rosent. 00:32:11.160 --> 00:32:13.600 Thank you, Chair. 00:32:13.600 --> 00:32:19.640 Just to add my viewpoint real quick, I agree with Margie 100%. 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 00:32:24.880 --> 00:32:27.440 tied to shot clock reasons explicitly. 00:32:27.440 --> 00:32:33.160 I don't think this is an opportunity to cover a blanket non-zoning issues. 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 00:32:37.620 --> 00:32:42.500 the problem that has been kind of brought to our attention first. 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 00:32:47.840 --> 00:32:52.760 it, although his explanation might sound too logical, it's spot on. 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 00:32:58.480 --> 00:33:04.600 teeth behind Commissioner's citing rule to create a new condition or where they've missed 00:33:04.600 --> 00:33:06.600 it, I think that solves the problem. 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," 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 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 00:33:21.720 --> 00:33:23.400 actually just... 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," 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 00:33:33.480 --> 00:33:34.480 the case. 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 00:33:39.280 --> 00:33:40.400 in the denial. 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 00:33:44.380 --> 00:33:49.160 you can deny this, then this resolves itself, and we won't have three, two votes. 00:33:49.160 --> 00:33:58.360 We'd have four, zero, five, zero votes if that denial reason was actually validated, 00:33:58.360 --> 00:34:03.160 so those are my two cents on it. 00:34:03.160 --> 00:34:04.600 - Councilmember Perks. 00:34:04.600 --> 00:34:06.440 - Thank you. 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 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 00:34:17.520 --> 00:34:23.160 were talking about the votes and conditions. 00:34:23.160 --> 00:34:28.520 Councilman Ryan, you may remember not too long ago, we were talking about specifically 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, 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 00:34:42.780 --> 00:34:45.320 that could likely happen. 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 00:34:55.280 --> 00:35:03.880 like as long as those conditions are required legally, that it should be covered. 00:35:03.880 --> 00:35:08.320 - Anyone else? 00:35:08.320 --> 00:35:13.520 - I'll just say I agree with most everything that's been said on the subject. 00:35:13.520 --> 00:35:17.720 I don't think changing the voting aspect of it is the better way to go. 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 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. 00:35:30.560 --> 00:35:35.640 It's a better way to go around to handle this. 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 00:35:40.480 --> 00:35:42.600 there, you don't have that. 00:35:42.600 --> 00:35:46.680 You've got one outlier. 00:35:46.680 --> 00:35:47.880 That's where you can run into problems. 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 00:35:53.040 --> 00:35:55.320 had it on the screen. 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 00:36:02.400 --> 00:36:06.120 to be just for subdivision issues. 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 00:36:14.800 --> 00:36:15.800 Ellis. 00:36:15.800 --> 00:36:16.800 - Okay, I appreciate it. 00:36:16.800 --> 00:36:17.800 Thank you. 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 00:36:23.000 --> 00:36:24.560 a plaque. 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 00:36:30.800 --> 00:36:36.560 the Planning and Zoning Commission that you are voting for a preliminary plat or a final 00:36:36.560 --> 00:36:41.920 plat if staff says it meets all the conditions, that you cannot deny it? 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 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. 00:36:53.420 --> 00:36:56.080 So it's got to be one of the two things. 00:36:56.080 --> 00:36:59.760 This blanket measure is an overcorrection of something that does not need to happen in 00:36:59.760 --> 00:37:02.440 my opinion. 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, 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 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 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 00:37:25.200 --> 00:37:26.720 reasoning is. 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 00:37:32.040 --> 00:37:36.040 just be tied to the shot clock thing, period. 00:37:36.040 --> 00:37:37.040 >> Understood. 00:37:37.040 --> 00:37:38.040 >> Okay. 00:37:38.040 --> 00:37:42.120 >> Council Member Brinks? 00:37:42.120 --> 00:37:46.840 >> I'm just curious why there was five members that night anyway. 00:37:46.840 --> 00:37:49.960 Was it recusals or was it just absences? 00:37:49.960 --> 00:37:54.440 Or -- >> It was just absences. 00:37:54.440 --> 00:37:58.080 >> Yeah, I don't recall, but I think maybe they were just not present. 00:37:58.080 --> 00:38:00.680 >> Yeah, we had two absences. 00:38:00.680 --> 00:38:01.680 >> I was absent. 00:38:01.680 --> 00:38:02.680 >> Okay. 00:38:02.680 --> 00:38:03.680 Thank you. 00:38:03.680 --> 00:38:04.680 >> Okay. 00:38:04.680 --> 00:38:05.680 Mayor Watz? 00:38:05.680 --> 00:38:16.520 >> So, Aaron, and I guess this really comes down to a very basic question. 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 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 00:38:29.720 --> 00:38:34.320 your authority to do something. 00:38:34.320 --> 00:38:38.880 Is there a remedy at law during the actual meeting? 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, 00:38:46.960 --> 00:38:47.960 that means what? 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 00:38:53.720 --> 00:38:55.840 end? 00:38:55.840 --> 00:38:59.120 Because it seems like what we're trying to -- I'm just going to be honest. 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 00:39:03.440 --> 00:39:06.080 not be following the rules. 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 00:39:12.600 --> 00:39:13.640 have to sue us? 00:39:13.640 --> 00:39:20.400 Does it mean that, you know, somehow we can deem it approved? 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 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 00:39:30.440 --> 00:39:38.080 it to some policy or procedure in our code that's legitimate, then it's approved. 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 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, 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 00:39:58.800 --> 00:40:00.760 the applicant suffer? 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 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 00:40:10.080 --> 00:40:12.120 because somebody doesn't follow the rule. 00:40:12.120 --> 00:40:14.680 So does that make sense, what I'm trying to ask? 00:40:14.680 --> 00:40:15.680 It does. 00:40:15.680 --> 00:40:17.120 And there's various ways to address that. 00:40:17.120 --> 00:40:22.240 I think that the suggestion that commissioner Ellis has suggested is a very good one. 00:40:22.240 --> 00:40:26.760 You know, that when the commissioners get their agenda, that they should identify any 00:40:26.760 --> 00:40:32.880 items that they feel that they don't agree with staff's recommendation and identify those 00:40:32.880 --> 00:40:37.640 early and possibly do that in a work session at the beginning to address those topics. 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 00:40:43.800 --> 00:40:51.440 the motion is made and seconded during the discussion, that information should probably 00:40:51.440 --> 00:40:59.240 also be elicited so that the commissioners can internally debate what one or two may 00:40:59.240 --> 00:41:02.880 want and the other three don't. 00:41:02.880 --> 00:41:04.200 That's another way to do it. 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 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, 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 00:41:23.740 --> 00:41:26.640 and to force us to follow the law. 00:41:26.640 --> 00:41:32.060 And so when you get to that point, it's too late. 00:41:32.060 --> 00:41:37.560 So there's different ways that that can be addressed internally with PNZ and staff working 00:41:37.560 --> 00:41:43.080 together or the developer going on their own initiative after the vote. 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 00:41:47.360 --> 00:41:54.560 came up in practice, but it didn't really even matter about the numbers. 00:41:54.560 --> 00:42:04.240 Because if you had three people that were making a condition that is not valid, and 00:42:04.240 --> 00:42:09.840 you got five members and it gets voted down two to three, it's still valid. 00:42:09.840 --> 00:42:17.320 I mean, it still should not have been denied because the conditions were not ruled upon 00:42:17.320 --> 00:42:21.080 by legal to be legitimate conditions. 00:42:21.080 --> 00:42:24.200 So it really doesn't matter what the numbers are. 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 00:42:29.360 --> 00:42:33.000 legally they are not able to do. 00:42:33.000 --> 00:42:36.820 And what I'm hearing you say is during the meeting, there is no remedy. 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 00:42:40.800 --> 00:42:43.040 that you don't make. 00:42:43.040 --> 00:42:46.000 You can't create something else. 00:42:46.000 --> 00:42:51.600 I mean, yeah, that's, man, that's, that's not a good situation. 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 00:42:56.120 --> 00:42:59.600 remove and reappoint commissioners if this. 00:42:59.600 --> 00:43:00.600 And you know something? 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 00:43:05.560 --> 00:43:07.800 as a remedy to begin with that. 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 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, 00:43:18.640 --> 00:43:23.840 that we change our code to make that that is immediate cause for removal. 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, 00:43:30.880 --> 00:43:35.480 we have to have people who are serving on our boards and commissions that follow the 00:43:35.480 --> 00:43:37.120 rule of law. 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 00:43:41.140 --> 00:43:46.720 other processes in order to try to mitigate that. 00:43:46.720 --> 00:43:52.240 So this conversation has probably gone a lot longer than what we had all anticipated, but 00:43:52.240 --> 00:43:54.200 I think it's a very good conversation. 00:43:54.200 --> 00:43:59.840 I really appreciate everybody's input because it's just, this is a very fundamental issue 00:43:59.840 --> 00:44:05.180 that we need to figure out. 00:44:05.180 --> 00:44:06.180 Commissioner Smith. 00:44:06.180 --> 00:44:07.180 Thank you, Chair. 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, 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, 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 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 00:44:27.120 --> 00:44:28.960 could maybe be a solution to it. 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, 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 00:44:42.720 --> 00:44:43.720 time. 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 00:44:49.440 --> 00:44:50.720 be approved. 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 00:44:55.880 --> 00:44:58.680 code that a second extension could be given. 00:44:58.680 --> 00:44:59.680 Is that is that correct? 00:44:59.680 --> 00:45:01.420 Am I understand that correctly? 00:45:01.420 --> 00:45:05.160 You are muted by the way, Ron. 00:45:05.160 --> 00:45:06.160 Thank you for that. 00:45:06.160 --> 00:45:08.000 You're correct. 00:45:08.000 --> 00:45:13.520 The third extension, if they haven't already applied or receive one, they can certainly 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 00:45:18.680 --> 00:45:19.680 play. 00:45:19.680 --> 00:45:22.080 That's, that's one factor. 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 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, 00:45:31.640 --> 00:45:34.200 whatever that whatever is decided. 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. 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 00:45:42.600 --> 00:45:43.600 grant an extension? 00:45:43.600 --> 00:45:44.600 Correct. 00:45:44.600 --> 00:45:45.800 It has to come from the applicant. 00:45:45.800 --> 00:45:46.800 Okay. 00:45:46.800 --> 00:45:47.800 All right. 00:45:47.800 --> 00:45:48.800 Okay. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 00:46:25.920 --> 00:46:30.000 done for the city in regards to its citizens, planning and zoning should take that into 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 00:46:34.360 --> 00:46:38.120 to make changes and where we can see fit. 00:46:38.120 --> 00:46:43.480 But with the resubmission piece, Richard, that we couldn't have that in there where 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 00:46:48.400 --> 00:46:52.720 to come back in front of a board where it could be seen again. 00:46:52.720 --> 00:46:56.040 I think in those instances, I mean, that's how we treated the last one. 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 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 00:47:02.920 --> 00:47:06.240 review for if we were had already reviewed it. 00:47:06.240 --> 00:47:10.940 And so unless that just becomes an administrative policy that in those instances where there 00:47:10.940 --> 00:47:13.640 might be a, hopefully, we don't have it again. 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 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 00:47:23.440 --> 00:47:24.440 last one. 00:47:24.440 --> 00:47:28.160 Are those resubmittals infinite, hopeful, and this is we're talking about a very small 00:47:28.160 --> 00:47:31.480 percentage that we're talking about here, where we're having to worry about, which might 00:47:31.480 --> 00:47:35.880 be way too long a conversation for a very small portion of the applications that come 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 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. 00:47:49.600 --> 00:47:50.600 Could that happen? 00:47:50.600 --> 00:47:54.660 Is there anything in the law that that that keeps it keeps that from happening? 00:47:54.660 --> 00:47:59.280 That was essentially our initial concern with with what we were proposing. 00:47:59.280 --> 00:48:01.360 Hopefully it never happens. 00:48:01.360 --> 00:48:04.040 But I've seen a lot of strange things happen. 00:48:04.040 --> 00:48:05.040 So. 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 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 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 00:48:20.080 --> 00:48:23.760 affirmative would then give a would give an extension and then if the extension has already 00:48:23.760 --> 00:48:28.760 been granted, then a less than four affirmative again would be given a resubmission and that 00:48:28.760 --> 00:48:33.280 resubmission process would be continued until the other side of this rule that was created 00:48:33.280 --> 00:48:36.920 where that commissioner is replaced by the council person appointed them because they're 00:48:36.920 --> 00:48:40.120 no longer following the law of the development code. 00:48:40.120 --> 00:48:42.000 That that might be a thought there. 00:48:42.000 --> 00:48:43.000 So thanks. 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 00:48:52.200 --> 00:48:58.160 basically just parts of the code that they missed putting in their plans when they submitted 00:48:58.160 --> 00:48:59.160 to us. 00:48:59.160 --> 00:49:00.720 Is that correct? 00:49:00.720 --> 00:49:05.840 Yes, anything that, you know, as mentioned earlier, if it was identified by a planning 00:49:05.840 --> 00:49:10.120 zoning commissioner, we can certainly add that condition and or if it's a condition 00:49:10.120 --> 00:49:15.520 that staff is recommending and maybe something minor that can be addressed, that's something 00:49:15.520 --> 00:49:18.480 that we would also make a condition upon. 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. 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 00:49:29.200 --> 00:49:34.200 that if there is rather than even putting conditions on it, I believe staff has some 00:49:34.200 --> 00:49:38.320 power to do a kind of a pre denial. 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 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 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 00:49:54.560 --> 00:49:56.560 have already been met. 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 00:50:03.720 --> 00:50:07.700 bring any plats with conditional approvals. 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 00:50:11.280 --> 00:50:12.960 those conditions. 00:50:12.960 --> 00:50:15.460 We just don't want to put that onerous on staff. 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 00:50:21.640 --> 00:50:25.680 and think that you're going you should be submitting to meet the code. 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 00:50:32.240 --> 00:50:33.300 the meeting. 00:50:33.300 --> 00:50:38.660 So there's instances where we are recommending denial and it might be something minor. 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 00:50:43.760 --> 00:50:46.480 report from the Railroad Commission. 00:50:46.480 --> 00:50:50.060 We did not want to do a conditional approval on that. 00:50:50.060 --> 00:50:55.060 It was a we were still recommending denial because technically they weren't meeting the 00:50:55.060 --> 00:50:58.920 code until that report was was final. 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 00:51:03.800 --> 00:51:10.160 made those changes and there's times where on Monday or Tuesday, sometimes it's Wednesday 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 00:51:16.120 --> 00:51:18.120 met those met those conditions. 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. 00:51:25.080 --> 00:51:36.300 Commissioner Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just to clarify, I mean, when PNZ gets a preliminary 00:51:36.300 --> 00:51:40.520 plat or a final plat, you know, staff has already vetted it. 00:51:40.520 --> 00:51:43.560 By the time we get it, it's in consent. 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 00:51:50.060 --> 00:51:56.820 on the commission wants to go be you know, beyond what staff has is recommending with 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 00:52:02.040 --> 00:52:05.040 has to stop. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:52:46.720 --> 00:52:55.560 just an observation that we're trying to create this whole kind of process because someone 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 00:53:00.680 --> 00:53:05.960 unless you can provide a justification of a code condition that is verifiable by the 00:53:05.960 --> 00:53:12.960 legal department in real time, that those plats are automatically approved. I mean, 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 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 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 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 00:53:33.000 --> 00:53:38.120 legal department would have to verify that and attest to it. And I mean, seriously, I 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 00:53:44.840 --> 00:53:51.600 from an authority who's charged with making those definitive statements. And if it can't 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? 00:53:57.500 --> 00:54:02.540 You would have to amend your consent agenda rule that you have in your rules procedure 00:54:02.540 --> 00:54:07.120 right now. That allows Council and all the courts and commissions to pull any item off 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 00:54:51.720 --> 00:55:03.720 So forgive me. Councilmember Briggs. So after hearing, so why does this even come to PNZ 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 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 00:55:14.660 --> 00:55:20.640 was different. We're discussing all of these things. We're talking about removing planning 00:55:20.640 --> 00:55:27.200 and zoning commissioners from their chair if they, you know, bring up a certain condition 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 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. 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 00:55:49.320 --> 00:55:54.040 applications have to be approved by the governing body and that being the planning and zoning 00:55:54.040 --> 00:56:00.740 commission. But it also says that they have to be approved no matter what, basically. 00:56:00.740 --> 00:56:12.160 In addition to that, yes. To some respect. So why not? 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 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 00:56:24.800 --> 00:56:31.600 there was an actual problem with something that didn't get caught in the last minute, 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 00:56:36.800 --> 00:56:45.240 of one item that was there. Chair, if I can, I know that we have another 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 00:56:49.760 --> 00:56:57.800 citation that's related to a subdivision requirement pertaining to that particular plat. 00:56:57.800 --> 00:57:04.320 So we have something proposed. And I don't know if the planning, zoning commissioner, 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 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, 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 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 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 00:57:33.600 --> 00:57:42.760 vote being finalized. Okay. And I guess I would think that if staff 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 00:57:49.280 --> 00:57:53.360 option of either taking a break or moving on to something beyond consent and then coming 00:57:53.360 --> 00:57:57.880 back to consent. That's just going to be a standard procedure as well. 00:57:57.880 --> 00:58:05.600 Correct. That could be an option to give staff the ability to confirm that that citation 00:58:05.600 --> 00:58:10.200 is valid and can be verified prior to a vote being finalized. 00:58:10.200 --> 00:58:15.480 Okay. I don't know if that's something that needs 00:58:15.480 --> 00:58:20.320 to be codified or that just needs to be a practice that the planning, zoning commission 00:58:20.320 --> 00:58:29.240 does on subdivision applications. Yeah, I would think so. Any other questions 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. 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 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 00:58:43.240 --> 00:58:46.560 responsibility for that. Absolutely. 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 00:58:51.080 --> 00:58:56.440 with this particular code amendment, we're not going to do anything right now with the 00:58:56.440 --> 00:59:01.960 less than four affirmative votes and try to work with the planning, zoning commission 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 00:59:08.240 --> 00:59:16.960 point prior to any votes being finalized, if that's a fair assessment of the discussion. 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 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 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. 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 00:59:59.600 --> 01:00:04.480 amendment or last discussion, that is, we won't take any actions with regard to tie 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 01:00:12.640 --> 01:00:18.360 a valid citation. And hopefully that takes care of any situations that will result in 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 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 01:00:32.360 --> 01:00:39.920 for zoning map amendments, basically rezonings, but just rezonings. And I think this is what 01:00:39.920 --> 01:00:45.440 you're referring to, Councilman Briggs, is that we did discuss this. However, it only 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 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 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 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, 01:01:20.800 --> 01:01:25.680 the all ESAs and any other recommendation that comes from planning zoning commission 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 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 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, 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, 01:01:59.240 --> 01:02:07.240 every application has a specific process. The 2002 DDC SUPs, all ESAs, all follow the 01:02:07.240 --> 01:02:11.600 zoning amendment procedure. And so that's why it covered all of those applications in 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 01:02:17.920 --> 01:02:24.200 that tie vote provision was contained. Now that we've established procedures for SUPs 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, 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 01:02:37.880 --> 01:02:40.480 items that we're looking to do, if that helps. 01:02:40.480 --> 01:02:50.680 Thanks, Richard. Yeah, that does help, because when we probably considered it back in 2018, 01:02:50.680 --> 01:02:57.680 the application was more universal. As Richard mentioned, this development code that we have 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 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, 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 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 01:03:25.320 --> 01:03:35.300 code amendment, it would just be for adding a tie vote direction or determination for 01:03:35.300 --> 01:03:43.520 SUPs and all ESAs, similar to what we already have under the zoning requirements or zoning 01:03:43.520 --> 01:04:02.520 process. And I'll stand for any questions. Any questions? Yes, Mayor Watts. Is this just 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 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, 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. 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. 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 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 01:04:42.980 --> 01:04:49.800 for vote denial, which would tend to indicate that it really is. I mean, that sentiment 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 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 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 01:05:06.400 --> 01:05:10.720 does address that, and it will address that. If again, this is actually taken forward, 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? 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 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 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 01:05:53.360 --> 01:06:01.720 down. Here it is. So as mentioned earlier, Robin was presenting the House Bill 3167. 01:06:01.720 --> 01:06:10.600 It's under that provision that a citation for any denial must be directly related to 01:06:10.600 --> 01:06:17.480 the subdivision requirements or development code. Currently, it is under Texas local government 01:06:17.480 --> 01:06:23.440 code. However, that we feel that it should be included in the DDC. I think Commissioner 01:06:23.440 --> 01:06:28.680 Smith mentioned that part of the planning zoning commission is to uphold the DDC. So 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 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, 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 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 01:07:02.300 --> 01:07:14.840 adding these languages into the DDC. Any questions? 01:07:14.840 --> 01:07:24.440 >> Councilmember Briggs. >> Just on timing, at what point would those 01:07:24.440 --> 01:07:29.160 be added? >> We would have to take this forward to the 01:07:29.160 --> 01:07:34.600 planning zoning commission and ultimately to City Council in the next, you know, month 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. 01:07:40.720 --> 01:07:45.200 So that would add a couple more weeks. So the soonest probably would be City Council 01:07:45.200 --> 01:07:50.780 in about a month and a half. >> Right. And I guess that answers one question. 01:07:50.780 --> 01:07:59.880 But when in the process would these denials or citations be added? Before or after? When 01:07:59.880 --> 01:08:06.240 they come through to the meeting? >> Hopefully, as Erin mentioned, that if there 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 01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:19.800 we would need to have that verified prior to any vote being rendered or decided on. 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 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 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 01:08:39.840 --> 01:08:45.520 it and says yes or no? Is that something to be discussed later on or? 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. 01:08:50.320 --> 01:08:51.320 >> Okay. >> But Richard. 01:08:51.320 --> 01:08:56.520 >> That would be correct. >> Okay. 01:08:56.520 --> 01:09:04.960 >> Any other questions? >> Thank you. 01:09:04.960 --> 01:09:10.880 >> So again, for this particular item, we're just going to bring forward a code amendment 01:09:10.880 --> 01:09:18.560 that just basically puts into the development code those provisions that were approved per 01:09:18.560 --> 01:09:24.480 House Bill 3167. When it comes to, again, making sure that the citations are related 01:09:24.480 --> 01:09:33.240 and that they are not arbitrary and that we've illustrated or provided documentation or text 01:09:33.240 --> 01:09:43.880 that state, you know, we need to follow these requirements. Okay. All right. Moving on. 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 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 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 01:10:06.800 --> 01:10:14.960 to development contracts or also known as three way agreements. However, they are very 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 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 01:10:27.680 --> 01:10:34.880 part of our development review process improvement is to provide the development community and 01:10:34.880 --> 01:10:41.640 the community in general a better understanding of what is included and how the process for 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 01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:55.640 sure that we have enough information and sharing that information with the general public to 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. 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, 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 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 01:11:28.320 --> 01:11:33.960 also recognize that there is a need for sidewalk construction alternatives for certain situations 01:11:33.960 --> 01:11:40.600 where there is a small project and a sidewalk construction alternative could benefit from 01:11:40.600 --> 01:11:48.800 something that is not as involved as a public -- sorry, a payment in lieu of improvements 01:11:48.800 --> 01:11:56.140 and can be done through a separate process under a sidewalk construction alternative. 01:11:56.140 --> 01:12:02.720 And what staff is proposing, all of this will be under a section called -- under section 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. 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 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 01:12:27.000 --> 01:12:34.160 as well as the provisions under what we are calling sidewalk escrow agreements. Now, you 01:12:34.160 --> 01:12:39.440 all haven't had the opportunity to review the contents, the details specifically. We 01:12:39.440 --> 01:12:45.520 just highlighted these sections. We are currently in the process of drafting those and making 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 01:12:52.920 --> 01:13:01.760 sections that we will include under the amendment of section 846. And that concludes my presentation. 01:13:01.760 --> 01:13:16.680 I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions? All right. I'm not seeing 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 01:13:33.520 --> 01:13:37.700 where the three way agreements and those types of agreements are in the development process. 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. 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 01:13:54.040 --> 01:13:58.520 related to subchapter 2. So if you can, if you can open up. 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 01:14:03.020 --> 01:14:07.720 staff direction regarding code amendments related to subchapter 2 administrative end 01:14:07.720 --> 01:14:12.760 procedures. >> Thank you, Chair. What we're doing, now 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 01:14:16.520 --> 01:14:23.140 really opportunity to I would say clean up but also provide clarification on what is 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 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 01:14:37.760 --> 01:14:43.800 that summarizes the development review procedures. We have one that's currently there now that's 01:14:43.800 --> 01:14:49.520 in here that's shown in black, administratively approved plat. However, it's not clear as 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 01:14:56.120 --> 01:15:04.000 particular application type. That is the following. Conveyance plat, minor plat, minor E plat 01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:11.320 as well as amending final plat. So again, to help clarify, provide the reader a little 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 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. 01:15:23.980 --> 01:15:31.520 This particular section, also under table 2.2A is for replats. There was a house bill 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. 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 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 01:15:50.040 --> 01:15:57.360 the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The other sections or other piece to this table and 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 01:16:02.240 --> 01:16:09.960 development community. We initially were going to implement a certificate of zoning compliance. 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 01:16:15.560 --> 01:16:22.320 is to not implement a certificate of zoning compliance but rather continue with the zoning 01:16:22.320 --> 01:16:27.920 verification letter. What that is, it just provides an applicant or property owner the 01:16:27.920 --> 01:16:33.720 ability to verify their property zoning and what type of uses are approved and just to 01:16:33.720 --> 01:16:40.120 confirm that their current use is either in compliance or in non-compliance. This provides 01:16:40.120 --> 01:16:47.880 them the ability to do so. The next slide here just basically describes what a zoning 01:16:47.880 --> 01:16:54.480 verification letter is. Again, basically what I stated earlier provides the confirmation 01:16:54.480 --> 01:16:59.360 of the property zoning and ultimately the use that's allowed under that zoning and then 01:16:59.360 --> 01:17:07.400 anybody can apply for it, a property owner and/or applicant if they choose to. Another 01:17:07.400 --> 01:17:12.760 application type that the city is wanting to establish is referred to as a business 01:17:12.760 --> 01:17:18.520 registration and currently it's not in the development code and of course if something 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 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 01:17:30.280 --> 01:17:36.240 type and provide the procedures that it would need to follow for anybody that's submitting 01:17:36.240 --> 01:17:42.920 an application or a business registration. So here's a purpose or summary, I was going 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 01:17:49.000 --> 01:17:56.160 a registration. Again, the business registration just ensures that the city has the updated 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 01:18:03.360 --> 01:18:10.560 now. However, the CEO is related to certificate of occupancy. It doesn't really pertain to 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 01:18:19.480 --> 01:18:25.880 are just for that reason, for reviewing and making sure that the occupancy of that unit 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 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 01:18:39.920 --> 01:18:46.240 use would be documented under a business registration. And again, any business registration can be 01:18:46.240 --> 01:18:52.120 applied by a business owner or applicant or property owner. So this is something that 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 01:19:00.600 --> 01:19:06.080 the business for any purposes including obviously obtaining a loan or just making sure that 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 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 01:19:21.080 --> 01:19:27.840 these as we move forward. Obviously, those going backwards will be difficult to do. We 01:19:27.840 --> 01:19:33.160 don't plan on making everyone submit an application for a business registration. We hope that 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 01:19:38.600 --> 01:19:50.400 some of those at a timeframe that is more conducive for everybody. I'm going really 01:19:50.400 --> 01:19:55.320 quickly on these items. I apologize if there are any questions, please let me know. Does 01:19:55.320 --> 01:20:00.440 anybody have any questions related to the zoning verification letter or a business registration 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. 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 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 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 01:20:33.680 --> 01:20:39.360 adding an application type under the subdivision procedure simply called civil engineering 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 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 01:20:54.200 --> 01:21:02.560 it will allow us to do. Of course, it applies to any improvements, public improvements that 01:21:02.560 --> 01:21:08.960 is being proposed. This is how we review it, again, through the civil engineering plans. 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 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 01:21:20.600 --> 01:21:27.000 of the code. I have a question about this. Yes, ma'am. 01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:34.800 Just for clarification, because I remember that this is a pretty expensive requirement 01:21:34.800 --> 01:21:42.120 for some, the civil engineering plans. Is it required for everything? Depending on if 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 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 01:22:03.600 --> 01:22:09.920 call if he can maybe address when a civil engineering plan is on the board. 01:22:09.920 --> 01:22:13.520 Those are typically associated with a final plan if there's public improvements, whether 01:22:13.520 --> 01:22:22.200 it be new streets, utility extensions. Generally, if a site plan is required, something 01:22:22.200 --> 01:22:28.520 like the items that you mentioned, those typically would not require civil engineering plans. 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 01:22:33.880 --> 01:22:41.640 already doing it under something, so thank you. There was at one point, I think some 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, 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. 01:22:53.600 --> 01:22:59.800 We have since removed that, and within the 2019 DDC, there is the provision and specific 01:22:59.800 --> 01:23:04.080 procedures for site plans, so that there were instances when that happened in the past, 01:23:04.080 --> 01:23:08.240 but that has since been corrected. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying 01:23:08.240 --> 01:23:17.400 that. Thank you, Richard. That's it for today as 01:23:17.400 --> 01:23:24.320 far as some of the code amendments. We anticipate some discussion with obviously those first 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 01:23:28.840 --> 01:23:35.600 it with the DCRC. We received, obviously, important information as we move forward with 01:23:35.600 --> 01:23:41.800 our code amendments. I just wanted to highlight that we will be bringing forward additional 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 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 01:23:53.920 --> 01:24:00.000 meeting. Hopefully, we can get a quorum for next Wednesday. What we will be bringing forward, 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 01:24:06.240 --> 01:24:14.520 cleanup and/or providing additional clarification, and if there are any other items that the 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, 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 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 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 01:24:42.880 --> 01:24:59.640 next DCRC. Okay. Any questions, comments? Let me get back to my agenda here. Seeing none, 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. 01:25:08.840 --> 01:25:09.840 Thank you. 01:25:09.840 --> 01:25:10.840 Thank you, everyone. 01:25:10.840 --> 01:25:11.840 Thank you. 01:25:11.840 --> 01:25:11.840 Thank you.