I want to welcome everyone to the Development Code Review Committee meeting.
We do have a quorum present, it is 1.02.
We are, by order of the Governor, doing this remotely, or able to do this remotely.
The first item on the agenda is consider approval of the October 19th, 2020 minutes.
Council Member Briggs.
I will move approval.
Alright, and I'll go ahead and second it, and we can do the roll call.
Council Member Briggs, I'll say you.
Aye.
Mayor Watts.
Mayor Watts, I'll say you.
Sorry.
Aye.
I was on mute, sorry about that, and I'm sitting here just talking.
And the Chair is an aye, so it passes unanimously.
Next item up is to receive a report, hold a discussion regarding an overview of House
Bill 3167.
Hey, John.
Yes.
I'm going to just step off just for a second, I think you still got a quorum because I got
a text, somebody's thinking I'm supposed to be in another meeting, so I need to get that
squared away, so I'll be right back.
Okay.
Yep.
Alright, sorry.
Yeah, I'll just continue on without me.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm going to share my screen PowerPoint presentation, but we will have a presentation by Ms. Robin
Miga to make this presentation for this item.
So let me go ahead and share my screen, and then once it's up, I'll turn it over to Robin.
Okay, hopefully everybody sees the presentation, and Robin, if you can go ahead and get started.
Okay, thank you, Ron.
Good afternoon.
I'm Robin Miga.
I guess I just wanted to give you a little bit of background on myself, just before we
begin.
I have been a planner for about six years, and I've spent the bulk of that time on staff
with cities that were experiencing rapid growth, and our firm works for about 30 cities across
Texas.
So we'll just get into House Bill 3167 and our agenda.
Most of you are familiar with the bill that passed during the last legislative session.
However, given the nature of some of the changes that are proposed for the DDC amendments,
we thought now is a good time for a refresher on how that bill affected subdivision applications.
While I'll be presenting on the bill, if there are any specific questions, I will defer to
the appropriate department to answer any questions that may arise.
Some of this is probably familiar to you all, but I thought it was kind of important to
paint the picture of how development works in Denton.
I wanted to start by the introduction to the development assistance team.
This team is in charge of reviewing plans that are submitted to the city and are tasked
with ensuring that all of them meet the city's adopted ordinances, state laws, as well as
any adopted manuals or standard details or criteria.
If they do not meet that criteria, it's their job to cite appropriately to the deficiency
in the coder law and provide that information to the applicant in order to get it corrected.
This is a brief look at the sequence as they come in through the planning department, and
to make note that not all applications that come through the development department are
subject to House Bill 3167.
So you can see these items in green, the annexation, zoning, and zoning compliance plans, those
all aren't subject to the shot clock, but the other three, your preliminary plot, engineering
plans, and final plot are subject to the shot clock.
And then I went ahead and added who the approval authority is for these.
These are the three different types of plotting applications, preliminary plots, civil engineering
plans, and final plots.
Once the applications have been deemed administratively complete and are filed, they are required
to be reviewed within 30 days.
The applications that, if these applications require P&Z approval, that approval is also
required within 30 days.
So if P&Z does not take action within 30 days, the plot is considered approved even if it
doesn't meet the city's standards.
And I'll get into what the law says about that a little later.
So I just wanted to give you all a glimpse of the different manuals and plans that are
utilized in the review of subdivision applications.
All of the reviewers on your development assistance team are reviewing these plans or plots that
are submitted to the city based on the code of ordinances and the DVC state laws, as well
as the different criteria manuals and plans that have been adopted by the city.
So these are all the manuals that the applicant is also required to utilize when they are
drafting their plans that are to be approved by the city.
Okay, so now I'll kind of get into HB 3167, the shot clock bill.
Before this bill went into effect, the shot clock existed in state law, but it allowed
for cities to request a waiver from the requirement.
So following that new law being enacted, cities are no longer allowed to ask applicants for
this waiver, but the applicant is able to request an extension for up to 30 days.
And it's my understanding that the city of Denton still has some applicants who request
that extension so that they don't have to go through a complete resubmittal for their
application and pay new fees and things like that.
So this is the language that was added to 212 for subdivision approval.
Cities are no longer able to request that an applicant waive the 30-day requirement
and the municipal authority responsible for approving a plan or plot has to do so within
30 days.
And so they're required to take action by approving, approving with conditions or disapproving
with an explanation.
So sorry to be reading from slides for you, but I just want to be specific.
The law defines the municipal authority responsible for approving a plot as the planning commission,
or if the city doesn't have a planning commission, the governing body of the city, and Denton,
your municipal authority is P&Z for a plan or plot.
And so the law does allow that the city is able to delegate approval for engineering
plans and certain plots to city staff.
And so that is done in some situations as well.
Many cities, I would say, struggle to implement this bill in order to meet the shot clock
for subdivisions.
For some applications, 30 days is probably enough time, but for many of these complicated
plans that are submitted as part of a subdivision application, 30 days is nowhere near enough
time, which is why I think you saw cities, especially those that are experiencing rapid
growth such as Denton, take the approach that the key was to improve their development process
in order to ensure compliance with state law.
And the reason is because the following language was added to state law, which was 212-0091.
The approval procedure, so the municipal authority or governing body that conditionally approves
or disapproves a plan or plot under the subjector shall provide the applicant a written statement
of the conditions for the conditional approval or reason for disapproval.
And then you get into B, which states that each condition or reason specified in the
written statement must be directly related to a requirement under this subchapter and
include a citation to the law, including a statute or municipal ordinance that is the
basis for the conditional approval or disapproval, if applicable, and that it may not be arbitrary.
So under HB 3167, subdivision applications have to be acted on within 30 days for filing.
And if not approved, the commission is required to cite a reason pursuant to 212-0091, which
is what I stated on the previous slide.
Plots subject to commission approval are presented to P&Z with a report from staff detailing
the deficiencies of state law and/or the city ordinances, if there are any, and that plan
or plot shall be approved if it complies with your standards.
Unlike P&Z's broad discretion in zoning matters, the discretion in subdivision plotting matters
is limited.
Once applicable rules are satisfied, the approval process is ministerial in nature.
And P&Z is the final decision on plots.
And this slide is just kind of to explain that the report that is provided to P&Z regarding
an application and its deficiencies is also required by city staff for those applications
that are administrative.
For all plans or plots that the law allows for an administrative approval, staff has
to cite the exact deficiency from state law or an adopted ordinance for the reason of
denial as well.
If staff does not approve or deny or approve with conditions within 30 days of the filing
date, it is also considered approved.
So that's why the shot clock was kind of -- it was a difficult one for cities to implement.
Thank you for your time, and we would be happy to answer any questions you guys have.
>> Okay.
Any questions?
And again, I only see nine people up here, so if you've got your hand raised and I don't
call on you, just unmute and let me know.
>> I've got one, John.
>> Okay.
Go ahead, Chris.
>> So I just want to make sure, if I remember correctly from our time before, that the plan
and plat -- this has nothing to do with rezoning or anything.
This is a subdivision plan or some type of plat, which is a plan.
Is that my understanding?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay.
Okay.
>> All right.
Anyone else have any questions?
Not seeing anything -- anyone or hearing from anyone, we'll move on to the next agenda item,
which is agenda item C, receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff directions regarding
code amendments related to planning and zoning commission operations and procedures.
>> Thank you, Chair, I will take this presentation.
Let me pull up my slides here real quick and we can get started.
Okay.
Hopefully you all can see the presentation as mentioned.
This is for a number of code amendments that we will be hopefully bringing forward in the
near future.
The first one is related to less than four affirmative votes.
By way of background, the first column here is really what we have to date per section
2.29 of the code of ordinances.
It states that an affirmative vote of four members is necessary to take any final or
official action.
So what that means is that under Robert's rule, that anything less than four shall be
considered a denial.
That causes issues with regards to house bill or platts per se and subdivision applications
because if there is an application that's being considered by the planning and zoning
commission, most of those are considered on or just before the 30-day deadline and it's
difficult to schedule or bring it back an item if, say, there is a 3-1 or 3-2 vote and
the applicant would like to postpone it.
That can't happen because, again, the 30-day shot clock is at play and we need to make
a decision on what that is.
So for example, if there is a 3-1, 3-2, and there's no code amendment, looking at option
one, if there's no change, the P and Z vote of 3-1 or 3-2 shall be considered a denial
and actually we don't want that.
We want to be able to address the comments that is from staff and/or from the planning
zoning commission and so what staff is recommending is that we take option two, which is to codify
in the development code as well as the code of ordinances because, again, it needs to
be clear that the planning and zoning commission, if voted, voting is less than four, that it
is an official action and that motion, whatever it is, is passed.
So again, it's going to be different from the rest of the boards and commission that
we have in the city.
It's also going to be different from city council, as I understand it.
So the planning zoning commission, due to the House Bill 3167, any vote less than four,
again, if option two is taken forward and considered and approved by city council, would
be a vote for a motion that passes.
So let me share real quickly what we are proposing under the Section 233 of the then development
code.
We are proposing to add this language here.
As you can see here, I'm going to read it out just for the record.
If at the conclusion of a P&Z vote, the planning zoning commission has or have reached reaches
a majority but less than four affirmative votes to approve, approve with conditions
or disapprove with reason, whatever that motion is, that passes.
And it's important to note that in addition to this code amendment to the DDC, we would
also need to amend or add language to the code of ordinances to also state that the
planning zoning commission may make a decision or have a final decision if it is less than
four affirmative votes.
That is really our code amendment recommendation proposal.
Do you have any questions for this item?
>> I do.
>> Just for clarification, it feels like this has come back to us and council in different
ways or forms previously and recently, if I'm not mistaken, and from what I remember
is that council decided that it would be denied still.
Am I not remembering correctly?
Or is this different?
>> Aaron, do you -- >> Yes, this council made an amendment to
the tie vote provision about a year ago, if I'm not mistaken, and you're correct, councilmember
Briggs, that for both city council and for boards and commissions, any matters which
end up in a tie vote will be considered now.
For council, it's on the second meeting where it's considered if it's also a tie vote.
And for the regular boards and commissions, it's one time, if it's at that meeting.
You also adopted an exception for the DDC, which is the PNZ, to outline the process for
the recommendations, which is a zoning, not a non-zoning item, which is what they're here
for.
But you are correct.
That's what the council voted for about a year ago to treat it as a denial.
>> Just a point of clarification, Aaron, that is for tie votes, correct?
Anything of less than four affirmative vote?
>> That is correct.
The issue that Ron just spoke about, where you, under Roberts, you would have a motion
that passes is something this council didn't discuss at all.
>> And just to follow up, so then it's coming through this board and then eventually go
to PNZ and then council, so this is the first time we're hearing of it in this, in this
forum?
>> Correct.
We intend, obviously, to take any code amendments through the DCRC to get your input and recommendation
and then ultimately it will be presented to the full Planning Zoning Commission and also
to the full city council for final action or consideration.
>> Thank you.
Any other, Mayor Watts?
>> I think Margie was before me.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Margie.
>> Sorry.
>> Thanks.
Thank you, Mayor.
Hey, Ron, so obviously this is brought up because of the shot clock bill, but if we
change this, this is for anything that PNZ votes on, correct?
>> That's correct.
It does cover everything, does not separate between subdivision applications or non-subdivision
applications.
So it will apply for all.
>> Okay.
And technically, with what we just heard with regard to the shot clock bill, PNZ shouldn't
necessarily be denying platts in the first place if they meet.
>> Correct.
However, we do know that, you know, that there may be some situations where there is, so
we want to make sure we're covering it.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> The same, the light.
I mean, this has happened, and we have to fix it.
My concern is I don't know if this is the fix because we're changing -- we're changing
more than what seems to be the problem.
I don't necessarily know what the fix is, but I do have a concern that we're suddenly
now kind of blanket making this rule when we really have one thing that we need to address
with regard to the shot clock bill, and that's what we're not addressing.
>> It may be that we're addressing more than the shot clock, and if we need to -- that's
the recommendation or comment from the DCRC.
We can certainly pare down the recommendation and just affect only the subdivision applications
that are subject to the 3167 or 212, and maybe that's the recommendation we can bring forward.
Again, just to limit it to the subdivision applications, and as Rob mentioned, those
are the preliminary plots, the final plots, that is brought forward to the Planning Zoning
Commission.
>> Yeah.
To me, that seems like the problem that we're trying to fix here, but I mean, obviously,
I'm one voice here, so I'd love to hear other input.
>> Sure.
>> Mayor, go ahead.
>> No, I agree with Margie's assessment.
I couldn't support sort of a blanket change to change the rules for PNZ on approvals or
non-approvals because I think something would get caught up in it that's not meant to get
caught in that net, and I guess so.
Maybe I need to understand a little bit more of why you're seeking this.
Because of the shot clock issue and because of our four affirmative votes, what do we
-- refresh my memory -- what are we trying to avoid here?
Like, let's say a plat comes in, I thought plats were -- if their final plat was ministerial
in nature anyway in approving at the PNZ level.
Is that not correct?
I mean, I thought it -- there's really not a whole lot of leeway in that regard, but
am I mistaken in that?
>> If I may, we had an instance at PNZ where we had I think it was five members in attendance,
and the vote for the plat, an item was pulled off consent for an individual vote, and while
we were recommending approval, it went -- the vote was 3-2, and so because it didn't have
the four affirmative, it failed.
At that point, the applicant asked, well, how do I cure this?
How do I fix it?
How do I get -- what do I need to do since it's -- the reasons need to be stated, and
the reasons really had to do with our procedures.
What we ended up doing was putting it on the next agenda.
They just sort of resubmitted it, so we had it on the next PNZ.
But what -- I mean, it could continue and go on and on.
That was just our concern.
>> Okay.
So I want to make sure from a legal perspective.
Are final plats, if they meet all the criteria, a ministerial act of the Planning and Zoning
Commission?
>> That is under the law.
That is correct.
>> All right.
So if then -- in other words, it's -- does the law say that if they meet all the requirements,
they must be approved or there has to be an approval or -- I mean, okay.
So I would much rather address that particular issue.
I mean, so, Erin, let's say this thing that happened, and I guess, you know, Andrew and
Margie and Tim, you all might have been there for this.
So let's say that happens again.
What is the remedy from the city's perspective, from the city attorney's office, that if we
are doing something, if somehow there's a vote taken that does not comply with the law,
what's the remedy outside of trying to change our rules?
Because I'm going to be very hesitant to say that things can be approved.
If we're trying to just specifically address this issue that came up, in other words, for
plats at a ministerial and things such as that, we just -- we don't want to get caught
in this trap again.
I don't think this is the solution for that, especially if the law says you can't really
do that and it be valid.
Is that what I'm understanding the law says?
>> That is correct.
>> Okay.
So what would you say, Erin, then, is the -- I mean, so we have a law that somehow we're
trying to work around and change our procedures because we didn't want to say P&Z, you can't
do that, or -- I mean, if you're in a meeting, I mean, if Andrew is there chairing the meeting
and this happens, what is the city attorney's office going to be saying to say how do we
get past this because we cannot vote like this based upon state law?
What's the remedy?
>> Well, in the meeting, or before even the meeting, it's education, making sure that
the P&Z commissioners understand the nature of the law with respect to platting -- platz.
Second, in the meeting, if this comes up, if not, you know, Richard or the attorney assigned
to P&Z, one of them should raise this issue and remind the chair and the P&Z commission.
That takes care of a lot of issues.
I think where the problem, as I've studied this, is likely to come up is the approval
with conditions.
That itself lends to the dilemma or potential dilemma that a couple of P&Z members may feel
that those conditions are -- shouldn't be tied to a motion to approve, but rather for
denial because in their minds, they may not believe it.
That is the portion that has straight away from the general rule under state law that
gives P&Z that authority provided they can cite something within the development requirements.
So I understand the situation that Richard has presented, and it's a valid one, but I
do see the potential for even other problems in the future based on that because they now
have the authority to approve with conditions or disapprove with the reasons why, which
are going to be failure to meet certain conditions.
You can see where that can flip-flop at a P&Z meeting.
I hope I didn't confuse you all, but there's a lot more than -- the problem can be much
greater than what it appears.
Eventually, some cities are going to run into that problem.
And then I've got one other question that I'll yield the floor because I'm trying to
really get an idea of the picture.
So we've got a final plaque that's coming forward.
And what I'm hearing you say is that what if someone -- would it be staff, would it
be P&Z?
Because, well, we -- this final plaque has been submitted, but we are going to put conditions
on it, meaning we being, let's just say, the P&Z members.
First of all, is that lawful?
>> If the conditions are related to the development requirements and all the rules and regulations
that have been incorporated in our DDC, if they're valid -- and I can't tell you whether
they will be or won't be until the situation occurs and what's being proposed.
>> Okay.
All right.
So then what I'm hearing you say is that -- >> Put it another way, Mayor, the final plaque
is not -- no longer meeting every single requirement we have in there, if you have an approval
with conditions, because the conditions technically mean that they haven't met that specific
requirement, but that you're requiring them to do so.
>> So then can I make a suggestion on that?
Because what I'm hearing you say is that if a final plaque comes before the P&Z, it technically
should meet all the conditions.
And that the only reason a condition should be put on it is if somebody notices or somebody
has reason to know, oh, wait, this is a part of our code that is necessary, and you haven't
met this condition.
It's not like an SUP where you can just put stuff on that's not really based in the code.
So I don't know -- if the conditions are put on it, they've got to resubmit it anyway,
don't they?
>> Under the law, yes, under the HPIL 3167, but the problem, this problem that you're
describing is most likely not going to come up in a final plaque, it's going to come up
at the preliminary plaque phase.
>> Okay, and that's not ministerial.
>> It's also ministerial exercise as well, however, the conditions being added under the
new law that allows them -- the way that the law was designed, before it was ministerial,
they met all the requirements, preliminary plaque approved.
Now the law allows flexibility that they don't have to meet all the requirements if staff
recommends the conditions that they need to meet before construction plan approval or
final plaque.
That's what the law has created.
It's no longer -- if they meet all the requirements, it's got to be approved.
Now you have -- they meet most of the requirements, and as long as they meet these other conditions,
they're okay.
>> Well, okay, and I'll say my final say.
I think that I'm going to be hard pressed to vote to change the rules, because I think
when we do that, what we're doing is we're trying to work around something that if these
are the rules, and the commissioners obviously have been doing this a while and they understand
the implications, if they want to vote against it, and it's less than four votes, then we
got 30 days.
This shot clock starts.
In other words, I just trust the process, and I think as people understand that these
are the consequences of our decision, well, then we'll get it resolved.
So maybe I just don't understand the nature of the problem that we're trying to resolve
other than I guess to me, if you deny it, if it's 3-2 and it's a denial, then what they
do, they come back, set it again, and you're saying if you never get four people to vote
for it, is that what you're saying?
Is that what somebody's saying?
>> We're saying that if there is a denial, there should be some reason associated with
it, and that's obviously that's important to have, but you're right, Mayor, if they
do not get a four vote and 30 days passes, it's a denial, meaning that their project
has to be resubmitted, and they can resubmit.
But again, what happens if it comes back and again, it's a 3-2 vote from that point on.
So it's just really to settle it as soon as we can and we can find a remedy, then that's
what we're trying to do.
>> Okay, all right.
Sorry to take so much time.
>> Sorry, just for clarification, resubmittals are 15 days under 3160, so the resubmittal
need to come back before PNC in 15, not 30, just wanted to clarify.
>> Commissioner Smith, I think you had your hand up.
>> I did.
I just had a couple of points, thank you, Chair.
To Mayor Watt's point, I'd agree.
I think that that's been the biggest issue with us on the commission standpoint, is that
we see there needs to be a remedy for it, but the fact that there needs to be a cause
for the denial in the first place, the one thing I would just give you guys information
since you guys on council do not see these, and Andrew Margie and I have seen this firsthand,
is now there is, whenever there are votes against a preliminary plot or a final plot,
people do reference code.
It's not in detail and it's not necessarily in a way that is supporting.
So that would be an issue as well I'd raise on this, Ron, you know, and to what Mayor
Watt is saying, yes, it is a ministerial process, if there is a denial, there really needs to
be more than anything else, not a rule about how to handle three, two votes, but more of
what's the rule, regulation, check, and balance for the reason and the cause for the denial
to make sure that it is truly legal because my understanding of the House bill is that
unless you have cause, that's truly rooted in code rather than just saying, well, I don't
agree with it because of code, four point whatever it is, and there's not definite rule
that legal has looked at and approved saying, yes, you're right, this is an error here,
but even then, that's kind of a catch 22 because if it doesn't meet the code, then city staff
should be recommending it for approval in the first place, so it kind of makes us redundant.
The other point to bring up that really probably just adds more depth to this than we need
to because we're kind of at a surface level now with this, but tie votes can still occur
on that, so if you do have a four-person quorum, a two-two tie vote could happen, and to reference
what Aaron said earlier, tie votes are currently right now only applying it to zoning cases
and not non-zoning cases, so if we were to continue and not take Mayor Watts' conversation
deeper into is a rule really needed, more about this is a ministerial action than anything
else, this rule would probably also need to address tie votes within that to address that
tie vote shouldn't be necessarily denial within that as well, so just a point to bring up.
Okay, all right, Commissioner Rosent.
Thank you, Chair.
Just to add my viewpoint real quick, I agree with Margie 100%.
If the issue at hand is due to shot clock reasons, then the solution should be also
tied to shot clock reasons explicitly.
I don't think this is an opportunity to cover a blanket non-zoning issues.
If the solution is an amendment to the code, then it needs to be very specific to address
the problem that has been kind of brought to our attention first.
More broadly, I agree with the Mayor, and to Mayor Watts' point, he's not over-complicating
it, although his explanation might sound too logical, it's spot on.
The process works, I think, in my opinion as the Chair of P&Z, if we actually had some
teeth behind Commissioner's citing rule to create a new condition or where they've missed
it, I think that solves the problem.
Right now, there's been two commissioners that I know of who have said, "I deny this,"
and then they reference a section, but there's not any sort of verification that that section
being referenced is, in fact, in violation of the plat being put forth, and so if there's
actually just...
If a commissioner came to the dais and said, "This doesn't meet this section, it's verifiable,"
then all of the commissioners should be aligned in that vote, and right now, that's just not
the case.
They say, "I deny it, it's due to this section," and then they feel protected or justified
in the denial.
If you shore up that portion, again, it goes back to Ron's point of education about why
you can deny this, then this resolves itself, and we won't have three, two votes.
We'd have four, zero, five, zero votes if that denial reason was actually validated,
so those are my two cents on it.
- Councilmember Perks.
- Thank you.
Yeah, so I agree with a lot of what's been said here, but listening to the conversation
it feels kind of like deja vu, because I really think council had this conversation when we
were talking about the votes and conditions.
Councilman Ryan, you may remember not too long ago, we were talking about specifically
adding these conditions onto it to a denial and to make sure that it was done legally,
and we did not want to change this or change the procedure because of the unintended consequences
that could likely happen.
So I just wanted to comment that I'm in agreement here on not changing this broadly, and feel
like as long as those conditions are required legally, that it should be covered.
- Anyone else?
- I'll just say I agree with most everything that's been said on the subject.
I don't think changing the voting aspect of it is the better way to go.
I think it's more of if legally we can require that the commissioner who is voting against
it must state where in the code they're referencing that it's not following the code properly.
It's a better way to go around to handle this.
I think the biggest concern again with the 3-1 vote is if you've only got four commissioners
there, you don't have that.
You've got one outlier.
That's where you can run into problems.
I definitely don't want to put it the way that it's referenced up on the screen or you
had it on the screen.
If we did do a change and make three votes passing or a majority passing, it would need
to be just for subdivision issues.
- Margie, I think you had your hand up while I was talking, so I'm calling you first, Commissioner
Ellis.
- Okay, I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Yeah, so I was chairing the meeting where this all came up and it was a 3-2 vote on
a plaque.
And I think what we have to figure out here is, is there a way procedurally we can tell
the Planning and Zoning Commission that you are voting for a preliminary plat or a final
plat if staff says it meets all the conditions, that you cannot deny it?
Or if we're saying that you can deny it and cite something, then we're going to have to
fix what happened that evening, which was a 3-2 vote that ended up in a denial.
So it's got to be one of the two things.
This blanket measure is an overcorrection of something that does not need to happen in
my opinion.
So if we can't fix the procedure legally by telling the commissioner they can't do this,
or if they feel so strongly about it, is there a way we can say procedurally, you have to
talk to staff about your concerns first to see if you have merit behind what you're trying
to cite, not just because you don't think you want it to go there or whatever their
reasoning is.
But if we can't fix it procedurally and we have to fix it this way, then it's got to
just be tied to the shot clock thing, period.
>> Understood.
>> Okay.
>> Council Member Brinks?
>> I'm just curious why there was five members that night anyway.
Was it recusals or was it just absences?
Or -- >> It was just absences.
>> Yeah, I don't recall, but I think maybe they were just not present.
>> Yeah, we had two absences.
>> I was absent.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Okay.
Mayor Watz?
>> So, Aaron, and I guess this really comes down to a very basic question.
If whether it's P&Z or City Council or whoever, there's a member of a body that does something
-- what is it called in the corporate world, ultra virus, is that it, where you step outside
your authority to do something.
Is there a remedy at law during the actual meeting?
Let's say in Commissioner Ellis' example, it's like, well, you can't do that, and therefore,
that means what?
I mean, is there a way -- or do you take a vote and you have to deal with it on the back
end?
Because it seems like what we're trying to -- I'm just going to be honest.
It seems like what we're trying to do is craft a rule to try to deal with people who might
not be following the rules.
And that -- is there a -- what is the remedy at law to say -- I mean, does that mean they'd
have to sue us?
Does it mean that, you know, somehow we can deem it approved?
Maybe that's what we're trying to do here is say, okay, no, if somebody does something
ultra virus and you can't really make this condition because you can't, you know, anchor
it to some policy or procedure in our code that's legitimate, then it's approved.
So when you're in a meeting and this is happening, what, if any, are the remedies that can be
taken at the dais or during the meeting that would be valid and enforceable to say, well,
I mean, when somebody's just doing something they've been told they can't do, why should
the applicant suffer?
And if we're trying to craft a rule to avoid that happening, there's got to be a different
way because then what we're just saying is we're trying to craft a rule to get somebody
because somebody doesn't follow the rule.
So does that make sense, what I'm trying to ask?
It does.
And there's various ways to address that.
I think that the suggestion that commissioner Ellis has suggested is a very good one.
You know, that when the commissioners get their agenda, that they should identify any
items that they feel that they don't agree with staff's recommendation and identify those
early and possibly do that in a work session at the beginning to address those topics.
So hoping to avoid the vote later on in the meeting, if failure to do that, then when
the motion is made and seconded during the discussion, that information should probably
also be elicited so that the commissioners can internally debate what one or two may
want and the other three don't.
That's another way to do it.
We don't want to get into a situation where without doing those things, because if it
does come three to two and it fails and it ends up in a denial court of a rules procedure,
then the developers, their remedy is to resubmit that again if they want or to sue the city
and to force us to follow the law.
And so when you get to that point, it's too late.
So there's different ways that that can be addressed internally with PNZ and staff working
together or the developer going on their own initiative after the vote.
Yeah, because what I'm hearing you say, you're trying to address the three to two issue that
came up in practice, but it didn't really even matter about the numbers.
Because if you had three people that were making a condition that is not valid, and
you got five members and it gets voted down two to three, it's still valid.
I mean, it still should not have been denied because the conditions were not ruled upon
by legal to be legitimate conditions.
So it really doesn't matter what the numbers are.
The key is what happens when you've got members who are doing things that they have been told
legally they are not able to do.
And what I'm hearing you say is during the meeting, there is no remedy.
You can't say, we're not going to take your vote or we're going to ascribe a vote to you
that you don't make.
You can't create something else.
I mean, yeah, that's, man, that's, that's not a good situation.
There's always, if this does continue to be a problem, remember you as the council can
remove and reappoint commissioners if this.
And you know something?
I think that right there, I think that is one of the things that we need to look at
as a remedy to begin with that.
I mean, if we were to, I would rather codify that if you've been told that you, that this
condition is not valid and you still vote for it and it causes somebody to resubmit that,
that we change our code to make that that is immediate cause for removal.
If you've been told with an illegal opinion that you can't do this because in the end,
we have to have people who are serving on our boards and commissions that follow the
rule of law.
And if they're not following the rule of law, we shouldn't be creating a bunch of kind of
other processes in order to try to mitigate that.
So this conversation has probably gone a lot longer than what we had all anticipated, but
I think it's a very good conversation.
I really appreciate everybody's input because it's just, this is a very fundamental issue
that we need to figure out.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Hey, Ron, can you remind me real quick the in regards to this and the shock lock rule,
I know that we Robin went over this a minute ago, but the 30 day extension, like if, like,
you know, whenever we see, we do see plastic come up, haven't met all the requirements
yet, which we asked, we asked for an extension be sent in front of us just to see if this
could maybe be a solution to it.
But if a three, two or a less than four affirmative is treated as then an immediate motion to,
to approve an extension for 30 days to maybe then remedy it with a full commission at that
time.
And then I guess I remember the slightly within the rule that only one extension can be can
be approved.
And there is no withering within the law to where we could add in there in this, in this
code that a second extension could be given.
Is that is that correct?
Am I understand that correctly?
You are muted by the way, Ron.
Thank you for that.
You're correct.
The third extension, if they haven't already applied or receive one, they can certainly
do that now that has to be done, obviously in advance or prior to that vote being in
play.
That's, that's one factor.
But again, the other one is if they already have a 30 day extension, and they wanted to
extend it, they would not be able to and us and that decision would be final at that point,
whatever that whatever is decided.
So the way I understood the law was that the that the applicant can request an extension.
Is there anything that the city can do within their guards of what we can't even we can't
grant an extension?
Correct.
It has to come from the applicant.
Okay.
All right.
Okay.
And there's nothing we can do I know like a resubmission correct Richard was 15 days
there's nothing that can be done to change it to where it can be a resubmission.
And I'll just say this because I think what Mayor Watts said very, very in there is his
conversation is 100% truthful that that the job of the commission is to abide by the DDC.
That's what the planning and zoning job is, is to make sure the DDC is being upheld at
the end of the day, and that the voted body of the council and the and the mayor are the
ones to interpret what the citizens say, and how that should be be what should be best
done for the city in regards to its citizens, planning and zoning should take that into
account, but our job is to make sure the code is being upheld as it's written, and then
to make changes and where we can see fit.
But with the resubmission piece, Richard, that we couldn't have that in there where
a three one or three two could end up forcing a resubmission to buy another 15 days for
to come back in front of a board where it could be seen again.
I think in those instances, I mean, that's how we treated the last one.
We didn't treat it as a denied application, you're going to have to resubmit and go through
the whole plat review at that point, I don't know, I mean, there's, what else would we
review for if we were had already reviewed it.
And so unless that just becomes an administrative policy that in those instances where there
might be a, hopefully, we don't have it again.
But if we do, it's treated as as a resubmittal, and then it's put on the on the agenda within
within at the very next meeting, essentially, and then that's that's how we treated the
last one.
Are those resubmittals infinite, hopeful, and this is we're talking about a very small
percentage that we're talking about here, where we're having to worry about, which might
be way too long a conversation for a very small portion of the applications that come
in front of us, but could it could foreseeably, or could there be possibly a infinite resubmittal
process where it is 15 days, another three to vote 15 days out of three to vote.
Could that happen?
Is there anything in the law that that that keeps it keeps that from happening?
That was essentially our initial concern with with what we were proposing.
Hopefully it never happens.
But I've seen a lot of strange things happen.
So.
Well, I mean, I think a combination of what what Mayor Watts said then of a removal of
commissioner who is not abiding by the law and then on one side of it and the other side
of if there hasn't been an extension, it's already been granted that a less than four
affirmative would then give a would give an extension and then if the extension has already
been granted, then a less than four affirmative again would be given a resubmission and that
resubmission process would be continued until the other side of this rule that was created
where that commissioner is replaced by the council person appointed them because they're
no longer following the law of the development code.
That that might be a thought there.
So thanks.
Let me try and figure something out here on the if we're approving with conditions, it's
basically just parts of the code that they missed putting in their plans when they submitted
to us.
Is that correct?
Yes, anything that, you know, as mentioned earlier, if it was identified by a planning
zoning commissioner, we can certainly add that condition and or if it's a condition
that staff is recommending and maybe something minor that can be addressed, that's something
that we would also make a condition upon.
But if it's a major item, certainly that's got to be a recommendation for denial.
Okay, is that I'm just wondering if to make things a little bit easier all the way around
that if there is rather than even putting conditions on it, I believe staff has some
power to do a kind of a pre denial.
I mean, it's making sure that everything is is complete, that we just send it back to
the developer to correct it prior to going on to P&Z so that there everything will either
come in as a denial because they refuse to put it in there or, you know, all conditions
have already been met.
Richard, if I may just add a little bit, it's been our practice internally that we don't
bring any plats with conditional approvals.
Part of it is just the vast number of plats that we're seeing, keeping track of all of
those conditions.
We just don't want to put that onerous on staff.
And so just trying to hold everyone to a higher standard of when you submit, you should submit
and think that you're going you should be submitting to meet the code.
But what we do, still being flexible is we do allow folks to make those changes up until
the meeting.
So there's instances where we are recommending denial and it might be something minor.
I can think of one where there was a plug gas well and we were waiting for the closeout
report from the Railroad Commission.
We did not want to do a conditional approval on that.
It was a we were still recommending denial because technically they weren't meeting the
code until that report was was final.
But we've had had instances where they where there's been other minor items and they have
made those changes and there's times where on Monday or Tuesday, sometimes it's Wednesday
morning of the meeting, we we provide PNZ with an update of that plat and then how they
met those met those conditions.
But it's really been our practice to not not bring forward those plats with with conditions.
Commissioner Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just to clarify, I mean, when PNZ gets a preliminary
plat or a final plat, you know, staff has already vetted it.
By the time we get it, it's in consent.
It's you know, so again, the issue that I guess is not being addressed is when someone
on the commission wants to go be you know, beyond what staff has is recommending with
regard to a plat or a final plat and that's the issue at hand and that's what that's what
has to stop.
So if it can be so then, John, if I may, then why why can't we not put in our rules of procedure
that you that final plats can only appear on consent agenda that I mean, if the issue
becomes they're getting pulled and that they can be voted on separately and we run into
this issue, then I just don't think that I mean, I think that they should just stay on
consent and if there's an issue that's presented, then you know, you can figure out how to do
it. But I mean, this is this is crazy. I mean, I'll be honest with you, this conversation
is I mean, we've been talking about this for an hour. And that's not a criticism. It's
just an observation that we're trying to create this whole kind of process because someone
wants to do something that's outside the rules. I don't know why we couldn't just say look
unless you can provide a justification of a code condition that is verifiable by the
legal department in real time, that those plats are automatically approved. I mean,
is there is there some kind of rule that you can just say, No, I mean, I mean, if we make
the rules, I don't know what the state law is. But if something gets pulled, and it's
not verifiable that it's a valid condition, it gets put back on the consent agenda and
it gets voted on. I would think we'd be able to make a rule like that that I mean, next
legal department would have to verify that and attest to it. And I mean, seriously, I
mean, there'd have to be something that that we got to have some kind of definitive statement
from an authority who's charged with making those definitive statements. And if it can't
be proved up, it just goes back on the consent agenda. I mean, can we make a rule like that?
You would have to amend your consent agenda rule that you have in your rules procedure
right now. That allows Council and all the courts and commissions to pull any item off
consent onto a individual consideration. It's easy to carve that out. Yeah, it's easy to
carve that out. I mean, just for PNZ for these type of shot clock issues where we put callers
around it, we put a fence around it. And because, man, that'll shut it down real quick. If
the legal department says no, that's not valid, it's going back on consent, then it goes on
consent and it gets voted on. And if the person who's wanting to deny it wants to vote against
the entire consent agenda, so be it. That's their issue. I mean, that's just my thought.
But I mean, anyway, sorry. And I'm part of the one who's extending this time. So I will
be accountable for that and own that. So I'm not referring to anybody but myself, actually.
So forgive me. Councilmember Briggs. So after hearing, so why does this even come to PNZ
for a vote? Like if PNZ is not allowed to discuss it, they're not allowed to disagree
with staff. They're not allowed to talk about it or make a recommendation or wish that something
was different. We're discussing all of these things. We're talking about removing planning
and zoning commissioners from their chair if they, you know, bring up a certain condition
that I don't know, I'm just trying to figure out why does that even have to come to planning
and zoning for this process if it's not actually a process, if it's just a stamp, you're done.
Quick answer there, and it might be incorrect here, but it's per state law that all subdivision
applications have to be approved by the governing body and that being the planning and zoning
commission. But it also says that they have to be approved no matter what, basically.
In addition to that, yes. To some respect. So why not?
Could we put in there that in order to pull any subdivision item off of consent agenda
that the commissioner must cite the code that it's in violation of before polling. So if
there was an actual problem with something that didn't get caught in the last minute,
that you still had that option that it didn't take out the whole consent agenda just because
of one item that was there. Chair, if I can, I know that we have another
code amendment that we're going to be talking about that actually speaks to that about providing
citation that's related to a subdivision requirement pertaining to that particular plat.
So we have something proposed. And I don't know if the planning, zoning commissioner,
whoever it may be, if they were to pull it off the agenda or if it was already off the
consent agenda or if it was already on the consent and they decide to vote against it,
it's still going to be something that we need to verify real-time during the meeting so
that we can confirm that that citation is valid. So I think that's where the challenge
is going to be is making sure that that citation is valid during the meeting or prior to the
vote being finalized. Okay. And I guess I would think that if staff
needed a few minutes to figure out if it was valid or not, that the chair would have the
option of either taking a break or moving on to something beyond consent and then coming
back to consent. That's just going to be a standard procedure as well.
Correct. That could be an option to give staff the ability to confirm that that citation
is valid and can be verified prior to a vote being finalized.
Okay. I don't know if that's something that needs
to be codified or that just needs to be a practice that the planning, zoning commission
does on subdivision applications. Yeah, I would think so. Any other questions
on this? I know the mayor, I hate to say this, but the mayor is going to hate me when I do.
We're on slide three of 23. Yeah, and I have a three o'clock meeting that
I had to push off here so I may have to jump off at three, but yeah, no. Hey, I take full
responsibility for that. Absolutely.
So what I'm hearing, if I can chair, just to summarize what we're going to be doing
with this particular code amendment, we're not going to do anything right now with the
less than four affirmative votes and try to work with the planning, zoning commission
to make sure that citations are relevant and take any actions that we need to get to that
point prior to any votes being finalized, if that's a fair assessment of the discussion.
Yeah, that would be my understanding of it. Okay, all right, so we'll move on to the next
agenda or next item on the agenda and that is sort of related, but I'll summarize it
briefly if I can share my screen. Okay, so I know we already talked about tie vote indirectly.
This is something that we will take as part of what we just summarized in the last code
amendment or last discussion, that is, we won't take any actions with regard to tie
vote. And again, the main issue or main concern here is making sure that the citations are
a valid citation. And hopefully that takes care of any situations that will result in
a tie vote. So the only thing that I want to highlight when it comes to tie vote, tie
votes that is, is that we do have a provision in the DDC currently that addresses tie votes
for zoning map amendments, basically rezonings, but just rezonings. And I think this is what
you're referring to, Councilman Briggs, is that we did discuss this. However, it only
applies to zoning applications. It does not apply to SUPs or all ESAs or any other recommendation
that gets forwarded to the City Council. So right now we only have wording in the development
code that talks about if there's a tie vote under a rezoning application. What we would
like to do as part of this code amendment is to expand that to also include the SUPs,
the all ESAs and any other recommendation that comes from planning zoning commission
brought forward. If it is a tie vote, it would follow the same procedures that we initially
approved back in 2018 when it comes to rezonings. Does that make sense? And let me get to the
code amendment itself. And if I can just provide just a little more background. If you recall,
we had this in the 2002 DDC. Part of the issue has been, or is really, that in the new DDC,
every application has a specific process. The 2002 DDC SUPs, all ESAs, all follow the
zoning amendment procedure. And so that's why it covered all of those applications in
the old code, because they all just refer to that procedure to follow, and that's where
that tie vote provision was contained. Now that we've established procedures for SUPs
and all ESAs, I think those are the only ones that really get referred or changes to razor,
that just was not incorporated in the 2019 DDC. And so that really is one of these cleanup
items that we're looking to do, if that helps.
Thanks, Richard. Yeah, that does help, because when we probably considered it back in 2018,
the application was more universal. As Richard mentioned, this development code that we have
today is a little bit more separated in regards to applications. So again, what you see here
on the screen is basically what is under the zoning situation. If there is a tie vote,
what we would do is just carry it forward for SUPs and all ESAs and other recommendations
that is brought forward. So I just want to make that clear that if we were to take a
code amendment, it would just be for adding a tie vote direction or determination for
SUPs and all ESAs, similar to what we already have under the zoning requirements or zoning
process. And I'll stand for any questions. Any questions? Yes, Mayor Watts. Is this just
codifying what the councils, I mean, similarly, I mean, what I'm hearing you say is that on
a public hearing matter, if it's a tie vote three to three, it gets resubmitted if it's,
I think there's two looks at it. Is that right? Correct. It would be the same. Correct. Yeah.
And so if it's another tie vote, it's a denial, but it avoids the supermajority requirement.
That is correct. Okay. I can share that if you'd like. Yeah. And the reason is because
it's really not an affirmative denial. Is that what I'm hearing? It's not a affirmative
for vote denial, which would tend to indicate that it really is. I mean, that sentiment
is we don't want it, and therefore the supermajority would be required. Is that right? That's how
it was drafted or approved in 2018. And we're not going to change that, and that's going
to be consistent. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Yep. Yes. And the last bullet
does address that, and it will address that. If again, this is actually taken forward,
we will make sure that's also part of that code amendment. Okay. Okay. Any other questions?
All right. Just going to move on to the next section. Yes, sir. Okay. So the next section
is related to back to House Bill 3167. This is where we're codifying the provisions that
are part of what was approved under HB 3167. And again, sorry, this is not it. Let me scroll
down. Here it is. So as mentioned earlier, Robin was presenting the House Bill 3167.
It's under that provision that a citation for any denial must be directly related to
the subdivision requirements or development code. Currently, it is under Texas local government
code. However, that we feel that it should be included in the DDC. I think Commissioner
Smith mentioned that part of the planning zoning commission is to uphold the DDC. So
we want to make sure that this reference or these requirements that you see here are in
the DDC and can be used to help, you know, get to where we want it to be where, again,
if there is any denial that the reasons must be provided and those reasons must be related
to the subdivision application. And it has to be verified. And that's why we're proposing
adding these languages into the DDC. Any questions?
>> Councilmember Briggs. >> Just on timing, at what point would those
be added? >> We would have to take this forward to the
planning zoning commission and ultimately to City Council in the next, you know, month
or so. Hopefully we can get it. We do need to notify and provide public hearing notifications.
So that would add a couple more weeks. So the soonest probably would be City Council
in about a month and a half. >> Right. And I guess that answers one question.
But when in the process would these denials or citations be added? Before or after? When
they come through to the meeting? >> Hopefully, as Erin mentioned, that if there
is a citation from the planning zoning commissioner, we would get that in advance. But of course
we would need to have that verified prior to any vote being rendered or decided on.
>> Okay. And would it be would there I guess citation be presented to all of the commission
or would it be up to staff to decide? So would it be presented to the commission to hear
and then they could discuss that? Or is it we send it to staff and then staff looks at
it and says yes or no? Is that something to be discussed later on or?
>> I'll let Richard answer that. But I would think we would share it with all of them.
>> Okay. >> But Richard.
>> That would be correct. >> Okay.
>> Any other questions? >> Thank you.
>> So again, for this particular item, we're just going to bring forward a code amendment
that just basically puts into the development code those provisions that were approved per
House Bill 3167. When it comes to, again, making sure that the citations are related
and that they are not arbitrary and that we've illustrated or provided documentation or text
that state, you know, we need to follow these requirements. Okay. All right. Moving on.
We have the next code amendment and it's related to three way agreements required. As mentioned
in prior presentation, but I'll go through this again. Let me make sure this is full
view. Let me scroll down here. Right now we have a section of development code that speaks
to development contracts or also known as three way agreements. However, they are very
limited in as far as detail. Basically what it says is what you see here under rule and
requirement. It just is a very general overview. What we have heard and what we would like as
part of our development review process improvement is to provide the development community and
the community in general a better understanding of what is included and how the process for
getting a three way agreement through is codified in the DDC. So really is just trying to make
sure that we have enough information and sharing that information with the general public to
make sure they understand how three way agreements work. We also have payment in lieu of improvements.
Currently it is in several sections of the DDC. You see here on the right, I'm sorry,
the left. And what we're trying to do is eliminate some of the duplications and identify it only
in one location and what we're proposing is that it be located in the section 846. We
also recognize that there is a need for sidewalk construction alternatives for certain situations
where there is a small project and a sidewalk construction alternative could benefit from
something that is not as involved as a public -- sorry, a payment in lieu of improvements
and can be done through a separate process under a sidewalk construction alternative.
And what staff is proposing, all of this will be under a section called -- under section
846, what I'm showing here in front of y'all today is 846 is basically just these two sentences.
What we're proposing is adding or amending that is that section to include a little bit
more details on a three way agreement as well as adding the payment in lieu of improvements
as well as the provisions under what we are calling sidewalk escrow agreements. Now, you
all haven't had the opportunity to review the contents, the details specifically. We
just highlighted these sections. We are currently in the process of drafting those and making
sure that it complies with all of the department's requirements. But again, these are the main
sections that we will include under the amendment of section 846. And that concludes my presentation.
I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions? All right. I'm not seeing
any so we can move on to the next. >> Yes, sir. There you go. This just illustrates
where the three way agreements and those types of agreements are in the development process.
So it's between the preliminary plan and just before final plan or during final plan applications.
Okay. So now we're moving to the next agenda item, Chair Ryan, to talk about code amendments
related to subchapter 2. So if you can, if you can open up.
>> I'll go ahead and call that item. Item D, receive a report, hold a discussion, give
staff direction regarding code amendments related to subchapter 2 administrative end
procedures. >> Thank you, Chair. What we're doing, now
you see that some of the ones that are going to be coming up in the next few slides are
really opportunity to I would say clean up but also provide clarification on what is
currently in the DDC. As you can see here, anything that's underlined is what we're wanting
to add into the DDC as far as language or text. So this particular table is table 2.2A
that summarizes the development review procedures. We have one that's currently there now that's
in here that's shown in black, administratively approved plat. However, it's not clear as
to what that is. So what we would like to add to this table is what falls under that
particular application type. That is the following. Conveyance plat, minor plat, minor E plat
as well as amending final plat. So again, to help clarify, provide the reader a little
bit more understanding of what is an administratively approved plat. So I just wanted to make sure
that this is something you all know that this is something that we will be bringing forward.
This particular section, also under table 2.2A is for replats. There was a house bill
that was passed where replats are now going to be appealed under the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
So that's why we're adding that section or that demarcation here on the application table
so that anyone that's looking at this will know that any appeal would need to go through
the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The other sections or other piece to this table and
there's going to be a lot of these just to help, again, provide clarification to the
development community. We initially were going to implement a certificate of zoning compliance.
Now that is very similar to what a zoning verification letter is. So what we have decided
is to not implement a certificate of zoning compliance but rather continue with the zoning
verification letter. What that is, it just provides an applicant or property owner the
ability to verify their property zoning and what type of uses are approved and just to
confirm that their current use is either in compliance or in non-compliance. This provides
them the ability to do so. The next slide here just basically describes what a zoning
verification letter is. Again, basically what I stated earlier provides the confirmation
of the property zoning and ultimately the use that's allowed under that zoning and then
anybody can apply for it, a property owner and/or applicant if they choose to. Another
application type that the city is wanting to establish is referred to as a business
registration and currently it's not in the development code and of course if something
is wanting, if something that we want implemented, we want to make sure that it's documented
and it's included in the development code. So we're proposing to add this as an application
type and provide the procedures that it would need to follow for anybody that's submitting
an application or a business registration. So here's a purpose or summary, I was going
to say summary of what a business registration is and what the process is in order to get
a registration. Again, the business registration just ensures that the city has the updated
information as far as what that particular use is. As you all know, we have a CEO process
now. However, the CEO is related to certificate of occupancy. It doesn't really pertain to
the use of the unit itself. So we are trying to make sure that the certificate of occupancies
are just for that reason, for reviewing and making sure that the occupancy of that unit
or that building is up to code. However, there are other things that they need to comply
with and we want to make sure when they submit an application and get approved for use, that
use would be documented under a business registration. And again, any business registration can be
applied by a business owner or applicant or property owner. So this is something that
will help us in making sure that we have the right uses and again, this could be used for
the business for any purposes including obviously obtaining a loan or just making sure that
their use is legal and we will offer this to anybody that wants to obtain the business
registration. Our hope is to start this. If again, it is approved, our hope is to approve
these as we move forward. Obviously, those going backwards will be difficult to do. We
don't plan on making everyone submit an application for a business registration. We hope that
if we start to implement this, we will use this moving forward and maybe go back, retrofit
some of those at a timeframe that is more conducive for everybody. I'm going really
quickly on these items. I apologize if there are any questions, please let me know. Does
anybody have any questions related to the zoning verification letter or a business registration
application? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and move on to the next section of the table.
Civil engineering plans. This is often asked for during a final plan review. We know it's
needed. However, it's not listed in table 2.2A. Again, what we're doing is making sure
that it's clear and we're clarifying what is required and how it's processed. We're
adding an application type under the subdivision procedure simply called civil engineering
plans. What that is basically is the purpose is to make sure that we have plans that will
fit within the criteria of not just our development code, but our criteria manuals. This is what
it will allow us to do. Of course, it applies to any improvements, public improvements that
is being proposed. This is how we review it, again, through the civil engineering plans.
Again, this is our normal practice, but we want to make sure that it's available for
the general public in the development code, and that's why we're adding it into this section
of the code. I have a question about this. Yes, ma'am.
Just for clarification, because I remember that this is a pretty expensive requirement
for some, the civil engineering plans. Is it required for everything? Depending on if
you build a shed out back or a single-family home or you're doing renovations on a small
business, is it required for all of those? No. I don't know if we have Ken Smith on the
call if he can maybe address when a civil engineering plan is on the board.
Those are typically associated with a final plan if there's public improvements, whether
it be new streets, utility extensions. Generally, if a site plan is required, something
like the items that you mentioned, those typically would not require civil engineering plans.
I just wanted to make sure we weren't putting any extra cost by adding this into if we weren't
already doing it under something, so thank you. There was at one point, I think some
years ago, with the whole site plan process, there really wasn't a defined site plan process,
and at that point in time, staff was using the civil engineering plans as that site plan.
We have since removed that, and within the 2019 DDC, there is the provision and specific
procedures for site plans, so that there were instances when that happened in the past,
but that has since been corrected. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying
that. Thank you, Richard. That's it for today as
far as some of the code amendments. We anticipate some discussion with obviously those first
few, so although it took longer, I think it was helpful to go through that and discuss
it with the DCRC. We received, obviously, important information as we move forward with
our code amendments. I just wanted to highlight that we will be bringing forward additional
code amendments as we continue through our code amendment list, that is, and so I won't
go through this list. I just want to make sure that you all can see that in the next
meeting. Hopefully, we can get a quorum for next Wednesday. What we will be bringing forward,
at least the tentative agenda, is shown here on the screen. Again, a lot of this is either
cleanup and/or providing additional clarification, and if there are any other items that the
DCRC would like for us to bring up, we can certainly entertain that as well, but again,
for next week, we're going to hopefully bring you what you see here on this list. If there's
any questions or any input on any code amendments, please let us know, and we'll certainly bring
that forward, but for now, the list that you see here is what we intend to bring at the
next DCRC. Okay. Any questions, comments? Let me get back to my agenda here. Seeing none,
any concluding items? Okay, if not, then we will adjourn this meeting at 2.27. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.