Dec 04, 2023 Planning and Zoning

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WE HAVE ONE.

BILL LYLE.

OH, IT'S, YOU'RE FINE RIGHT THERE.

YOUR MIC.

OH WAIT, WHICH ONE IS IT? YOU'RE GOOD.

YOU'RE GOOD.

NOW I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THE CONVERSATION THAT WE WERE HAVING LAST WEEK ON THE DUMPSTER.

ENCLOSURES.

UH, DURING THAT CONVERSATION, STAFF READ FROM 20 POINT 400.2 AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COMMISSION ABOVE THAT THERE'S 20 POINT 400.1, WHICH IS TITLED APPLICABILITY AND C UNDER 0.1 IS MULTIFAMILY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, UM, ARE ESSENTIALLY EXEMPT FROM THE STANDARD.

THE WAY IT READS IS THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO PROPERTY UTILIZED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL OR MULTI-FAMILY USES AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING.

AND SO THEN MULTI-FAMILY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL.

THE SITE WE'RE LOOKING AT WOULD'VE BEEN A NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE TWO STIPULATIONS THAT EXIST THAT MUST BE, UM, MET THE SITE THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT DOES NOT MEET BOTH OF THEM.

SO IN THAT REGARD, STAFF IS CORRECT.

IT DIDN'T MEET THE EXEMPTION AND IT WAS REQUIRED.

BUT WHAT I WANTED THE COMMISSION TO BE AWARE OF IS THE FACT THAT TWO STREETS OVER THE ZONING DISTRICT DOES ALLOW THE EXEMPTION.

I AM ALSO AWARE OF, UM, AREAS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT THAT THEIR SITE WAS IN, WHICH IS A RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT THAT HAVE THE EXEMPTION.

AND SO I FOLLOWED UP WITH STAFF AND WE DISCUSSED THIS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT TO Y'ALL'S ATTENTION BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT, AS WAS MENTIONED IN THE MEETING LAST TIME, THIS WOULD BE A GREAT ITEM TO LOOK AT ON A FUTURE AGENDA.

UM, AS A REMINDER, SOLID OR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WAS SERVICING THIS PROPERTY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL STYLE CART.

SO I PLAN ON AT THE END OF THE MEETING TRYING TO PUT THIS ON A FUTURE AGENDA.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY.

NOW BEFORE WE GET THERE, THAT'S ALL I GOT.

CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN A ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE, THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF.

CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

DOES ANYONE WANT PULL AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? I MOVE.

WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.

ITEM ONE, ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KERRY.

TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES SIX TO ZERO.

PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE MISSING COMMISSIONER TONG AND COMMISSIONER OLLIE THIS EVENING.

[1. (RP) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-005 - Request to rezone 89.1 acres located on the west side of the Dallas North Tollway, 305 feet north of Park Boulevard from Regional Commercial with Specific Use Permits No. 56, 434, 444, and 448 for Private Club and No. 570 for Automobile Leasing/Renting to Planned Development-Regional Commercial and to rescind Specific Use Permits No. 56, 434, 444, and 448 for Private Club. Zoned Regional Commercial with Specific Use Permits No. 56, 434, 444, and 448 for Private Club and No. 570 for Automobile Leasing/Renting and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District. Petitioners: Centennial Waterfall Willow Bend, LLC, The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Macy’s Retail Holdings LLC, and Dillard’s, Inc. (Request to table to January 16, 2024.)]

PUBLIC CLEARING ITEMS, UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER OF REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.

APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES FOR PRESENTATION TIME AND FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED.

REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.

[00:05:01]

ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE, 2 0 2 3 DASH 0 0 5.

REQUEST TO REZONE 89.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLE 300 AND FEET NORTH, 305 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD FROM REGI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMITS NUMBER FIVE FIFTY SIX FOUR THIRTY FOUR FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR.

448 FOR PRIVATE CLUB.

AND NUMBER FIVE 70 FOR AUTOMOBILE LEASING.

RENTING TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND TO RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMITS NUMBER FIFTY SIX FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY FOUR, FOUR HUNDRED FORTY FOUR AND 448 FOR PRIVATE CLUB ZONED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMITS NUMBER 56 4 34, 4 44 AND 4 48 FOR PRI PRIVATE CLUB.

AND NUMBER 5 7570 FOR AUTOMOBILE LEASING.

RENTING AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.

PETITIONERS ARE CENTENNIAL WATERFALL, WILLOWBEND, LLC, THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, LLC, MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC AND DILLARD, INC.

THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD, GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I'M ROJA THE PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING, UH, DEPARTMENT.

UM, PLANNING, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO JANUARY 16TH, 2024.

PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? UH OH, YOU DO HAVE, SORRY.

SO JUST SO THAT, UH, YOU CAN SHARE PUBLICLY WITH US WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THE, UM, TABLING THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THIS ITEM TO BE TABLED SO THAT, UM, THEY CAN, UM, PERFORM PUBLIC OUTREACH AND WORK WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU MS. BLA I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER.

AVAILABLE VIA ZOOM.

OH, AVAILABLE VIA ZOOM ONLY FOR QUESTIONS.

SORRY.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.

OH, MR. B BURNOFF, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER POSITION? IS IT THE APPLICANT? OH NO.

I WAS GONNA MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT A QUESTION.

I'M SORRY.

OKAY, HANG ON.

THERE WASN'T A SPEAKER.

I DIDN'T, LET'S LET'S HANG ON.

THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION HERE.

THAT THE IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT EXISTS NOW CAN SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY, THE WATER, THE SEWER, THE UTILITIES, THE SCHOOLS, OTHER SERVICES.

DO WE HAVE A SPEAKER IN THE YES SIR.

AUDIENCE? WE, WE HAVE SOMEONE PRESENT TO SPEAK.

IT IS DEBORAH BROWN.

OKAY, MS. BROWN, DO YOU WANNA COME DOWN AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND, UH, DEBRA BROWN.

I LIVE AT 26 25 BARRINGTON DRIVE HERE IN PLANO.

UM, AND I JUST HAD SOME COMMENTS.

UM, LOOKING AT THE CONCEPT PLAN, I REALLY DIDN'T SEE MUCH OPEN SPACE.

IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE ONLY PROVIDING THREE POINT 75 ACRES ON ONE LOT.

THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ENOUGH FOR 1200 PEOPLE.

UM, USUALLY THE REQUIREMENT IS AT LEAST 10% OPEN SPACE OF THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK THIS WHOLE AREA IS ABOUT 76 ACRES.

SO I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE A LOT MORE OPEN SPACE.

DEFINITELY ROOM FOR ENHANCEMENTS IN THAT REGARD.

UM, DURING SOME NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, WE WERE TOLD BY CENTENNIAL THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ABUNDANCE OF BIKE PEDESTRIAN TRAILS AND PARKS.

UM, SO, SO I'M KIND OF CONCERNED WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S GONNA COME TO FRUITION.

UM, ALSO LOOKING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN JULY OF 2023.

UM, SO IT'S NOT OUTDATED.

THIS AREA WAS ENVISIONED AND IDENTIFIED AS A SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER, UH, THAT, UM, CALLS FOR MAXIMUM FAMILY DENSITY, I'M SORRY, MAXIMUM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY OF 20 TO 50 UNITS PER ACRE.

THE REQUESTED PROPOSAL BY CENTENNIAL EXCEEDS THIS WITH, EXCUSE ME, WITH PROPOSED DENSITIES OF 72.7 UNITS PER ACRE.

SO 110 UNITS PER ACRE AND 106.3 UNITS PER ACRE ON THE THREE LOTS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR MULTI-FAMILY USE.

UM, THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO ALIGN WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY.

SO SOMETHING MAYBE LIKE TOWN HOMES WOULD BE A BETTER CHOICE.

UM, I THINK THAT ADDING DENSITY TO THIS AREA HAS AN IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC AND I WAS WONDERING IF WHETHER OR NOT A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HAS OR ANALYSIS HAS BEEN DONE.

UH, I DOUBT

[00:10:01]

EMS POLICE, UM, I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH BARKSDALE TODAY AND THEY SAID THAT THEY'RE ALREADY AT FULL CAPACITY FOR STUDENT TO TEACHER RATIO AT JUST ABOUT EVERY LEVEL AND THEY'RE UNDERSTAFFED AND THIS WOULD REQUIRE MORE STAFF FOR THEM.

SO, UM, ANOTHER MAJOR CONCERN IS CRIME.

I'M SURE THAT'S ON EVERYBODY'S UM, LIST, BUT I THINK, UM, OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE IS THAT A TIA SHOULD BE COMPLETED AND IF SO, UM, THE RESULTS WOULD BE, I HOPE, AVAILABLE FOR US TO SEE BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING.

AND I'M WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE.

UM, SO I THINK IF A TMM TIA HAS NOT BEEN DONE THAT I'M REQUESTING ONE DON HAS THE TIA BEEN DONE, SHOULD I RESPOND, UM, A TIA HAS BEEN DONE AND THE STAFF HAS APPROVED THAT TIA AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU IF I HAVE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THE SIDE? WE HAVE NONE.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FIND DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.

AND MR. BRUNO NOW.

JUST, UH, BRIEFLY, MR. CHAIRMAN.

UM, I THINK, UH, POSTPONING IS A GOOD IDEA.

IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO, UH, ENGAGE WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND, UH, INTERESTED PARTIES AND CONDUCT WHATEVER UH, NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE DISCUSSIONS NEED TO BE HAD IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH WHATEVER ISSUES AND CONCERNS ARE OUT THERE, HOPEFULLY SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT ON JANUARY 16TH.

SO, THANK YOU.

UH, MR. LYLE, I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

UH, OBVIOUSLY THE MALL IN ITS CURRENT CONSTRUCTION OR STATUS OR ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN, WOULD'VE BEEN DESIGNED TO HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC.

AND SO I'M JUST LOOKING TO REFRESH MY MEMORY ON WHEN A USE CHANGES.

IF THAT TRAFFIC STUDY ACTUALLY COMES DOWN IN NUMBER OR STAYS THE SAME, ARE WE STILL REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO DO A NEW ONE OR BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC WAS ALREADY DESIGNED AT SUCH A HIGH CAPACITY, THEY GET TO JUST FIT WITHIN WHAT'S ALREADY EXISTING? I, I APOLOGIZE.

WE, WE'VE RECENTLY CHANGED SOME OF THE TIA STANDARDS WITH THE NEW STREET DESIGN STANDARDS, SO I'M NOT SURE WHICH APPLIES IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE.

MS. PILATE, IF YOU HAVE THAT, FEEL FREE TO SHARE, BUT, UM, WE CAN BE SURE TO PREPARE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

SURE.

I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION.

I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING.

LET'S SAY THAT THE ORIGINAL MALL CONFIGURATION, THEY DID AN ANALYSIS, THEY PROJECTED 5,000 TRIPS A DAY.

YOU'RE SUGGESTING IF THE ASSUMED TRIPS PER DAY UNDER THE NEW CONFIGURATION IS PROJECTED TO BE LESS, BUT THEY STILL BE REQUIRED TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

IS THAT EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? THAT'S CORRECT.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MAKE THE PROJECTIONS.

I GUESS IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT THOSE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S A, I MEAN, FROM WATCHING THIS, THERE'S A MANUAL FOR USE USAGE USE USES.

AND SO YOU WOULD APPLY THE TRIPS PER DAY TO EACH ONE OF THE USES THAT WERE GONNA BE ON THE SITE AND DO THE MATH.

BUT IF THE MATH COMES OUT TO LESS THAN WHAT THE MALL ALREADY HAD, THEN DO WE MAKE THE DEVELOPER DO A NEW ONE? UH, AGAIN, UNDER THE, THERE'S SOME QUESTION OF THE APPLICATION DATE HERE, BECAUSE REMEMBER, UNDER THE OLD STANDARDS THERE WAS QUITE A VERY HIGH THRESHOLD TO ACTUALLY REQUIRE A TIA.

UH, THE MORE AND MORE I THINK THE PUBLIC GETS HAPPY WITH THE ULTIMATE RESULTS.

AND SO SOMETIMES THOSE GET NEGOTIATED WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AS TO WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY USING.

UM, 'CAUSE SOMETIMES WE RECOMMEND A TIA EVEN IF IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR, FOR A CASE SUCH AS THIS.

SO I HAVE TO GO BACK AND FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS.

I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING PREPARED FOR THAT TONIGHT, BUT WE'LL BE SURE TO PROVIDE DETAIL FOR THAT AT THE MEETING.

MR. CAREY? YEAH, JUST A QUICK COMMENT.

UM, I GUESS TO COMMISSIONER LYLE'S POINT, ALL OF THAT WOULD ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT OTHER CHANGES MIGHT BE IN THE AREA THAT WOULD AFFECT IT.

SO I, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T KNOW.

IT MIGHT BE MORE COMPLEX THAN EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON THERE BECAUSE MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE TRAFFIC THERE.

SO JUST WANNA MAKE THAT COMMENT.

OKAY, MR. BROSKI? UH, SO I WANT TO FIRST SAY THAT I'M REALLY EXCITED TO HEAR THAT, UH, UH, THIS PETITIONER IS SEEKING MORE PUBLIC INPUT.

I THINK THE MORE AND MORE, UM, THEY CAN HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC,

[00:15:01]

AND I WAS GONNA MAKE A MOTION.

I THINK WE'RE STILL IN PUBLIC.

NO, NO, I CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO I, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS TO JANUARY 16TH, 2024 TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER MORE TIME FOR PUBLIC INPUT.

SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO TABLE ITEM ONE TO JANUARY 16TH, PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES SIX TO ZERO.

ITEM

[2. (KC) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-026 - Request for a Specific Use Permit for New Vehicle Dealer on 5.4 acres located at the southwest corner of Tennyson Parkway and Dallas Parkway. Zoned Commercial Employment and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District. Project #ZC2023-026. Petitioner: SRHC Platinum Park Phase II, LP (Request to table to December 18, 2023)]

TWO, AGENDA.

ITEM NUMBER TWO, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2 0 2 3 DASH 0 2 6.

REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A NEW VEHICLE DEALER.

WHEN 5.4 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TENSON PARKWAY AND DALLAS PARKWAY, ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT, PETITIONER IS SRHC PLATINUM PARK, PHASE TWO LP.

THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

MS. RA STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPTS THE APPLICANT REQUEST, UM, TO TABLE THIS ZONING CASE TO DECEMBER 18TH, 2023, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS SIDE? THANK YOU.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THE SIDE? THERE ARE NONE.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FIND DISCUSSION TO COMMISSIONER MR. BRONSKI.

I MOVE, WE TABLED THIS TO THE, THIS AGENDA ITEM TO, UH, DECEMBER 18TH, 2020 THREE'S, UH, AGENDA.

AND I SAW THAT YOU PUSHED YOUR BUTTON UP THERE.

DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT YOU WANTED TO MAKE, SIR? I WAS GONNA MAKE THE MOTION, BUT OKAY.

CAN'T WORK.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO TO TABLE ITEM TWO TO DECEMBER 18TH.

PLEASE VOTE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES SIX TO ZERO.

MR. LYLE, I THINK YOU'RE ALWAYS THE LAST ONE TO VOTE.

IS THAT ON PURPOSE OR JUST RANDOM? YOU VOTED.

YOU DID.

[3. (CC) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-027 - Request to amend Article 16 (Parking and Loading) and related sections of the Zoning Ordinance to modify off-street parking requirements. Project #ZC2023-027. Petitioner: City of Plano (Request to table to December 18, 2023.) ]

NO WORRIES.

ITEM THREE, PLEASE MOVE ON TO ITEM THREE.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE.

2 0 2 3 DASH 0 2 7.

REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE 16, PARKING AND LOADING AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

PETITIONER OF CITY OF PLANO, THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

I'M MELISSA KLE, LEAD PLANNER AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION TABLE ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 0 2 7 TO THE DECEMBER 18TH, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? YOU'RE OFF THE HOOK.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? THERE ARE NONE.

SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2 0 2 3 DASH 0 0 4.

I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. BRUNO.

I MOVE IT.

WE APPROVE ITEM, UH, THAT ITEM NUMBER THREE, BE TABLED AND POSTPONED TO THE DECEMBER 18TH, 2023 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

HE'S TRYING TO VOTE QUICK.

HE'S TRYING TO VOTE QUICK .

SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KERRY TO TABLE ITEM THREE TO DECEMBER 18TH.

AN ITEM CARRIES SIX TO ZERO

[4. (JR) Public Hearing: Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 2023-004 - Request to amend Article I (General Provisions), Article III (Platting Process), Article VII (Replatting Procedures), and related sections of the Subdivision Ordinance to clarify the platting procedures for properties that receive zoning variances for minimum yards. Project #SOA2023-004. Petitioner: City of Plano (Legislative consideration)]

FOUR.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PUBLIC HEARING.

REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE ONE, GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE THREE, PLATTING PROCESS ARTICLE SEVEN RE PLATTING PROCEDURES AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY THE PLATTING PROCEDURES FOR PROPERTIES THAT RECEIVE ZONING VARIANCES FOR MINIMUM YARDS.

PETITIONER OF CITY OF PLANO, THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING.

UH, JORDAN ROEE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

UH, THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR TABLING .

UH, SO A BIT OF BACKGROUND HERE.

UH, STAFF HAVE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF PETITIONS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO, UH, VARY THE MINIMUM YARDS, UM, FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

UM, MINIMUM YARDS ARE REGULATED BY BOTH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH CAN LEAD TO UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF WORK, UM, ASSOCIATED WITH THESE REQUESTS.

UH, A COUPLE WEEKS

[00:20:01]

AGO, BACK IN OCTOBER, UH, THE COMMISSION CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THIS SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, UH, WITH AN AIM TO STREAMLINE AND CLARIFY THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESSES FOR THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS.

SO IN THE SUB, SO IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, UH, MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS ARE ESTABLISHED FOR EACH ZONING DISTRICT.

THESE ARE ALSO COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS ZONING SETBACKS.

UM, BUT THROUGH THE ORDINANCE ARE REFERRED TO AS YARDS, UH, BUILDING PERMITS CANNOT BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ZONING STANDARDS INCLUDING ANY REQUIRED YARD.

OVER IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

UH, THERE ARE CURRENTLY REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE BUILDING LINES ON ALL RESIDENTIAL PLATTS.

THESE BUILDING LINES ESTABLISH HOW CLOSE A BUILDING CAN BE LOCATED RELATIVE TO A ROAD AND ARE TYPICALLY IDENTICAL TO THE YARD REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO THAT'S, UH, SHOWN BY THAT DASHED RED LINE ON SCREEN WITH A SAMPLE PLAT.

SO RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS ARE THEREFORE CONTROLLED BY TWO ORDINANCES AND THEREFORE REQUIRE TWO APPROVAL BODIES.

UH, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERS APPROVAL OF PLATTS, UM, PURSUANT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONSIDERS VARIANCES TO THE STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THIS LEADS TO TWO STEPS AND ANY POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS, UM, FOR THESE VARIANCES.

UM, FOR BOTH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PROCESS SHOWN IN RED HERE AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS IN BLUE, UM, THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT AN APPLICATION.

STAFF MUST REVIEW THAT APPLICATION AND PREPARE A REPORT.

WE MUST SCHEDULE THOSE MEETINGS AND BOTH BODIES MUST, UH, CONSIDER THE APPLICATION.

THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD REMOVE THOSE, UH, COMMISSION PROCESSES WHICH WERE SHOWN IN RED AND WOULD INSTEAD ONLY REQUIRE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO REVIEW THESE REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES, WHICH IS WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED BY THE REGULATIONS AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THIS WOULD HAVE BENEFITS TO BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY IN TERMS OF THIS, UH, SAVINGS AND TIME AND MONEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE RE REMOVAL OF THIS DUPLICATED WORK.

UH, THE CHANGES PROPOSED TODAY WOULD REMOVE THE PLANNING AND ZONING PROCESS.

UM, IT WOULD CLARIFY THAT BUILDING PERMITS COULD BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION CONSISTENT WITH ANY VARIANCE, UM, APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND IT WOULD ALSO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE BUILDING LINES ON RESIDENTIAL PLATTS.

UM, THOSE BUILDING LINES COULD STILL BE SHOWN IF, UM, MERITED BY A DEPARTURE FROM WHAT IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AMENDMENTS AS UH, PRESENTED.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MR. IFF.

UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES IN THE PROCESS, BEEN THROUGH IT MORE TIMES THAN I CARE TO THINK ABOUT MY CONCERN AND, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A VALID ONE OR NOT.

AND THAT'S WHY MY, PER MY QUESTION, IF WE, IF WE FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE MOVING FORWARD AND WE HAVE A PLAT IN PLACE OF AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION THAT SHOWS THE SETBACK LINES AND SOMEBODY COMES IN AND GETS A VARIANCE AND IT'S GRANTED, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A REPL, WHICH IS WHAT IS PROPOSED 10 YEARS FROM NOW, SOMEBODY GOES TO SELL THAT HOUSE, THEY HAVE A SURVEY, SURVEYOR SHOWS UP, REPORTS IT TO THE TITLE COMPANY, SHOWS THE THE HOUSE IS NOW BUILT OVER THE SETBACK LINE.

HOW IS THAT VARIANCE DOCUMENTED? IS IT RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY SO THAT IT WOULD SHOW UP ON A DEEDED SEARCH? OR HOW, HOW DOES THAT BUYER KNOW THAT THAT HOUSE HAS A VARIANCE? UH, AND THAT IT'S NOT AN EXCEPTION UNDER THE DEEDED? MM-HMM.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING WITH VARIANCES IS THAT THEY'RE NOT RECORDED, UM, AGAINST THE PROPERTY AS A DEEDED.

UM, WE DO OF COURSE, KEEP THE RECORD, UM, IN THE, WITH THE CITY.

AND GENERALLY THESE WOULD BE RELATED TO SOME SORT OF CONSTRUCTION.

SO THE, UM, THE BUILDING PERMITS WOULD HAVE A RECORD OF THERE BEING A, A VARIANCE.

BUT THAT BUYER WOULD NEED TO CHECK, UH, WITH THE CITY TO CONFIRM THAT ANYTHING THAT LOOKS LIKE AN ENCROACHMENT BASED ON THAT, UH, PLAT, UM, IS IN FACT LEGAL CONSTRUCTION.

AND THAT'S MY CONCERN IS BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A, UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE ATTORNEY, ANYBODY THAT'S DONE THIS AND THE TITLE SEARCH IS NOT NORMALLY GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

AND NO WAY TO RESOLVE THAT FROM A TITLE PERSPECTIVE WITHOUT THE REPLAY.

AND SO MY CONCERN WOULD BE WITHOUT THE REPL, YOU COULD END UP WITH A PURCHASER THAT BELIEVES THEY HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT, A TITLE COMPANY THAT BELIEVES THEY HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT

[00:25:01]

RIGHT? SO THE OFTEN WE GET CALLS TO OUR PROPERTY MANAGER FROM THE TITLE COMPANIES ASKING ABOUT POTENTIAL CLOUDS ON THE TITLE.

AND WHAT WE DO IS WHEN THOSE CALLS COME IN, WE DO THE RESEARCH, FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON, AND THEN RECORD SOMETHING.

YOU KNOW, SO IN THAT CASE, WE MIGHT RECORD PROOF OF A VARIANCE.

WE MIGHT RECORD, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THAT TITLE COMPANY WANTS FROM US.

BUT WE TEND TO DO IT CASE BY CASE AS SOMEBODY CALLS IN.

UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT TOO CLUNKY A PROCESS.

USUALLY WE CAN GET IT DONE WITHIN A FEW DAYS OF GETTING A CALL.

SO I DON'T THINK WE CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH SALES NOT GOING THROUGH OR THAT KIND OF THING.

I THINK, I THINK YOUR CONCERN'S LEGITIMATE, BUT, UM, I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT WE'D WANNA MOVE ALL THE WAY TO RECORDING EVERY VARIANCE WHEN WE QUESTION.

WE'VE GOT SUCH A SMALL ISSUE HERE.

I THINK WE'D PROBABLY JUST RELY ON TITLE COMPANIES CALLING INTO OUR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND JUST FIXING 'EM AS THEY COME UP.

AND, AND MY CONCERN, I GUESS, IS THAT IF THE VARIANCE IS, I'M GONNA USE THE WORD RECENT AND LET'S SAY IN THE LAST 20 YEARS RECENT, IT'S PROBABLY FAIRLY EASY TO FIND.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT 50 YEARS FROM NOW WHEN WE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT DATA SYSTEM THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE CARRIED OVER.

IT CARRIED OVER.

AND AS A PERSON THAT LIVES IN A OVER A HUNDRED YEAR OLD HOME DEEDED RESEARCH WAS DIFFICULT, UM, TO DOCUMENT A HUNDRED YEARS OF DEEDED ACCORDING ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY.

AND I'M THINKING A HUNDRED YEARS INTO THE FUTURE, OR EVEN 20 OR 30 YEARS INTO THE FUTURE, IF THAT PLAT HAS NOT BEEN MODIFIED, I'M CONCERNED WE'RE SETTING A TRAP FOR 10, 15, 50 YEARS FROM NOW THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA RECOGNIZE WE'VE SET UNTIL IT'S WAY, WAY TOO LATE.

AND THAT'S MY CONCERN.

IS THIS PART OF OUR UPCOMING DISCUSSION THOUGH, ABOUT WHAT STAFF CAN DO WITH PLATTS AND REPLANTS FROM AN APPROVAL STANDPOINT? AND THAT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ROLLED INTO? SO, UM, NO, THIS WOULD BE SEPARATE FROM, UH, THAT OTHER I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT ONCE THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED RATHER THAN SIMPLY BEING PART OF A BUILDING PERMIT DOCUMENT, COULD IT BE A SEPARATE WOULD? YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

WOULD IT STREAMLINE THE PROCESS IF WE, IF WE HAD, IF WE JUMP AHEAD FOR AGENDA ITEMS AND SAY THAT THE PLATT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME TO US, DOES THAT NEGATE THE NEED FOR THIS? SO ONE THING WE, WE DISCUSSED SOME INTERNALLY WAS WHEN THE APPLICANT RE RECEIVES A VARIANCE, UM, THEY GET A LETTER THAT THEN WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, KIND OF STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THEY RECORD WITH THE COUNTY SO THAT IT SHOWS UP IN THEIR DEED SEARCHES.

UM, BUT HOW THAT, WHETHER WE WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS THE CITY'S ROLE NECESSARILY.

YEAH, I MEAN THAT MIGHT BE THE EASIEST FIX IS RIGHT, IS JUST TO ADD A SENTENCE OR TWO IN HERE, INDICATING THAT, THAT THESE VARIANCES WILL BE RECORDED IN THE, IN THE TITLE RECORDS.

UM, WELL, THEY'RE RECORDED BY THE APPLICANT OR THE CITY, UH, IS NOT MY, THAT'S NOT MY CONCERN.

I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IF WE DO THIS WITHOUT A PLATT ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS A SETBACK LINE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT GONNA BE IN EVERY CASE, BECAUSE MOVING FORWARD, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE SETBACK LINES ON THE PLAT, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

UM, BUT ON THE PLATTS THAT ARE EXISTING WHERE WE DO HAVE THE SETBACK LINES, I I'M JUST, I THINK IT WOULD NEED TO BE RECORDED BY SOMEBODY, EVEN IF THAT'S A REQUIRED PART OF THE PROCESS FOR THE APPLICANT TO RECORD IT AND BRING YOU PROOF IT'S BEEN RECORDED BEFORE THEY GET THEIR BUILDING PERMIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I I I RECALL A RECENT CASE WHERE SOMEBODY HAD TO PROVE THAT THEY'D RECORDED SOMETHING BEFORE THEY GOT THEIR BUILDING PERMIT.

A STAFF PERSPECTIVE? UH, SO JUST TO, TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION, RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGING THIS OR WITH THE CURRENT PRACTICE CHA GOING TO THE, TO THE NEW WHAT'S YOU'RE, UH, RECOMMENDING FOR SURE.

, THIS IS NOT A DIRECT ANSWER TO THAT LADIES' COMMENT, BUT ABOUT THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEM IS IT WOULD NOT APPLY BECAUSE IT'S STILL BE A RESIDENTIAL REPLY IN THAT CASE.

AND LAW STILL REQUIRES THE PUBLIC HEARING.

RIGHT? SO IT WOULD NOT MAKE IT ANY QUICKER.

IT WOULDN'T MAKE IT ANY QUICKER.

UM, WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE LET'S, IT'S A VALID POINT AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO RESOLVE.

AND JOE INDICATED MAYBE A SIMPLE THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO THIS.

UH, COMMISSIONER CAREY? YEAH, FIRST I WANNA AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.

I THINK A GREAT LOOK FORWARD AND I THINK YOU REALLY HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME THINGS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER, WHICH REALLY KIND OF LEANS INTO MY QUESTION AS STAFF LOOKED AT THIS.

I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFIT, BUT WHAT RISKS DID YOU IDENTIFY AS YOU LOOKED AT THIS FROM

[00:30:01]

SO THE, THE RISK WOULD BE, UM, EXACTLY AS COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, UM, UH, DETAILED, IT'S IN THE RECORD KEEPING.

UM, IT BECOMES OUTSIDE OF THE HANDS OF THE CITY TO HANDLE THOSE RECORDS.

UM, ASIDE FROM THE, THE RECORDS THAT WE KEEP OURSELVES, BUT EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEEDED AND THE PLATT ITSELF, UM, THERE WOULDN'T BE A RECORDING.

SO IS THE TEAM RESEARCHED THIS OR LOOKED AT IT? THAT WAS THE ONLY RISK THAT YOU REALLY IDENTIFIED? UH, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YEAH.

THAT WAS THE ONLY POTENTIAL RISK.

GREAT.

MR. LAW MICROPHONE, WHAT ARE THE, THANK YOU.

WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED WHEN THESE VARIANCES ARE HAPPENING? YOU'RE VARYING THE SETBACK OR THE YARD SIZE? WHAT, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT'S TRIGGERING THAT? I DIDN'T THINK YOU COULD FOR SURE.

SO, UM, I CAN SPEAK TO ONE THAT WAS, UM, I GUESS RECENTLY APPROVED WHERE, UM, THE, THE SITE WAS SEVERELY RESTRICTED BY A FLOODPLAIN.

AND SO BECAUSE OF SOMETHING LIKE 75, 80% OF THE SITE WAS COVERED BY A FLOODPLAIN, THEY ASKED FOR A RELAXATION ON THEIR FRONT YARD SETBACK SO THEY COULD SHIFT THEIR BUILDING CLOSER TO THE STREET, AVOID BEING LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN SO THAT THEY COULD CONSTRUCT A LARGER HOUSE SIMILAR TO WHAT THEIR NEIGHBORS HAD CONSTRUCTED.

SO THE APPLICANT ALWAYS HAS TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF RATIONALE FOR WHY THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO MEET THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND DEMONSTRATE THAT HARDSHIP FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GRANT THE REQUEST.

AND I'LL ADD TO WHAT MR. RUCKER BEAT STATED THAT THERE ARE CRITERIA LISTED IN ARTICLE FIVE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NEEDS TO CONSIDER AND WHAT THEY CANNOT APPROVE AS WELL.

I MEAN YOU CAN'T JUST SAY SURE, THERE'S STANDARDS THAT ARE THERE, THERE'S THRESHOLD, SO YOU HAVE TO, RIGHT.

UH, MR. BRUNO, THANK YOU.

UM, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING OF VARIANCES THAT THERE MUST BE A HARDSHIP NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT.

IS THAT STILL THE CASE? THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE.

I'M WONDERING IN THAT, UH, WHAT ARE THE PERCENTAGES OF TIMES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS A VARIANCE VERSUS THE PERCENTAGE OF TIMES THAT THEY DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS? THAT'S INFORMATION THAT I DON'T HAVE, BUT ANECDOTALLY IT'S MORE OFTEN A DENIAL THAN NOT.

IF IT'S MORE OFTEN A DENIAL THAN NOT, THEN WOULD THERE NOT BE NO PROBLEM AT ALL WITH THE ORIGINAL PLATT SHOWING THE BUILDING LINE AS SHOWN AS REQUIRED TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE FIXING TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE A MINORITY OF CASES? IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THEIR APPLICATIONS CONCURRENTLY.

SO IF, IF THEY SUBMIT BOTH A PLAT APPLICATION AND A BOA APPLICATION AT THE SAME TIME AND THEY PROCEED AT THE SAME TIME, THEN EVEN IF THE BOA ONE IS DENIED, THEN WE STILL RECEIVED THAT RELA APPLICATION.

IF THEY'RE NOT SUBMITTING THEIR RELA APPLICATION UNTIL AFTER THEY HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY DUPLICATION OF PROCESS.

RIGHT NOW WHY CAN'T A PLANT BE FILED WITH LIKE, SAY A DOTTED LINE BUILDING LINE WITH A NOTE THAT SAYS BUILDING LINE PER PROPOSED VARIANCE OR LANGUAGE TO THAT EFFECT SO THAT IT'S ALREADY THERE SO THAT IF IT'S, IF IT'S, IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED, NOT ONLY DO THEY NOT HAVE TO FILE A NEW PLATT, UM, BUT THEY HAVE CREATED A RECORD OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING LINE PER, PER THE VARIANCE.

I'M NOT, NOW IF THE VARIANCE IS DENIED, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROBABLY FILE ANOTHER PLATT 'CAUSE THE DOTTED LINE WOULDN'T APPLY ANYMORE.

BUT, UH, SO I'M WONDERING HOW MUCH TIME YOU'RE REALLY SAVING BY THIS PROCESS.

I MEAN, UM, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE OBJECTION IS TO THE COST OF THE REPLAY.

WE JUST HAD TWO OF THESE STRANGELY IN THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS COME THROUGH AND, AND REALLY PROMPTED A LOT OF THIS CONVERSATION.

BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE WAS A DOWNSIDE THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE MENTIONED THAT MAYBE NOBODY ELSE HAS THOUGHT ABOUT.

AND THAT'S JUST THAT RIGHT NOW THERE'S TWO PROCESSES.

SO IT'S MORE TIME FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON IN A SECOND OPPORTUNITY.

THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

NOW NORMALLY YOU DON'T GET TWO BITES OF THE APPLE AS A NEIGHBOR.

[00:35:01]

SO WHETHER THAT'S A GOOD OR A BAD THING, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT YOU ASKED YEAH.

YOU KNOW, FOR KIND OF AN ANALYSIS OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DOWNSIDE AND, AND YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE GOING FROM ONE PROCESS OR FROM TWO PROCESSES TO ONE PROCESS.

AND, AND THE EXPECTATION MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR A LINE ON A PLATT THAN IT IS FOR A SETBACK.

NOW THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A VERY SOPHISTICATED PERSON TO THINK OF IT THAT WAY, BUT IT'S SOMEBODY OUTSIDE.

UM, AND LET ME ASK BEFORE I MAKE MY NEXT COMMENT, LET ME ASK YOUR GUIDANCE.

UM, MICHELLE, UM, I SEE THIS CASE AS BEING PART OF A PATTERN THAT NECESSARILY INVOLVES ANOTHER ITEM ON OUR AGENDA THAT WE HAVE NOT REACHED YET.

IT'S THE NON-DISCUSSION ITEM ABOUT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S ROLE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS.

UM, AND ALSO IT IS, IT INVOLVES SOMETHING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED.

AND I'M WONDERING WHAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR ME TO MAKE COMMENTS TYING ALL THREE OF THOSE TOGETHER.

'CAUSE WE'RE ONLY EXAMINING ONE AGENDA ITEM AT A TIME.

AND I DON'T WANNA SPEAK OUT OF TURN, BUT I DO WANT TO BRING OUT THE PATTERN THAT I'M SEEING HERE.

SO, UM, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT THAT IMPACTS YOUR VOTE AND THE DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE YEAH.

EVEN THOUGH IT'S PARTLY A SUBJECT FOR LATER, IF YOU, IF YOU INTERRELATE THEM, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND SPEAK NOW.

UM, BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO VOTE.

WE PREVI THERE WAS PREVIOUS APPROVAL GIVEN TO TWO, SUSPENDING THE INITIATION OF THE SHOT CLOCK BY NOT REQUIRING APPLICANTS TO PAY THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH FIRING, WITH FILING A PLATT UNTIL AFTER THE STAFF HAD CONDUCTED ITS REVIEW.

AND UPON THEN THE FI THE PAYMENT OF THE FEES THAT WOULD START THE SHOT CLOCK RUNNING AFTER THE REVIEW HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

THIS APPLICATION WOULD REMOVE ONE OF TWO PROCEDURES FROM THE SYSTEM OF APPROVING PLANTS WHERE A VARIANCE IS RECORDED.

AND LATER ON TONIGHT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ROLE IN APPROVING A LARGE NUMBER OF PLATTS THAT PREVIOUSLY HAVE HAVE COME BEFORE US.

WHAT I AM SEEING AS A PATTERN HERE IS A SORT OF A MULTIFACETED PROCESS OF PERHAPS ADDRESSING THE WORKLOAD OF THE STAFF IN PROCESSING PLATTS.

APPROVED AND THE NEED FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO STAY INFORMED ABOUT THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

THE RATIONALE THAT IS BEING GIVEN FOR THAT IS THAT IT SAVES TIME TO THE APPLICANT.

MY COMMENT IS THAT IF THE, THE SHOT CLOCK IS SUSPENDED WHILE THE STAFF DOES ITS RECOMMENDATION AND THE SHOT CLOCK DOESN'T EVEN COME INTO EXISTENCE UNTIL THE FEE IS PAID, THEN AT THAT POINT THE SHOT CLOCK IS, IS PRETTY MUCH MEANINGLESS BECAUSE THIS, THE ANALYSIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.

AND WHO'S TO GUARANTEE THAT THE STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN LESS THAN THE 30 DAY SHOT CLOCK TIME.

UM, I KNOW THE STAFF IS BUSY, THEY HAVE MANY THINGS ON THEIR PLATE AND IT COULD HAPPEN VERY EASILY THAT A GIVEN PLAID APPLICATION COULD SOMEHOW WIND UP ON THE BACK BURNER BECAUSE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, UM, OTHER THINGS HAVE PRIORITY AND THE PRESSURE OF THE SHOT CLOCK HAS BEEN REMOVED.

I THINK THE ONE THING THAT IS THE GREATEST GUARANTEE TO THE TIMELY PROCESSING OF PLATS, UH, SO THAT THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE TO WAIT AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR APPROVAL IS THE SHOCK CLOCK.

AND IF WE TURN IT OFF, HAS, HAS BEEN DONE HERE BY NOT REQUIRING IT TO EVEN BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE, THE ANALYSIS IS FINISHED.

AND IF PLANNING AND ZONING IS, IS NOT THERE TO SCHEDULE A MEETING WITHIN 30 DAYS, SO THE APPLICANT KNOWS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE APPROVING IT HERE IT IS.

UM, I DON'T THINK WE'RE NET NET SAVING THE APPLICANT ANY TIME.

WE ARE RISKING MAKING THE APPLICANT WAIT LONGER IF THE STAFF NEEDS ADDITIONAL TIME OR TAKES ADDITIONAL TIME FOR WHATEVER REASON TO COMPLETE THE ANALYSIS.

SO I'M THINKING THAT THIS, THIS WHOLE WHILE I'M CERTAINLY NOT, YOU KNOW, DISMISSIVE OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ANY NEEDS THE, THE STAFF MIGHT HAVE FOR SOME RELIEF FROM ITS WORKLOAD.

AND, AND, AND IF THEY DO, I WOULD WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT AND I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER THAT.

BUT PERHAPS THE BEST WAY FOR US TO ADDRESS THIS WHOLE SUBJECT WOULD BE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE PLATING PROCESS SO THAT WE CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHATEVER THE, THE, UH, STAFF NEEDS ARE IN TERMS OF WORKLOAD, RESOURCES, TIME AND SO FORTH.

THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR TIMELINESS.

ALSO, MY CONCERNS OF VOICE AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, UM, FOR TRANSPARENCY IN THE PROCESS BY WHICH PLATTS ARE

[00:40:01]

SO I WOULD SUGGEST PERHAPS THE BEST APPROACH TO THIS ITEM AND THE OTHER ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS TO TABLE IT AND BRING THEM BACK TO US AS FAR AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE, UH, DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF THE PLATTING PROCESS AS A WHOLE.

THAT'S IT.

MR. RA, THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.

UM, JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER BRUNO, BUT ALSO SOMETHING YOU SAID A SECOND AGO THAT WE HAD TWO OF THESE CASES RECENTLY.

HOW MANY CASES A YEAR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THAT THIS WOULD IMPACT? IS IT HALF A DOZEN? IS IT 50 ROUND NUMBER A, A VERY ROUGH ESTIMATE.

UM, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE HAD AROUND 13, UM, IN THE PAST YEAR, MAYBE EVEN MORE.

UM, NOT EVEN NECESSARILY ALL FOR SETBACKS.

I DON'T HAVE THEM FILTERED THAT WAY.

UM, BUT, UH, VERY RARE THAT, THAT WE EVEN HAVE THESE, THESE REQUESTS.

UM, AND THEN THAT THEY GET APPROVED.

YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN THAT THEY GET APPROVED.

SOMETIMES THEY DO, BUT SO WORST CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL 13 OF THEM, BUT PROBABLY NOT.

SO SOMETHING LESS THAN A DOZEN IN THE, THE PAST YEAR.

THAT SEEMS TO ME TO RISE TO LESS OF A CONCERN THAT TO OVERCOME KIND OF MY FEAR OF THE LONG-TERM BOOKKEEPING ISSUES.

I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES FOR THE APPLICANTS AND THE TIME, UM, BUT THE VARIANCE IN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESSES, YOU KNOW, THERE WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES ON PURPOSE.

AND MY CONCERN IS REALLY THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF NOT HAVING A RECORD REALLY THAT DOES REALLY CONCERN ME.

UM, AND YOU KNOW, I'D CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO THE STAFF HAVING A LITTLE MORE TIME TO STUDY THAT AND COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT FIGURES OUT HOW TO DOCUMENT THAT.

I WOULD HATE TO DO THAT FROM THE DAY OF TONIGHT.

UM, BUT SHORT OF THAT, I, I, I GUESS I'M NOT READY TO APPROVE THAT SHORT OF HAVING SOME DIRECTION ON THAT ISSUE.

THAT'S MY OPINION.

MR. LAW JUST WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF, IF YOU DON'T PUT THE BUILDING LINES ON THE PLAT ANYMORE, AM I CORRECT THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS APPROVING THIS WOULD DO? WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE BUILDING SETBACK LINES ON THE PLATT AT ALL? THAT'S CORRECT.

CORRECT.

MOVING FORWARD, WHICH FOR, FOR RESIDENTIAL IT'S ALREADY NOT REQUIRED FOR NON RESIDENTIAL.

RIGHT? THEY'RE ALREADY NOT REQUIRED NON RESIDENTIAL.

AND SO IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, HOW DO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE, I MEAN, IS IT SHOW UP ON THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS? I GUESS HOW DOES THE CERT WELL MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE, THE BUILDING INSPECTION STAFF WHO WOULD REVIEW THE PLANS FOR THE ACTUAL HOUSE OF THE STRUCTURE, UH, CHECK THE ZONING SETBACKS ARE DOING THAT REVIEW AND IT'S ON THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.

IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE ON THE PLAT ANYMORE.

IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLANS EXAMINER TO ENSURE THAT IT MEETS THE ZONING SETBACKS.

SO I'M ASSUMING THEN THAT, CAN I MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT? YES.

SORRY.

IT, I REALIZE THERE WAS A LONG DELAY THERE, BUT IT WAS, THE RATS WERE RUNNING.

IF, I MEAN, JUST AS SOMEONE THAT IF, IF I WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING A VARIANCE, I WOULD WANT IT RECORDED SOMEWHERE.

I WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T WANT TO SAY, AND, AND I'M ONE FOR EXPEDIENCY FOR CERTAINLY IF I'M TRYING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING.

BUT IF, IF YOU GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, EVEN IF WE MAKE THE PROCESS EASIER SOMEWHERE, IT NEEDS TO BE RECORDED.

WHERE IN 10 YEARS YOU GO TO SELL YOUR HOUSE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO, OH WELL.

BUT UM, THAT COMMISSIONER BACK THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY VOTED FOR THIS.

I MEAN THAT'S JUST, IT NEEDS TO BE RECORDED IN MY OPINION.

SO COUPLE OF THOUGHTS.

ONE IS, I, I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED ALREADY THAT AS PART OF THAT YOU COULD, WE COULD ADD A LINE THAT REQUIRES THEM TO RECORD THIS VARIANCE WITH THE DEED BEFORE THEY CAN GET THEIR APPROVAL.

IF SOMEONE GOES THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS AND THE STAFF RESPONDS WITH A LETTER ON SUCH AND SUCH A DATE, YOUR VARIANCE WAS, UH, LOOKED AT AND APPROVED, IT WAS APPROVED, YOU KNOW, FIVE TO TWO AND THEN THERE WAS JUST A LINE ON THAT LETTER THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO RECORD THIS, YOU KNOW, GIVE US BACK THE RECORDED DOCUMENT, THEN, THEN IT'S DONE AND SOMEONE GOES AND DOES A TITLE SEARCH, THAT LETTER'S GONNA BE IN THERE AND IT'S, IT'S ALL THERE.

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AT LEAST THROUGH WATCHING MY WIFE AS AN ATTORNEY DO THIS, THAT FILING A DEEDED DEEDED DEAL IS QUICK.

IT'S, IT'S NOTHING MAJOR AND I DON'T THINK IT COSTS MUCH OF, MUCH OF ANYTHING.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN EASY WAY TO RECORD THIS.

'CAUSE IF IT'S ON THE DEED THAT'S THERE, THE TITLE COMPANY'S OBVIOUSLY GONNA SEE THAT.

'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.

SO I THINK WE CAN HANDLE THE RECORDING PIECE OF IT.

UM, YES SIR.

I JUST WANTED TO RE I MEAN IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE

[00:45:01]

SO THAT MEETS THAT REQUIREMENT.

AND THEN THE OTHER REGARD REGARDING THE LINES ON THE, THE PLAT OR WHATEVER, I MEAN, AS YOU SAID, THE PLAN'S EXAMINER'S JOB IS TO LOOK AT THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH SHOW THE SETBACKS OFF THE STREET, WHEREVER IT IS.

SO THE LINE DOESN'T REALLY NEED TO BE THERE AS LONG AS THAT CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT SETBACK.

SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE CONCERNS PARTICULARLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY FILE A DEEDED WITH ANY OF THAT.

UM, THE TRANSPARENCY PART, WHICH IS KIND OF INTERESTING AS SHE BROUGHT UP, IS 'CAUSE WE THINK OF A VARIANCE IN MOST CASES AS BEING SOMETHING SIMPLE AND IT JUST ALLOWS, I MEAN JUST PERSONAL, I WANTED TO MAKE MY PORCH A LITTLE BIGGER ON THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE AND I WAS AT THE SETBACK LINE, SO THERE WAS LIKE NOTHING I COULD DO ABOUT IT.

BUT THEN I WENT TO STAFF, THEY LOOKED, THEY SAID, WELL, IS YOUR STREET CURVY? WELL IT IS.

SO THERE'S A VARIANCE BUILT INTO THE ORDINANCE FOR IF YOUR STREET CURVES A CERTAIN AMOUNT, YOU CAN ACTUALLY, AND I WAS ABLE TO EXTEND MY PORCH BY FOUR FEET, MAKES ME SO HAPPY.

BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A CHANCE THAT A VARIANCE COULD IMPACT A NEIGHBOR, IT COULD IMPACT SOMETHING ELSE.

AND SO THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN A LITTLE BIT, IS THAT IF IT'S GOING TO IMPACT SOMEBODY NEGATIVELY AND I DON'T KNOW, FOR LIKE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, HOW ARE THEY EVEN GONNA KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS TO GET A CHANGE, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS, YOU KNOW, GET THIS VARIANCE.

THERE'S NO KNOWLEDGE OR NO POSTING, NO ANYTHING THAT'S GONNA SAY, HEY, THIS IS, THIS IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE, FOR EXAMPLE.

UH, I IF, IF I IMAGINE, I THINK ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DEAL THOUGH IS TO, IT CAN'T CREATE A HARM OR SOMETHING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE.

RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S, UH, ONE OF THE STANDARDS AND AN UNNECESSARY ENCUMBRANCE ON ANOTHER PARCEL OF LAND, UM, CAN'T BE CREATED.

UH, THERE IS A, A NOTICING THAT'S DONE FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCES.

UM, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S 250 FEET, BUT I'M GONNA DOUBLE CHECK.

SO THERE IS A NOTICE GIVEN THEN.

SO THEN BOIL IT DOWN TO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 13 CASES A YEAR.

LET'S SAY WE DOUBLE THAT TO 25.

HOW MUCH, IF THIS IS ALL REALLY ABOUT SAVING SOME STAFF'S TIME, HOW MUCH TIME DOES THAT REALLY CREATE FOR A SMALL NUMBER? OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE OUT OF THIS THAT'S MORE IMPACTFUL THAN, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF DOZEN CASES, THE IMPETUS FOR THIS CHANGE WAS THERE WAS, UM, ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS WHO APPLIED FOR ONE OF THESE VARIANCES AND THEN WAS TOLD SHE ALSO HAD TO REPL RE AND THE EXPENSE OF IT AND HAVING TO DO IT TWICE, UM, WAS VERY FRUSTRATING TO HER.

SHE REACHED OUT ALL OVER THE CITY TO ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE.

TALKING ABOUT HER SITUATION, SHE CALLED CITY COUNCIL AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SO SO THERE WAS A DESIRE TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS, SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS.

SO WE BURG WAS AMONG CITIZENS, RIGHT? IT, IT REALLY WASN'T STAFF DRIVEN.

TO FIND OUT THAT IT'S DENIED.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IS IT NOT THAT THE ORDER SEEMS TO BE BACKWARDS, THAT, THAT YOU HAVE TO GO TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FIRST WITH YOUR REPL GET CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BEFORE THE BOARD HAS EVEN THAT'S DECISION.

UNDERSTOOD.

THAT'S WHERE THE COST AND THE TIME IS YOU, YOU'RE PUTTING A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT BEFORE YOU'RE ACTUALLY GETTING TO THE FINAL DECISION MAKERS AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

SO WORST CASE, I THINK WE WOULD WANNA FLIP THOSE BACKWARDS.

IF YOU WANNA MAINTAIN THE BUILDING LINES, THE REPL NEEDS TO COME SECOND, NOT FIRST.

ONCE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS ACTED, WHAT IS THE COST FOR, I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA.

WHAT DOES IT COST TO APPLY FOR A REPLAY? ANYBODY? IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY.

WE CAN FOR, FOR REVIEW PURPOSES OR IN GENERAL, LIKE SURVEYING AND I, I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION OF SURVEYORS OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, FOR RELAS AND FINAL PLAS, WE HAVE A, UM, BASE FEE OF 250 AND EVERY SINGLE LAW WILL ADD, UH, $5.

SO FOR A SINGLE HOMEOWNER, BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT'S GONNA COST 'EM $250 BEFORE THEY CAN EVEN GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

[00:50:01]

AND SO THEY SPENT THE $250 TO BE TOLD NO.

SO WOULD, EXCLUDING THAT'S A $250 FEE TO THE CITY PLUS WHATEVER THE COST IS TO PAY THEIR SURVEYOR TO PREPARE THE PLAT FOR SUBMISSION TO THE CITY.

AND THAT COULD BE ANOTHER TWO $50 WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT IT.

DISCUSSION AMONG UNDERSTOOD THE COMMISSION.

SO IT COULD BE $2,500 TO BE TOLD.

NO, JUST TO GET THE CHANCE TO BE TOLD NO.

CORRECT.

MR. ELLIS, WHAT, WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS OF JUST FLIPPING THE PROCESS THEN? IS THERE A LEGISLATIVE STATUTORY REASON WE CAN'T FLIP THE PROCESS? BECAUSE I, I I, I SEE THE CHALLENGE IS THAT I'M GONNA SPEND 2,500 BUCKS BETWEEN SURVEYORS AND APPLICATION FEES AND P AND Z MEETINGS ONLY TO BE TOLD NO.

BUT IF, IF IT WAS A MATTER OF PAYING A FEE AND GOING TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GET A YES, THEN I MIGHT BE MORE PREPARED TO GO SPEND THAT MONEY TO DOCUMENT THE YES, BECAUSE A PLATT COMING TO US THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, I PRESUME IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACT.

WOULD IT NOT BE? WELL THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTUALLY HAS MORE POWER THAN WE DO IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN MORE THAN COUNCIL IN THAT REGARD.

I THINK THEIR APPROVALS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE LEGALLY BINDING.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

AND, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO EVEN KIND OF WORK THROUGH ON THIS IS WOULD YOUR APPROVAL ON THIS BE LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE? UH, HONESTLY, THERE'S AN ARGUMENT EITHER WAY IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR.

UM, SO IF IT'D BEEN APPROVED BY BO OA ALREADY, WOULD IT NOT DEFINITELY BE ADMINISTRATIVE? NOT NECESSARILY.

BECAUSE IF YOU'RE WAIVING A PLATT REQUIREMENT, THAT'S LEGISLATIVE.

IF THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ORDINANCE, IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE.

SO WHICH, WHICH ACT ARE YOU DOING? IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON HOW WE TEE IT UP.

I, I'M, I'M LEANING IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE AMENDMENT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DOCUMENTED APPROVAL BY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS FILED WITH THE DEEDED RECORD AND THAT PROOF SHOWN PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING PERMITS BEING GRANTED.

IT KIND OF, I THINK THAT, I THINK THAT WILL MANAGE IT AND IT MEANS THAT WE'RE GONNA RELY ON THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS BECAUSE THERE'S A NOTICE REQUIREMENT.

SO THE NEIGHBORS ARE GONNA KNOW ABOUT IT.

THE LEVEL OF, OF, UH, OR THE STANDARD NECESSARY TO GET APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS PRETTY HIGH.

SO I'M GONNA CHOOSE TO, TO ASSUME THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT'S GONNA DO A GREAT JOB ON THIS AND WE'RE NOT REALLY GONNA FIND SOMEBODY UPSET ABOUT WHAT THEIR NEIGHBOR'S DOING BECAUSE IT'S DETERMINED TO HAVE LITTLE TO NO EFFECT ON THEIR PROPERTY.

AND THE MAIN RECORD KEEPING DEAL IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE MAKE THAT SMALL CHANGE, I THINK IT, IT KIND OF CHECKS ALL THE BOXES.

SO, UH, JUST TO INTERJECT, I AM UP HERE AS, UM, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

UH, SO IF YOU DO WANT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING OR MOVE TO THE, UM, YEAH.

I'M JUST SEEING IF WE'RE GETTING FOR SURE.

'CAUSE EARLIER THERE WAS SEEM TO BE MORE OF A, HEY, LET'S TABLE THIS THING THAT I'M WANTING TO FIGURE OUT.

BUT YOU WERE JUST PROPOSING, ARE YOU ALSO PROPOSING THAT THAT RESPONSE LETTER GOES OUT WITH THE RESULTS AND, AND WE'RE ASKING THE APPLICANT IF THEY GET APPROVAL IS THE ONLY REASON THEY'D NEED TO RECORD IT? CORRECT.

IS THAT PART OF WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING? YES.

QUESTION FOR STAFF LEGAL.

IS THERE A MECHANISM TO DEVELOP STANDARD FORMAT OR I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO, HOW YOU WOULD DEVELOP A VARIANCE DOCUMENT THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR FILING? SO, 'CAUSE SOMEBODY'S GOTTA PREPARE THAT ACTUAL PIECE OF PAPER AND 99% OF RESIDENTS AREN'T GONNA KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.

RIGHT? RIGHT.

WE COULD, WE COULD PROBABLY DEVELOP A STANDARD FORM.

AS I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE LISTENING TO YOU ALL, I JUST REALLY WONDERED HOW, UM, YOU FIND OUR VARIANCES RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW THAT I TRIED TO DO A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH AND MAYBE I DIDN'T DO IT VERY WELL, BUT, UM, I, I DO WONDER WHAT THE, THE REGULAR PROCESS IS FOR THAT, HOW PEOPLE FIND THEM.

BECAUSE HONESTLY IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE YOUR CONCERN IS ONE THAT COULD APPLY REALLY BROADLY TO VARIANCES, NOT TO JUST THIS KIND OF VARIANCE, NO RESIDENTIAL, ANY TYPE OF RESIDE, ANY TYPE OF VARI,

[00:55:01]

ANY TYPE OF VARIANCE.

I MEAN THAT'S, I'M ASSUMING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS A RECORD OF ALL VARIANCES, ALL, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MEETINGS AND I KNOW A LETTER GOES OUT.

UM, I, I JUST DON'T KNOW BEYOND THAT WHAT HAPPENS.

I'VE NEVER DUG INTO IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE IS AWARE THAT, ARE THEY SEARCHABLE OF THAT? ARE THEY SEARCHABLE? RIGHT.

WE HAVE IN OUR PERMITTING SOFTWARE, UH, RECORDS FOR EACH OF THE PARCELS THAT RECEIVE A A VARIANCE.

UM, BUT THAT'S NOT PUBLICLY SEARCHABLE.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO CALL IN AND, AND ASK THE QUESTION CURRENTLY IF THEY DON'T ALREADY HAVE THE LETTER IN HAND.

SO IT WOULD BE IN THE GIS SYSTEM AS FAR BACK AS THE GIS SYSTEM GOES.

UM, NOT OUR GIS SYSTEM, BUT OUR, OUR PERMITTING SOFTWARE, UM, WE, WE GOT THAT SOFTWARE IN 2015, SO FAIRLY RECENT.

UM, BEYOND THAT, I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME RECORDS.

I, LIKE YOU SAID, THE, THE BOARD HAS THEIR, THEIR RECORDS.

UM, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH BUILDING INSPECTIONS TO SEE HOW THEY'VE, THEY'VE BEEN ARCHIVING THINGS BEFORE 2015.

THAT'S MY CONCERN.

SO, WELL WE, BUT I, I SUPPORT THE COUNTY.

THOSE GO BACK HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE THOUGH, TO CHANGE THIS.

AND I THINK THE CLEANEST, NEATEST WAY TO DO IT, DO IT FOR EVERYBODY'S PURPOSE IS TO REQUIRE A DEEDED FILING WITH THE APPROVAL.

I THINK CREATING A FORM BY THE CITY THAT IS SIMPLY SENT TO THEM SAYING, WHEN YOU SHOW US THIS IS FILED, WHAT THE DEED RECORD WILL GET YOU YOUR PERMIT.

AND THAT'S TO ME PRETTY SIMPLE.

IT REQUIRES IT TO BE FILED, IT'S FILED IN A PLACE WHERE WE'VE KIND OF TAKEN IT OFF OUR PLATES.

IT'S NOW THE DEED RECORD.

SO IT'S UP TO THE COUNTY TO, TO MAINTAIN THAT.

AND, UH, IT'LL STILL BE IN OUR SYSTEM NOW MOVING FORWARD.

BUT, AND THAT, AND THAT GETS ADDED TO OUR RECORD TOO, SO PART OF THE PERMIT.

I I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND THANK YOU.

I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WE DO NOT.

THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I THOUGHT.

SO WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOW WE CAN KIND OF MAKE A DECISION.

UM, MR. BRUNO, THANK YOU.

UM, EVEN IF WE TAKE UP YOUR SUGGESTION ABOUT CONDITIONING APPROVAL ON A RECORDING PROCESS FOR THE VARIANCE, UM, I MEAN WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED HERE WITH A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE.

I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE TO LOOK AT BEFORE WE APPROVE SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MEAN WE WOULD TABLE IT AND BRING IT BACK TO GIVE THE STAFF TIME TO DEVELOP SOME LANGUAGE FOR US TO APPROVE MR. CAREY.

UM, NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT WAS JUST SAID, I, I'VE BEEN, I'M ALIGNED WITH THE DIRECTION YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE.

IT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

AS YOU SAID, I THINK IT CHECKS THE BOXES AND, AND, AND SOLVES MORE THINGS THAN, THAN WE RISK.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY OPINION.

ANYONE ELSE? YES, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY IF, IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, UM, I WROTE OUT WHAT, UH, MISTY ANDREA SAID EARLIER AND I COULD SHOW IT ON THE, ON THE OVERHEAD PROJECTOR.

PERFECT.

THE, THE FONT SIZE.

UM, JUST ADDING AT THE END OF THIS SECTION AT THE END.

7.1 MM-HMM.

, LET ME SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, SORRY.

AT THE END OF 7.1.

UM, D ADDING THE SENTENCE, THE VARIANCE WILL BE RECORDED IN THE TITLE RECORDS.

UM, REGARDING, UH, VARIANCES TO MINIMUM FRONT YARDS.

COULD WE SAY COUNTY LAND RECORDS INSTEAD? COUNTY LAND RECORDS.

DOES THAT, AND THEN DO WE NEED IN THERE SOMEWHERE THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THAT'S FILED BEFORE THEY CAN GET THEIR PERMIT? I MEAN WHAT'S, OR IS THAT A DIFFERENT PART OF THE PROCESS WHERE WE DO THAT? THE VARIANCE WILL BE RECORDED IN THE COUNTY LAND RECORDS WITH COPY PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT.

CAN I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? CAN I THINK WILL, SHOULD BE SHALL AND THEN AGAIN, ADDING WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE JUST MADE THIS MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE COMPLICATED.

THE VARIANCE SHALL BE RECORDED IN THE COUNTY LAND RECORDS BY THE APPLICANT WITH COPY PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT.

[01:00:02]

WELL, I THINK IT'S CLEAR WHAT WE'VE DONE.

WHICH IS SAY WE'RE GONNA SAVE YOU SOME, SOME HEARTACHE AND TIME AND POTENTIALLY MONEY.

WE'RE GONNA SAVE STAFF SOME TIME.

WE'RE GONNA ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WANT, WHICH IS IF SOMEBODY WANTS A VARIANCE AND THEY DESERVE ONE, THEY GET IT.

BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THAT VARIANCE IS RECORDED IN MULTIPLE PLACES SO THAT WHEN THEY GO TO SELL OR THE FOURTH OWNER AFTER THEM GOES TO SELL, THERE'S NOT A TITLE COMPANY THAT SAYS, SORRY, THAT'S NOT ALLOWED.

MR. S AND THIS DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN THIS DOCUMENT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ASK THE STAFF TO DEVELOP SOME SORT OF A STANDARD DOCUMENT THAT THAT'S, IT GOES OUT WITH THE LETTER OF APPROVAL, GOES WITH THE LETTER THAT SAYS, GO FILE THIS, FILE THIS.

UM, SO THERE'S A YES, SAY 99% OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.

AND, AND HERE'S WHERE YOU GO TO THE ANNEX AND YOU FILE IT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF AN INSTRUCTION LETTER.

HERE IT IS.

GO DOWN TO THE COUNTY ANNEX AND RECORD THIS.

THAT MAKES GREAT SENSE.

IN PARTICULAR TOO.

THAT NEEDS TO BE, IT'S NOT AN EVERGREEN SITUATION, IT'S THE COUNTY LAND RECORDS, THEIR DEEDED SYSTEMS FILING AND STUFF CHANGES.

THE WAY IT GETS DONE WILL CHANGE.

SO YES, JUST NOTE THAT STAFF ALREADY DOES SIMILAR THINGS THAT, THAT NOW WITH FINAL PLATTS AND RE PLATS, WE ACTUALLY ATTACH A DOCUMENT HOW TO FILE.

OF COURSE YOU DO.

IT'S THE CITY'S EXCELLENCE.

SO WE WOULD CERTAINLY DO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT.

I THINK THE TEMPLATE IS THE KEY PART 'CAUSE THAT'S A, IT'S GONNA BE A VERY UNIQUE DOCUMENT.

UNDERSTOOD.

MR. BRENNO, UH, WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TO TO DO THE RECORDING? WOULD IT BE THE CITY OR THE APPLICANT? UH, IT'S SAY THE, THE VARI SHALL BE RECORDED IN THE COUNTY LAND RECORDS BY APPLICANTS.

OH, OKAY.

I DIDN'T SEE THAT WITH COPY PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.

I THINK THAT COVERS IT.

LET'S SAY WITH, UM, PROOF OF RECORDING INSTEAD OF WITH COPY.

OH, WITH PROOF OF, OF RECORDING PROVIDED TO THE CITY.

CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT.

I THINK WE GOT IT.

ARE WE ALL KIND OF GOOD THERE? ALRIGHT, WE ARE MR. BRONSKI.

SO I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS IT'S BEEN AMENDED ON THIS, THIS ITEM.

UM, AND I'D LIKE TO, UH, SUGGEST AS COMMISSIONER RATLIFF DID THAT, UH, WE, UH, ASK THE STAFF TO DEVELOP A FORM THAT IS SUBMITTABLE FOR THIS PROCESS.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY RELA PROMONTORY ON PRESTON BLOCK A LOTS FOUR R AND FIVE R RESTAURANT ON LOT FOUR R AND RETAIL ON LOT FIVE R ON 6.4 ACRES.

I HAVE A, A WELL WORDED MOTION BY MR. BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CAREY TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO THE CHANGES DISCUSSED AT THE DIOCESE.

PLEASE VOTE NOT.

ITEM CARRIE, SIX TO ZERO.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, STAFF AND YOUR EFFORT.

[5. (DS) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: Promontory on Preston, Block A, Lots 4R & 5R - Restaurant on Lot 4R and retail on Lot 5R on 6.4 acres located at the northeast corner of Preston Road and Nueces Drive. Zoned Planned Development-176-Retail and located within the Preston Road Overlay District. Project #PR2023-022. Applicant: Promontory, Ltd. (Administrative consideration)]

LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PRESTON ROAD AND NOIS DRIVE, ZONED PLANT DEVELOPMENT 1 7 6 RETAIL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT.

APPLICANT IS PROMONTORY, LTD.

UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REFL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON ITEM FIVE? WE DO NOT.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, PUBLIC HEARING AND REVIEW PERIOD.

I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING THROUGHOUT MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER FIVE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS STATED BY CITY STAFF.

SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY TO APPROVE ITEM FIVE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

PLEASE VOTE MR. LYES GETTING IT IN THERE.

ALRIGHT, THAT ITEM CARRIES SIX TO ZERO

[6. (PM) Public Hearing & Review Period Extension Request - Preliminary Replat: Paradise Heights, Blocks A-C - 42 Single-Family Residence-9 lots and three common area lots on 14.0 acres located at the southwest corner of Spring Creek Parkway and Fieldlark Drive. Zoned Single-Family Residence-9 and located within the Parkway Overlay District. Project #PR2023-025. Applicant: First United Methodist Church (Request to table the public hearing to December 18, 2023.)]

EXTENSION REQUEST.

PRELIMINARY REPL PARADISE HEIGHT, PARADISE HEIGHTS, BLOCKS A THROUGH C DASH 42, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, NINE LOTS AND THREE COMMON AREA LOTS ON 14 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY AND PHIL LARK DRIVE ZONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE.

AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT, APPLICANT FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH.

THE APPROVAL OF THE REVIEW EXTENSION PERIOD AS SUBMITTED.

STAFF RECOMMENDS ON

[01:05:01]

AND ALSO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY RELA, UM, SUBJECT TO, SORRY, I NEED TO CHANGE MY RECOMMENDATION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY RELA STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TABLE THE PRELIMINARY RELA TO THE DECEMBER 18TH, 2023 AT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

THAT REGULAR PRELIMINARY RELA THREW ME OFF .

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

NO WORRIES.

UNDERSTOOD.

UM, THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, I'M, I'M LOST.

DOING THIS TO DECEMBER 18TH? NO, NO.

WE ARE, UH, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO LIKELY WITH SOME DISCUSSION IF NEEDED NEEDED, BUT IS, IS APPROVED THIS SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WILL GRANT THE APPLICANT THE EXTENSION AND THEN TABLE THE REQUEST TO, UH, REPL UNTIL DECEMBER 18TH.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? THERE ARE NONE.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. BRONSKI, I'LL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

OH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UH, ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON EXTENDING THE PERIOD REVIEW PERIOD AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PRELIMINARY REVIEW PLAN.

SECOND.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY RELA NORTH CENTRAL RETAIL EDITION BLOCK, A LOTS ONE AND TWO RESTAURANT AND RETAIL ON TWO LOTS ON 3.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF US.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KERRY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI.

UH, TO APPROVE ITEM SIX, BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE VOTE.

AND YOU DIDN'T GET MY VOTE IN THERE, BUT I VOTED YES.

SO THAT ITEM CARRIES SIX TO ZERO.

[7. (KC) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: North Central Retail Addition, Block A, Lots 1 & 2 - Restaurant and retail on two lots on 3.9 acres located on the east side of U.S. Highway 75, 275 feet north of 16th Street. Zoned Corridor Commercial with Specific Use Permit No. 194 for Automobile and Truck Leasing. Project #PR2023-030. Applicant: Liu and Pan, LLC (Administrative consideration)]

HIGHWAY SEVENTY FIVE, TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE FEET NORTH OF 16TH STREET ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1 9 4 FULL AND TRUCK LEASING APPLICANT IS LOU , LLC.

I PROMISE TO HAVE THIS RECOMMENDATION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REFL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS IN OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS RECOMMENDED AND REQUIRED BY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. IFF? JUST A QUESTION.

I HADN'T NOTICED THIS UNTIL YOU JUST SAID IT IN YOUR REPORT.

THIS ALREADY HAS AN SUP FOR AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK LEASING ON THE PROPERTY.

CORRECT? WE HAVE AN SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 1 94 FOR AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK LEASING.

SO THAT'S IN PLACE TODAY? THAT'S, THAT'S IN PLACE TODAY.

THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS REQUEST, CORRECT? NO, IT'S NOT PART OF THIS REQUEST.

ANY OTHER MR. LAW MICROPHONE IS THE EFFECT.

YOU'RE HONOR, YOU'RE ON DO IT IS THE THERE WE GO.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SEE.

SO IT'S STILL GONNA BE TWO LOTS.

IT'S JUST NOT GONNA BE THREE LOTS.

THE OTHER, THE OTHER SLIDE LOOKED LIKE IT WAS THREE LOTS, BUT ARE WE RE PLATTING THE THREE INTO TWO? CORRECT.

SO, UH, THE APPLICANT IS CORRECTING THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY AS WELL.

SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE LOT ONE AND LOT TWO AS PART OF THIS REQUEST.

AND THEN CAN WE GO TO THAT NEXT SLIDE? SURE.

JUST TRYING TO, WHAT, WHAT PROPERTY IS THIS OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD? IS IT JUST SOUTH OF HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS? NORTH OF NORTH OF THE HOTEL.

WESTERN WESTERN IT IS, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF IT, BUT IT IS TWO UM, IT IS NORTH OF 16TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 18TH STREET.

THERE'S HARBOR FREIGHT ON THE CORNER AND THEN WHERE IT SAYS CC ON THE, ON THE DRAWING, THAT'S WHERE THAT RESTAURANT WAS TORN DOWN.

GOTCHA.

AND SO THIS IS JUST SOUTH OF WHERE THAT RESTAURANT WAS TORN DOWN.

SO IT'S NOT THE TORN DOWN RESTAURANT SITE, IT'S JUST SOUTH OF THAT.

WE APPROVED THAT ONE THE OTHER DAY.

I GOT YOU.

IT'S THE THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

SO I WAS, THE SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY A HOTEL.

THE SOUTH IS QUALITY INN.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU ALL PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THE SIDE? WE HAVE NONE.

AND THAT ITEM CARRIES SIX ZERO

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONFINED DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION.

I MOVE.

WE FOLLOW THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON AGENDA ITEM SEVEN.

SECOND I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM SEVEN, SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

[01:10:02]

[8. (JK) Public Hearing - Replat: Willow Bend Polo Estates Phase B, Block B, Lot 9R - One patio home lot on 0.2 acre located at the southeast corner of Shaddock Boulevard and Castle Gate Drive. Zoned Planned Development-423-Patio Home. Project #R2023-045. Applicants: Stephen F. and Rebecca R. Shuckenbrock (Request to withdraw project from consideration.)]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, PUBLIC HEARING REPL WILLOW BEND POLO ESTATES PHASE B, BLOCK B LOT NINE R ONE PATIO HOME LOT ON 0.2 ACRE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SHADDOCK BOULEVARD AND CASTLEGATE DRIVE ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

4 2 3 PATIO HOME APPLICANT IS STEVEN F AND REBECCA R SCHUCKENBROCK.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION A ACCEPTS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE REPLAY.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU MS. OTTI.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? THERE ARE NONE.

I PUBLIC HEARING I MOVE.

WE ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE REPL ON AGENDA ITEM EIGHT.

DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION, DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING CHANGES TO THE STATE LAW THROUGH HOUSE BILL 3 6 9 9 FOR THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY OF PLATTS APPLICANT CITY OF AP PLANO.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO TO APPROVE ITEM EIGHT.

[9. (MK) Discussion and Direction: Discussion and direction regarding changes to state law through House Bill 3699 for the approval authority of plats. Project #DI2023-016. Discussed September 18, 2023. Applicant: City of Plano ]

TO WORK THROUGH COMMENTS AND ANY POTENTIAL ISSUES IF NEEDED AS THE 30 DAY DEADLINE DOESN'T APPLY UNTIL THOSE FEES ARE PAID.

AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2023, STOCK PRESENTED INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION WITH A REQUEST TO PROVIDE DIRECTION ON PROPOSED PLATT APPROVAL AUTHORITY CHANGES DUE TO THE PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 36 99.

THIS BILL ALLOWS STAFF TO APPROVE PLATTS THAT PREVIOUSLY WOULD'VE BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.

IF THE COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL CHOOSES TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY.

THE COMMISSION GAVE A TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD AND ASKED STAFF FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM IS TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS FROM THE SEPTEMBER 18TH MEETING AND SOLICIT ADDITIONAL DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION.

AS A REMINDER SHOWN HERE IS A CHART OF THE PROPOSED PLATT APPROVAL CHANGES THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THE SEPTEMBER 18TH MEETING.

SOME BACKGROUND ON STATE LAW PLATS ARE SUBJECT TO CHAPTER TWO 12 OF TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH HAS SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET, INCLUDING NOTICING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR CERTAIN RELAS.

UM, ACTION IS REQUIRED WITHIN 30 DAYS.

AND THEN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICE IN PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR CERTAIN RELAS RELAS THAT ARE LIMITED BY ZONING OR DEED TO SINGLE FAMILY OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES HAVE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.

IF A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, A PUBLIC HEARING MUST BE HELD AND A WRITTEN NOTICE MUST BE SENT, UM, TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY.

IF NO VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED, BUT THE WRITTEN NOTICE MUST STILL BE SENT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF APPROVAL OF THE PLAT BECAUSE IT MAY NOT BE KNOWN EARLY ON IN REVIEW.

IF A VARIANCE IS NEEDED, THE CITY HAS OPTED TO NOTICE ALL SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RELAS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND THIS IS NOT PROPOSED TO CHANGE WITH THE PROCESS.

AND THEN SHOWN HERE IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE NOTICES THAT WE SEND FOR ACTION REQUIRED WITHIN 30 DAYS.

CHAPTER TWO 12 HAS SPECIFIC TIMELINES IN WHICH PLATTS MUST BE APPROVED.

PLAINTIFF HAS IMPLEMENTED THIS THROUGH TWO ROUTES.

THE SHOT CLOCK OPTION, WHICH IS THE GRAPHIC SHOWN ON THE LEFT, REQUIRES A PLATT TO BE APPROVED, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIED.

WITHIN 30 DAYS OF A COMPLETE PLAT SUBMITTAL BEING RECEIVED, AN APPLICANT MAY REQUEST EXTENSIONS TO THIS DEADLINE.

THE PRE-SUBMIT SUBMITTAL OPTION, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT, ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY AS THE PLAT CAN BE SUBMITTED WITHOUT THE FEES BEING PAID.

SO CONSIDERED AN INCOMPLETE SUBMITTAL.

STAFF WILL REVIEW THE PLATT AND FEES ARE PAID ONCE THE PLATT IS READY FOR APPROVAL, WHICH THEN KICKS INTO THE SHOCK C**K PROCESS.

THIS ALLOWS A LONGER TIMEFRAME

[01:15:01]

ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION CHAPTER TWO 12 STATES THAT PLATT MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET ALL STANDARDS AND PROVIDES AN OPTION FOR AN OWNER TO SUE IF THE PLATT WAS NOT APPROVED PER THE SECTION.

THIS IS COVERED IN THE COMMISSION'S BYLAWS AND NOTED ON THE MEETING AGENDAS.

THE COMBINATION OF THESE REQUIREMENTS UNDER STATE LAW OR PER THOSE ZONE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE CAN CREATE CHALLENGES FOR APPLICANTS AND STAFF AS THE MAJORITY OF PLOTS STILL NEED TO BE PLACED ON A COMMISSIONED AGENDA FOR APPROVAL DUE TO THE SET SCHEDULE FOR COMMISSION MEETINGS.

PLOTS MAY BE READY FOR CONSIDERATION WEEKS PRIOR TO A COMMISSION MEETING, BUT THE APPLICANT MUST STILL WAIT FOR APPROVAL AT THAT MEETING AS STAFF PREPARES THE AGENDA, LOCATORS AND GRAPHICS, UM, CREATING UNNECESSARY DELAYS FOR APPLICANTS.

AND THEN THE GENERAL TIMELINE IS SHOWN HERE.

UM, STARTING WITH DAY ONE THROUGH DAY 30, THE COMMISSION HAD ASKED IF OTHER CITIES HAVE DELEGATED PLATT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF.

STAFF REACHED OUT TO 23 COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT TEXAS ABOUT ANY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE OR PLAN TO BE MADE TO THEIR PLATT APPROVAL PROCESSES OF THE 23 COMMUNITIES, THREE HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES ALREADY TO DELEGATE PLATT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF.

TWO, HAVE REGULATIONS DRAFTED TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY.

FIVE HAVE BECOME DISCUSSIONS TO CONSIDER CHANGES AND EIGHT ARE NOT CURRENTLY CONSIDERING ANY CHANGES TO THEIR PRACTICE.

WHILE FIVE OF THE CITIES DID NOT PROVIDE US A RESPONSE.

SUMMARY OF THIS INFORMATION FROM THE COMMUNITIES IS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL.

SO THE COMMISSION ALSO ASKED HOW TRANSPARENCY CAN BE MAINTAINED.

PLOTS ARE CURRENTLY DISPLAYED TO THE PUBLIC IN SEVERAL WAYS.

THE ZONING AND RECENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MAP, UH, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE, DISPLAYS ALL PROJECTS FROM THE TIME THEY'RE SUBMITTED TO ONE YEAR AFTER ACTION IS TAKEN ON THE PROJECT.

WE HAVE THE NEW SUBMITTAL AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LIST AS WELL AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDAS IF APPROVAL OF AUTHORITY IS DELEGATED TO STAFF, ALL PLATT INFORMATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC VIEWING THROUGH THE MAP.

AND THE NEW SUBMITTAL AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LIST IF DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSION STAFF WILL ALSO PROVIDE A MONTHLY STAFF APPROVAL REPORT CONTAINING ALL PLATTS APPROVED BY STAFF.

SO THIS TABLE SHOWS THE CURRENT PLATT APPROVAL AUTHORITY AND INCLUDES ALL PLATTS PROCESSED BY STAFF FROM SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2022 TO AUGUST 31ST, 2023.

IN THAT TIMEFRAME, THE COMMISSION UH, REVIEWED AND APPROVED 128 PLATTS WHILE STAFF APPROVED ZERO.

THIS TABLE SHOWS THE PROPOSED PLATT APPROVAL CHANGES USING THE SAME DATA AS THE PREVIOUS TABLE.

UNDER THIS PROCESS, THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE APPROVED 17 PLATTS WHILE STAFF APPROVED 111.

THIS OPTION LEAVES SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RE PLATTS WITH THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL AS A PUBLIC HEARING MAY BE REQUIRED PER STATE LAW, ALL OTHER PLATTS, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WOULD MOVE TO STAFF FOR APPROVAL.

AND THIS TABLE SHOWS AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION IN WHICH ALL RELAS INCLUDING NON-RESIDENTIAL WOULD REMAIN WITH THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL.

BUT THE NON-RESIDENTIAL RELAS WOULD BE MOVED TO CONSENT ITEMS INSTEAD OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.

AS THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED FOR STATE LAW, BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES INCLUDE A MORE STREAMLINED PROCESS AS PLATS.

UM, SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL IN STATE LAW COULD BE APPROVED SOONER.

SAVING DEVELOPERS ANYWHERE FROM THREE DAYS TO THREE WEEKS IN THE PROCESS.

INCREASED EFFICIENCY FOR THE PUBLIC AT COMMISSION MEETINGS AS THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO SIT THROUGH APPROVAL OF AS MANY ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS. THE COMMISSION ALSO WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FOCUS ON MORE SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANTIVE LE LEGISLATIVE ITEMS. UM, THERE WILL ALSO BE INCREASED EFFICIENCY FOR STAFF AS THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO PREPARE SO MANY ITEMS IN ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS FOR THE PACKET.

MEANING THE PACKET COULD POTENTIALLY BE COMPLETED SOONER AND INCREASED TRANSPARENCY, UM, AS STAFF COULD PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS POST IT ON THE WEBSITE WITH ALL PLATTS APPROVED BY STAFF.

SO AT THIS TIME, DIRECTION IS REQUESTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED PLATT APPROVAL AUTHORITY CHANGES.

SPECIFICALLY STAFF WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS WHETHER CHANGES ARE DESIRED.

SO SHOULD ANY ADDITIONAL

[01:20:01]

PLATS BE DELEGATED FOR STAFF APPROVAL? IF YES, IS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR EACH LISTED PLA TYPE HERE TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF WITH A STAFF APPROVAL REPORT PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION? OR IS CONSENT PREFERRED FOR THE NON-RESIDENTIAL RELAS? THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE PROPOSED PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY CHANGES.

AND I WILL GO BACK TO THAT DIRECTION SLIDE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? CAN YOU GO BACK, UM, TO THE TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT YOU PROPOSED? SO ONE MORE.

UNDER THIS SCENARIO, THIS ESSENTIALLY SAVING APPLICANT'S THREE TO THREE DAYS.

TO THREE WEEKS IS WHAT YOU SAID? CORRECT.

GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

UNDER THIS ONE THEY'RE NOT REALLY SAVING ANY TIME 'CAUSE THEY'D STILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE PROCESS TO GO THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO IT WOULD STILL BE PART, WE DON'T REALLY SAVE ANYTHING IN TERMS OF TIME IF WE GO THIS DIRECTION.

SO YOU WOULD SAVE TIME ON THE LIKE FINAL PLAT PULMONARY PLA CONVENIENCE PLATS.

UM, IT WOULD JUST BE THE RELAS THAT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE, UM, PROCESS TO GO TO THE MEETING'S.

THAT'S 60 ITEMS, WHICH IS ROUGHLY HALF ALMOST OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE FIRE.

SO WE'RE NOT REALLY GAINING A LOT OF GROUND GOING THIS DIRECTION? NO.

RELAS ARE THE MAJORITY OF WHAT WE RECEIVE.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

UM, MR. RATLIFF CHAIRMAN, UM, FIRST OF ALL, VERY GOOD WRITEUP.

IT WOULD'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO UNDERSTAND, BUT I JUST WANT ONE KIND OF CLARIFYING QUESTION.

I THINK I'M 95% SURE WHAT THE ANSWER IS.

BUT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE STAFF BE ABLE TO APPROVE BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT WOULD COME TO US AT HIS ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

BUT ALSO THE UM, NON-RESIDENTIAL REPL.

SO CURRENTLY WE DO THOSE AS PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

UM, SO WE WOULD ASK THAT THOSE AS WELL BE DELEGATED TO STAFF.

SO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS ADMINISTRATIVE ALREADY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

AND JUST CLARIFYING LEGAL PERSPECTIVE UNDER STATE LAW ADMINISTRATIVE, THE ONLY GROUNDS THAT WE CAN DENY AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACT IS IF THERE'S A TECHNICAL PROBLEM WITH IT.

IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT.

BASICALLY IF THEY AREN'T COMPLYING WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, THEN ACTUALLY STAFF SHOULD HAVE ALREADY TOLD THEM YOU'RE NOT COMPLYING.

BUT, BUT IF YOU FIND AN ERROR THAT STAFF MADE, THEN YOU CAN SAY NO, BUT IF THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, YOU MUST APPROVE.

SO IF WE FIND A TECHNICAL ERROR THAT THE TECHNICAL PEOPLE WE HAVE WORKING FOR US DIDN'T FIND, WE HAVE GROUNDS TO DENY THAT, BUT IT'S OTHERWISE IT'S BASICALLY AN AUTOMATIC APPROVAL ALREADY.

I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF BOIL IT DOWN TO THOSE COUPLE OF BULLET POINTS AT LEAST FOR ME.

SO RIGHT.

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT BUT UM, IF WE DON'T GET IT TIMELY APPROVED, THEY GET APPROVAL REGARDLESS, AUTOMAT JUST AUTOMATICALLY WHETHER YOU ALL ACT OR NOT.

O'CLOCK, WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET IT A DAY OR TWO EARLY.

ONE, ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT, UM, ON THE, THE NON-RESIDENTIAL RELAS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE CURRENTLY PUBLIC HEARINGS, THEY'RE STILL ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

MR. LOT, AT THE RISK OF ASKING A DUMB QUESTION AT THE BOTTOM OF SLIDE 50, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ASTERISK OUT TO THE SIDE AND IT, THE ASTERISK, THE FIRST ONE SAYS UNLESS A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, A LOT OF OUR CONVERSATION IN A PREVIOUS ITEM WAS ABOUT VARIANCES.

SO IF A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS PROCESS? YEAH, SO IF A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PLOT TYPE, UM, SO VARIANCE IS SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, IT DOES HAVE TO COME FORWARD TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL.

BUT DID WE JUST CHANGE THAT TO SEND IT TO SOMEBODY? WHATEVER WE DID EARLIER IS GONNA APPLY TO THIS OR NO ADJUSTMENT.

BUT IS THAT A, THAT'S A DIFFERENT, YEAH, THESE PARTICULAR ARE, UM, PLANNING AND ZONING VARIANCES, NOT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCES.

SO IF THEY WANT A VARIANCE, IT'S GONNA STILL COME TO US.

IT'S GONNA COME TO US.

GOTCHA.

MR. BRONSKI, SO I WANTED TO ADD THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UH, FOR ALL THE WORK YOU'VE PUT INTO THIS.

I'VE GOT, UH, TWO QUESTIONS.

SO THE FIRST ONE WAS, YOU MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF, UH, GOING WITH OPTION ONE A WAS WE WOULD GET THE PACKET SOONER.

IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? POTENTIALLY IF WE HAD, IF WE WEREN'T PREPARING SO MANY ITEMS, THEN WE REALLY WOULD ONLY HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, LIKE ZONING TYPE CASES, THE LEGISLATIVE ONE TO WORK ON SO WE COULD POTENTIALLY GET IT DONE SOONER BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HAVING TO SPEND LIKE HOURS UPON HOURS CREATING ALL THE ITEMS FOR JUST THE PLOTS.

SO THEN RATHER THAN GETTING IT ON FRIDAY AT FIVE

[01:25:01]

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I COULDN'T GUARANTEE ANYTHING .

BUT IT'S, IT'S POSSIBLE.

IT'S SOMETHING THINK MR. BELL, I'M NOT GONNA MAKE THAT PROMISE, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY OUR GOAL IF THAT WOULD, IF THAT WOULD HAPPEN.

WELL THAT'S CERTAINLY, UM, I LIKE THAT IDEA A LOT BECAUSE I FIND, UM, BOTH FOR THE CITIZENS AS WELL AS FOR ME, UM, GETTING THESE THINGS AT UH, FRIDAY AT FIVE O'CLOCK CAN SOMETIMES BE, UH, COME, UH, BURDENSOME, UH, FOR UH, COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

UH, SO MY SECOND QUESTION IS, SO OUT OF THE 23 CITIES THAT YOU SPOKE WITH, UH, ABOUT A THIRD HA HAVE DECIDED NOT TO DO ANYTHING, WHAT WAS, DO WE KNOW ANY RATIONALE AS TO WHY? UH, WE'VE ONLY SEEN THREE THAT HAVE ACTUALLY ADOPTED SOME NEW DIRECTION LIKE THIS AND THE MAJORITY, UH, SEEMED TO BE HOLDING TIGHT.

MOST OF THEM JUST DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT AT THIS TIME.

THEY DIDN'T REALLY PROVIDE MUCH RATIONALE.

SOME CITIES, UM, I KNOW HAD JUST GONE THROUGH BIG SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES.

THEY DIDN'T WANNA HAVE TO GO BACK AND MAKE NEW CHANGES TO SOMETHING THAT WAS JUST ADOPTED.

BUT FOR THE MOST PART THEY JUST, THEY'RE FINE WITH THEIR PROCESS AND DIDN'T WANNA CHANGE IT.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CARE.

YEAH, I HAVE TO ECHO, UH, NICE WORK ON THIS.

UM, IT, IT'S BEEN MY BELIEF THAT A LOT OF WHAT WE DO HERE AROUND THIS IS SUPERFLUOUS ANYWAY.

I MEAN, AND, AND I, AND I DO THINK THAT IT, UH, DISTRACTS POSSIBLY FROM BEING ABLE TO SPEND MORE TIME ON OTHER THINGS.

UM, IT, AND I ESPECIALLY WANT TO ECHO COMMISSIONER BROSKY, UM, ON THE FACT THAT IF WE COULD GET THIS PACKET EVEN A DAY EARLIER, UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND, UM, IF THIS CAN REDUCE THE WORKLOAD TO WHERE WE COULD DO THAT BECAUSE, UM, I, I BELIEVE AT TIMES WITH THE VOLUME OF THINGS THAT COME THROUGH THIS COMMISSION, THAT IT'S VERY CHALLENGING TO PROPERLY DIGEST IT ALL AND REALLY COME IN AND BE PREPARED ON EVERYTHING THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO, ESPECIALLY IN, DEPENDING ON WHAT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT BE GOING ON IN ANYBODY'S LIFE.

AND SO FOR ME, UM, I I JUST SEE MULTIPLE BENEFITS TO THIS.

AND, UM, I I AM IN STRONG FAVOR AND WOULD LIKE TO TWIST, UH, MIKE'S ARMS FOR A STRONGER COMMITMENT.

MR. BRUNO THE ONE THAT CAN DELIVER THIS MR. BELL.

ALL RIGHT, MR. BRUNO.

UH, THANK YOU.

UM, ARE YOU CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER THE SHOT CLOCK OPTION OR ARE YOU CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER THE DELAYED SHOT CLOCK OPTION? SO IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE APPLICANT CHOOSES.

SO THEY HAVE THE OPTION, THEY CAN DO THE SHOT CLOCK OR THEY CAN DO THE PRE-SUBMIT OPTION.

UM, BUT IT, IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO THE APPLICANT AND, AND I COULD CLARIFY THE SCHEDULE IS THE SAME.

OUR REVIEW SCHEDULE IS SET UP FOR THE SHOT CLOCK.

SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT OPTION YOU PICK, WE'RE DOING THE, UM, AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE AND WHAT IS THE AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE TO, FROM APPLICATION TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN 30 DAYS OR LESS.

AND THAT INCLUDES OFTENTIMES GETTING SUBMITTALS THE WEDNESDAY BEFORE A P AND Z MEETING.

THE FINAL SET OF COMMENTS, SO WE GET A COMMENT ON WEDNESDAY FINAL SET OF PLANS.

A LOT OF TIMES THAT INCLUDES THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AS WELL.

IT'S NOT JUST PLANNING AND THEN WE HAVE TO DO ONE LAST REVIEW TO MAKE SURE IT'S READY, GET IT IN THE PACKET FOR FRIDAY PM FRIDAY 5:00 PM POSTING TO MEET THE 30 DAY DAY.

CLOCK, WOULD THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STILL GET ALL THE CASES WE'RE CURRENTLY GETTING? MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

NOW, IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO GO WITH THE, WHAT DELAYED SUBMITTAL, IS THAT THE TERM WHERE THEY PAY THE FEES AFTER THE REVIEW, PRE-SUBMIT PRES, PRES SUBMITTAL, WHAT IS THERE AT THAT POINT TO ENSURE THAT YOU GET THE REVIEW DONE WITHIN, WITHIN, SAY, 30 DAYS AS OPPOSED TO PAYING, YOU KNOW, MORE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION TO OTHER THINGS AND THEN COMING BACK TO THAT A LITTLE LATER AND THEN IT SORT OF SLIDES OFF INTO THE BACK BURNER FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS BEFORE YOU CAN GET TO IT? CERTAINLY OUR PROCESS AREN'T, AREN'T DESIGNED TO DO THAT, BUT THE, THE DEVELOPER DOES HAVE THE OPTION TO INITIATE THE SHOCK CLOCK AT ANY TIME.

SO SHOULD THERE BE SOME DELAY ON STAFF'S SPARK, THEY CAN INITIATE THE SHOCK CLOCK.

SO, BUT I THINK OUR, OUR STAFF'S GOALS ARE TO GET FOLKS THROWN THROUGH IN TWO TO THREE REVIEWS IN AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.

UH, WE TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY, BUT THERE IS NO, THERE'S NO PRESCRIBED DEADLINE IF THEY CHOOSE THE PRE-SUBMIT.

IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES THE SHOT

[01:30:01]

IF THEY CHOOSE THE SHOT CLOCK, WOULD WE STILL BE GETTING ALL OF THE PLATTS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY SEEING ON UNDER THIS? ON OUR AGENDAS? NO.

UNDER THIS OPTION, ALL, ALL THE PLATS EXCEPT FOR THE RE PLATTS ARE GONNA GO TO STAFF.

SO EVEN UNDER SHOCK CLOCK, WE WOULD STILL BE BOUND BY 30 DAYS TO GET STAFF APPROVAL.

YOU'RE SHOWING ON PAGE 58 A PROPOSED REPORT.

THE PLANNING WITH STAFF APPROVED PLATTS? UH, I'M LOOKING AT IT AND I DON'T SEE MUCH INFORMATION ON IT.

ALL IT HAS IS LIKE A CASE NUMBER AND A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE APPROVAL OR YOU KNOW, WHY IT WAS APPROVED.

YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S TO APPROVE EASEMENTS OR TO, YOU KNOW, DIVIDE SUBDIVIDE LOTS OR WHATEVER.

UM, NOTHING THAT I CAN CHECK UP ON TO SEE WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON.

IS THERE ANY WAY OF EXPANDING THE PARAMETERS OF THAT REPORT TO INCLUDE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION? CERTAINLY WE COULD, UH, WE BASE THIS OFF OF THE HERITAGE COMMISSION HAS A SIMILAR PROCESS WHERE THEY'VE DELEGATED APPROVAL OF CERTAIN CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS TO STAFF SO THAT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION OFFICER MAKES A PRESENTATION EVERY MONTH AND WHAT WAS APPROVED, THOSE INFORMATION IS TYPICALLY JUST A COPY OF THE PLANS AND THE NUMBER.

UM, WE COULD CERTAINLY PROVIDE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS THE COMMISSION FINDS HELPFUL.

UM, BUT AGAIN, THE MORE WE'RE PUTTING BACK INTO THE REPORT, THE MORE WE'RE ADDING ONTO THAT PACKET PREPARATION.

SO WE'D BE KINDA BE BACK IN THE SAME BOAT FOR AT LEAST ONE OF THE MEETINGS OF TRYING TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE PACKET THAT WOULD DELAY IT GETTING OUT SOONER.

UM, TRULY PREPARING A REPORT, EVEN WITH MORE INFORMATION WOULD NOT TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS, UH, PREPARING A WHOLE PACKET FOR THE PZ.

YEAH, NOT, NOT ONE MEETING.

YES, THERE'S, THERE'S A, IT WOULD ELIMINATE SOME OF THE MAP CREATION AND UM, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WOULD BE REMOVED, BUT IT STILL REQUIRES ALL THE SAME LEVEL OF REVIEW FROM THE PLANNER TO THE SUPERVISOR STAFF TO THE MANAGER.

UM, THAT THAT HAPPENS UNDER THE CURRENT CLASS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

MANY FEWER PAGES TO REVIEW THOUGH.

UM, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I JUST, I JUST FORESEE SITUATIONS WHERE, UH, UNDER THE DELAYED SUBMITTAL THINGS MIGHT FIND THEMSELVES STARTING TO SLIDE IN TERMS OF A TIMEFRAME APPLICANT.

ANYWAY.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KERRY? YEAH, AS I LOOKED AT THIS, JUST A REAL QUICK COMMENT, UM, FOR STAFF, UM, ONE OF MY CONCERNS WAS VISIBILITY OF THESE BACK TO COMMISSION.

AND I THINK YOUR REPORT, YOU KNOW, ANSWERS THE QUESTION THAT I, THAT I WOULD'VE HAD TONIGHT WITHOUT THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, I, I, I APPLAUD THAT, HOW MUCH INFORMATION WE PUT IN THERE THAT'S REALLY RELEVANT I THINK IS, IT CAN BE DISCUSSED, BUT I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THE REPORT IN THERE BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US THEN TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE REALLY DOING.

SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS IT.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA.

COMMISSIONER ATLAS AND KIND OF HONING IN ON THE REPORT QUESTION ALSO, I PRESUME THAT THE REPORT WOULD BE PART OF THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT THAT'S UPLOADED IN ADVANCE OUR MEETING PART OF THE PACKET.

IT'D BE PART OF THE PACKET, THAT'S CORRECT.

SO IT WOULD BE TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC IF THEY PULL UP OUR AGENDA, THEY WOULD PULL UP OUR PACKET.

IT'S IN OUR PACKET JUST LIKE THE PLATS ARE IN OUR PACKET TODAY.

SO IF, IF ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS WANTS TO KNOW WHAT THE SIGN IS AT THE END OF THE STREET, THEN THEY COULD PULL IT UP IN OUR PACKET AND SEE JUST LIKE WE DO.

FOLLOWING THE HERITAGE COMMISSIONS MODEL, THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC LINE ITEM FOR A REPORT ON STAFF APPROVED ITEMS. AND SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE A EXACTLY THE FORMAT TO PRESENT THAT IN THE PACKET AND AS PART OF THE MEETING.

AND SO WE WOULD HAVE ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION YOU OR WHOEVER AT THE MEETING IF WE HAD AN AGENDA ITEM IN THERE.

TO SAY HEY OR CALL YOU IN ADVANCE.

WHAT ABOUT THIS PLATT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT Y'ALL DID HERE.

SO, OKAY.

THEN THAT'S, THAT'S I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT WE CALL IN ADVANCE.

OH, I AGREE.

YEAH, BECAUSE IF IT'S A TECHNICAL QUESTION, YES, IT'S GONNA BE A TECHNICAL ANSWER.

SO, OKAY.

THAT, THAT, THAT RESOLVES ANY OF MY FEARS ABOUT THIS.

I'M, I, I LIKE IT IN CONCEPT.

ALRIGHT, SO LET'S GO BACK TO THE, UM, STAFF'S REQUEST FOR RESPONSE.

ALRIGHT, WHAT BACK ONE, SHOULD ANY ADDITIONAL PLATS BE DELEGATED FOR STAFF APPROVAL? I'M NOT SURE I KNOW WHAT ADDITIONAL PLATS THERE ARE THAT YOU WOULD BE ASKING US TO APPROVE.

I I THINK JUST CURRENTLY AMENDED AND MINOR PLATS CAN BE APPROVED BY STAFF.

SO SHOULD THESE ONES WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, UM, BE OKAY, UH, BE DELEGATED TO STAFF? THE ONES UNDER NUMBER TWO.

JUST THE ONES UNDER TWO.

PRELIMINARY AND FINAL RELAS ARE STATE ALL REQUIRED TO BE HERE, UH, BE APPROVED BY PNZ.

UM, AND AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY

[01:35:01]

SO THAT CAN'T GO TO, SO THEN MR. CAREY? YEAH, UM, GO AHEAD.

NO, JUST, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT EACH ONE OF THESE OR ARE WE KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE IT SOUNDS LIKE, OR AT LEAST SOME OF IT.

SO GO AHEAD MR. KERRY.

UM, MY QUESTION IS, IF, IF THIS IS ADOPTED, WHICH BY THE WAY I'M IN FAVOR OF, I'M SURE, UM, IF IT'S ADOPTED, HOW QUICKLY CAN WE GET TO THIS WHERE WE'RE OPERATING, UH, UNDER THIS NEW PLAN? UH, VERY QUICKLY.

UH, OF COURSE ONCE CITY COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO TAKE FINAL ACTION, THEN WE NEED TO WORK THROUGH ANY OF THAT OR HAVE ALREADY BEEN NOTICED FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THOSE WILL HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THAT, UNLESS STAFF HAS ANY OTHER IDEAS WHY WE WOULD NEED TO DELAY, WE COULD DO IT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY.

WHEN WILL THIS BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL IF WE APPROVE THIS TONIGHT? SO THIS IS JUST THE DISCUSSION, SO WE'LL STILL HAVE TO BRING, BRING BACK THE, UM, CASE TO YOU FIRST AND THEN YEAH, IT'LL GO TO CITY COUNCIL.

SO WE STILL HAVE TO, UM, WELL, IT'S GONNA BE ROLLED INTO, I THINK WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT, RIGHT? A DIFFERENT, UM, ORDINANCE UPDATE.

CAN YOU CLARIFY HOW THIS WOULD MOVE FORWARD IF THE DIRECTION IS TO YES.

SO, UM, WE DO HAVE ANOTHER, UM, CURRENT LEGISLATIVE ITEM CASE, THE, UM, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2023 DASH 0 0 3.

UM, SO THAT WOULD BE ROLLED IN TO THAT CASE.

AND BROUGHT BACK TO YOU.

DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE ON THAT ONE? UM, POTENTIALLY SOMETIME IN JANUARY.

HOPEFULLY WE HAVE CHANGES DRAFTED.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF GETTING YOUR DIRECTION, REVIEWING THEM, FINALIZING THEM, AND BRINGING 'EM FORWARD.

SO PROBABLY MARCH TO HAVE TO BE IMPLEMENTING THIS.

UM, ALL RIGHT, SO DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH CONVEYANCE, PRELIMINARY, FINAL, PRELIMINARY AND RELAS OTHER THAN TWO FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY? MR. UNDERSTOOD.

UM, WAS THERE, IS THE NEXT PAGE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR IS IT JUST THIS PAGE? JUST THIS PAGE.

FAVOR.

THUMBS UP.

THUMBS UP, THUMBS UP.

THUMBS UP.

OKAY, WE'RE GOOD.

UH, MR. BRUNO, I DO APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS.

WELL THOUGHT OUT AND UM, WELL SPOKEN OBJECTION IF SHE'S DONE.

DO HAVE AN ITEM 10 ACTUALLY, WHICH IS ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA.

SHE'S GOT HER DIRECTION.

ALRIGHT, THAT'S, UH, ITEM NINE.

WE'VE GIVEN YOU FEEDBACK.

UH, WE

[10. (MB) Items for Future Agendas.]

AND I, I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE I THINK YOU SAID YOU WERE PLANNING ON ASKING ABOUT THIS.

UM, LET ME BE CLEAR WHAT YOU MAYBE RESTATE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING BECAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE AGAIN, WE'RE NOT DUPLICATING EFFORT OF SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALREADY GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT ANYWAY, CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS I MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING.

AND CONSISTENT WITH YOUR SUGGESTION DURING OUR LAST CONVERSATION ON THIS TOPIC, CHAIRMAN DOWNS, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A TEXT AMENDMENT ON THE TOP TOPIC OF DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS TO A FUTURE AGENDA.

THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADD THE RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE LIST OF AREAS THAT CAN BE EXEMPTED FROM THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 2 0 4 0, I'M SORRY, 4 0 0 II.

THIS AMENDMENT WOULD LEAVE IN PLACE THE OTHER EXISTING REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROPERTY MUST HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE CITY OF PLANO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION USING THE 95 GALLON RESIDENTIAL STYLE CART.

SO I'M KIND OF IN FAVOR OF IT, BUT I WOULD ASK FOR MAYBE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT APPROACH, WHICH WOULD BE SIMPLY MAYBE GET A STAFF REPORT ON PLUSES AND MINUSES OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT VERSUS ACTUAL HAVING A, AN AMENDMENT PRESENTATION WHERE WE'RE GONNA MAKE A VOTE.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? HOW WOULD YOU WANT TO APPROACH IT? BECAUSE I, I HAPPEN TO AGREE HERE THAT IT SEEMED LIKE A STRETCH AND I KNOW THERE WAS SOME OTHER BACKGROUND AND STUFF GOING ON THERE, BUT THROW ALL THAT OUT THE WINDOW FOR A MINUTE AND JUST LOOK AT THE SITUATION AND GO, WHY AREN'T WE REQUIRING THEM TO BUILD A DUMPSTER THAT'S PROBABLY NEVER GONNA GET USED? SO WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANNA WASTE CITIZENS AND BUSINESS OWNERS RESOURCES IF WE CAN AVOID IT.

SO I GUESS I'M LOOKING FOR SOME PUSHBACK ON WHY WE NEED SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT.

AND RATHER THAN IT COME TO US AS WE'VE GOTTA APPROVE THIS, I WOULD RATHER IT COME AS A DISCUSSION POINT AND THEN LET US HAVE A CHANCE

[01:40:01]

TO REALLY ALL OF US, 'CAUSE MR. LYLE'S OBVIOUSLY DONE HIS HOMEWORK ON THAT.

THE REST OF US NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROBABLY SEE THE PLUSES AND MINUSES.

YEAH, NO, WE CAN, WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT.

UM, WE COULD BRING IT BACK AS A DISCUSSION ITEM.

PROCEDURALLY WE NEED TO CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING FIRST.

THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDINANCE TO INITIATE A TEXT AMENDMENT.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE BEFORE.

SO WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO THEN MAKE THE CHANGE TO IT.

THEN THE TEXT AMENDMENT COMES AS A PUBLIC HEARING FALL AT A RIGHT, AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING.

UM, WE COULD DO THAT.

UM, IF, IF THE COMMISSION THINKS THIS IS URGENT ENOUGH TO ADDRESS IT.

I I WOULD JUST CAUTION THOUGH THAT WE HAVE A LONG LIST OF THESE ITEMS THAT WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED PLUS MORE THAT STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED THAT HAVEN'T EVEN COME UP WITH THE COMMISSION.

AND WE HAVE A ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RIGHT, RIGHT ON THE HORIZON, PERHAPS STARTING AS EARLY AS BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR.

AND WOULD THIS ISSUE BE ADDRESSED IN THAT PROCESS? YES, WE WOULD ADD IT THE, TO THE LIST OF UPDATES TO BE, UM, WORKED THROUGH ON THAT LIST.

IF IT'S HELPFUL, MAYBE WE, MAYBE IT'D BE WISE TO BRING TO THE COMMISSION A A, A MORE DETAILED LIST OF WHAT'S IDENTIFIED SO YOU CAN SEE SECTION I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT AND THAT'D BE SOMETHING WE COULD PREPARE MS. SEBASTIAN, JUST SO THEY ARE AWARE THAT, THAT THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTED ALREADY TO BE ARE COMING AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE REWRITE OF THE ZONING ORDERS.

WE'VE ALREADY ESSENTIALLY FLAGGED THEM FOR, TO LOOK AT THEM.

BUT MIKE, SO THIS GETS INCLUDED IN THE REWRITES.

WHEN, WHEN WILL THAT ULTIMATELY BE ACCOMPLISHED? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA HAPPEN QUICKLY.

I THINK THERE ARE, THERE'S, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF EFFORT TO GO IN BEFORE IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE ACCOMPLISHED ON THIS SPECIFIC, THIS SPECIFIC THING THAT MIGHT BE SIMPLE TO SOLVE.

AND I, THERE'S PROBABLY OTHER ONES I RECOGNIZE THAT.

YEAH, I I I THINK ORDINANCE, SODDING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TYPICALLY ARE NOT, ARE NOT FAST AND YOU'RE DOING AN OVERHAUL OF THIS NATURE.

SO I DON'T HAVE A TIMELINE PER SE.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT, THAT OUR CONSULTANT WILL PREPARE FOR AS A DRAFT TIMELINE.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT YET.

IT'LL BE LATER NEXT YEAR PROBABLY WON'T IT AT THE SOONEST PROBABLY.

SO WE'RE TALKING A YEAR AND A HALF OR SOMETHING FOR SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER LYLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE RESOLVED WILL QUICKER.

WHY I WAS SUGGESTING THAT IT BE BE MORE OF A DISCUSSION ITEM EVEN IN PRELIMINARY OPEN, WHERE YOU JUST EDUCATE US A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT WOULD IT MEAN TO ADD THAT R WHAT ARE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT THAT WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

WE'VE HAD GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH THAT IT SEEMS. OKAY, MR. RATLIFF.

AND, UM, I WANNA GO BACK, LOOP BACK TO THE COMMENT ABOUT GETTING A LIST OF KIND OF THE BULLET POINTS OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GONNA BE IN THE REWRITE.

AND THE, AND THE REASON I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT IS BEFORE I EVEN WEIGH IN ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A HIGH PRIORITY ITEM.

'CAUSE I DO AGREE PHILOSOPHICALLY THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT.

THE QUESTION IS, ARE THERE 50 OTHER THINGS THAT ARE EQUALLY PRESSING IMPORTANT OR MORE PRESSING? YEAH.

UM, IF BEFORE WE START OPERATING IN A VACUUM OF NOT KNOWING WHAT ELSE IS ON THE TABLE, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT ELSE IS ON THE TABLE AND SAY, OKAY, YEAH, THIS IS A TOP PRIORITY, LET'S GET IT HANDLED.

OR THIS IS AN EASY ONE TO HANDLE, LET'S GET IT HANDLED.

BUT IF THERE'S FOUR OR FIVE OTHER ONES THAT SEEM MORE PRESSING AND MORE BROADLY APPLICABLE THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO ACCELERATE INSTEAD, I'D JUST LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE JUST AS KIND OF A BULLET POINT LIST.

IS THAT AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST TO JUST GET A BULLET POINT LIST OF THE THINGS THAT YOU THINK ARE GONNA BE TOPIC-WISE IN THE REWRITE? UH, I KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY A 20 PAGE DOCUMENT, BUT I WAS GONNA SAY IT'S A LONG LIST.

UM, I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.

MAYBE A DISCUSSION.

IT'S, IT'S YOUR ITEM.

I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO TRANSFORM YOUR ITEM, BUT WE COULD, UM, INTRODUCE THE COMMISSION MAYBE MORE FORMALLY TO THE ZONING REWRITE PROCESS AND WHAT TO EXPECT MOVING FORWARD AS SOON AS WE'RE AVAILABLE TO DO THAT.

I KNOW WE'RE STILL IN PROCESS, SO I DON'T WANNA GET TOO FAR AHEAD OF MISS SEBASTIAN'S TEAM, BUT MAYBE GIVING YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THESE, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD, IT'S NOT JUST THIS ITEM.

THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL ITEMS IN A ROW HERE LATELY WHERE WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO LOOK AT, UM, UPDATES.

AND SO THAT REQUIRES A SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT ON STAFF TIME THAT'S NOT GOING TO OTHER PROJECTS.

AND SO I WANT Y'ALL TO SEE WHAT THE TRADE OFF IS IF WE DO THAT.

MAY I RESPOND CHAIRMAN? YES, SIR.

I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE HERE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S DIFFERENT ROLES INVOLVED AS COMMISSIONERS.

WE HAVE A ROLE AS STAFF.

Y'ALL HAS A ROLE CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE ANOTHER ROLE.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A, A BIG TOPIC IN OUR LAST MEETING AND BEING THE NEWEST MEMBER HERE, THERE'S STILL SOME NAIVETY ON MY PART.

I MEAN, I LOOK AT THIS AND I'M LIKE, ALL THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN HERE.

WE'RE DOING THIS IN LITERALLY THE NEIGHBORING ZONING, UM, AREA.

AND SO IN MY MIND IT IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS AND ADDING THE LETTER R TO DESIGNATE THE RETAIL AREA.

AND SO I'M NOT TRYING TO CREATE A WHOLE BUNCH OF EXTRA WORK FOR STAFF.

I'M TRYING TO DO OUR JOB AS A COMMISSIONER AND LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE AND MAKING IT FIT WHAT MAKES SENSE IN THE REAL WORLD.

AND SO THAT'S MY HEART.

AND, BUT UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M, I'M SUGGESTING, AND HE, HE EVEN SAID IT COULD BE A REAL SIMPLE FIX.

[01:45:01]

SO, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDED INTO A PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING.

IT'S JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM AROUND WHY OR WHY NOT.

WE'D WANT TO ADD AN R TO IT.

I'M LOOKING TO, EVEN IF IT MEANS FOR US, MEANING IT'S SIX 15 INSTEAD OF SIX 30 OR EVEN SIX O'CLOCK, SHORTEN THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT PEOPLE SIT IN HERE LISTENING TO US TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT AREN'T RELEVANT TO THEIR CASE.

SO IF RATHER THAN ADD IT TO A THIS AGENDA, I'D RATHER ADD IT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM.

IT CAN BE SHORT GIVING US REASONS TO OR NOT TO DO THAT.

AND I, I'M A LITTLE BIT, IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU LOOK AT AND THINK, YEAH, ACTUALLY IT'S NOT THAT BIG A DEAL TO DO THIS, THEN I, I'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT FROM YOU.

IF, IF YOU TAKE ANOTHER, TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND GO, IT DOESN'T REALLY CREATE ANY ISSUES, THAT'S A WIN.

THAT'S A WIN FOR US.

IT'S A WIN FOR THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE BUSINESS OWNERS AND THE, AND THE CITIZENS.

SO IT DOESN'T HAVE WAIT FOR THE REWRITE IF IT'S REAL SIMPLE.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU LOOK AT IT AND YOU GO, HMM, HERE'S THE RIPPLES AND YES, THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF A REWRITE.

GREAT.

TELL US THAT TOO.

UH, SO ANYWAY, SO RATHER THAN IT BE AN AGENDA ITEM, I WOULD RATHER IT FOR HERE, I'D RATHER IT BECOME A DISCUSSION ITEM AT PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING AND LET'S JUST SET IT OUT MAYBE IN JANUARY.

'CAUSE I KNOW WE'RE IN THE HOLIDAYS AND YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS ARE BACKED UP ALREADY AND THERE'S PEOPLE, STAFF TAKING OFF AND ALL THAT KINDA STUFF.

SO YOU GOOD WITH THAT? I'M VERY GOOD.

I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT IDEA.