>> Chair Downs: GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TONIGHT. IT'S DECEMBER 4th. MY MAN IN THE BACK THERE TAKING CARE OF ME, TURNING ON MY MIC. APPRECIATE THAT. I DIDN'T WANT EVERYONE TO HEAR ALL THE CHATTER GOING ON UP HERE. TO KICK US OFF, PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] >> COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PE SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON TH CURRENT AGENDA. THE PLANNIN AND NING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> WE HAVE ONE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> GIL LISLE. >> Chair Downs: YOU'RE FINE RIGHT THERE. YOUR MIC. YOU'RE GOOD. >> Lisle: I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THE CONVERSATION THAT WE WERE HAVING LAST WEEK ON THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES. DURING THAT CONVERSATION, STAFF READ FROM 20.400.2 AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE COMMISSION ABOVE THAT THERE'S 20.400.1, WHICH IS TITLED APPCABILITY. AND, C, UNDER .1 IS MULTIFAMILY AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. ARE ESSENTIALLY EXEMPT FROM THE STANDARD. THE WAY IT READS IS THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO PROPERTY UTILIZED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL OR MULTIFAMILY USES AND SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING. MULTIFAMILY NON-RESIDENTIAL, THE SITE WE'RE LOOKING AT WOULD HAVE BEEN A NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE TWO STIPULATIONS THAT EXIST THAT MUST BE MET, THE CITE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOES NOT MEET BOTH OF THEM. IN THAT REGARD, STAFF IS CORRECT , IT DIDN'T MEET THE EXEMPTION AND IT WAS REQUIRED. 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 AREAS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT THAT THEIR SITE WAS IN, WHICH WAS A RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT THAT HAVE THE EXEMPTION. 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, AS WAS MENTIONED IN THE MEETING LAST TIME, THIS WOULD BE A GREAT ITEM TO LOOK AT ON A FUTURE AGENDA. AS A REMINDER, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WAS SERVICING THIS PROPERTY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL. 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. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE. >> CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE WANT TO PULL AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? >> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CA TO APPROVE THE CONSE AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE MISSING COMMISSIONER TONG AND COMMISSIONER OLLEY THIS EVENING.& ITEM 1. >> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSID PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A 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 MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIO LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY, EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDE AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. 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' RETAIL HOLDINGS LLC, AND DILLARD'S INC. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. I'M RAHA POULADI, THE PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO JANUARY 16, 2024, PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? YOU DO HAVE -- SORRY. >> JUST SO YOU CAN SHARE BLICLY WITH US, WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THE TABLING? >> THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THIS ITEM TO BE TABLED SO THAT THEY CAN PERFORM PUBLIC OUTREACH AND WORK WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU, MS. POULADI. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. AVAILABLE VIA ZOOM. >> Chair Downs: OH, AVAILABLE VIA ZOOM. ONLY FOR QUESTIONS? OKAY. RRY. DOESNYONE HE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. OH, MR. BROUNOFF. YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER? IS IT THE APPLICANT? >> Brounoff: NO, I WAS GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT, NOT A QUESTION. THERE WASN'T A SPEAKER. >> Chair Downs: LET'S HANG ON. THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION HERE. DO WE HAVE A SPEAKER IN THE AUDIENCE? >> WE HAVE SOMEONE PRESENT TO SPEAK. DEBORAH BROWN. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. MS. BROWN, DO YOU WANT TO COME DOWN AND GIVES YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? >> DEBORAH BROWN. I LIVE AT 2625 BARRINGTON DRIVE HERE IN PLANO AND I JUST HAD SOME COMMENTS. LOOKING AT THE CONCEPT PLAN, I REALLY DIDN'T SEE MUCH OPEN SPACE. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WERE ONLY PROVIDING 3.75 ACRES ON ONE LOT. THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ENOUGH FOR 1200 PEOPLE. USUALLY THE REQUIREMENT IS AT LEAST 10% OPEN SPACE OF THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THIS WHOLE AREA'S ABOUT 76CRES SO WOULD EXPECT TO SEE A LOT MORE OPEN SPACE. DEFINITELY ROOM FOR ENHANCEMENTS, IN THAT REGARD. DURING SOME NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, WE WERE TOLD BY CENTENNIAL THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ABUNDANCE OF BIKE, PEDESTRIAN TRAILS AND PARKS. SO I'M KIND OF CONCERNED WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S GOING TO COME TO FRUITION. ALSO, LOOKING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN JULY OF 2023, SO IT'S NOT OUTDATED. THIS AREA WAS ENVISIONED AND IDENTIFIED AS A SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER. THAT CALLS FOR A MAXIMUM FAMILY DENSITY -- SORRY, MAXIMUM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY OF 20 TO 50 UNITS PER ACRE. THE REQUESTED PROPOSAL BY CENTENNIAL EXCEEDS THIS 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 MULTIFAMILY USE. THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO ALIGN WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY. SO SOMETHING MAYBE LIKE TOWNHOMES WOULD BE A BETTER CHOICE. I THINK THAT ADDING DENSITY TO THIS AREA HAS AN IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC AND I WAS WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR ANALYSIS HAS BEEN DONE. I DOUBT THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT EXISTS NOW CAN SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY. THE WATER, THE SEWER, THE UTILITIES, THE SCHOOLS, OTHER SERVICES EMS POLICE. I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH BARKSDALE TODAY AND THEY SAID 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 ANOTHER MAJOR CONCERN IS CRIME. I'M SURE THAT'S ON EVERYBODY'S LIST. BUT I THINK OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE IS THAT A TIA SHOULD BE COMPLETED AND, IF SO, THE RESULTS WOULD BE I HOPE AVAILABLE FOR US TO SEE BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. AND I'M WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE. SO I THINK IF A TIA HAS NOT BEEN DONE, THEN I'M REQUESTG ONE. HAS A TIA BEEN DONE? >> SHOULD I RESPOND? A TIA HAS BEEN DONE AND STAFF HAS APPROVED THAT TIA. I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU IF I HAVE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION. >> ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. THANK YOU. VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> WE HAVE NONE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. MR. BROUNOFF, NOW. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. JUST BRIEFLY, MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINKOSTPING I A GD IDEA. IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO ENGAGE WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES AND CONDUCT WHATEVER 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. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. OBVIOUSLY, THE S CURRENT CONSTRUCTION OR STATUS OR ITS ORIGINAL DESIGN WOULD HAVE 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 WHAS ALREADY EXISNG? >> I APOLOGIZED. WE RECENTLY CHANGED SOM OF THE TIA STANDARDS WITH SOME OF THE NEW STREET DESIGN STANDARDS SO I'M NOT SURE WHICH APPLIES IN THIS INSTANCE. WE CAN PREPARE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU FOR THE NEXT MEETING. >> Lisle: SURE. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION. >> Chair Downs: I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING. LET'S SAY THAT THE ORIGINAL MALL CONFIGURATION, THEY DID AN ANALYSIS. DAEY PROJECTED 5,000 TRIPS A YOU'RE SUGGESTING IF THE ASSUMED TRIPS PER DAY, UNDER THE NEW CONFIGURATION, IS PROJECTED TO BE LESS, WOULD THEY STILL BE REQUIRED TO DO A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. IS THAT EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? >> Lisle: THAT'S CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: 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. >> Lisle: MY UNDERSTANDING IS -- FROM WATCHING THIS, THERE'S A MANUAL FORSES AND SO YOU WOULD APPLY THE TRIPS PER DAY TO EACH ONE OF THE USES THAT WERE GOING TO 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? >> AGAIN, THERE'S SOME QUESTION OF THE APPLICATION DATE HERE, BECAUSE REMEMBER UNDER THE OLD STANDARDS THERE WAS A HIGH THRESHOLD TO ACTUALLY REQUIRE A TIA. SOMETIMES THOSE GET NEGOTIATED WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AS TO WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY USING. SOMETIMES WE RECOMMEND A TIA EVEN IF IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR A CASE SUCH AS THIS. I HAVE TOO BACKND FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING PREPARED FOR THAT TONIGHT BUT WE'LL PROVIDE DETAIL FOR THAT AT TE MEETING. >> Chair Downs: MR. CARY. >> Cary: YEAH. JUST A QUICK COMMENT. I GUESS, TO COMMISSIONER LISLE'S POINT, ALL OF THAT WOULD ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT OTHER CHANGES MIGHT BE IN THE AREA THAT WOULD AFFECT IT. IT MIGHT BE MORE COMPLEX THAN EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON THERE BECAUSE MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE TRAFFIC THERE. JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT COMMENT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. MR. BRONSKY. >> Broky: SO IANT TO FIRST SAY THAT I'M REALLY EXCITED TO HEAR THAT THIS PETITIONER IS SEEKING MORE PUBLIC INPUT. I THINK THE MORE AND MORE THEY CAN HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC THE MORE AND MORE I THINK THE PUBLIC GETS HAPPY WITH THE ULTIMATE RESULTS. AND I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. >> Chair Downs: I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> Bronsky: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE WE TABLE THIS TO JANUARY 16, 2024 TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER MORE TIME FOR PUBLIC INPUT. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO TABLE ITEM 1 TO JANUARY 16th. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. ITEM 2. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. 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. PETITIONER: SRHC PLATINUM PARK PHASE II, LP. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPTS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TABLE THE ZONING CASE TO DECEMBER 18, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONI COMSSION MEETING. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> THERE ARE NONE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I MOVE WE TABLE THIS AGENDA ITEM TO DECEMBER 18, 2023'S AGENDA. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. AND I SAW THAT YOU PUSHED YOUR BUTTON UP THERE. DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT YOU WANTED TO MAKE, SIR? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERRONS WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF TO TABLE ITEM 2 TO DECEMBER 18. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. MR. LISLE, I THINK YOU'RE ALWAYS THE LAST ONE TO VOTE. IS THAT ON PURPOSE? YOU VOTED. YOU DID. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: ITEM 3. PLEASE MOVE ON TO ITEM 3. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 3. 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. PETITIONER: CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU. I'M MELISSA KLEIN, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION TABLIZATION 2023-027 TO THE DECEMBER 18, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING . I CAN ANSWER ANY QUEIONS. >> Cha Dow: THANK YOU. AN QUESTNS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? YOU'RE OFF THE HOOK. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? >> THERE ARE NONE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: I MOVE THAT ITEM NO. 3 BE TABLED AND POSTPONED TO THE DECEMBER 18, AND ZONING COMMISSION. >> Chair Downs: WOW. APPROVED IT. [LAUGHTER] >> I'LL SECOND. >> Lisle: I'MRYING VOTE QUICK. [LAUGHTER] >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BROUNOFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY TO TABLE ITEM 3 TO DECEMBER 18. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. 4. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2023-004 - REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE I (GENERAL PROVISIONS), ARTICLE III (PLATTING PROCESS), ARTICLE VII (REPLATTING PROCEDURES), AN RELATED SECTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO CLARIF THE PLATTING PROCEDURES FOR PROPERTIES THAT RECEIVE ZONING VARIANCES FOR MINIMUM YARDS. PETITIONER: CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDE. >> GOOD EVENING. JORDAN ROCKERBIE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR TABLING. SO A BIT OF BACKGROUND HERE, STAFF HAVE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF PETITIONS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO VARY THE MINIMUM YARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIE MINIMUM RDY BOTH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE ZONING COMMISSION ORDINANCE WHICH CAN LEAD TO UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THESE REQUESTS. A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, BACK IN OCTOBER, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS CALLED WITH AN AIM TO STREAMLINE AND CLARIFY THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESSES FOR THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS. SO IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS ARE ESTABLISHED FOR EACH ZONING DISTRICT. THESE ARE ALSO COMMONLY REFERRED T AS ZONING SETBACKS. BUT THE ORDINANCE I'LL REFER TO AS YARDS. BUILDING PERMITS CANNOT BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION INCONSISTENT WITH ANY ZONING STANDARDS, INCLUDING ANY REQUIRED YARD. OVER IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THERE ARE CURRENTLY REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE BUILDING LINES ON ALL RESIDENTIAL PLATS. 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. THAT'S 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. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERS APPROVAL OF PLATS PURSUANT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONSIDERATION VARIANCES OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS LEADS TO TWO STEPS AND ANY POTENTIAL APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THESE VARIANCES. FOR BOTH THE PNNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PROCESS SHOWN IN RED HERE AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS IN BLUE. THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT AN APPLICATION. STAFF MUST REVIEW THAT APPLICATION AND PREPARE A REPORT. WE MUST SCHEDULE THOSE MEETINGS AND BOTH BODIES MUST CONSIDER THE APPLICATION. THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD REMOVE THOSE 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 B THE REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS WOULD HAVE BENEFITS TO BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE SAVINGS AND TIME AND MONEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMOVAL OF THIS DUPLICATED WORK. THE CHANGES PROPOSED TODAY WOULD REMOVE THE PLANNING AND ZONING PROCESS. IT WOULD CLARIFY THAT BUILDING PERMITS COULD BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION CONSISTENT WITH ANY VARIANCE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. AND IT WOULD ALSO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE BUILDING LINES ON RESIDENTIAL PLATS. THOSE BUILDING LINES COULD STILL BE SHOWN IF MERITED BY A DEPARTURE OF WHAT IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES AND THE PROCESS. BEFORE THROUGH IT MORE TIMES THAN I CARE TO THINK ABOUT. MY CONCERN -- AND I DON'T KNO IF IT'S A VALID ONE OR NOT, AND THAT'S WHY MY QUESTION. IF WE FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE MOVING FORWARD AND WE HAVE A PLAT IN PLACE OF AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION THAT SHOWS THE COMES IN AND GETS A VARIANCE AND IT'S GRANTED BUT WE DON'T HAVE A REPLAT, WHICH IS WHAT IS PROPOSED. TEN YEARS FROM NOW SOMEBODY GOES TO SELL THAT HOUSE, THEY HAVE A SURVEY. THE SURVEYOR SHOWS UP, REPORTS IT TO THE TITLE COMPANY AND SHOWS THE HOUSE IS NOW BUILT OVER THE SETBACK LINE. HOW IS THAT VARIANCE DOCUMENTED? IS IT RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY SO IT WOULD SHOW UP ON A DEED SEARCH? OR HOW DOES THAT BUYER KNOW THAT THAT HOUSE HAS A VARIANCE AND THAT IT'S NOT AN EXCEPTION UNDER THE DEED? >> YEAH. SO MY UNDERSTANDING WITH VARIANCES IS THEY'RE NOT RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY AS A DEED. WE DO OF COURSE KEEP THE RECORD WITH THE CITY. AND GENERALLY THESE WOULD BE RELATED TO SOME SORT OF CONSTRUCTION. SO THE BUILDING PERMITS WOULD HAVE A RECORD OF THERE BEING A VARIANCE. BUT THAT BUYER WOULD NEED TO CHECK WITH THE CITY TO CONFIRM THAT ANYTHING THAT LOOKS LIKE AN ENCROACHMENT BASED ON THAT PLAT IS IN FACT LEGAL CONSTRUCTION. >> Ratliff: THAT'S MY CONCERN IS BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE -- I'M LOOKING AT -- ANYBODY WHO HAS DONE THIS. THE TITLE SEARCH IS NOT NORMALLY GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. AND SO MY CONCERN WOULD BE WITHOUT THE REPLAT IT COULD END UP WITH A PURCHASER THAT BELIEVES THEY HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT, A TITLE COMPANY THAT BELIEVES THEY HAVE AN ENCROACHMENT, AND NO WAY TO RESOLVE THAT, FROM A TITLE PERSPECTIVE, WITHOUT THE REPLAT. >> 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. IN THAT CASE WE MIGHT RECORD PROOF OF A VARIANCE. WE MIGHT RECORD, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THAT TITLE COMPANY WANTS FROM US. WE TEND TO DO IT CASE-BY-CASE AS SOMEBODY CALLS IN. 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 YOUR CONCERN'S LEGITIMATE BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT WE'D WANT TO MOVE ALL THE WAY TO RECORDING EVERY VARIANCE WHEN WE'VE GOT SUCH A SMALL ISSUE HERE. I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY JUST RELY ON TITLE COMPANIES CALLING INTO OUR PROPERT MANAGEMENT AND JUST FIXING THOSE AS THEY COME UP. >> Ratliff: AND MY CONCERN, I GUESS, IS THAT IF THE VARIANCE IS -- I'M GOING TO 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. AND AS A PERSON WHO LIVES IN AN OVER 100-YEAR-OLD HOME, DEED RESEARCH WAS DIFFICULT. TO DOCUMENT 100 YEARS OF DEED RECORDING ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND I'M THINKING 100 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 GOING TO RECOGNIZE WE'VE SET UNTIL IT'S WAY, WAY TOO LATE. AND THAT'S MY CONCERN. >> Chair Downs: IS THIS PART OF OUR UPCOMING DISCUSSION, THOUGH, ABOUT WHAT STAFF CAN DO WITH PLATS AND REPLATS, FROM AN APPROVAL STANDPOIT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ROLLED IN? >> NO. THIS WOULD BE SEPARATE FROM THAT OTHER -- >> Chair Downs: I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT ONCE THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, RATHER THAN SIMPLY BEING PART OF A BUILDING PERMIT DOCUMENT, COULD IT BE A SEPARATE? >> Ratliff: WOULD IT STREAMLINE THE PROCESS IF WE JUMP AHEAD FOUR AGENDA ITEMS AND SAY THAT THE PLAT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME TO US, DOES THAT NEGATE THE NEED FOR THIS? >> SO ONE THING WE DISCUSSED INTERNALLY WAS WHEN THE APPLICANT RECEIVES A VARIANCE, THEY GET A LETTER THAT THEN WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT THEY RECORD WITH THE COUNTY SO THAT IT SHOWS UP IN THEIR DEED ARCHES. 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.3 >> I MEAN, THAT MIGHT BE THE EASIEST FIX IS JUST TO ADD A SENTENCE OR TWO IN HERE INDICATING THAT THESE VARIANCES WILL BE RECORDED IN THE TITLE RECORDS. >> Ratliff: WHETHER THEY ARE RECORDED BY THE APPLICANT OR THE CITY, THAT'S NOT MY CONCERN. I JUST THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT, IF WE DO THIS WITHOUT A PLAT ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS A SETBACK LINE -- BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IN EVERY CASE BECAUSE MOVING FORWARD IF WE DON'T HAVE THE SETBACK LINES ON THE PLAT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. BUT ON THE PLATS THAT ARE EXISTING WHERE WE DO HAVE THE SETBACK LINES, 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 RECALL A RECENT CASE WHERE SOMEBODY HAD TO PROVE THEY HAD RECORDED SOMETHING BEFORE THEY GOT THEIR BUILDING PERMIT. >> THIS IS NOT A DIRECT ANSWER TO THAT LATEST CMENTUT IT WOULD NOT APPLY BECAUSE IT WOULD STILL BE A RESIDENTIAL REPLAT IN THAT CASE AND THE LAW STILL REQUIRES THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO IT WOULD NOT MAKE IT ANY QUICKER. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE. IT'S A VALID POINT AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO RESOLVE. MAYBE A SIMPLE YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO THIS. COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: YEAH, FIRST I WANT TO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID. GREAT LOOK FORWARD AND I THINK YOU HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME THINGS WE SHOULD CONSIDER, INTO MY QUESTION. OF LES IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFIT BUT WHAT RISKS DID YOU IDENTIFY AS YOU LOOKED AT THIS, FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE? >> SO JUST TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION. RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE -- >> Cary: WITH CHANGING THIS. >> WITH THE CURRENT PRACTICE. >> Cary: GOING TO WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING. >> FOR SURE. THE RISK WOULD BE EXACTLY AS COMMISSIONER RATLIFF DETAILED. IT'S IN THE RECORDKEEPING. IT BECOMES OUTSIDE OF THE HANDS OF THEITYO HANDLE THOSE RECORDS. ASIDE FROM THE RECORDS THAT WE KEEP OURSELVES. BUT EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEED AND THE PLAT ITSELF. >> Cary: AS THE TEAM RESEARCHED THIS OR LOOKED AT THIS, THAT WAS THE ONLY RISK YOU IDENTIFIED? >> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, EAH, THAT WAS THE ONLY POTENTIAL RISK. >> Cary: OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE. MICROPHONE. THANK YOU. >> Lisle: WHAT ARE THE STANDAS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED WHEN THESE VARIANCES ARE HAPPENING? YOU'RE VARYING THE SETBACK OR THE YARD SIZE. I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT'S TRIGGERING THAT? >> FOR SURE. SO I CAN SPEAK TO ONE THAT WAS -- I GUESS RECENTLY APPROVED WHERE THE SITE WAS SEVERELY RESTRICTED BY A FLOODPLAIN AND SO BECAUSE 75%, 80% OF THE PROPERTY WAS COVERED BY A FLOODPLAIN, TY ASKED FOR A RELAXATION ON THEIR FRONT YARD SETBACK SO THEY COULD SHIFT THEIR BUILDING CLOSER TO THE STREET AND AVOID BEING LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN SO THEY COULD CONSTRUCT A LARGER HOUSE, SIMILAR TO WHAT THEIR NEIGHBORS CONSTRUCTED. THE APPLICANT HAS TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF RATIONALE AS TO WHY THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIREMENT. >> THERE ARE CRITERIA LISTED IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR WHAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NEEDS TO CONSIDER AND WHAT THEY CANNOT APPROVE AS WELL. >> Lisle: YOU CAN'T JUST SAY SURE THERE'STANDARDS THAT ARE THERE. >> Chair Downs: THERE ARE THRESHOLDS YOU HAVE TO MEET. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE IS THERE MUST BE A HARDSHIP NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT. IS THAT STILL THE CASE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Brounoff: I'M WONDERING WHAT ARE THE PERCENTAGES OF TIMES THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS THE VARIANCE VERSUS THE PERCENTAGE OF TIMES THAT THEY DENY THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE? IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS. >> THAT'S INFORMATION THAT I DON'T HAVE BUT ANECDOTALLY, IT'S MORE OFTEN A DENIAL THAN NOT. >> Brounoff: IF IT'S MORE OFTEN A DENIAL THAN NOT WOULD THERE NOT BE NO PROBLEM AT ALL WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAT SHOWING THE BUILDING LINE, AS REQUIRED BY 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. SOF THEY SUBMIT BOTH A REPLAT APPLICATION AND BOA APPLICATION AT THE SAME TIME AND THEY PROCEED AT THE SAME TIME, THEN EVEN IF THE BOA ONE IS DENIED, THEN THEY WILL RECEIVE THAT REPLAT APPLICATION IF THEY ARE NOT SUBMITTING THEIR REPLAT APPLICATION AFTER THEY HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE. >> Brounoff: WHY CAN'T A PLAT BE FILED WITH A DOTTED LINE, BUILDING LINE, WITH A NOTEE PER PROPOSED VARIANCE OR LANGUAGE TO THAT EFFECT. SO THAT IT'S ALREADY THERE SO IF IT'S -- IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED, NOT ONLY DO THEY NOT HAVE TO FILE A NEW PLAT BUT THEY HAVE CREATED A RECORD OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING LINE PER THE VARIANCE. IF THE VARIANCE IS DENIED, THEN THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO FILE ANOTHER PLAT BECAUSE THE DOTTED LINE WOULDN'T APPLY ANYMORE. I'M WONDERING HOW MUCH TIME YOU'RE REALLY SAVING BY THIS PROCESS. >> SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE OBJECTION IS TO THE COST OF THE REPLAT. WE JUST HAD TWO OF THESE, STRANGELY, IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS COME THROUGH AND REALLY PROMPTED A LOT OF THIS CONVERSATION. BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE WAS A DOWN SIDE 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 AND A SECOND OPPORTUNITY. NOW, NORMALLY YOU DON'T GET TWO BITES AT THE APPLE AS A NEIGHBOR. SO WHETHER THAT'S A GOOD OR BAD THING, I DON'T KNOW. BUT YOU ASKED, YOU KNOW, FOR KIND OF AN ANALYSIS OF, OF, YOU KNOW, THE DOWNSIDE AND GOING FROM ONE PROCESS -- OR FROM TWO PROCESSES TO ONE PROCESS. AND THE EXPECTATION MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR A LINE ON A PLAT 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 SOMETHING OUTSIDE. >> Brounoff: LET ME ASK YOUR GUIDANCE MICHELLE. 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 DISCUSSION ITEM ABOUT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S PLATTING PROCESS . ALSO IT INVOLVES SOMETHING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED. I'M WONDERING WHAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR ME TO MAKE COMMENTS TYPING ALL THREE OF THOSE TOGETHER. WE'RE ONLY EXAMINING ONE AGENDA ITEM AT A TIME AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK OUT OF TURN BUT I DO WANT TO BRING OUT THE PATTERN I'M SEEING HERE. >> IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IMPACTS YOUR VOTE AND THE DISCUSSION ON THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PARTLY A SUBJECT FOR LATER, IF YOU INTERRELATE THEM, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND SPEAK NOW. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. >> BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO VOTE. >> Brounoff: WE -- THERE WAS A PREVIOUS APPVAL GIVEN TO SUSPENDING THE INITIATION OF THE SHOT CLOCK BY NOT REQUIRING APPLICANTS TO PAY THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH FILING A PLAT UNTIL AFTER THE STAFF HAD CONDUCTED ITS REVIEW. AND UPON THEN THE PLAT PAYMENT OF THE FEES SHOULD START THE SHOT CLOCK RUNNING, AFTER THE REVIEW HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. THIS APPLICATION WOULD REMOVE ONE OF TWO PROCEDURES FROM THE SYSTEM OF APPROVING PLATS 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 PLATS THAT PREVIOUSLY HAVE COME BEFORE US. WHAT I AM SEEING AS A PATTERN HERE IS A SORT OF MULTIFACETED PROCESS OF PERHAPS ADDRESSING THE WORKLOAD OF THE STAFF IN PROCESSING PLATS. THE RATIONALE THAT IS BEING GIVEN FOR THAT IS THAT IT SAVES TIME TO THE APPLICANT. MY COMMENT IS THAT IF 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 PRETTY MUCH MEANINGLESS BECAUSE 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? I KNOW THE STAFF IS BUSY. THEY HAVE MANY THINGS ON THEIR PLATE AND IT COULD HAPPEN VERY EASILY THAT A GIVEN PLAT APPLICATION COULD SOMEHOW WIND UP ON THE BACK BURNER BECAUSE 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 SO THAT THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE TO WAIT AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR APPROVAL, IS THE SHOT CLOCK. AND IF WE TURN IT OFF, AS HAS BEEN DONE HERE BY REQUIRING IT TO NOT EVEN BE IN EFFECTNTIL THE ANALYSIS IS FINISHED. AND IF PLANNING AND ZONING IS NOT THERE TO SCHEDULE A MEETING WITHIN 30 DAYS SO THE APPLICANT KNOWS WE'RE APPROVING IT, HERE IT IS, I DON'T THINK WE'RE 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 WHOLE -- WHILE I'M CERTAINLY NOT DISMISSIVE OF ANY NEEDS THE STAFF MIGHT HAVE FOR MY RELIEF FROM ITS WORKLOAD, AND IF THEY DO, I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT AND I WANT TO CONSIDER THAT. PERHAPS THE BEST WAY FOR US TO ADDRESS THIS WHOLE SUBJECT WOULD BE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE PLATTING PROCESS SO THAT WE CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHATEVER THE STAFF NEEDS ARE IN TERMS OF WORKLOAD RESOURCES TIME AND SO FORTH. THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR TIMELINESS. ALSO MY CONCERNS VOICED AT THE PREVUSEETI FOR TRANSPARENCY AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH PLATS ARE APPROVED AND THE NEED FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO STAY INFORMED ABOUT THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY SO THAT WE KNOW. I WOULD SUGGEST THE BEST APPROACH TO THIS ITEM AND THE OTHER ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS TO TABLE IT AND BRING THEM BACK TO AWES AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF THE PLATTING PROCESS AS A WHOLE. THAT'S IT. >> Chair Downs: OY. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. JUST A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF'S BUT YOU SAID WE HAD TWO OF THESE CASES RECENTLY. HOW MANY CASES A YEAR WOULD THIS IMPACT? IS IT HALF A DOZEN? IS IT 50? ROUND NUMBER. >> A VERY ROUGH ESTIMATE. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE HAD AROUND 13 IN THE PAST YEAR. MAYBE EVEN MORE. NOT NECESSARILY ALL FOR SETBACKS. I DON'T HAVE THEM FILTERED THAT WAY BUT VERY RARE THAT WOULD EVEN HAVE THESE REQUESTS. AND THEN THAT THEY GET APPROVED. IT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN THEY GET APPROVED. SOMETIMES THEY DO. >> Ratliff: SO WORST CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL 13 OF THEM BUT PROBABLY NOT. SO SOMETHING LESS THAN A DOZEN IN THE PAST YEAR. IT SEEMS TO M TO RISE TO LESS OF A CONCERN TO OVERCOME KIND OF MY FEAR OF THE LONG-TERM BOOKKEEPING ISSUES. I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES FOR THE APPLICANTS AND THE TIME BUT THE VARIANCE AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS IS, 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. I WOULD CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO THE STAFF HAVING A LITTLE MORE BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT FIGURES OUT HOW TO DOCUMENT THAT. I WOULD HATE TO DO THAT FROM THE DAIS TONIGHT. BUT SHORT OF THAT -- I GUESS I'M NOT READY TO APPROVE THAT SHORT OF HAVING SOME DIRECTION ON THAT ISSUE. THAT'S MY OPINION. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER LISLE. >> Lisle: I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND 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 ALL? >> CORRECT, MOVING FORWARD. FOR RESIDENTIAL. IT'S ALREADY NOT REQUIRED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL. >> Lisle: AND SO IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, HOW DO THE PEOPLE -- I MEAN, DOES IT SHOW UP ON THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, I GUESS? HOW DOES THE -- >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE BUILDING INSPECTION STAFF WHO WOULD REVIEW THE PLANS FOR THE ACTUAL HOUSE OF THE STRUCTURE, CHECK THE ZONING SETBACKS. >> Lisle: OR 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 PLAN'S EXAMINER TO ENSURE IT MEETS THE ZONING SETBACKS. YES. >> Chair Downs: I'M ASSUMING THEN -- >> Lisle: CAN I MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT? SORRY. I REALIZED THERE WAS A LONG DELAY THERE BUT THE RATS WERE RUNNING. JUST AS SOMEONE, IF I WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING A VARIANCE, I WOULD WANT IT RECORDED SOMEWHERE. I WOULDN'T WANT TO SAY -- AND I'M ONE FOR EXPEDIENCY, CERTAINLY IF I'M TRYING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING. BUT IF YOU GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, EVEN IF WE MAKE THE PROCESS EASIER, SOMEWHERE IT NEEDS TO BE RECORDED WHERE IN TEN YEARS YOU GO TO SELL YOUR HOUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO, OH, WELL, BUT THAT COMMISSIONER BACK THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY VOTED FOR THIS. IT NEEDS TO BE RECORDED, IN MY OPINION. THANK YOU. OF THOUGHTS. ONE IS -- I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED ALREADY AS PART OF THAT WE COULD ADD A LINE, REQUIRES THEM TO RECORD THIS VARIANCE WITH THE DEED. BEFORE THEY CAN GETHE APPROVAL. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AT LEAST THROUGH WATCHING MY WIFE AS AN ATTORNEY DO THIS, FILING A DEED DEAL IS QUICK. IT'S NOTHING MAJOR. AND I DON'T THINK IT COSTS MUCH OF ANYTHING. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN EASY WAY TO RECORD THIS. BECAUSE IF IT'S ON THE DEED, THAT'S THERE, THE TITLE COMPANY IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO SEE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. I THINK WE CAN HANDLE THE RECORDING PIECE OF IT. YES SIR. >> Lisle: IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IF SOMEONE GOES THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS AND THE STAFF RESPONDS TO A LETTER. ON SUCH AND SUCH A DATE YOUR VARIANCE WAS LOOKED AT AND APPROVED 5-2. 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 IT'S DONE. SOMEONE GOES AND DOES A TITLE SEARCH, THAT LETTER IS IN THERE AND THAT'S ALL THERE. >> Chair Downs: SO THAT MEETS THAT REQUIREMENT AND THE OTHER, REGARDING THEINESN THE PLAT OR WHATEVER. AS YOU SAID THE PLAN EXAMINER'S JOB IS TO LOOK AT THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS WHICH SHOWS THE SETBACKS OFF THE STREET, WHEREVER IT IS. THE LINE DOESN'T NEED TO BE THERE AS LONG AS THAT CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT SETBACK. I DON'T REALLY HAVE CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY FILE THE DEED WITH ANY OF THAT. THE TRANSPARENCY PART, WHICH IS KIND OF INTERESTING, AS SHOW BROUGHT UP IS BECAUSE WE THINK OF A VARIANCE, IN MOST CASES, AS BEINGOMETHING SIMPLE AND IT JUST ALLOWS -- JUST PERSONAL -- I WANTED TO MAKE MY PORCH A LITTLE BIGGER ON THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE. I WAS AT THE SETBACK LINE SO THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO ABOUT IT. BUT THEN I WENT TO STAFF. THEY LOOKED AND SAID IS YOUR STREET CURVY? WELL, IT IS. 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 IGHBOR. IT COULD IMPACT SOMETHING ELSE RIGHT? 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 GOING TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS TO GET A CHANGE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS -- GET THIS VARIANCE. THERE'S NO KNOWLEDGE, NO POSTING, NO ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE, FOR EXAMPLE. >> IF I MAY -- >> Chair Downs: 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 ONE OF THE STANDARDS. UNNECESSARY ENCUMBRANCE ON ANOTHER PARCEL OF LAND CAN BE CREATED. THERE IS A NOTICE DONE FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCES BUT I BELIEVE IT'S 250 FEET BUT I'M GOING TO DOUBLE CHECK. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: THERE IS A NOTICE GIVEN THEN. SO THEN BOIL IT DOWN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 13 CASES A YEAR. LET'S SAY WE DOUBLE THAT TO 25. IF THIS IS ALL REALLY ABOUT SAVING 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 ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS WHO APPLIED FOR ONE OF THESE VARIANCES AND THEN WAS TOLD SHE ALSO HAD TO REPLAT. AND THE EXPENSE OF IT AND HAVING TO DO IT TWICE WAS VERY FRUSTRATING TO HER. SHE REACHED OUT ALL OVER THE CITY TO ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT HER SITUATION. >> Chair Downs: SHE CALLED CITY COUNCIL. >> AND SO THERE WAS A DESIRE TO -- >> Chair Downs: SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS. LESS BURDENSOME ON CITIZENS. >> RIGHT. IT REALLY WASN'T STAFF DRIVEN. >> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT THE ORDER SEEMS TO BE BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO GO TO PLANNI AND ZONING COMMISSION FIRST WITH YOUR REPLAT, GET CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BEFORE THE BOARD HAS EVEN MADE A DECISION. THAT'S WHERE THE COST AND TIME IS. YOU'RE PUTTING IN A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT BEFORE YOU'RE GETTING TO THE FINAL DECISION MAKERS AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WE WOULD WANT TO FLIP THOSE BACKWARDS. IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN THE BUILDING LINES, THE REPLAT NEEDS TO COME SECOND, NOT FIRST, ONCE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS ACTED. >> Chair Downs: WHAT IS THE COST? I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA. WHAT DOES IT COST TO APPLY FOR A REPT? ANYBODY? >> IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. >> FOR REVIEW PURPOSES OR IN GENERAL, LIKE SURVEYING? I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION OF SURVEYORS OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR REPLAT AND FINAL PLATS WE HAVE A BASE FEE OF $250. AND EVERY SINGLE LOT WILL ADD FIVE DOLLARS. >> Chair Downs: A FIRST SINGLE HOMEOWNER, BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IT'S GOING TO COST THEM $250 BEFORE THEY CANVEN GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSENT TO FIND OUT THAT IT'S DENIED. AND SO THE EXPENSE IS $250 TO BE TOLD NO. >> 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. >> Chair Downs: THAT COULD BE ANOTHER $250, WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT IT. IT COULD BE $2500 JUST TO GET THE CHANCE TO BE TOLD NO. >> CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS OF FLIPPING THE PROCESS THEN? IS THERE A LEGISLATIVE STATUTORY REASON WE CAN'T FLIP THE PROCESS? I SEE THE CHALLENGE IS THAT I'M GOING TO SPEND $2500 BETWEEN APPLICATION FEES, SURVEYORS, AND P&Z MEETINGS ONLY TO BE TOLD NO BUT IF IT WAS A MATTER OF GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GET A YES, I MIGHT BE WILLING TO SPEND THAT MONEY TO DOCUMENT THE YES. BECAUSE A PLAT COMING TO US THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED THE BOARD OF JUSTNT, I ASSUME IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACT. WOULD IT NOT BE? >> Chair Downs: 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. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO WORK THROUGH ON THIS IS WOULD YOUR APPROVAL ON THIS BE LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE? HONESTLY THERE'S AN ARGUMENT EITHER WAY. IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR. >> IF IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY BOA ALREADY, WOULD IT NOT BE ADMINISTRATIVE? >> NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE IF YOU'RE WAIVING A PLAT REQUIREMENT THAT'S LEGISLATIVE. IF THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ORDINANCE, IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE. SO WHICH ACT ARE YOU DOING? IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON HOW WE TEE IT UP. >> Chair Downs: I'M LEANING IN FAVOR OF APPROVING T AMENENTS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DOCUMENTED APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS FILED WITH THE DEED RECORD AND THAT PROOF SHOWN PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING PERMITS BEING GRANTED. I THINK THAT WILL MANAGE IT TO RELY ON THE BOARD OF GOING- ADJUSTMENT TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS. BECAUSE THERE'S A NOTICE REQUIREMENT, SO THE NEIGHBORS ARE GOING TO KNOW ABOUT IT. THE LEVEL OF -- OR THE STANDARD NECESSARY TO GET APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS PRETTY HIGH. SO I'M GOING TO CHOOSE TO ASSUME THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT'S GOING TO DO A GREAT JOB ON THIS AND WE'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO FIND SOMEBODY UPSET ABOUT WHAT THEIR NEIGHBOR IS DOING BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE LITTLE OR NO EFFECT ON THEIR PROPERTY. AND THE MAIN RECORDKEEPING DEAL, IF WE MAKE THAT SMALL CHANGE, I THINK IT CHECKS ALL THE BOXES. >> SO I WOULD JUST INTERJECT. I AM U HERE AS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. IF YOU DO WANT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING OR MOVE TO THE DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSION. >> Chair Downs: UNDERSTOOD. I'M JUST SEEING IF WE'RE GETTING -- >> FOR SURE. >> Chair Downs: BECAUSE EARLIER THERE WAS MORE OF A, HEY, LET'S TABLE THIS THING AND I WANT TO FIGURE OUT -- >> Lisle: ARE YOU ALSO PROPOSING THAT THAT RESPONSE LETTER GOES OUT WITH THE RESULTS AND WE'RE ASKING THE APPLICANT IF THEY GET APPROVAL IS THE ONLY REASON THEY NEED TO RECORD IT. IS THAT PART OF WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING? >> ChairownsYES. >> Lisle: OKAY. >> QUESTION FOR STAFF, LEGAL IS THERE A MECHANISM TO OR -- I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD DEVELOP A VARIANCE DOCUMENT THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR FILING. SOMEBODY'S GOT TO PREPARE THAT ACTUAL PIECE OF PAPER AND 99% OF RESIDENTS AREN'T GOING TO KNOW HOW TO DO THAT. >> Chair Downs: RIGHT. >> RIGHT. WE COULD PROBABLY DEVELOP A AS'VE BEEN SITTING HERE LISTENING TO YOU ALL I JUST REALLY WONDERED HOW 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 I DO WONDER WHAT THE REGULAR PROCESS IS FOR THAT. HOW PEOPLE FIND THEM. BECAUSE, HONESTLY, IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE YOUR CONCERN IS ONE THAT COULD APPLY BROADLY TO VARIANCES, NOT JUST THIS KIND OF VARIANCE. >> Chair Downs: NOT ANY TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL. I'M ASSUMING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS A RECORD OF ALL VARIANCES. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MEETINGS AND -- >> I KNOW A LETTER GOES OUT. I JUST DON'T KNOW BEYOND THAT WHAT HAPPENS. I'VE NEVER DUG INTO IT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE -- >> ARE THEY SEARCHABLE? >> Chair Downs: ARE THEY SEARCHABLE. RIGHT. >> WE HAVE, IN OUR PERMITTING SOFTWARE RECORDS FOR EACH OF THE PARCELS THAT RECEIVE A VARANCE. BUT THAT'S NOT PUBLICLY SEARCHABLE SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO CALL IN AND ASK THE QUESTION CURRELY, 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? >> NOT OUR GIS SYSTEM BUT OUR PERMITTING SOFTWARE. WE GOT THAT SOFTWARE IN 2015 SO FAIRLY RECENT. BEYOND THAT, I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME RECORDS. LIKE YOU SAID, THE BOARD HAS THEIR RECORDS BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH BUILDING INSPECTIONS TO SEE HOW THEY'VE BEEN ARCHIVING THINGS BEFORE 2015. >> Ratliff: THAT'S MY CONCERN. >> Chair Downs: WELL -- >> THOSE GO BACK HUNDREDS OF YEARS. >> Chair Downs: IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THIS AND I THINK THE CLEANEST, NEATEST WAY TO DO IT, FOR EVERYBODY'S PURPOSE, IS TO REQUIRE A DEED 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 WITH THE DEED RECORD, WE'LL GET 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 MAINTAIN THAT. IT WILL STILL BE IN OUR SYSTEM NOW MOVING FORWARD. AND THAT GETS ADDED TO OUR RECORD TOO AS PART OF THE PERMIT. OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND -- THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THOUG. WE'RGOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. THEN WE CAN KIND OF MAKE A DECISION. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. EVEN IF WE TAKE UP YOUR SUGGESTION ABOUT CONDITIONING APPROVAL ON A RECORDING PROCESS FOR THE VARIANCE, 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. >> Chair Downs: MR. CARY. >> Cary: NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT WAS JUST SAID, 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 SOLVES MORE THINGS THAN WE RISK. THAT'S MY OPINION. >> Chair Downs: ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. YES. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, I WROTE EARLIER AND I COULD SHOW IT ON THE OVERHEAD PROJECTOR. >> Chair Downs: PERFECT. >> JUST ADDING AT THE END OF THIS SECTION 7.1 -- SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. SORRY. AT THE END OF 7 7.1D, ADDING THE SENTENCE THE VARIANCE WILL BE RECORDED IN E TITLE RECORDS REGARDING VARIANCES TO MINIMUM FRONT YARDS. >> COULD WE SAY COUNTY LAND RECORDS INSTEAD? >> COUNTY LAND RECORDS? >> Chair Downs: OKAY. DOES THAT -- AND THEN DO WE NEED IN THERE SOMEWHERE THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT'S FILED BEFORE THEY CAN GET THEIR PERMIT? I MEAN, 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. >> Lisle: >> I THINK WILL SHOULD BE SHALL AND ADDING WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING IT. >> Chair Downs: SHALL. 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. >> I DON'T KNOW IF WEUST MADE THIS MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE COMPLICATED. >> Chair Downs: I THINK IT'S CLEAR WHAT WE'VE DONE. WE'RE GOING TO SAVE YOU SOME HEARTACHE, TIME, AND POTENTIALLY MONEY. WE'RE GOING TO SAVE STAFF SOME TIME. WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WANT. IF SOMEBODY WANTS A VARIANCE AND THEY DESERVE ONE, THEY GET IT. BUT WE WANT TO 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. >>atli: TH 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 -- >> Chair Downs: THAT GOES WITH THE LETTER. >> THAT SAYS GO FILE THIS. >> Chair Downs: CORRECT. >> SO THAT THERE'S A -- 99% OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT. HERE'S WHERE YOU GO TO THE ANNEX AND FILE AN INSTRUCTION LETTER. HERE IT IS. >> Chair Downs: YEAH. THAT MAKES GREAT SENSE. IN PARTICULAR, IT'S NOT AN EVERGREEN SITUATION. THE COUNTYAND RECORDS, THEIR DEED SYSTEM CHANGES, THE WAY IT GETS DONE WILL CHANGE. >> NOTE THAT STAFF ALREADY DOES SIMILAR THINGS NOW WITH FINAL PLATS AND REPLATS. WE ATTACH THE DOCUMENT, HOW TO FILE. >> Chair Downs: OF COURSE YOU DO. THIS IS THE CITY OF EXCELLENCE. >> WE WOULD DO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT. >> I THINK THE TEMPLATE IS THE KEY PART. THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY UNIQUE DOCUMENT. >> Chair Downs: UNDERSTAND. >> Brounoff: WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO DO THE RECORDING, THE CITY OR THE APPLICANT? >> Chair Downs: THE VARIANCE SHALL BE RECORDED IN THE COUNTY LAND RECORDS BY APPLICANT. >> OKAY. I DIDN'T SEE THAT. >> Chair Downs: WITH COPY PROVIDED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. I THINK THAT COVERS IT. >> WITH PROOF OF RECORDING INSTEAD OF WITH COPY. >> Chair Downs: WITH PROOF OF RECORDING. >> PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT. I THINK WE GOT IT. >> Chair Downs: ARE WE ALL KIND OF GOOD THERE? ALL RIGHT. WE ARE. MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS IT'S BEEN AMENDED ON THIS ITEM AND I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST, AS COMMISSIONER RATLIFF DID, THAT WE ASK THE STAFF TO DEVELOP A FORM THAT IS SUBMITTABLE FOR THIS PROCESS. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE A WELL-WORDED MOTION BY MR. BRONSKY WITH A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER CARY TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, STAFF, AND YOUR EFFORT. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5, 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. APPLICANT: PROMONTORY, LTD. (ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION). >> THANK YOU. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON ITEM 5? >> WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> Ratliff: I MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM NUMBER 5 WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS STATED BY CITY STAFF. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE ITEM 5 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. PLEASE VOTE. MR. LISLE IS GETTING IT IN THERE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6, 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. APPLICANT: FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> EXTENSION PERIOD AS SUBMITTED AND ALSO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT SUBJECT TO -- SORRY. I NEED TO CHANGE MY RECOMMENDATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TABLE THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT TO THE DECEMBER 18TH, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. THAT REPLAT THREW ME OFF. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. >> Chair Downs: NO WORRIES. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. OKAY. >> TABLING THIS TO DECEMBER 18TH? >> Chair Downs: NO. WE ARE -- WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, LIKELY, WITH SOME DISCUSSION NEEDED, IS APPROVE THIS SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WILL GRANT THE APPLICANT THE EXTENSION. AND THEN TABLE THE REQUEST TO REPLAT UNTIL DECEMBER 18TH. >> OKAY. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT? OKAY. VERY GOOD. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. PUBLIC HEARING. ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> TRE A NONE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I'LL MAKE A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON EXTENDING THE PERIOD -- REVIEW PERIOD AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE ITEM 6 BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AND YOU DIDN'T GET MY VOTE IN THERE, BUT I VOTED YES. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7, 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 PEMIT NO. 194 FOR AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK LEASING. APPLICANT: LIU AND PA LLCADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION). >> I PROMISE TO HAVE THIS RECOMMENDATION RIGHT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS RECOMMENDED AND REQUIRED BY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, MR. RAT MR. RATLIFF? >> Ratliff: THIS ALREADY HAS AN S.U.P. FOR AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK LEASING ON THE PROPERTY? >> CRECT WE HAVE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 194 FOR AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK LEASING. >> Ratliff: SO THAT'S IN PLACE TODAY? >> CORRECT. >> Ratliff: THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS REQUEST. >> THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS REQUEST. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER -- MR. LISLE. MICROPHONE. >> Lisle: IS THE EFFECT -- >> Chair Downs: YOU'RE ON. >> Lisle: THERE WE GO. IT'S STILL GOING TO BE TWO LOTS, NOT THREE LOTS? THE OTHER SLIDE LOOKED LIKE IT WAS THREE LOTS. ARE WE REPLATING THE THREE INTO TWO? >> CORRECT. 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. >> Lisle: CAN WE GO TO THAT NEXT SLIDE? >> SURE. >> Lisle: WHAT PROPERTY IS THIS OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD? IS IT JUST SOUTH OF HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS? >> NORTH OF THE HOTEL. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE PROPERTO THE NOR OF IT, BUT IT IS NORTH OF 16TH STREET AND SOUTH OF 18TH STREET. >> HARBOR FREIGHT ON THE CORNER. WHERE IT SAYS CC ON THE DRAWING, THAT'S WHERE THAT RESTAURANT WAS TORN DOWN. >> Lisle: GOTCHA. >> THIS IS JUST SOUTH OF WHERE THAT RESTAURANT WAS TORN DOWN. >> Lisle: IT'S NOT THE TORN-DOWN RESTAURANT SITE. >> WE JUST APPROVED THAT ONE THE OTHER DAY. >> Lisle: THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. >> THE SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY A HOTEL. THE SOUTH IS QUALITY INN. >> Lisle: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> WE HAVE NONE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> I MOVE WE FOLLOW THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON AGENDA ITEM 7. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM 7 SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8. 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. APPLICANTS: STEPHEN F. AND REBECCA R. SHUCKENBROCK FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING APPLICATION ACCEPTS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE PROJECT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> THERE ARE NONE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE REPLAT ON AGENDA ITEM 8. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BCOMMISSIONER BRONSKYITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF TO APPROVE ITEM 8 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. >> NONPUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -- TE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9 -- DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING CHANGES TO STATE LAW THROUGH HOUSE BILL 3699 FOR THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY OF PLATS. APPLICANT, CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU. AT THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 18TH 202 STAFF PRESENTED INFORMATION WITH A REQUEST TO PROVIDE DIRECTION ON PROPOSED PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY CHANGES DUE TO THE PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 3699. THIS BILL ALLOWS STAFF TO APPROVE PLATS THAT PREVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE 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 REMINDER, HERE IS A CHART OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THE SEPTEMBER 18TH MEETING. FOR SOME BACKGROUND ON STATE LAW, PLATS ARE SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 212 OF TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH HAS SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET, INCLUDING NOTICING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR CERTAIN REPLATS. ACTION IS REQUIRED WITHIN 30DIES AND THEN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION REQUIREMENTS. FOROTICAND PUBLIC HEARINGS, REPLATS THAT ARE LIMITED TO SINGLE-FAMILY MORE TWO-FAMILY USES HAVE SPECIFIC REQUIRMENTS. IF A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, A PUBLIC HEARING MUST BE HELD AND A WRITTEN NOTICE MUST BE SENT 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 THE VARIANCE NEEDED, THE CITY HAS OPTED TO NOTICE ALL SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL REPLATS FOR PUBLIC HEARING. AND THIS IS NOT PROPOSED TO CHANGE WITH THE PROCESS. SHOWN HERE IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE NOTICES THAT WE SEND. FOR ACTION REQUIRED WITHIN 30 DAYS, CHAPTER 212 HAS SPECIFIC TIMELINES IN WHICH PLATS MUST BE APPROVED. THE PLAN IS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH TWO ROUTES -- THE SHOP CLOCK OPTION, THE GRAPHIC SHOWN ON THE LEFT REQUIRES A PLAT TO BE APPROVED, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLETE PLAT SUBMITTAL BEING REIVED. AN APPLICANT MAY REQUEST EXTENSIONS TO THIS DEADLINE. THE PRE-SUBMITTAL OPTION, SHOWN ON THE RIGHT, ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY AS THE PLAT CAN BE SUBMITTED WITHOUT THE FEES BEING PAID, SO CONSIDERED AN INCOMPLETE COMMITTAL. STAFF WILL REVIEW THE PLAT AND FEES ARE PAID ONCE THE PLAT IS READY FOR APPROVAL, WHICH THEN KICKS INTO THE SHOP CLOCK PROCESS. THIS ALLOWS A LONGER TIMEFRAME TO WORK THROUGH COMMENTS AND ANY POTENTIAL ISSUES IF NEEDED, AS THE 30-DAY DEADLINE DOESN'T APPLY UNTIL THOSE FEES ARE PAID. MINIRATIVE CONSIDERATION, CHAPTER 212 STATES THAT PLATS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET ALL STANDARDS AND PROVIDES AN OPTION FOR AN OWNER TO SEE IF THE PLAT WAS NOT APPROVED. THIS IS COVERED IN THE COMMISSION'S BYLAWS AND NOTED ON THE MEETING AGENDAS. THE COMBINATION OF THESE REQUIREMENTS UNDER STATE LAW OR PER THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE CAN CREATE CHALLENGES FOR APPLICANTS AND STAFF AS A MAJORITY OF PLATS STILL NEED TO BE PLACED ON A COMMISSION AGENDA FOR APPROVAL. DUE TO THE SET SCHEDULE FOR COMMISSION MEETINGS, PLATS MAY BE READY FOR CONSIDERATION WEEKS IORO A COMMISSION MEETING, BUT THE APPLICANT MUST STILL WAIT FOR APPROVAL AT THAT MEETING AS STAFF PREPARES THE AGENDA, LOCATORS AND GRAPHICS, CREATING UNNECESSARY DELAYS FOR APPLICANTS. AND THE GENERAL TIMELINE IS SHOWN HERE STARTING FROM DAY ONE THROUGH DAY 30. THE COMMISSION HAD ASKED IF OTHER CITIES HAVE DELEGATED PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF. STAFF REACHED OUT TO 23 COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT TEXAS ABOUT ANY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADER PLANNED TO BE MADE TO THEIR APPROVAL PROCESSES. OF THE 23 COMMUNITIES, THREE HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES ALREADY TO DELEGATE PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF. TWO HAVE REGULATIONS DRAFTED TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY. FIVE HAVE BEGUN 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. A SUMMARY OF THIS INFORMATION FROM THE COMMUNITIES IS PROVIDED. THE COMMISSION ASKED HOW TRANSPARENCY CAN BE MAINTAINED. PLATS ARE DISPLAYED IN SEVERAL WAYS. THE ACTIVITY MAP, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE DISPLAYS ALL PROJECTS FROM THE TIME THEY ARE 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 PLAT INFORMATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC VIEWING THROUGH THE MAP AND THE NEW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LIST. IF DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSION, STAFF WILL ALSO PROVIDE A MONTHLY STAFF APPROVAL REPORT CONTAINING ALL PLATS APPROVED BY STAFF. THIS TABLE SHOWS THE CURRENT PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY AND INCLUDES ALL PLATS PROCESSED BY STAFF FROM SEPTEMBER 1ST OF 2022 TO U AUGUST 31st OF 2023. THE COMMISSION APPROVED 128 PLATS WHILE STAFF APPROVED 0. THIS TABLE SHOWS THE PROPOSED PLAT APPROVAL CHANGES. USING THE SAME DATA AS THE PREVIOUS TABLE, UNDER THIS PROCESS, THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE ARRIVED 17 PLATS WHILE STAFF APPROVED 111. THIS OPTION LEAVES SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL REPLATS WITH THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL AS A PUBLIC HEARING MAY BE REQUIRED PER STATE LAW. ALL OTHER PLATS, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WOULD MOVE TO STAFF FOR APPROVAL. THIS TABLE SHOWS AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION IN WHICH ALL REPLATS, INCLUDING NONRESIDENTIAL, WOULD REMAIN WITH THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL BUT THE NONRESIDENTIAL REPLATS WOULD BE MOVED TO CONSENT ITEMS INSTEAD OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, AS THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED PER STATE LAW. BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES INCLUDE A MORE STREAMLINED PROCESS AS PLATS 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 SUBSTANTIVE LEGISLATIVE ITEMS. THERE WILL ALSO BE INCREASED EFFICIENCY FOR STAFF AS THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO PREPARE SO MANY ITEMS AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS FOR THE PACKET. THE PACKET COULD POTENTIALLY BE COMPLETED SOONER. INCREASED TRANSPARENCY AS STAFF COUL PRODE A REPORT TO THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS POST IT ON THE WEBSITE WITH ALL PLATS APPROVED BY STAFF. AT THIS TIME, DIRECTION IS REQUESTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY CHANGES. SPECIFICALLY STAFF WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS WHETHER CHANGES ARE DESIRED. SHOULD ANY ADDITIONAL PLATS BE DELEGATED FOR STAFF APPROVAL, IF YES, IS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR EACH LISTED PLAT TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF WITH THE APPROVAL REPORT PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION, OR CONSENT PREFERRED FOR THE NONRESIDENTIAL REPLATS. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE PROPOSED PLAT CHANGES. I WILL GO BACK TO THAT DIRECTION. CAN I ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? >> Chair Downs: CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS? SO ONE MORE. UNDER THIS SCENARIO, THIS ESSENTIALLY IS SAVING APPLICANTS THREE TO -- THREE DAYS TO THREE WEEKS. >> CORRECT >> Chair Downs: GO TO THE NEXT ONE. UNDER THIS ONE THEY'RE NOT SAVING ANY TIME BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE PROCESS TO GO THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO IT WOULD STILL BE -- WE DON'T REALLY SAVE ANYTHING IN TERMS OF TIME IF WE GO THIS DIRECTION. >> SO YOU WOULD SAVE TIME ON THE FINAL PLAT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> IT WOULD JUST BE THE REPLATS THAT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE PROCESS. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S 60 ITEMS, WHICH IS ROUGHLY HAL-- OR MOST OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS APPROVED. >> YES. >> Chair Downs: WE'RE NOT REALLY GAINING A LOT OF GROUND GOING THIS DIRECTION. >> NO. REPLATS ARE THE MAJORITY. >> Chair Downs: YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY. FRMR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: FIRST OF ALL, VERY GOOD WRITE-UP. MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANT ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION. I THINK I'M 95% SURE WHAT THE ANSWER IS. YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE STAFF BE ABLE TO APPROVE EVERYTHING THAT WOULD COME TO US S THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT, BUT ALSO THE NONRESIDENTIAL REPLATS. SO CURRENTLY WE DO THOSE AS PUBLIC HEARINGS. THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BE PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO WE WOULD ASK THAT THOSE BE DELEGATED TO STAFF. >> Ratliff: WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE, EVERYTHING ELSE IS ADMINISTRATIVE ALREADY. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> Ratliff: 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. >> 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 IF YOU FIND AN ERROR THAT STAFF MADE THEN YOU CAN SAY NO. BUT IF THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS YOU MUST APPROVE. >> Ratliff: 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 OTHERWISE IT'S BASICALLY AN AUTOMATIC APPROVAL ALREADY. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF BOIL IT DOWN TO THOSE COUPLE OF BULLET POINTS. >> NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IF WE DON'T GET IT TIMELY APPROVED, THEY GET APPROVAL REGARDLESS, AUTOMATICALLY, EVEN THOUGH YOU ALL ACT OR NOT. >> Ratliff: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT. ON THE NON RESIDENTIAL REPLATS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE CURRENTLY PUBLIC HEARINGS, THEY ARE STILL ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: AT THE RISK OF ASKING A DUMB QUESTION, AT THE BOTTOM OF SLIDE 50, THERE'S ASTERISKS OUT TO THE SIDE. AND THE ASTERISK -- THE FIRST ONE SAYS UNLESS A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, CONVERSATION ON A PREVIOUS ITEM WAS ABOUT VARIANCES. IF A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS PROCESS? >> SO IF A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PLAT TYPE, IT DOES HAVE TO COME FORWARD TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. >> DID WE JUST CHANGE THAT TO SEND IT -- WHATEVER WE DID EARLIER IS GOING TO APPLY TO THIS? >> Chair Downs: THAT'S A DIFFERENT -- >> THESE PARTILAR ARE PLANNING AND ZONING VARIANCES, NOT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCES. >> IF THEY WANT A VARIANCE, IT'S GOING TO STILL COME TO US. >> Chair Downs: IT'S GOING TO COME TO US. >> Lisle: GOTCHA. >> Chair Downs: MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I WANTED -- THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL THE WORK YOU PUT INTO THIS. I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE WAS, YOU MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF GOING WITH OPTION 1A WAS WE WOULD GET THE PACKET SOONER. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? >> POTENTIALLY IF W WEREN'T PREPARING SO MANY ITEMS THEN WE WOULD ONLY HAVE THE ZONING-TYPE CASES TO WORK ON. SO WE COULD POTENTIALLY GET IT DONE SOONER BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HAVING TO SPEND HOURS UPON HOURS CREATING ALL THE ITEMS FOR JUST THE PLATS. >> Bronsky: RATHER THAN GETTING IT ON FRIDAY AT 5:00, WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET IT A DAY OR TWO EARLY? >> I COULDN'T GUARANTEE ANYTHING, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE. >> I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT PROMISE, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY OUR GOAL THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN. >> Bronsky: I LIKE THAT IDEA A LOT, BECAUSE I FIND BOTH FOR THE CITIZENS AS WELL AS FOR ME, GETTING THESE THINGS FRIDAY AT 5:00 CAN SOMETIMES BE BURDENSOME FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS. SO MY SECOND QUESTION IS, OUT OF THE 23 CITIES THAT YOU SPOKE WITH, ABOUT A THIRD HAVE DECIDED NOT TO DO ANYTHING. DO WE KNOW ANY RATIONALE AS TO WHY WE'VE ONLY SEEN THREE THAT HAVE ACTUALLY ADOPTED SOME NEW DIRECTION LIKE THIS, AND THE MAJORITY SEEM 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 I KNOW HAD JUST GONE THROUGH BIG SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND MAKE NEW CHANGES T SOMETHING THAT WAS JUST ADOPTED. BUT FOR THE MOST PART THEY WERE FINE WITH THEIR PROCESS AND DIDN'T WANT TO CHANGE IT. >> Bronsky: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: YEAH, I HAVE TO ECHO, NICE WORK ON THIS. IT'S BEEN MY BELIEF THAT A LOT OF WHAT WE DO HERE AROUND THIS AND I DO THINK IT DISTRACTS POSSIBLY FROM BEING ABLE TO SPEND MORE TIME ON OTHER THINGS. AND I ESPECIALLY WANT TO ECH COMT THAT IF WE COULD GET THIS PACKET EVEN A DAY EARLIER, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. AND IF THIS CAN REDUCE THE WORKLOAD TO WHERE WE COULD DO THAT. BECAUSE 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 BE PREPARED ON EVERYTHING THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO, ESPECIALLY DEPENDING ON WHAT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT BE GOING ON IN ANYBODY'S LIFE. SO FOR ME, I JUST SEE MTIPLE BENEFITS TO THIS. AND I'M IN STRONG FAVOR AND WOULD LIKE TO TWIST MIKE'S ARM TO A STRONGER COMMITMENT. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: MR. BELL. ALL RIGHT, WHE MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. ARE YOU CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER THE SHOT CLOCK OPTION, OR ARE YOU CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER THE DELAYED SHOT CCK 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 RESUBMITTAL OPTION. BUT IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO THE APPLICANT. >> I COULD CLARIFY. THE SCHEDULE IS THE SAME. OUR REVIEW SCHEDULE IS SET UP FOR THE SHOT CLOCK. REGARDLESS OF WHAT OPTION YOU PICK, WE'RE DOING THE AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE. >> AND WHAT IS THE AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE? >> TO -- FROM APPLICATION TO IN0 DS OR LESS.NIN COMMISSION AND THAT INCLUDES, OFTENTIMES, GETTING SUBMITTALS THE WEDNESDAY BEFORE, FINAL SET OF PLANS, INCLUDING THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 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 5:00 P.M. POSTING. >> Chair Downs: TO MEET THE 30-DAY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Brounoff: NOW IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO GO WITH THE DELAYED SUBMITTAL, IS THAT THE TERM? THEY PAY THE FEES AFTER THE REVIEW. >> PRE-SUBMITTAL. >> Brounoff: WHAT IS THERE TO ENSURE THAT YOU GET THE REVIEW DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS? AS OPPOSED TO PAYING MORE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION TO OTHER THINGS AND THEN COMING BACK TO THAT A LITTLE LATER AND THEN IT SLIDES OFF TO THE BACK BURPER BR FOR A COUPLE WEEKS? >> OUR PROCESSES AREN'T DESIGNED TO DO THAT. THE DEVELOPER DOES HAVE THE OPTION TO INITIATE THE SHOT CLOCK. SHLD THERE B DEL ON STAFF'S PART, THEY CAN INITIATE THE SHOT CLOCK. I THINK OUR STAFF'S GOALS ARE TO GET FOLKS THROUGH IN TWO TO THREE REVIEWS AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. WE TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY. BUT THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED DEADLINE IF THEY CHOOSE THE PRE-SUBMITTAL. >> Brounoff: IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES THE SHOT CLOCK, WOULD THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STILL GET ALL THE CASES WE'RE CURRENTLY GETTING? >> MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. IF THEY CHOOSE THE SHOT CLOCK -- >> Brounoff: WOULD WE STILL BE GETTING ALL THE PLATS WE'RE CURRENTLY SEEING? >> UNDER THIS OPTION, ALL THE PLATS EXCEPT FOR THE REPLATS ARE GOING TO GO TO STAFF. SO EVEN UNDER SHOT CLOCK WE WOULD BE BOUND BY 30 DAYS TO GET STAFF APPROVAL. >> OKAY. YOU'RE SHOWING ON PAGE 58 A PROPOSED REPORT. STAFF-APPROVED PLATS. 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 WHYT WAS APPROVED, EASEMENTS, LOTS, OR WHATEVER. NOTHING THAT I COULD CHECK UP ON TO SEE WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON. IS THERE ANY WAY OF EXPANDING THE PARAMETERS OF THAT REPORT TO INCLUDE MORE INFORMATION? >> CERTAINLY WE COULD. WE BASE THIS OFF OF THE HERITAGE COMMISSION HAS A PROCESS WHERE THEY DELEGATE APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATES TO APPROPRIATENESS TO STAFF. THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION OFFICER MAKES A PRESENTATION, WHAT WAS APPROVED. INFORMATION IS TYPICALLY A COPY OF THE PLANS AND THE NUMBER. WE COULD PROVIDE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS THE COMMISSION FINDS HELPFUL. THE MORE WE PUT BACK INTO THE REPORT THE MORE WE ADD ON TO PACKET PREPARATION. WE'D BE BACK IN THE SAME BOAT, OR AT LEAST TRYING TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE PACKET WOULD DELAY GETTING IT OUT SOONER. >> Brounoff: PREPARING THE REPORT, EVEN WITH MORE INFORMATION WOULD NOT TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS PREPARING THE WHOLE PACKET. >> YES. THERE'S -- IT WOULD ELIMINATE SOME OF THE MAP CREATION AND THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WOULD BE REMOVED BUT IT STILL REQUIRES THE SAME LEVEL OF REVIEW FROM THE PLANNER, TO THE SUPERVISOR STAFF, TO THE MANAGER. THAT HAPPENS IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM. >> Brounoff: PAGES TO REVIEW. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, I JUST FORESEE SITUATIONS WHERE UNDER THE SUBMITTAL, THINGS MIGHT FIND THEMSELVES STARTING TO SLIDE IN TERMS OF TIMEFRAME. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: YEAH, AS I LOOKED AT THIS, JUST A REAL QUICK COMMENT FOR STAFF. ONE OF MY CONCERNS WAS VISIBILITY OF THESE BACK TO COMMISSION. AND I THINK YOUR REPORT ANSWERS THE QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE HAD TONIGHT WITHOUT THAT. SO I APPLAUD THAT, HOW MUCH INFORMATION WE PUT IN THAT'S RELEVANT. IT CAN BE DISCUSSED. BUT I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THE REPORT IN THE BECSE IT ALLOWS US TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: HONING IN ON THE REPORT QUESTION, I PRESUME THE OR WOULD BE PART OF THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT THAT'S UPLOADED IN ADVANCE OF OUR MEETING? >> IT WOULD BE PART OF THE PACKET. >> Ratliff: IT WOULD BE TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC. IF THEY PULL UP OUR AGENDA, IT'S IN OUR PACKET, JUST LIKE THE PLATS WERE IN OUR PACKET TODAY. IF ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS WANTS TO KNOW WHAT THE SIGN IS AT THE END OF THE STREET, THEY CAN PULL IT UP IN OUR PACKET AND SEE. >> THAT'S RIGHT. FOLLOWINGHE MEL, HAVE A SPECIFIC LINE ITEM FOR A REPORT ON STAFF-APPROVED ITEMS. SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE -- EXACTLY THE FORMAT TO PRESENT THAT IN THE PACKET AS PART OF THE MEETING. >> SO WE WOULD ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION YOU OR WHOEVER AT THE MEETING IF WE HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM IN THERE TO SAY HEY, WE'LL CALL YOU IN ADVANCE, WHAT ABOUT THIS PLAT, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU DID HERE. >> Chair Downs: I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT WE CALL IN ADVANCE. >> I AGREE. IF IT'S A TECHNICAL QUESTION, IT'S GOING TO BE A TECHNICAL ANSWER. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT RESOLVES ANY OF MY FEARS ABOUT THIS. >> Chair Downs: LET'S GO BACK TO THE STAFF'S REQUEST FOR RESPONSE. ALL RIGHT. 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 THINK JUST CURRENTLY AMENDED AND MINOR PLATS CAN BE APPROVED BY STAFF. SO SHOULD THESE ONES WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING BE -- >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> BE DELEGATED TO STAFF. THE ONES UNDER NUMBER 2. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. [ CLEARING THROAT ] AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY, FINAL REPLATS ARE STATE LAW REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED BY P&Z SO THEY CAN'T GO. BUT THEN -- MR. CARY. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSN ABOUT EACHNE OF THESE, OR ARE WE KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE IT SOUNDS LIKE? OR AT LEAST SOME OF US. GO AHEAD. >> Cary: MY QUESTION IS IF THIS IS ADOPTED -- WHICH I'M IN FAVOR OF. HOW QUICKLY CAN WE GET TO THIS WHERE WE'RE OPERATING UNDER THIS NEW PLAN? >> VERY QUICKLY. ONCE CITY COUNCIL -- WE NEED TO TAKE FINAL ACTION. THEN WE NEED TO WORK THROUGH ANY THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN NOTICED FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THOSE WILL HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS. BUT IMMEDIATELY FOLLONG THAT, UNLESS STAFF HAS ANY OTHER IDEAS WHY IT WOULD NEED TO DELAY, WE COULD DO IT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. >> Chair Downs: WHEN WILL THIS BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL IF WE APPROVE THIS? >> THIS IS JUST THE DISCUSSION. SO WE'LL STILL HAVE TO BRING BACK THE CASE TO YOU FIRST. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE STILL HAVE TO -- IT'S GOING TO BE ROLLED INTO -- WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT ORDINANCE UPDATE. >> CAN YOU CLARIFY HOW THIS WOULD MOVE FORWARD? >> YES. SO WE DO HAVE ANOTHER CURRENT LEGISLATIVE ITEM CASE, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2023-003. SO THAT WOULD BE ROLLED INTO THAT CASE AND BROUGHT BACK. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE ON THAT ONE? >> POTENTIALLY SOMETIME IN JANUARY HOPEFULLY. WE HAVE CHANGES DRAFTED. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF GETTING YOUR DIRECTION, REVIEWING THEM, FINALIZING THEM AND BRINGING THEM FORWARD. >> Chair Downs: PROBABLY IN MARCH. TO BE IMPLEMENTING THI OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH CONVEYANCE, PRELIMINARY, FINAL, PRELIMINARY, AND REPLATS OTHER THAN TWO-FAMILY AND SINGLE-FAMILY? UNDERSTOOD. IS THE NEXT PAGE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, OR IS IT JUST THIS PAGE? >> JUST THIS PAGE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. FAVOR? THUMBS-UP THUMBS-UP? OKAY. WE'RE GOOD. MR. BROUNOFF, I DO APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS. WELL, WELL-THOUGHT OUT. WELL-SPOKEN OBJECTION. SHE'S DONE. SHE'S GOT HER DIRECTION. [ LAUGHING ] ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ITEM 9. FEEDBACK. WE DO HAVE AN ITEM 10, WHICH IS ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA. AND I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE I THINK YOU SAID YOU WERE PLANNING ON ASKING ABOUT THIS. BE CLEAR. RESTATE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT DUPLICATING EFFORT WITH SOMETHING WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT ANYWAY. >> WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENTS I MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS HEAMEETING AND CONSISTENT WITH R SUGGESTION DURING OUR LAST CONVERSATION ON THIS TOPIC, CHAIRMAN DOWNS, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A TEXT AMENDMENT ON THE 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 SECTIO. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD LEAVE IN PLACE THE OTHER EXISTING REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROPERTY MUST HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE CITY OF EMP PLANO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT USING THE CART. >> Chair Downs: 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 PSES D MINUSES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT VERSUS ACTUAL HAVING AN AMENDMENT PRESENTATION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I HAVE TO AGREE HERE THAT IT SEEMED LIKE A STRETCH. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME OTHER BACKGROUND AND STUFF GOING ON THERE. BUT THROW ALL THAT OUT THE WINDOW AND JUST LOOK AT THE SITUATION AND GO WHY AREN'T WE REQUIRING THEM TO BUILD A DUMPSTER THAT'S PROBABLY NEVER GOING TO GET USED? SO WE DON'T WANT TO WASTE CITIZEN AND BUSINESS OWNER RESOURCES IF WE CAN AVOID IT. SO 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 GOT TO APPROVE THIS, I WOULD RATHER IT COME AS A DISCUSSION POINT AND THEN LET US HAVE A CHANCE TO REALLY, ALL OF US, BECAUSE MR. LISLE HAS DONE HIS HOMEWORK. THE REST OF US NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE PLUSES AND MINUSES. >> WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT. WE COULD BRING IT BACK AS A DISCUSSION ITEM. PROCEDURALLY WE NEED TO CAL UP THE ITEM. THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO MAKE THE CHANGE. >> IT COMES AS A PUBLIC HEARING, WE COULD DO THAT. IF THE COMMISSION THINKS THIS IS URGENT ENOUGH TO ADDRESS IT. I WOULD JUST CAUTION THAT WE HAVE A LONG LIST OF THESE ITEMS THAT WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED PLUS MORE THAT STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED THAT HAVEN'T COME UP WITH THE COMMISSION AND WE HAVE A ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REWRITE ON THE HORIZON, PERHAPS STARTING AS EARLY AS THE BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR. >> Chair Downs: WOULD THIS ISSUE BE ADDRESSED IN THAT PROCESS? >> YES. WE WOULD ADD IT TO THE LIST OF UPDATES TO BE WORKED THROUGH ON THAT LIST IF IT'S HELPFUL. MAYBE IT WOULD BE WISE TO BRING IN THE COMMISSION, A MORE DETAILED LIST OF WHAT'S IDENTIFIED. >> Chair Downs: I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT. >> THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD PREPARE SO THEY ARE AWARE THAT THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTED -- >> Chair Downs: ARE COMING AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION. >> RIGHT. WE'VE FLAGGED THEM TO LOOK AT THEM. >> THIS GETS ILUDED IN THE REWRITE. WHEN WILL THAT ULTIMATELY BE ACCOMPLISHED? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN QUICKLY. THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF EFFORT TO GO IN BEFORE IT WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED ON THIS SPECIFIC THING THAT MIGHT BE SIMPLE TO SOLVE. THERE'S PROBABLY OTHER ONES, I RECOGNIZE. >> I THINK ZONING ORDINANCE, THOSE ARE NOT FAST. I DON'T HAVE A TIMELINE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT OUR CONSULTANT WILL PREPARE. I DON'T HAVE THAT YET. >> IT WILL B LATER NEXT YEAR, PROBABLY. >> AT THE SOONEST, PROBABLY. >> WE'RE TALKING A YEAR AND A HALF FOR SOMETHING THAT COMMICOMMISSIONER LISLE WOULD LO SEE RESOLVED QUICKER. WE'VE HAD GENERAL AGREEMENT, IT SEEMS. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I'LL GO BACK TO THE COMMENT ABOUT GETTING A LIST OF, KIND OF, THE BULLET POINTS OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN THE REWRIT. THE REASON I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT IS TO WEIGH IN ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A HIGH-PRIORITY ITEM BECAE I DO AGREE PHILOSOPHICALLY THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT. THE QUESTION IS, ARE THERE 50 OTHER THINGS THAT ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT OR MORE PRESSING BEFORE WE START OPERATING IN A VACUUM OF NOTE KNOWING WHAT ELSE IS ON THE TABLE. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT ELSE IS ON THE TABLE AND SAY THIS IS A TOP PRIORITY. OR THIS IS AN EASY ONE TO HANDLE. BUT IF THERE'S FOUR OR FIVE OTHER ONES THAT SEEM MORE PRESSING AND MORE BROADLY APPLICABLE, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE AS A BULLET POINT LIST. IS THAT AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST TO GET A BULLET POINT LIST OF THE THINGS YOU THINK ARE GOING TO BE TOPIC-WISE IN THE REWRITE? THAT'S PROBABLY A 20-PAGE DOCUMENT. >> IT'S A LONG LIST. THAT'S REASONABLE. MAYBE A DISCUSSION. IT'S YOUR ITEM. I DON'T WANT TO TRANSFORM YOUR ITEM. WE COULD INTRODUCE THE COMMISSION MORE FORMALLY TO THE ZONING REWRITE PROCESS AND WHAT TO EXPECT MOVING FORWARD AS SOON AS WE'RE AVAILABLE TO DO THAT. WE'RE STILL IN PROCESS. AHD OF THE TEAM.GET T FAR MAYBE GIVING YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE WOULD BE HELPFUL. THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL ITEMS WHERE WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO LOOK AT UPDATES. SO THAT REQUIRES A SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT ON STAFF TIME THAT'S NOT GOING TO OTHER PROJECTS. I WANT YOU TO SEE THE TRADEOFF. >> MAY I RESPOND, CHAIR? >> Chair Downs: YES. >> I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE HERE THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT ROLES INVOLVED. AS COMMISSIONERS WE HAVE A ROLE. AS STAFF Y'ALL HAVE A ROLE. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE ANOTHER ROLE. AND SO THIS WAS A BIG TOPIC IN OUR LAST MEETING. AND BNG THE NEWEST MEMBER HERE THERE'S STILL SOME NAIVETY ON MY PART. I'M LIKE, ALL THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN HERE. WE'RE DOING THIS IN LITERALLY THE NEIGHBORING ZONING AREA. AND SO IN MY MIND IT'S A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS AND ADDING THE LETTER R TO DESIGNATE THE RETAIL AREA. 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. LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE AND MAKING IT FIT WHAT MAKES SENSE IN THE REAL WORLD. THAT'S MY HEART. >> Chair DownsI UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY. I THINK THAT'S WHY I'M SUGGESTING -- HE EVEN SAID IT WOULD BE A SIMPLE FIX. MAYBE IT'S EASY. WE DON'T KNOW. >> FAIR ENOUGH. >> Chair Downs: THEY KNOW. THAT'S WHY I WAS SUGGESTING THAT IT WOULD BE MORE OF A DISCUSSION ITEM, EVEN A PRELIMINARY OPEN WHERE YOU EDUCATE US A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT WOULD IT MEAN TO ADD THAT. WHAT ARE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT THAT WE DON'T KNOW. I'M ASSUMING THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDED INTO A DISCUSSION ITEM AROUND WHY OR WHY NOT WE WOULD WANT TO ADD AN R TO IT. EVEN IF IT MEANS FOR US MEETING AT 6:15 INSTEAD OF 6:30 OR EVEN 6:00. 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 THIS AGENDA, RATHER ADD IT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM THAT CAN BE SHORT, GIVING US REASONS TO OR NOT TO DO THAT. AND I'M A LITTLE BIT -- IF I SOD THINK ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT THAT BIG A DEAL TO DO THIS, THEN I'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT FROM YOU. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND GO, IT DOESN'T REALLY CREATE ANY ISSUES, THAT'S A WIN FOR US. IT'S A WIN FOR THE BUSINESS OWNERS AND THE CITIZENS. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE REWRITE IF IT'S REAL SIMPLE. ON THE OTHER HAND IF YOU LOOK AT IT AND GO HERE'S THE RIPPLES, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF A REWRITE, TELL US TT, TOO. ANYWAY. RATHER THAN IT BE AN AGENDA ITEM I WOULD RATHER -- FOR HERE, I'D RATHER IT BECOME A DISCUSSION ITEM AT PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING. AND LET'S JUST SET IT OUT MAYBE IN JANUARY, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE IN THE HOLIDAYS. WE'RE BACKED UP ALREADY. THERE'S STAFF TAKING OFF. ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT? OKAY. WE'RE GOOD? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. [ CLEARING THROAT ] WITH NO OTHER BUSINESS, WE ADJOURN AT 8:47. ♪