All right, got 5:30. Go ahead and call the meeting to order. Uh, can we please do the roll call? Chairman York here. Vice Chairman Salisar Garza here. Uh, Commissioner Miller is absent. Commissioner Mandel here. Commissioner Munoz absent. Commissioner Hedrickk here. Commissioner Bud here. Commissioner Cantou here. Commissioner Tykeleman here. We have a quorum present to conduct this meeting. Thank you very much. Uh we're going to skip the reading of the rules for public comment because it doesn't look like we have any public here to comment. U so we'll move on to approval of absences for commissioners Bud and Munoz. Make a motion to approve. I second. All right. We got a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. All right. Motion passes. Moving on to approval of minutes from the June 11th meeting. Commissioner Mandal move that we approve the minutes from June 11th, 2025. I'll second. All right. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? I I All right. Motion passes. Moving on to consent public hearing items A and B. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Andrew Deus with development services. Starting with item number two, check out London Weber, which is a preliminary plat. Item number three, Bayfront Terrace block four, lots 7R and 8R, which is a final plat. Item number four, Southside Storage Track Preliminary. Uh, and under time extensions, item number five, we have Ocean Breeze Subdivision. And item number six, Flamingo Resort Bungalow's PUD plan unit development of item under letter A of plats, items 2, three, and four. Staff has determined the plats meet local government code as well as the UDC and under time extensions item five and six staff recommends approval and if there are any questions I'd be happy to address them. Thank you Mr. Deus. I have two quick questions on the time extensions. Uh item five ocean breeze. Um just curious does does the plat reflect the late it looks like it was approved back in 21 or drawn 2122. Um, does it reflect the latest flood maps? That was one of the notes. So, it it did have the latest noted uh as far as on the drawing itself, but the note needs to be updated. Okay. So, the the map was correct. The note was is a little bit off. Okay. And I and sorry, I thought I think I emailed about this. And I don't remember if you responded or not, but is it uh just for everyone's knowledge, is there is it allowable for us as a commission to approve a time extension extension conditionally and say yes, it's approved, but you need to update this, you know, FEMA background stuff that has now updated it. It's not so much a condition as it's a scrivener's error, but we we went ahead and let the applicant know. So, they'll they're going to make the correction. So, it's kind of something that would just get updated prior to recordation. It's just like a typo. So when we find things, we do one final scan before recordation to make sure signature blocks in the right place. There are no typos. You would be surprised how many plats still say 2024 on them. And we have to make sure it says 25 or to leave the box blank. So we we do one final sweep before it goes to the courthouse. Yeah, we have to update those all the time. The the summer sign today were blank on the year and that was smart. Um the other time extension flamingo bungalows. I remember this one since it's a pud. Um and and there's the pud is still here, right? It's not it doesn't go away. So I know it's not like a um special permit, but I I wondered because of that pud and I think when that was approved since then CCW has changed their policy with respect to water, the public private water thing. Do you know if that would affect that utility plan? It can. So puds have the funny thing about them is they have a 24-month shot clock on them. So, when we get close, and I believe this one's going to expire in August, if I remember off the top of my head, thank you for nodding. Uh, they have two routes. They can either go back through the entire process to extend the time frame of the PUD in which you open Pandora's box or what the language in the PUD and the UDC says you can have a complete building application that continues to keep this version of the PUD alive and therefore under the code in which it was approved. So it's it's in the applicant holds their own destiny in their hands. Have they submitted any kind of building application? Okay. Do you do you remember or did you look at the utility plan for this one? I'm just wondering if they have like a public water line that if they submitted this today, the city would say that I glanced at it. I don't remember the pipe size, but I remember it was coming off of Palmira since there was You don't remember if it was public water? It has to be that we won't we wouldn't have allowed private even old code didn't allow private because of fire fire protection. So, how does that work? Because now, you know, CCW doesn't want any public water on private property. And the last few puds, I know my firm's done, even even though it's a pud, it's kind of like a subdivision, it's still been private with a backflow preventor. Is that something, you know, their plat was approved and their utility plan was approved, but is they will they still have to adhere to the latest and greatest codes with respect to water when they submit their plans for the public improvements? It's a good question. So Bria's not here, but I would say first pass is going to always be what is current code and then if we look at from a historical perspective under which code was it passed, we then have to look at the delta of how much of a difference if it was. If it was something nominal, obviously we're going to facilitate however we can. I know from just experience like you mentioned on other PUDs, you either have the line stop and you have a backflow pre or you create your access easement as a slash utility easement and then you put your Yeah. And that's what we did on several right after they changed that policy, but now they're, you know, if they're new, they just say, "No, we want it private." And that's why I was curious because I know they really want them all to be private water now. So, um, I guess we'll just see how that one turns. Floods are funny because they're they're case by case. Some of them are very easy to just put an L-shaped like yours like you had on run I think it was running light or or granada where it's it's a big L-shaped it's very easy to connect others where it gets into dead end mains that's where CCW doesn't want to touch. Okay. Uh commissioners have any other questions for staff? I have a question with regards to number five. Uh they were saying they were requesting the extension because they're waiting on the Army Corps of Engineer to give a wetlands determination. Correct. Um guess two questions. How long does that generally take that you've seen? Um, and do we know for a fact that they've already done that? I based on their letter, they're saying they have submitted. I've seen army cores take or the determination takes 6 months, 8 months. Sometimes it it just really depends. They have to determine does it ultimately connect to a body of water and therefore it's a jurisdiction. I mean, I know I'm preaching to the choir, but just for the folks out there in TV land, uh, that hard determination of whether or not it is truly somehow connected to a body of water to therefore make it jurisdictional. Depending on the clerk that takes it, it's like dealing with GLO. Literally, the sand blows one way, that line has moved, the sand blows the other way. Okay, you're safe. And that's why it takes so long to hear back. Do we know what their reasoning was for the uh I guess for the first or second extension if this is the third request that I'll have to investigate further on the I'm just thinking if there ends up being a fourth request in the future then they won't be able to say hey I'm still waiting on the army right it will not take more than a year that's for sure. Okay thank you. You actually reminded me of a another question I had on flamingo. So there's the army corps one I understand the other one just said hey market conditions which is yeah that happens but that's a to me like army corps says we're progressing we're doing our plans you know don't don't make us start over but with this is just a hey we're not ready to go yet. So, how does that work then since now we or staff already knows they they just don't want to proceed because it's it doesn't you know the economy is not right but if their deadline come ups for the pud to expire and they just submit a building application that's kind of hastily done how does that work with staff and is there a shot clock on a building application expiring if they don't actually do anything? Excellent. All excellent questions. So the the first big answer is uh well I'll save that one second. The the quick answer on the building permit is typically building permits last six months. The way the UDC is written though, it just says they have to submit a complete building application. Doesn't say it has to stay alive. Doesn't say what kind of building application. Technically, if I submitted a site work permit only to just I know people use demolition permits and stuff. If I submit a demolition permit, if I submit a BCC, if I submit anything that is a permit, quote unquote, I have checked the box and it does not have an expiration in the UDC of if that permit expires, therefore the clock starts up again. that that's something we'll have to address to the bigger answer the macro scale of your question is I think at some point which would fall more under future agenda items planning commission would need to have I think we should have a workshop on how time extensions are reviewed and issued we don't have policy set in the UDC we don't say three strikes are out we don't say uh these are legitimate criteria which should say yes to a time extension and these should not very similar to board of adjust adjustment board of adjustment when they meet they have five things they have to meet as a review criteria if you don't check five boxes that gives the board a very easy out to say no they can still say yes on their own valition but that checklist is very simple to say this is our review criteria of how we justify whether or not you should or should not get a time extension you can still plead your case and make your plea to the to the commission I think that's something we should do going forward and incorporate that into the UDC now with all these statutes passing. It's a good time. The book's going to be open. We can clean up a lot of things quickly. And that's one of them that's kind of always been in the back of my head for years of it's uh you know, we have those that are going on seven, eight extensions now. Now, granted, some of those were when we were at a six-month shot clock, but still on paper, it doesn't it doesn't look good. Right. Understand. That's why I'm asking. I know you had mentioned wanting to look at that, and I think that would be wise in the future. Um, and this is just their first one, right? This, uh, for Ocean Breeze, it's their third, and for Flamingo, it's their second. It's their second. Was their first a year or was it six months? So, we've had the year policy adopted going on, I say, almost two years now. So, the first one would have had to have been for a year. So, they're two years in now. Okay. The the other concern is of course time extensions as your question was earlier chairman about uh water requirements from CCW. The longer you prolong a time extension you I don't I hate using the word grandfathered me but I'm so trained to use legal non-conforming you keep them under an older code and when we do have a formal UDC switch which is inevitable they they get stuck in the past and we start to get confused. Well, what rule were they under? When did they start their meetings? Well, that and that's what was driving my questions because they're just saying, "Well, economy is not right. We want to wait." Okay. Well, then maybe you need to update to the current codes when you build is kind of what my thought process was, which I think I uh and Buck will correct me if I'm wrong. You could put conditions I would say on a time extension maybe, not to put them on the spot, but could discuss. Could we, for example, could we approve a time extension with the condition that when they submit their, you know, utility uh their their public improvement plans that they adhere to the current codes as of today or as of the time they submit? Probably not. They're going to argue that the vesting statute um protects provides them their vesting. So, we would have to actually deny the time extension and have them resubmit. But that makes them then have to resubmit start from the beginning. Yes. Now, what we when that has happened because I'm sure uh staff will tell you this in the audience too, Mark, we've had plats expire maybe 3 months after and they realize, "Hey, my plat expired. I didn't even know. Can you help me?" I kind of use my thumb and say, "Okay, well, if if you didn't have major comments that were outstanding and you're around the 30-day mark, yes, we can make you go through a formal appeal. you come back to planning commission, but good judgment would say, I can sort of drag you back into time extension. You're you're not far out of reach. You're 6, eight months out of reach. It's a lot harder for us as staff to make the argument administratively to say, "I'm sorry, you're not tracking your projects. It's we don't like denying folks. We don't like seeing expirations." Because that's that's in all honesty, it's more work for us. The the good news is since you've already gone through the process, usually that second review is a lot quicker on a resubmitt because we've already done all the heavy lifting. You're just going to reinitiate your comments. Okay. So, just curious, uh, if we wanted to, would we be able to deny a 12-month request and say, "Hey, we won't give you 12 months. We'll give you 3 months or 6 months or whatever number we would like to." We would have to place in the UDC that language to say you have these options at your disposal for time extensions. So we couldn't do that as of today? No. Okay. If we were to have a workshop on something like this, what would that consist of? You know, like right now all the questions that we have, is this going to be something that can simplify some of these questions and some of the things that are happening with these uh extensions? Simplify is always a tricky word. I would say it brings clarity to why you say yes or no to time extensions. So it's well if there's some requirements you know on the first second maybe going on third fourth extension maybe there may be something to state well now on your on your third we're going to require you to I can tell you in 17 years I can count on one hand and have fingers left over of how many denials of time extent I can actually only think of three and they were the only reason and then others that should be denied was because they had other projects in Q like reimbursement ments or uh construction agreements, participation agreements that kept them alive. But I think for all transparency reasons, planning commission doesn't give really a peak into why you say yes or why you should say no. Establishing a review criteria levels the playing field to say if you can check these boxes, planning commission is saying yes equally and fairly compared to every other submitt. It's not just okay, we'll say yes to you, but we may say no to you. is why we say no. Um like the DS tag group when they're looking at revising the UDC, that's something they could look at coming up with like a checklist or guidelines for time extension. Well, I think it'd just be good for us to be more familiar with it and probably consider something that would educate us so we can make it simple for us to approve or disapprove. I think it' be a good idea. And just so I'm clear, so for those changes to happen, they would have to update the UDC, correct? Okay. And I do have another request. Um, whenever we are doing extensions, is there any way you would be able to also tell us if any of these plats have participation uh agreements on them? So that way, you know, we can also consider that when we're giving these uh extensions, reimbursement or you know, like even the GLO thing, if there's any other stuff that, you know, would be a reason to help, you know, keep them going that stuff that they're waiting on kind of out of their hands. It's good to know. Oh, yeah. Because it may even be something where, you know, they update the UDC to say, "Hey, you know, you can extend it, but maybe, you know, if you extend it, well, now you got to get in the back of the line uh for your reimbursement instead of, you know, you extend it three, four, five times and you're still in front of other people who have projects ready to go that should be reimbured ahead." And you just named a a big thing that we discuss internally is money gets tied up, it gets earmarked, and then it's it's encumbered. You can't touch it, but there are folks with shovel ready projects ready to Was your mark like 10 years ago and you're on your eighth extension? Yeah. Great. Appreciate it. All right. Any other questions? All right. Seeing none, we will open up public hearing. Seeing none of that, we will close public hearing. Uh, does anybody have further discussion or a motion? I move that we approve items two through six as presented by staff. I second. All right. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to director's report. Other than the You beat me to it. Other than the workshop question I was going to bring up, uh, since we kind of answered already that question, we'll come up with a date internally and pass it out to PC members to u see what works with your schedules. I would hope all nine of you are here, of course. Right. All right. Sounds good. Cool. With that, we are journed.