[1. Call to Order / Roll Call.]
[00:00:03]
JOHN. WE READY? I'M READY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. IF WE'RE READY IN THE BACK, LET'S GO AHEAD. GOOD EVENING. THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUESDAY, AUGUST 20TH, 2024. PROSPER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:01 P.M. ALL COMMISSIONERS, EXCUSE ME, ARE PRESENT THIS EVENING. FOR THOSE ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION, THOSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION MUST COMPLETE THE PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST FORM LOCATED ON THE TOWN WEBSITE OR IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. IF YOU'RE ATTENDING IN PERSON, PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD CHAIR OR A STAFF MEMBER PRIOR TO THE MEETING. WHEN CALLED UPON, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. ITEM TWO THIS EVENING IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. EVERYONE WILL PLEASE RISE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL
[CONSENT AGENDA]
RIGHT. ITEM THREE THIS EVENING IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDES ITEM THREE. A CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 6TH, 2020 FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND REGULAR MEETING. DID ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO PULL ANYTHING FOR DISCUSSION ON THOSE MINUTES, OR I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA.ITEM THREE A. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER CARSON. WE HAVE A SECOND. I'LL SECOND IT. HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HAMILTON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING CONSENT? AGENDA ITEM THREE EIGHT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THE MOTION CARRIES 6 TO 0. CITIZEN COMMENTS. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC.
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO DISCUSS OR TAKE ACTION ON ANY TOPIC NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA. PLEASE COMPLETE A PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST FORM AND PRESENT IT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. PRIOR TO THE MEETIN. STAFF I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY COMMENT REQUEST FORMS THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA THIS EVENING. WE HAVE
[4. Conduct a Public Hearing to consider an ordinance amending Article 2, Division 13 – Multifamily District; Article 4, Division 4, Section 4.4.3 – Non-Residential and Multifamily Parking Provisions; and Article 4, Division 8 - Non-Residential & Multifamily Design and Development of the Town of Prosper Zoning Ordinance to modify Multifamily development standards. (ZONE-24-0019) ]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE TWO, DIVISION 13, MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT. ARTICLE FOUR, DIVISION FOUR, SECTION 4.4.3 NONRESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY PARKING PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE FOUR. DIVISION EIGHT NON RESIDENTIAL AND MULTIFAMILY DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN OF PROSPER. ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THIS IS CASE ZONE DASH 24. DASH 0019.THANK YOU. COMMISSION MAY RECALL THAT WE HAD AN ITEM VERY SIMILAR TO THIS ABOUT PROBABLY 5 OR 6 MONTHS AGO NOW. THIS SAYS NOVEMBER OF 23. LONGER THAN I THOUGHT THAT WAS WAS DEALING WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTIFAMILY ORDINANCE, IT WENT THROUGH P AND Z, A COUPLE OF DISCUSSION THAT RESULTED. I WILL SAY IN WHEN IT WENT TO COUNCIL, I THINK THERE WERE SOME ITEMS AND ISSUES THAT HAD BEEN RAISED THAT CAUSED THE COUNCIL TO HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN AND TABLED IT ONCE, YOU KNOW. YEAH, TABLED IT ONCE AND BROUGHT IT BACK AND TABLED IT AGAIN AND STILL HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE RIGHT BUTTONS, SO TO SPEAK, TO GET PAST THE CONCERNS. AND SO WE PUT IT ON THE TABLE SOMEWHAT INDEFINITELY, YOU KNOW, AND WE HAD SINCE DONE SEVERAL OTHER THINGS. AND ON OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BEEN WORKING ON. OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAD COME THROUGH AND FINALLY GOT TO THE POINT TO WHERE COUNCIL ASKED, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS THIS? CAN WE BRING IT BACK? AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED. IT IS NOW BACK BEFORE YOU, THERE WERE AT THE TIME IT IT WENT THROUGH THERE WERE THE FIRST TIME IT WENT THROUGH WITH, WITH P AND Z ON THE WAY TO COUNCIL, THERE WERE BASICALLY 12 MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE PUT FORTH THAT WERE CHANGES FROM WHAT OUR EXISTING MULTIFAMILY ORDINANCE IS. THE BY RIGHT DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND ALL THE VARIOUS TYPES THAT THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE YEARS. THIS WAS JUST A STRAIGHT BY RIGHT MULTIFAMILY ORDINANCE, WHICH FRANKLY, WE DON'T TEND TO USE
[00:05:05]
MUCH ANYMORE ANYWAY. BUT AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE, THESE WERE ALL BROUGHT FORTH AND I CAN READ THROUGH THEM IF YOU'D LIKE. Y'ALL CAN READ. I THINK YOU PRETTY MUCH KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, AND THE STICKING POINTS. AND THIS IS JUST THE RED LINE VERSION OF ALL OF THEM. AND LET'S SEE. THE TWO CHANGES WELL, THEY'RE NOT HERE. OH MY BAD. I'M SORRY. THERE WE GO. SO THE TWO ISSUES THAT WERE OF CONCERN WAS IN THE FIRST GO ROUND, WE HAD SET A CAP OF 50 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH CAME FROM THE TOLLWAY MASTER PLAN THAT HAD BEEN DONE SEVERAL YEARS AGO. AND THERE WAS CONCERN WHEN IT GOT TO THE COUNCIL THAT PERHAPS THAT WAS GOING TO CREATE SOME UNFORESEEN CONSEQUENCES ABOUT THE PREVIOUS PDS THAT HAD BEEN PLANNED, DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED BACK IN THE MID 2000 THAT HAD CAPS OF 18 UNITS PER ACRE. IF WE, BECAUSE OF THE REFERENCE TO THE EXISTING ORDINANCE AT THE TIME, THAT IF WE CHANGED IT TO 50, THEN IT WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR THOSE 18 TO THEN MOVE UP TO THE 50. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY, IN FACT, HAPPEN FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. BUT THE CONCERN WAS THERE. THE POSSIBILITY WAS THERE, AND THAT WAS ENOUGH TO CAUSE THE COUNCIL TO WANT TO FIX THAT TO WHERE IT DIDN'T BECOME A PROBLEM AT ALL. AND KIND OF A SECOND PIECE OF, OF THAT SAME TOPIC WAS THE NUMBER TWO HERE, WHICH WOULD ADD A STATEMENT THAT SAYS ANY PD THAT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW WHATEVER REGULATIONS WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT PD WAS APPROVED, MEANING IF THERE WAS A PD APPROVED IN 2005, THAT WHATEVER THE ORDINANCE STATED, DEALING WITH THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLIED WITH. THE BAD ENGLISH I'M SORRY. AND IN THAT CASE, WHAT THAT MEANS WAS THE 18 UNITS PER ACRE, BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WAS IN THE MULTIFAMILY ORDINANCE. THAT WOULD BE THE BY RIGHT. AND THAT WOULD THEREFORE BE THE FALLBACK FOR WHAT THE PD STATED IF IT WAS SILENT AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY, ANY, OTHER THAN 18, WHICH IS WHAT THE ONES HAD. SO WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE TWO AND THE PREVIOUS 12, WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT WE HAVE WHAT WAS INTENDED WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS PROCESS, WHICH WAS TO STRENGTHEN OUR MULTIFAMILY ORDINANCE, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT THE TOWN DESIRED AS FAR AS ANY POTENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY. AND SO WE'VE NOW BROUGHT IT BACK TO YOU ALL. OBVIOUSLY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR WE WOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT IT HERE, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. IF I'VE CONFUSED YOU, FEEL FREE TO ASK ME TO RESTATE SOMETHING. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S UP TO YOU ALL TO LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. WELL, LET'S GET IT STARTED HERE. I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION, DAVID, AND GETTING THIS TO US. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE OVER TEN DAYS PLUS BEFORE THIS MEETING. ALMOST TWO WEEKS. SO THAT THAT'S HELPFUL. AND IT'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK TO GET HERE. AND I APPRECIATE THE STAFF THAT'S DONE THAT. SO I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR THE COMMISSIONERS. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I KNOW EVERYBODY'S HAD A TIME TO REVIEW THIS, AND SO FEEL FREE TO OPEN UP BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ONE ITEM, ON ATTACHMENT ONE ITEM H, YOU KNOW, IN REVIEW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE PUTTING SOME GOOD STANDARDS IN. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT WORK HERE. SO LOVE, LOVE WHERE WE'RE AT. THE ONE ONE THING I MIGHT PROPOSE FOR CONVERSATION IS, THE BUILDING CONFIGURATION TALKS ABOUT MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES THAT ARE A WRAP CONFIGURATION BEING COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE[00:10:02]
EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. I THINK WITH THE HEIGHT OF ALLOWING UP TO EIGHT STORIES, I THINK THAT THAT COULD WARRANT SOME CREATIVE SOLUTIONS, THAT THAT MAY NOT BE A FULL WRAP OR MORE LIKE A PODIUM. AND SO I MIGHT SAY IF WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN ENTERTAINING AN OPTION THAT WOULD SAY, MAYBE ADD TO THE END OF THAT, YOU KNOW, OR A FULLY CLAD GARAGE TO DISGUISE IT, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. I THINK THE INTENT IS THAT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE THEM LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, BIG UGLY GARAGES PER SE TO SUPPORT THE WRAPS. BUT OR THE MULTIFAMILY. SO I FEEL LIKE WE MAY BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO. IF WE COULD ADD SOME LANGUAGE THAT JUST SAYS, YOU KNOW, IN THE EVENT THAT THE GARAGE IS NOT FULLY SURROUNDED, AS IT STATES, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS FULLY CLAD TO WHERE IT GAVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE REST OF THE FACADE, I THINK THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO KIND OF ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO, BUT GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT OF LATITUDE FOR THE BEST CONFIGURATION. YES, SIR. I BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE, COMMISSION IS OKAY WITH THAT. WE WILL DO THAT. AND THANKS FOR CATCHING THAT. THAT WAS I WAS THE INTENT.WE JUST DIDN'T DO IT VERY WELL. I WOULD I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT WHICH I THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF, THAT. I ALSO THINK THAT AFFECTS SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S ON IN ARTICLE FOUR PARAGRAPH. YOU THE FIRST SENTENCE IF WE MAKE IF WE AGREE TO THAT CHANGE, THEN IT NEEDS TO BE THAT FIRST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH. HE NEEDS TO BE FIXED ALSO. YEP WHAT WAS THAT? I'M SORRY COMMISSIONER, THE NEXT SLIDE. GO TO WHAT? YOU'RE THAT THE OTHER WAY. THERE YOU GO. NO, NO, IT'S THE NEXT ONE. OH IT SHOULD BE AFTER THERE'S A THERE'S A PARAGRAPH YOU AFTER THAT IF YOU IT'S NOT SHOWING THE OTHER WAY. OH YOU WON'T GET IT. IT'S NOT THERE OKAY. IT'S 13. WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I AGREE. YEAH I HAVE IT HERE. I DON'T HAVE IT UP THERE. SO YES, WE WILL FIX IT THERE TOO.
QUESTION FOR YOU DAVID. BACK IN NOVEMBER, WHEN THE PNC APPROVED, APPROVED THIS, WAS IT UNANIMOUS.
YOU KNOW, I DO NOT REMEMBER. WAS IT UNANIMOUS? I BELIEVE IT WAS. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THIS IS JUST MORE FOR CLARIFICATION. I LIKE THAT WE GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY ON ITEM I THAT THE FIRST FLOOR COULD BE A RESIDENTIAL OR RETAIL USE. I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD THING. THE EXACT AMOUNT. I MEAN I THINK THAT THAT WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, BUT I THINK ANYTIME YOU CAN DO A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A MIXED USE, IT'S PROBABLY A BETTER, BETTER SITUATION FOR THE RESIDENTS. IT SAYS THEY MAY BE IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DISCUSSED DURING THE PD PHASE AS TO WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO SEE OR LIKE TO SEE, OR WHAT THEY MAY PROPOSE? WE'RE JUST ALLOWING IT BASICALLY IN. THAT'S CORRECT. YES. AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE THOUGHT IS THAT THE BULK OF THEM IN IT, IT'S WHAT WAS DONE IN THE FIRST COUPLE THAT THAT HAVE BEEN. APPROVED WAS TO HAVE THAT RETAIL ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND EVEN IF THE DEVELOPER CAME IN AND SAID, LOOK, THE PUTTING THE RETAIL ON THE FIRST FLOOR IS REALLY EASIER AT THE END AS OPPOSED TO THE BEGINNING. THEN THEY COULD RENT IT IN. I KNOW IT HAPPENS A LOT IN FRISCO. THEY CAN RENT THEM AS A MULTI-FAMILY WHILE THEY'RE FILLING UP AND COMPLETING CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN COME BACK AS THE LEASES GO OUT. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK COULD BE DISCUSSED. IF THERE'S TIME LIMITS OR AGREEMENTS TO DO THAT BY PNC AND COUNCIL, AS THE PROCESS GOES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS POINT? OKAY. FLAT ROOFED I SO APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION. I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR AND ASK THAT IF THERE ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR THIS EVENING, PLEASE COME FORWARD. AND IF NOT. AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE IS, I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, AND I'LL TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR ANY DISCUSSION. CONSULTATION AND OR ANY MOTIONS WE MAY HAVE. I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE DO HAVE A MOTION HERE, THAT WE MAKE SURE TO GET THAT WORDING CORRECT ON THAT CHANGE, THAT COMMISSIONER CARSON NOTED IN THOSE TWO SECTIONS. AND
[00:15:01]
COMMISSIONER BLAND SAID, AS WELL. BUT IN BOTH THE SECTION YOU AND SECTION H. I'D MOTION TO APPROVE, I LOST THE ITEM NUMBER. SORRY. ITEM ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WITH TWO MODIFICATIONS, ONE ON PAGE 12. ITEM NUMBER H, AD TO THE TO THE END OF THAT, A LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SUPPORT OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT OF OR FULLY CLADDING GARAGE TO MATCH THE FACADE ABOVE. AND THAT WOULD ALSO NEED TO GO IN ITEM U UNDER 4.4.3. OKAY SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FROM COMMISSIONER CARSON. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER BLANSETT. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR WITH THOSE, NOTATIONS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND THE MOTION CARRIES 6 TO 0. AND APPROVAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE[5. Review actions taken by the Town Council and possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting. ]
THIS EVENING IS REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, KIND OF UPDATE, REVIEW ACTIONS BY TOWN COUNCIL OR DIRECT TOWN STAFF TO SCHEDULE TOPICS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT, SO AT THE PREVIOUS TOWN COUNCIL MEETING, LAST TUESDAY ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WAS THE NOTICE OF APPEAL.ON THE REGULAR AGENDA WAS THE HISTORIC TREE REMOVALS FOR LEGACY GARDENS AND WANDERING CREEK, THAT WAS APPROVED AS WELL AS THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS ALSO APPROVED. FOR THE UPCOMING TOWN COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT TUESDAY, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA ITEM. IT'S GOING TO BE THE NOTICE OF APPEALS, WHICH I GUESS THERE WOULDN'T BE A NOTICE OF APPEAL SINCE THERE'S NO SITE PLANS OR PSPS APPROVED, AND THEN THIS MULTIFAMILY ORDINANCE THAT YOU SAW HERE TONIGHT, AND THEN FOR THE UPCOMING PNC MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER 3RD, WORK SESSION AT FIVE, REGULAR MEETING AT SIX, UPCOMING ZONING CASES. THE AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 59. THAT IS FOR THE LOCATION OF A SCREENING WALL AT TWIN CREEK ESTATES. ESSENTIALLY, THE LANDSCAPING IS SUPPOSED TO GO LANDSCAPING, SCREENING WALL AND THEN YOUR HOMES, BUT THEY HAVE IT IN REVERSE TO WHERE THEIR SCREEN WALL IS IN FRONT OF THEIR LANDSCAPING. AND SO IT'S JUST AN AMENDMENT TO THE PD TO ALLOW FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THAT WALL, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT, THAT CASE HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED YET, BUT IT JUST HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE THIRD. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE YOU GUYS AWARE OF THAT. AND LASTLY, I BROUGHT UP THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THAT HAS BEEN PUSHED BACK TO OCTOBER, I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT BEING FOR OUR NEXT MEETING, BUT THAT WILL BE IN OCTOBER, SO THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? YES I THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ACTUALLY WAS NOT APPROVED. IT WAS THE CONTRACT FOR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WAS APPROVED. AND WHAT THAT IS, IS A PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH. I'M NOT SURE WE'VE ACTUALLY EXPLAINED IT TO YOU ALL YET, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH OUR ALL OF OUR CODES.
BUT PRIMARILY OUR ZONING AND OUR SUBDIVISION AND OUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, YOU ALL ARE PROBABLY AWARE IN OUR ZONING, WE HAVE NUMEROUS ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WE NEVER USE, AND WE HAVE THE SAME ZONING DISTRICTS THAT HAVE PERMITTED USES THAT WE GENERALLY DON'T LIKE. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS STRAIGHTENING THOSE OUT, GOING TO UPDATE ENGINEERING STANDARDS, PARK DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, NOT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARKS, BUT THE PART OF THE LIKE, TREE ORDINANCES, PARK DEDICATION, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS AS THEY DEAL WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURE AND ANYTHING ELSE. SOME OF THE BUILDING CODES WE'VE GOT THE SIGN REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THOSE. AND WHAT WE'LL WIND UP HAVING IS ALL OF OUR REGULATIONS WILL BE ALL OF OUR UPDATED REGULATIONS WILL BE IN ONE LOCATION, WHEREAS NOW THEY'RE SPREAD OUT ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND OUR CODES AND ORDINANCES. AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, YOU FIND SOMETHING ONE PLACE AND YOU THINK THAT'S IT. AND THAT MAY ONLY BE A PART OF IT, AND YOU DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER TO LOOK ANY BETTER. AND SO IT'S GOING TO BE A BETTER PROCESS FOR ESPECIALLY THAT WE'RE ALL ELECTRONIC NOW. ALL THE SUBMISSIONS COME IN ELECTRONIC. SO THERE IS NO PAPERWORK OR ANYTHING TO EXPLAIN THAT IF YOU DON'T FIND IT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING THROUGH. SO HAVING THAT IT'S GOING TO BE BETTER NOT ONLY FOR STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, BUT IT'S ALSO GOING TO BE MUCH BETTER FOR PEOPLE ON THE OUTSIDE TRYING TO DO DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS IT'S GOING TO UPDATE ALL OF OUR CODES AND ORDINANCES AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, WHICH WILL BE, WE
[00:20:04]
BELIEVE, A REAL GOOD THING TO HAPPEN. AND SO THE EXPECTATION IS THAT'S GOING TO TAKE ABOUT SIX MONTHS. AND WE'RE GOING TO USE FREESE AND NICHOLS TO HELP. YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE THAT YOU SAW IN THE UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLA, WITH SOME ADDITIONAL PEOPLE THAT DO DIFFERENT THINGS. OBVIOUSLY, SINCE IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME PROCESS, BUT THE FACT THAT THEY'RE SO FAMILIAR WITH THIS, THEY'RE ALSO THE ONES DOING OUR IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE UPDATE. SO HAVING SOMEBODY THAT KNOWS US THAT WELL AND KNOWS ALL OF OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE, IT'S GOING TO BE REAL HELPFUL FOR GOING THROUGH AND REVIEWING. AND THEY THEY DO SO MANY OF THESE FOR SO MANY CITIES AROUND THE STATE. WE WILL WITH THEM REVIEWING OURS AND HAVING KIND OF SEEING THE BEST OF THE BEST. AND WE'RE PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT WE'LL WIND UP WITH WITH SOMETHING POTENTIAL OF SOMETHING THAT WILL BE AS GOOD OR BETTER THAN ANYBODY WHO HAS AROUND. SO WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THAT. SO THAT PROCESS WILL START. YOU PROBABLY WON'T. THE FIRST THING THAT YOU'LL PROBABLY SEE FROM THEM WILL BE KIND OF LIKE A KICKOFF MEETING, KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE COMP PLAN. IT'S GOING TO TAKE US PROBABLY 3 OR 4 WEEKS TO GET ALL OUR DUCKS IN A ROW WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH AND START REDLINING THE AREAS THAT THEY WANT TO SPECIFICALLY LOOK AT AND MAKE CHANGES TO AND THEN WE'LL HIT THE GROUND RUNNING. IT'S NORMALLY A YEARS PROCESS, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE OUR WAY THROUGH TO GET IT DOWN TO SIX MONTHS SO WE CAN GET IT AND GET IT DONE. SO WE'RE REAL HAPPY ABOUT IT. HOPEFULLY I WILL BE TOO. YEAH WE'LL APPRECIATE THE UPDATE. YEAH COMMENT. YES, SIR.NO. SO YOUR LAST COMMENT YOU MADE BEFORE DAVID STARTED TALKING, WHERE IS IT AT? IT'S NOT ON HERE, BUT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE MEETING GETTING PUSHED BACK. PUSHED FROM SEPTEMBER TO OCTOBER? YEAH. THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I THINK. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT MONTH IT WAS THAT YOU GUYS SAT IN ON THAT, BUT IT'S JUST FOR THE IMPACT FEES.
ORIGINALLY, I THINK THE CONSULTANT SAID THAT THEY WERE TARGETING A DATE IN SEPTEMBER, SO THAT'S WHY I PUT IT ON THERE LAST TIME, BUT WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM, AND THEY SAID THAT THEY'RE TARGETING OCTOBER NOW, SO JUST A CHANGE ON THEIR SIDE. YEAH. JUST WANTED TO MAKE YOU GUYS AWARE OF THAT. NOW, DON'T WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING ON THE CALENDAR IN SEPTEMBER, WITH COUNCIL? YEAH. A JOINT WORK SESSION. AND WHAT, IT'S. AND WHAT IS THAT PERTAIN TO? IT'S NOT THIS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, IS IT? THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE. SEE? LIKE THE 17TH. I'M GOING OFF MEMORY HERE. SO, YEAH, IT IS, AND IT'S FOR THE, BLUE STAR ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. OKAY, SO THAT'S A STATEMENT TO PD, CORRECT? CORRECT. I THINK SO. THEN WE'LL HAVE OUR NORMAL REGULAR MEETING THAT DAY AS WELL. YEAH. AND I JUST KNOW THAT TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER THIRD IS THE DAY AFTER LABOR DAY. I DON'T KNOW, EVERYONE'S SCHEDULES, BUT I THINK AT THE LAST MEETING, EVERYONE SAID THAT THEY COULD BE IN ATTENDANCE AND WE MIGHT HAVE A NEW COMMISSIONER BY THEN. IS THAT I KNOW COUNCIL'S MEETING IN THE THURSDAY. I THINK THIS WEEK ACTUALLY THE 22ND TO REVIEW DIFFERENT COMMISSIONS AND WHATNOT. HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING ON THAT? I PERSONALLY HAVEN'T, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF DAVID HAS. I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BE ON THIS NEXT TUESDAY'S AGENDA THAT WAS THE LAST I HEARD. BUT IF IT'S NOT THERE, I APOLOGIZE. BUT THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD, AND THEN MAYBE THEY NAME THEM ON THAT. AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE SOMEBODY ON THE THIRD. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? IF NOT, ITEM NUMBER SIX, TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MOTION THAT WE ADJOURN. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JACKSON, WHO'S OUR SECOND? SECOND, COMMISSIONER HARRIS, A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO ADJOURN. AND THE MOTION CARRIES 6 TO 0. WE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.