P2 biannual minor fixes to land development code
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Sep 26, 2019
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted — it is an image-only scan — so nothing in it is searchable here, but it reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Sep 26, 2019
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 40m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 81% of 156 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Thank you. We'll now move to um item P two. Whoops.
So item P two is uh the uh Biannual minor fixes that to the land development code. So I will read the ordinance title and go over the sections. This is an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, Section 303.6 Application Submittal and Acceptance, Section 303.7, Application Review, Section 402.1 zoning amendment Euclidean. two point two zoning amendment master plan unit development district
center section four oh two point three conditional uses section four oh two point four special exceptions section four three point one preliminary development plan residential section four three point five Uh construction plans, Section 403.10 Landscape Plan Adding New Section. Section 406.8 Garden Plan Permit. Section 522.9 Connected City Master Plan Unit Development District. Section 527 C3 Commercial Light Manufacturing District. Section 530 Community Gardens, Market Gardens and Community Farms. Section 603 Connected
City Stewardship District. Section 700 Subdivision and Platting Standards. Section 901.4 Substandard Roadway Analysis and Mitigation. Section 901.6 rather street design and dedication. Section 901.9, Street Naming and Addressing. Section 902.2, stormwater management requirements. Section 902 905.2, landscaping and buffering. Appendix A definitions and other sections as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, providing for severability.
Yes.
Don't have to say that at the local planning agency. Yeah, I just realized after I started. I just started I I just started.
I'm glad that you're in the habit, but you technically don't have to do it at LPA.
Yes. You did it well though. Thank you. So today uh we're here. Um this is again one of the uh uh biannual they used to be annual, but now it it looks like it's happening about two times a year. Minor fixes that we encounter uh based on different things. Um and as we go through them uh we will uh I will explain what the genesis of these uh proposed changes are. Um this uh this item was these items
were actually presented to uh to the horizontal round table and the interested parties meeting on August 21st, 2019 and on September 11, 2019.
So um the One of the things I should start by is that some of these changes are as a result of changes that occurred in the 2019 Florida legislative session. And you'll see that you'll see that as a theme throughout. So the first item is not one of those items, but we were notice we were noticing that we were not noticing applicants of substantial modifications, which are are is basically the same thing as a new master plan. So
we needed to or a new preliminary development plan or a preliminary site plan. So we wanted to add that in our table that we have to notice our um folks within five hundred feet or a thousand feet of any substantial modifications to preliminary site plans, preliminary development plans, and masquerading. So that was found as a um one of these uh um Items that we didn't pick up when we did the land development code rewrite in 2012. The following
few items are basically we're changing our procedures review timelines because our procedure review timelines are not consistent with Chapter 125.022 Florida statutes. So Chapter 125.022 Florida statutes basically in a nutshell, I'm not gonna go really dive deep into it, but basically says that if something is staff approved where it doesn't have to go to a public hearing from beginning of the submittal, To the end of the submittal, 120 days. If something
has to go to a public hearing from beginning to end, it's 180 days. So there are parts in our code that, for example, we allow the applicant, and and we've made these modifications to address that, we allow the applicant, in some cases, 180 days to return comments. Well, that would not be consistent with 125.022. So what we what we've done throughout the land development code where it talks about review timelines, we've basically stated that they are to be consistent with 125.022
Florida statute. So that those are the changes to 300 to 402.1, which is zoning amendment Euclidean, and some others throughout. So you'll see that as a theme throughout these changes. The following item is Uh change to four oh two and please stop me if you have a question. I I would appreciate that. The following item is 402.2 zoning amendment MPUD. So there was a um determination made by our
planning and development administrator last year that basically said, well, the comp plan doesn't necessarily mean the comp plan doesn't re necessarily state that if you are in a coastal high hazard area that you have to develop the property. It has to be an MPUD rezoning. So we wanted to modify 402.2. to state to add that catch where it's unless otherwise determined by the county administrator or designate, if you're in a coastal high hazard area, you don't necessarily
have to do a master plan. In 402.2 it states that anything in the coastal high hazard area requires a master plan.
Again, we we're gonna continue to see uh 402.2 zoning amendment MPUD to be consistent with 125.022 Florida statutes, 402.3 conditional uses, everywhere where we call out deadlines or timelines for review. It's to be consistent with one two one two five point zero two two. On four oh three point one we were seeing in our code that it should Site development permit doesn't happen all the time for every type of development. But we
also always have a development approval. So we wanted to change the word site development permit to development approval. It's just a modification of the terms.
four oh three point five this is all this is um a um uh in unintended consequence of when we did the last uh code amendment, which was I think thirty-four, we should have caught this, that when we um that projects that are uh that that qualify for an all-improvement plat In accordance with 700.2, don't require a construction plan is not required of those projects. So we wanted to include that in there. The following section 403.10,
it does say it's a new section, but it was actually pulled out as we looked at 905.2. The redevelopment landscaping was pulled out of 905.2 and just pushed in to 403.10 because it's the landscape plan requirements. Section four oh six point eight was changed um uh also something else that happened in the twenty nineteen Florida legislature that basically said that And that home gardens, vegetable gardens, I'm sure you remember some of those lawsuits a couple of years
ago, are permitted uses anywhere in any place that there is a residential dwelling. So we wanted to make our code consistent with 604.71.
Can I ask a quick question? What about HOAs that prevent these types of uh activities?
Um I would direct that to the county attorney. I don't believe that the HOA can prevent that anymore. Okay.
Sorry, I missed the question. What was the question?
Having a vegetable garden in the front of the house.
The chapter m allows for a homeowner to have a garden vegetable garden on their property. However, H O A. at least some of them prevent that from occurring. So my question would be
I don't typically advise HOAs, so I I don't know.
We'll look into that. Okay.
Okay, this next section uh 522.9. When the Connected City Master Plan Unit Development District was created, there were certain items that were not put that are within the regular land development code that did not get go into 522.9 Connected City Master Plan Unit Development District. So just recently someone wanted to do a modification to a submittal requirement. We were like, Well, you didn't request. that. So we want to put this back into the code where that we are allowed to modify submittal requirements for connected city
connected city master plan unit development districts.
Section 527 C3, this is just basically a legacy issue. In 2007, with the adoption of the comprehensive plan, there was a new land use that was COM C O M. So in that section, it doesn't say that people that properties that are COM commercial can seek C3 zoning, and that is something that should have been in the land development code since when it was rewritten in 2012. Section 530.23, it just clarifies when
a permit is required for community gardens and market gardens and community farms. This is as a result of the Food Policy Advisory Committee bringing back those comments. And currently it basically says you need permits for everything. Now it clarifies that you need a permit if you have a community garden with a structure, a market garden either with or without a structure, and community farms only with structures. Also that it adds language
consistent with 604.71, stating that a home garden or a vegetable vegetable garden is a principal permitted use in residential districts.
Section 603 Connected City Stewardship District, this basically adds, there's right now a cap of $150,000 to get planning fee credits. It adds
an opening that at the discretion of the county administrator or designee, the Connected City property owner member group, may go above the $150,000 annual limit.
Chapter 700, subdivision and plating standards. Again, this is to make it consistent with section 125.022 Florida statutes. Following 901.4 substandard roadway analysis, this is truly this here is a glitch. This should have always captured Euclidean zoning districts that generate more than 100 daily trips in the applicability section. It's actually elsewhere in the in the code, but it's not in the applicability section, and that should have always been in the applicability section. Section 901.6.E.5
roadside design. This comes from the Tampa Bay Builders Association because they're actually building smaller townhome projects. And the garage, the the the uh the actual driveway width to the garage, they they wanted it to be um more uh less wide. Right now our code, I believe, calls out like a minimum of 12 feet. And they wanted to reduce to nine. Section 901.9, street naming and addressing. This basically uh this is for our first responders.
Um We we understand that some folks like to have vanity names, but it cannot be used for the purposes of I if if the street ha already has a name Uh the the the secondary name, such as a vanity name, cannot be used for addressing purposes. It's very confusing to our first responders.
902.2 K, this is um this is something that's already, as you've probably seen, inside your MPUDs as a condition of approval. So we're just basically um um uh Placing it into the land development code that adds ex exceptions that do not impede drainage and setbacks, such as fences within drainage and s and fences within setbacks. And this is your standard language in the MPUD, so we're putting that into our stormwater management requirements. 902.2K,
this comes from the Tampa Bay Builders Association, to remove the requirement for gutters on type A drainage lots. 905.2, landscaping and buffering. This basically adds a note, and this is for clarity for the person who's reviewing the item. That um that clarifies that unless specifically stated in another section in the code, landscape buffers are from the zoning district or use whichever is the stricter of the two. Because sometimes you'll have a zoning district and you'll have a use.
The use is commercial, the zoning district may be residential, so we need to use the stricter of the two or vice versa. 905.2 landscaping and buffering, this is where I uh before 403.10 we added that new landscape section. So we pulled that language out of 900 that section in 905.2, put it into 403.10.
Can I ask you a question about that? I realize that's what you did. I guess my question is at the very end of that section It talks about simultaneous review or simultaneous submissions. Um Are you all still? Doing simultaneous submissions given the statutory
Change.
I mean 'cause
as far as I know, we're doing simultaneous submissions, yes.
Yes you are?
Simultaneous for site plans
and construction
plans, yes. Simultaneous
Landscaping. So so you you can live with the statutory deadlines even under a simultaneous submission Okay.
Yes, a simultaneous simultaneous submission is a preliminary site plan, the stormwater management plan, and reporting the construction plan happening all at once. So that's what a simultaneous submission is.
Correct.
Yes. Site plan. Yes. Yes. Okay. That answers my question.
Okay, and um on appendix A there's some uh changes to definitions. On uh the definition for water service facilities, we're inserting reclaim water storage and transmission facilities. um on the
We're defining the item in accordance with 604.71 so that the definitions are identical to the definition of the item in 604.71 Florida statute. And in appendix A definition, we're removing the word plan amendment from the definition of development order.
And that is all. I appreciate your this is a lot of a a lot to take in. Uh today we're asking you to find the proposed amendments consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
So Denise, I have a question that you probably can't answer, or probably need Mr. Richard to answer.
I'm fine with the change to add reclaimed underwater. But my question is Are you intending to make that prospective only or are you want to spend funds you've already collected
For wastewater on water.
Yes. So
Joe Richards, County Attorney's
Office. Um I'm fine with the change you made, which you put reclaimed into water. And not a little bit. So my question is Are you wanting to do this only on a going forward basis where only new funds you collect Could be spent for that purpose. Only new w or you want to s spend existing water impact fee on reclaimed?
I think that this would have to be a prospective change. And that's that's the intent.
going forward. I I'm okay either way, but if you want to make it retroactive, There's language that Denise is gonna have to put in the effective date section of this ordinance that Says that section that change is retroactive.
Okay.
So I You do y I'm okay either way, but there's language you have to add to the ordinance
Okay.
Otherwise this is gonna be deemed prospective.
All right, well I'll I'll discuss that with Denise and the utility department, see how they want to handle it. Okay. All right, thanks.
Okay, thank you for your attention and um here for any questions you may have.
Any questions? Have a motion then? Is there anybody from Barbara, do you want to speak? Oh.
Just normally so quiet. I know. Shocked me.
Barbara Wilheit, [address removed]. I don't know if that you all really heard what David was asking of Denise. Can you still do simultaneous submissions with comp plans and rezoning and plans? So the answer is no, which is a big change. So I have stacks of applications sitting in my office all around my conference room table because of this change. Staff have said their hands are tied because
of the ordinance, uh excuse me, the state law, but David's advised me it can be waived. So I'm just trying to figure out why I have stacks of applications of projects that need to get going sitting in my office because we don't have a way to waive that statute, and now we're telling people you have to wait, you have to do your comp play, and then your zoning, and then your plans. I have an economic development project, and they were told you have to wait until your MPUD is done before you can submit your plans. They'll expedite the plans once it's submitted. But that's really not the message that I really wanted to take to
that client when they sat down with the county. as an economic development project and we're told We can't you can no longer simultaneously submit because the state legislature thought they were trying to do something helpful for development, which was to reduce the time frames. And here in Pasco it's being implemented to increase the time frames. So I'm just disappointed in that result and that there isn't any other solution. It's hard to tell clients when they gasped before at how long it took to get something done that we're now extending the process here in Pasco County. So
I I wish I can't imagine because process is process, it's not physical, it's a thing, that there couldn't be a solution. But um I don't think one's been arrived at. And I'll also hear that maybe that legislation might be repealed. So I don't know what'll happen but I wanted to make sure I put that on the record because I'm I'm having a Talk to those clients about why their applications are stacked up in my office. Small scale comp one amendment waiting a month to submit it. A month it's been sitting there for under five acres. So thank you.
Barbara, what what what solution do you're offering?
I thought when I reached out to David and he advised, which I thought was the case too, that you can waive that statute, which is if I don't want to be under the statutory time frames and if I was happy with the county process Not anybody's ever happy with process, but at least we were working with the process and working together with staff To meet some reasonable time frames for these projects. I thought that was it. I was like, woo-hoo, we just waive it. You know, we can continue going on the process we had before. Then there was a bunch of explanations about Acela and and
w I don't know. It kinda hurt my head after that point and so I threw up my hands. I know I've had clients approach you know, that said asked me about it. I said, Well you go talk to Don and they've met with Don and Don's told 'em the same thing, there's nothing we can do. But um So I don't know, my I was a lawyer, wave it, but then apparently there's some other procedural issues. But I wanted to just bring this to your attention because it's impacting projects in Pasco County already.
Well I I understand what your concern is, but what I'm trying to get at is what can we do to res s resolve it.
So I think staff's gonna have to address that 'cause I actually don't think it's a legal issue. It's
Uh Victorio Spitos, Planning and Development Department Director. So what Barbara's referring to is the recent state law change with regard to H B 7103. And as Denise had mentioned earlier, the law established The new statute established 180 days for the review of MPUDs, well, for for items that go before public hearing, which is an MPUD in this case, in this example. And well we've taken a look at our timelines and we've said well
The average time that it takes a comprehensive plan amendment to currently move through the process right now from from LPA all the way to adoption and and ultimately to effective date is about eight months. And while we're working to reduce that time from eight months to six months, Uh you really can't guarantee that a comprehensive plan is going to be finished. in time for the MPUD to take effect, were the MPUD to be submitted simultaneously with a comprehensive plan. Uh because the
comprehensive plan is governed by the Growth Management Act, which is a whole different timeline that the state has established. So planning and developments response to the law change basically is to recommend to the development community That They project manage. the submittal of the comprehensive plan amendments and their MPUDs such that you bring in the comprehensive plan early enough, we get to a point where it's sufficiently
capable of standing on its own feet and we know the direction of where the comprehensive plan is gonna go. um what the land use change that they're doing where that's gonna go and then you bring in the submittal of the MPD. At that point it's a concurrent review. So we're not waiting for the comprehensive plan to actually make its way through the full process. um before we take in an MPUD and r we want to re uh look at it and review it. Um what this does, what this means substantially for the process itself is that Um
When we've figured out the direction of the comprehensive plan, you have whole information that can then be uh given over to the MPUD reviews to inform the development of the MPUD based on what the comprehensive plan is going to be directing. And at that point everything is working in sync. Previously, simultaneous reviews um often resulted in competing provisions between comprehensive plan amendments and MPUDs and there had to be a lot of Um Um
interaction between reviewers to make sure that everything was consistent between the two types of projects. Uh in this concurrent review, what you'll get is a complete package of comprehensive plan amendment information to inform the MPUD to make that complete to then bring those together to the LPA, to the Planning Commission, to the Board of County Commissioners at at the end.
Well Terry. Right now you said it's taken about eight months to run through the process. So If we do what you're so talking about doing, you're not waiting waiting till the end.
Does that eight months change?
Does it get shorter? It should, because a hundred and eighty days is what the M P U D um is allowed by state statute. So this is what would happen basically. You begin the comprehensive plan amendment and if we if you follow my proverbial line here, you begin the comprehensive plan amendment and as it is developed In the first two or three months, you di you determine what the direction of that amendment is. And then you're basically saying, Well, okay, so we're at a point where uh you can submit your MPUD, submit the M PUD, and then your 180 day
track begins. And so both items follow that 180 day track and end at the same time. 180 days is What was that? That is six months. So six months plus the two months. Yeah, so if you another way to say it a little bit more shorter is if we're we're targeting six months for comprehensive plan amendments, Which is for large scale camera. So it's i it's much faster than we've done it before. So that's our target. You build those hundred and eighty days. Uh for the MPUD into
that comprehensive plan amendment window. and the intent is to end together at the same time without losing time. Now, all projects are different, there's complications involved and the reviews um are also different. Sometimes an MPUD holds things back, sometimes a comprehensive plan amendment holds things back. But w what we don't want to happen is an M PUD begins And then it goes beyond the hundred and eighty days.
So David, what are you what's your
Well I mean the qu thing is clearly the statutory time frame is mandatory and my personal opinion is this was a Statutory change that the legislature didn't fully think through before they adopted it because it Clearly having unintended consequences. And maybe that's why Barbara's suggesting it may be repealed. Um That being said, the reason I don't consider this to be a legal issue is because while you have to follow the statute, there's clearly a provision that says Both parties may
agree to a reasonable request for an extension of time So the parties can agree, the county and the applicant can agree to extend all of these statutory Time frames. But It would require both parties to agree and I'm not sure. Whatever I'm hearing from Mr. Pitos and maybe Mr. Tippin is that the county's not willing to agree to those extensions because of the issues they just talked about. But I'll let The pride wants to weigh in.
Yeah, I just wanted uh Brad tip and planning development. Just wanted to uh add a little bit on the the bottom piece of what was talked about, the second part that Barbara mentioned. Um Which was the Acela issue. You know, we've made efforts to allow for electronic submittals and other things like that that benefit all of the people that are that are working with the county and submitting to the county. Part of the issue with the waiver is that our Acela process has to be programmed. We have to have
timelines programmed in there. So every small change that we might make on that can have an Exponential number of other reprogramming changes that have to occur. So to uh to basically start doing development by waiver uh becomes very very difficult both costly uh and also difficult simply to track for the people that are doing these reviews. Um so what we want to do is try to set up a a timeline that's consistent With the statute.
um that allows as much flexibility as we can to work with the development community to make sure all this stuff happens uh in a timely manner. Um to be able to do that, we're not really changing our review times. Uh we're not extending our review times the the stretching out of time was basically because the different processes had to be overlapped a little bit. or pulled apart. They were allowed to overlap before and they have to be pulled apart a little bit, like what Terry was explaining. Um when it comes to our side
review, our review starts Based on the standard county code, twenty we have to be done within twenty-one days. uh of that submittal being cleared, basically. Uh so if that MPUD stuff is not to a point where we can review towards it in twenty one days We can't really produce any kind of recommendation. in that timeline. So it just doesn't work with with the processes that are in place. And we uh we quite frankly been looking
at this for a while, haven't found any other real alternative other than possibly hopefully a repeal or some sort of a modification to the actual statute.
So I will point out though that's a good thing. What you're asked being asked to prove. be to approve today doesn't necessarily preclude what Barbara's asking for because it says either in accordance with the statute or the development manual
The development manual could have a process for a waiver process in it.
Correct.
You don't have one currently but there's n but this this change to the code isn't precluding you from Having a waiver process in the development manual, correct?
And that is the plan is to have a waiver process to be used in individual, unique, and needing circumstances rather than just as a matter of I'm submitting this and I want to waiver up front. Um that that's the kind of thing that when every applicant does that, it creates an issue for the Acela programming to be able to work and function the way it's supposed to function. function. So uh we're trying to find some alternatives. Say if you want a waiver instead of this process that we have in place here, this is the process
you can use and it will afford you This and we'll just have like kind of two set choices that you can choose from. Um so that's kind of where we're looking at going with the waiver. And you'll always have the waiver for in case something comes up in an emergency situation.
I know but what is your timing to do the the development manual part of this.
I bel I don't know as far as the language on the waiver and how we want to do the waiver because everybody is still discussing that. uh the standard timeline pieces of the puzzle. Uh for the most part we're taking the language out of the code uh that was pre existing, the ones that actually fit with the the time frames, uh and we're pulling those out and we're keeping that language. The ones that didn't, we're modifying so it it's a very short time to get to the the development.
No, I I get that you're having to do what you're doing to comply with state law. I'm just To address Barbara's concern, it sounds like Barbara's concern can be addressed in the development manual.
Right.
So
Whether it's here or in front of the board, when are you going to do it? Because it's a concern that needs to be addressed.
Yeah, I'm I'm hesitant to Pass something. Subject to us believing that there's gonna be a waiver process and then it never happens because there's no impetus for it to happen.
And what we're gonna do is exactly that, we're going to create a waiver process. The way it was written, it was extremely vague in the the House bill, just basically says that there can be a waiver by agreement. So we have to actually develop that process that works within a cella, and that's gonna that there are a number of things from an IT perspective and a programming of the software perspective as to how that plays out. So that's yeah I can't
necessarily put a day and say within thirty days we'll have that. Uh but that it we're actively working towards that and we will have that and the people that need something along those lines we'll work with them. to try and reach that. Um
what do y what do you think is a reasonable amount of time?
I can't even I can't necessarily speak to that. Uh like I said, the the majority of the information we have on the timelines, we have everything That's going to go into the development manual with the exception of the waiver process. So that's something that not only has to go through uh the IT and the Acela process to see how it plugs into our system, how it's going to affect the way our numbers are reported when they come out so they don't skew our data, and also goes through the County Attorney's Office
for Appropriateness and Compliance. So I mean there's quite a few variables there, but we are actively working on
I think the dilemma that staff has is the state law changed so effectively it superseded all of our code requirements anyway. I mean whether they make this change to the code or not. It'd be they're trying to make the code conform to state law, but When the legislature did that they basically threw out Whole sections of our code. And so I think so staff has to do something. Um But uh my point is delaying this is not gonna solve the problem. Because
you still have to comply with that state law anyway. Um
so what about uh what if the state law disappears?
If the state law disappears um But then we'd probably amend the code again. I mean to be honest.
We get mandates from the legislature every year. So That's why Denise is doing this twice a year is because half of those are because the legislature told us to do something differently. Just like the garden thing. Yeah. That was a state law change as well. So It's gonna happen.
Well one one thing to keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, is um the length of time it can take to do an MPUD, for example, as as we continue to use this example. Um some of the metrics that we have, the average amount of time is over two hundred days to do an MPUD. Um
Yes, the total di the average total days of review was 217 point three days to do a new MPUD. From start to finish. And that was probably with simultaneous reviews. And so we're asking what what is effectively being established by the state statutes and our code updates here is to get far enough along on the comprehensive plan amendment such that the MPUD itself can be the review of that can shrink from 217 days on average. Because some of them even
go longer. I I I think there were I think there was one that was over three hundred days. But um shrink that average down not just the average itself but overall all projects down to 180 days. So we should be getting faster at this. It should be Um uh creating efficiencies for us in the process. Um and I understand that The waiver d there is the discussion that we had with the waiver, but I I think understanding the the hard metrics too might give might give a little bit of a of a comfort zone for the planning
commission. Okay.
Well just for clarification though, comp plans and zoning can still run concurrently, right? So we'll still have m uh Occurrences where there's count plan amendments and zonings that are on the same agenda.
Yes.
But zoning and plans cannot. Zoning and site development plans cannot.
Well, two things there. There's two separate things. So conc concurrent review will still be possible. All we're saying is that you have to get far enough along in the comprehensive plan to ensure that your MPUD can meet that 180 day timeline. So you can still run the concurrent review on the comprehensive plan. When an MPUD is not involved and you're looking at a rezoning itself, Um we believe that you can do that simultaneously. So that if a developer were to come in and wants to build a site plan, uh a you know, let's say a commercial office center or something like that. and
they need to change the zoning to C two, for example. Um in that case, our staff has the hard facts within the code already to review that site plan against the C two zoning district regulations. So they can that we can be here running the the rezoning review as we normally would. And upstairs in current planning, they can be reviewing that site plan. The only thing that that site plan would be subject to is of course the approval of the rezoning itself. So
that that simultaneous review will will be able to uh continue. That's good.
Okay.
I understood it a little differently when it was presented.
Bless you. The only question I have is you said development manual. What what stage of is that in in being completed and what would be a projected date? And the other question I have to do is If Barbara indicated that she has a number of different projects on her as she said, her desk or whatever or Is are they all being held up based on these changes in state law? Is a question I
have or is some of those can be completed because Awesome.
I don't know if I made myself clear on that one. I'm just calling it.
Yes, and and it it it the answer is it depends. Um some of them would potentially be able to move forward. Like uh Terry was explaining, uh the primary issue in this uh when you're talking about simultaneous or concurrent submittals, either one. um is that with an MPUD, if a comp plan is changing uh you need to know the the what is most likely going to be the final outcome of that to be able to review, to begin review on the next level.
Same thing with an MPUD. When an MPUD uh you have conditions of approval. that are negotiated throughout the MPUD process. With the site plan review, from the time they submit it to the time we have to have our first comments out. uh is a very short period of time, basically a month. Uh it's a little bit more than that when you add everything up, but it's it's roughly roughly a month of time. So if you submit an MPUD and a site plan at the same time. Uh the
MPUD hasn't gotten to a stage where you know the final conditions yet and the site plan would already have to be issuing comments without the regulatory guidance to do so. Uh that's a different scenario with a Euclidean rezoning because a Euclidean rezoning we can simply put a disclaimer Uh in our approvals and our comments that say, oh, you know, you've requested that this be reviewed against C2 criteria and this is this is the comments because we have C2 criteria. We don't condition Euclidean rezoning, so there's nothing that's going to be
a very good idea. I heard my only I was trying to cut to the chase is if she has some projects that she would like to submit. But she has indicated that she cannot submit those. Is that a valid statement? And the other question I had and you haven't answered is this development manual. What what stage are you are you in and trying to complete that?
Okay. Uh like I said earlier, we have all of the timeline information uh is avail it's ready. It all we basically could do to create a uh development manual today. would be to staple all of that together. Uh the one piece of that puzzle that is missing currently is the waiver, uh, because we haven't had an opportunity to to work that we're still working on our standard Acela processes, um, and this is now something new that we're adding to the mix that we're trying to figure out
how to do. Uh so we have to work with the IT piece of the Acela for the timing of submissions and the automatic things that occur within Acella.
So are you looking at six months, a year, four months, twenty days? I I would
say
I'm fairly confident that we would be able to have the development manual done definitely within six months. Okay. And I would be hopeful for much sooner than that.
Okay.
Uh depends on what we hear it really depends back on the software issues. With a Cela.
That's going to be
a big deal.
Will you be taking the development manual to horizontal roundtable? Yes.
All right. Anything else? Ronda?
All right. Are there no other questions? I hear a motion.
I'll make a motion for approval.
Motion to approve, and for uh second. I'll second it. A motion and a second further discussion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? She carries.