FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30

Transcription

1 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 THE FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON THE 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2011, IN THE FLOWER MOUND TOWN HALL, LOCATED AT 2121 CROSS TIMBERS ROAD IN THE TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, COUNTY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AT 6:30 PM The Planning & Zoning Commission met in a regular session and work session with the following members present: Nick Hollingshad Chairman Tom Goss Vice Chairman Crystal Levonius Commissioner, Place 2 Dennis McKaige Commissioner, Place 5 Mike McCall Commissioner, Place 6 Jeff Whittaker Commissioner, Place 7 Mellany Lamb Commissioner, Place 8 Jim Ward Commissioner, Place 9 Constituting a quorum with the following members absent: Bjorn Vandug Commissioner, Place 4 Places 8 and 9 of the Commission do not vote on items unless they sit in place of one of the regular members, Places 1-7.) And the following members of Town staff present: Melissa Northern Alan Lathrom Doug Powell Edith Marvin Tommy Dalton Cindi Price Town Council Liaison Town Attorney Executive Director of Development Services Town Engineer Planning Manager Administrative Assistant A. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION Chairman Hollingshad called the regular session to order at 6:30 p.m. B. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Levonius led the invocation. Commissioner Ward led the Pledge of Allegiance. C. CITIZENS/VISITORS COMMENTS There were none.

2 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 D. COMMISSION MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Whittaker said as a member of the Texas Health Resource Presbyterian Hospital of Flower Mound s Board of Governors, he had reported many times theoretically on the virtues of the hospital. Now he could report as a voice of experience on what a great benefit they were to the community and what a great service they provided. His wife took a fall on Friday and broke her leg. She was now a patient of the hospital, so he could speak of the benefits of their doctors and nurses, and also the benefits of the Orthopedic Associates who were coming up just down the road. In two weeks he expected to be able to report on Continuum Rehabilitation Hospital and the great things they did, as well. Commissioner Lamb said early voting was taking place on Tuesday from 7 am to 7 pm at the Police and Court building at 4150 Kirkpatrick, and then the election was Saturday, May 14, from 7 am to 7 pm. She asked everyone to support Jeff Whittaker. E. REGULAR ITEMS 1. Consider approval of the minutes of the April 25, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Session and Work Session. Commissioner Deliberation Commissioner McKaige moved to approve the minutes of the April 25, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Session and Work Session as presented. Commissioner McCall seconded the motion. VOTE ON THE MOTION AYES: Whittaker, McCall, Levonius, McKaige NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Goss, Ward ABSENT: Vandug The motion passed with a vote of Consider a request for a Record Plat (RC Terracina, Phase 1) to create a residential subdivision. The property is generally located on the west side of Chinn Chapel Road and north of Justin Road. Staff Presentation Tommy Dalton, Planning Manager, said the property was master-planned for low density residential and zoned PD-111 with SF-15 uses. The development plan was approved by the Town Council. This record plat was for the first phase of development. The landscaping was in conformance with the development plan and the Town s regulations. The detention pond was included with the first phase.

3 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Questions and Answers Commissioner McKaige said in prior visits to this project, the gas well was of interest. He asked for an update on its status. Mr. Dalton said there were no gas well applications on the property. There was a lease, but he did not know its status or what the future might hold. Kyle Hogue, G & A Consultants, Inc., Lewisville Mr. Hogue said they were waiting for the force majeure period to expire, which started at the beginning of the moratorium. They understood that to be September 23. To their knowledge, Red Oak was not looking to extend or anything, just waiting for it to expire. It might not even be on the plat when they came in with Phase 2. Commissioner McKaige said it was an unusual, complicated case. He asked what would happen if they approved a record plat and then, worst-case scenario, Red Oak wanted to do something. Mr. Hogue said he was not sure. Right now no application could be made. Mr. Dalton said once the record plat was filed, and the moratorium was lifted and new rules were in place, any application for gas well development would have to deal with new construction and setback issues, but he would defer to the Town Attorney on that. Alan Lathrom, Town Attorney, said that was correct. Currently no application was pending, so they would have to see what happened with the Oil and Gas Advisory Board recommendations, and then look at where they were at the point that any application might come in for a gas well at this location. They would be required to conform to the requirements of the oil and gas ordinance. Commissioner Lamb asked who the builder was going to be. Ross Calhoun, Centurian American Development Group, Dallas Mr. Calhoun said Toll Brothers. To comment on the gas well, they would not renew their option, and their company and Toll Brothers would be delighted for them to go away. Commissioner Whittaker asked how many rooftops in the project. Mr. Calhoun said 138 total, 49 first phase. Commissioner Whittaker asked when they expected to break ground.

4 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Mr. Calhoun said they would try to start immediately. Commission Deliberation Commissioner Whittaker moved to approve a request for a Record Plat (RC Terracina, Phase 1) to create a residential subdivision. Commissioner McCall seconded the motion. VOTE ON THE MOTION AYES: McKaige, Ward, Levonius, Goss, McCall, Whittaker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Vandug The motion passed with a vote of 6-0. F. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner McKaige made a motion to adjourn the regular meeting, and Commissioner McCall seconded the motion. All were in favor. Chairman Hollingshad adjourned the regular meeting at 6:41 p.m. i. WORK SESSION 6:42 p.m. Presenter Purpose a. Presentation and discussion regarding types of development applications and the regulations and practice related thereto, including the Town s development review and approval process. Tommy Dalton, Planning Manager The purpose of this work session item was to provide the Commission with an overview of the various development applications and the processes behind them. It was explained that staff had worked with the Chair and Vice Chair to come up with a schedule of work session topics they could bring forward to the Commission when time permitted. This was part of the Planning 101 series. The following presentation was provided:

5 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Introduction Applications and Process Planning and Zoning Commission May 9, 2011 Examine the Town s s various development applications and the review process Application Types Plans Review Process Documents Construction Applications and Process Pre-Application Application Formal Review Pre-app meetings DRC Review ECC, PALS, P&Z, Council Land Use Zoning Development Plan Plat Site Plan Public Improvements Building Permit Residential Y Y Y Y Y Y Non-Res Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1

6 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Types of Applications Types of Applications 1. Land Development Regulation Amendment (LDR) 2. Master Plan amendment (MPA) 3. Zoning amendment (Z) 4. Zoning PD (ZPD) 5. Specific Use Permit (SUP or SUP/SP) (with or without site plan) May also be processed in conjunction with a Zoning PD 6. Development Plan (DP) 7. Record Plat (RC) 8. Minor Record Plat (MR) 9. Amended Plat (AP) 10. Replat (RP) 11. Site Plan (SP) Land Development Regulation Amendment Master Plan amendment Zoning PD SUP Plats Development Plan Record Plat Minor Record Plat Amended Plat Replat Site Plan The Application Applications 2

7 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Land Development Regulation Amendment Any text amendment to the LDR Initiated by the Town Approved by Town Council after recommendation from P&Z Requires newspaper notification only Master Plan Amendment Based on Community values Text Any text amendment to the Master Plan Can be associated with Land Use amendment Initiated by the Town or Developer / owner Land Use A change in the existing land use Initiated by the Town or Developer Component Usually associated with complete updates to a specific component Initiated by the Town Approved by Town Council after recommendation from P&Z Requires newspaper notification, property owner notification, and notification signs Zoning Amendment Based on Master Plan Compatibility with adjacent uses Land Development Regulations Straight Zoning Change the Zoning Map initiated by Town or developer / owner Planned Development District (PD) Change in the Zoning Map to create a PD Typically initiated by a developer / owner Approved by Town Council after recommendation from P&Z Requires newspaper notification, property owner notification, and notification signs 3

8 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Specific Use Permit Based on Master Plan Compatibility with adjacent uses Land Development Regulations Without a Site Plan Consideration of a use within an existing building which may or not be appropriate considering adjacency and other factors Change to the Zoning Map Typically initiated by developer / owner With a Site Plan Consideration of a use with new development which may or not be appropriate considering adjacency and other factors Change to the Zoning Map Typically initiated by developer / owner Approved by Town Council after recommendation from P&Z Requires newspaper notification, property owner notification, and d notification signs Development Plan Based on Land Development Regulations Predominately residential Typically initiated by developer / owner Approved by Town Council after recommendation by P&Z No notice Based on Land Development Regulations Record Plat Original plat Initiated by Town or developer / owner Approved by P&Z No notice Re-plat Subsequent plat Initiated by Town or developer / owner Approved by P&Z Notice required for residential re-plats Minor Plat Original plat of four or fewer lots Only if no infrastructure improvements required Initiated by Town or developer / owner Approved by Town Manager No notice Amended Plat Amendment to original plat Essentially used to correct scriveners errors Initiated by Town or Developer / owner Approved by Town Manager No notice Plats 4

9 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Site Plan Based on Land Development Regulations Master Plan (SPAs( & UDP) Commercial and Multi-family Site Plan (No waivers or exceptions) Initiated by Town or Developer Approved by P&Z Site Plan (with waivers or exceptions) Initiated by Town or Developer Approved by Town Council after recommendation by P&Z Plans Plans by Application Plan Components Master Plan Amendment Boundary survey Tree Survey Exhibit depicting location of land uses Straight Zoning Boundary Survey Tree Survey Exhibit depicting location of zoning districts PD Boundary Survey Tree Survey Exhibit depicting location of zoning districts Concept Site Plan Concept Landscape Plan Concept Elevations Conceptual engineering as applicable Development Plan Boundary survey Tree Survey Preliminary layout Preliminary Engineering Plans Utility Drainage Plats Boundary survey Tree Survey Plat Full construction plans Site Plans Boundary Survey Tree Survey Site Plan Landscape Plan Construction Plans Elevations Graphic Exhibit Legend Legal Description Tables Notes Surveyor / Engineering Firm Information Owner Information Title Block 5

10 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Boundary Survey Tree Survey Master Plan / Zoning Exhibit Master Plan Exhibit Purpose Legally describe the area to be changed Graphically depict area to be changed Note change 6

11 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Zoning Exhibit Zoning PD - Concept Plans PD Package Zoning Exhibit Concept Site Plan Concept Landscape Plan Tree Survey Concept Elevations Conceptual Engineering as applicable Purpose Graphically depict intent to meet Town Code Graphically depict areas to be developed ingress and egress to the property, private streets or drives, parking spaces, height of building, maximum lot coverage, yards and open spaces, screening walls or fences, landscaping, other development and protective requirements Concept Plan (PD-49) Concept Plan (PD 113) 7

12 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Concept Landscape Plan (PD 113) Concept Plan (PD 103) Concept Plan (PD 103) Concept Landscape Plan (PD 103) 8

13 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Concept Elevations (PD 103) Concept Plans - Other Development Standards Renderings Other details Development Plan Development Plan Development Plan Package Preliminary Layout Landscaping Tree Survey Preliminary Engineering Plans Purpose Intended to show all the planning factors necessary to enable the proper town approving authorities to determine whether the proposed plan for land development is satisfactory from the standpoint of public health, safety and welfare and is in accordance with the general guidance provided by the comprehensive master plan. The development plan and its review are intended to produce a subdivision design in which all planning factors have been recognized and reconciled, as distinguished from the record plat, in which the engineering factor of dimensional precision is the predominant objective. 9

14 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Development Plan Development Plan Preliminary Utility Plan (Water and Sewer) Plats Plat Residential Plat Package Boundary survey Tree survey Plat Landscape Plans Construction plans Purpose Legal description of real property Infrastructure expansion / improvements Dimensional control / precision 10

15 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Plat Commercial Site Plans Site Plan Package Site Plan Landscape Plan Tree Survey Elevations Construction plans Purpose Depict all site improvements Depict landscape improvements Depict building elevations Site Plan Concept Plan v. Site Plan 11

16 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Landscape Plan Elevations Concept Plan v Site Plan Review Process 12

17 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Regulations Master Plan Urban Design Standards SMARTGrowth Program Code of Ordinances Zoning Regulations Subdivision Regulations Engineering Standards Building Code & Fire Code Planned Dev. Stnds.. (As applicable) Development Groups Executive Development Team (EDT) Development Review Committee (DRC) Planning & Zoning Commission Town Council Board of Adjustment (BOA) Executive Development Team DRC Members Executive Development Team (EDT) meetings are intended to provide a forum for the discussion of development related topics and issues. Unique to the Town of Flower Mound, this group provides feedback and direction regarding development applications. The EDT provides policy input on such issues, while the technical requirements of a development application will be reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The EDT meetings are not intended to grant approval of projects or issues, any development applications will have to be processed through the DRC for technical compliance and subsequently approved by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or Town Council. Planning Services Engineering Services Fire Administration Building and Inspection Services Environmental Services Parks and Recreation Services 13

18 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 DRC Focus Review development applications for conformance to applicable Town codes prior to consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. Meet with applicants, developers, and citizens regarding development proposals. Development Review Process 14

19 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Documents Documents Plans Ordinances Development Agreements HOA Documents Agenda Items Ordinances Required for Master Plan Amendments Zoning Amendments Specific Use Permits Ordinance Components Caption Whereas Clauses Effective Sections Legal Description Boundary Exhibit Development Standards (as applicable) Concept Plans / Site Plans (as applicable) 15

20 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Ordinance Cross Timbers Village Development Agreements Legal Instrument Timing / Phasing Off-site improvements Mitigation Pro-rata rata Runs with the land Filed with County Binding on successors Approved by the Town Council Home Owners Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Land Mandatory since July 20, 1992 Predominantly Residential Processed in conjunction with Plats Reviewed by Town Attorney Filed in conjunction with Plat Agenda Item Caption, contact information, issue summary, draft motions History Master Plan components Zoning components Item review Environmental analysis (as applicable) Engineering Analysis (as applicable) SMARTGrowth Analysis Correspondence Attachments Vicinity Map Letter of Intent Background documentation (as applicable) SMARTGrowth documentation (as applicable) Development Plans Notifications and Correspondence (as applicable) 16

21 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Infrastructure Improvements Construction P&Z / TC Approved site plan (commercial) or record plat (residential) Plat signed and filed with County Finalize construction plans Signed by Engineer and Town Pay inspection fees Hold pre-constriction (pre-con) meeting with engineering Begin construction (inspections on-going) Accept public improvements Building Commercial Coordinated with infrastructure improvements Shell Finish out Residential Processed after infrastructure improvements accepted Exception for model home Town s s Process an Example Site Plan - Flower Mound Medical Village Existing platted commercial subdivision (North Point Center) Fire Lanes established Single 17,000 square foot single story building Existing utilities 17

22 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Time Line April 2010 August December April 2011 Six Months May 3, 2010: Site Plan Application July 26, 2010: P&Z Site Plan Approval Sep : Start Construction August 18, 2010: Building Permit Submitted Sep : Pre-Con October 14, 2010: Building Permit Issued April 4, 2011: CO Issued Acceptance of public improvements Elevations 18

23 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Developer v. Builder Developer s s Timing Developer Master Plan Zoning Plats Utility Roads Site Prep Builder Site Plan New Home Pre-Application Preparing Plans Meeting with Town (DRC / EDT) Meeting with affected neighbors Application Responding to comments Meeting with affected neighbors Studies (TIA, Flood, etc.) Construction Scale of project Financing Contractors / sub-contractors 19

24 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Applications and Process Planning and Zoning Commission May 9,

25 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Questions and Answers Vice Chairman Goss asked if the framework for the process was pretty standard with any town. Mr. Dalton said yes, with some nuances. One thing that made Flower Mound unique for plats and site plans was that they required the full construction plans to be submitted and accepted by the staff before coming to a P&Z meeting. In many communities their Planning and Zoning Commissions approved essentially concept site plans, with no reference to landscaping or elevations, and then all of the construction details were worked out at the back end by staff. Commissioner McKaige thanked him and said it was a difficult and confusing subject. The fees for traffic stood out, $2,500 versus $ He assumed that was driven by it being done out-of-house rather than in-house. Mr. Dalton said that fee was established with the adoption of the SMARTGrowth Program. He thought at the time they were using a third-party consultant. Edith Marvin, Town Engineer, said that was the fee when they outsourced previously. Town staff performed the function for a while, and determined the fee was appropriate for the amount of time it took to process the analysis, but now they were back to outsourcing again because of staff availability. Commissioner McKaige said from time to time there was a difference of opinion between commissions and councils. He asked him to take them through the mechanics of what happened if P&Z chose not to make a recommendation, made a negative recommendation, or tabled an item. Mr. Dalton said if a Master Plan amendment, zoning amendment, or SUP was recommended for denial by P&Z, the applicant had a right to appeal that decision to the Town Council, whereby it would take a supermajority vote to overturn P&Z s recommendation. For the rest of the development applications, like site plans and plats, as they had said many times, if they met the Town s Code, they were obligated to approve them. There was some discretion with a development plan, but not a lot of wiggle room with a record plat or even a site plan, although P&Z and Council had denied site plans on the basis of Urban Design components where they just were not fitting into the neighboring property. If denied, the applicant could appeal those to the Town Council, but he did not think it required a supermajority vote to overturn. The Commission typically had four motions they could take advantage of, two of which were provided in the staff report: 1) one to approve; 2) one to deny; 3) one to table; and 4) one to approve with conditions. Staff hoped that because their process was such that they were bringing complete site plans, development plans, and plats, there were not a lot of conditions to them. Many years ago, he had seen conditions such as meet the Town Code or meet the subdivision regulations, and there was a checklist of items they had to complete. They did not have to do that in the Town anymore, because by the time

26 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 it came to P&Z, their report was pretty clear about any outstanding issues or deficiencies from a Code standpoint. Commissioner McKaige said from time to time they heard from residents that they were not notified. They reminded them of the 200-foot rule, which he understood him to say flowed from state law. He asked whether it was possible on a case-by-case basis, depending on what was being considered, to expand that radius from 200 feet to say 500 feet to include more citizen feedback, or whether that would run afoul of setting precedence they did not want to set. Mr. Lathrom said the Town had the ability to establish additional notice requirements, but once those requirements were established, they became the requirement all the way across the board for their actions. The biggest problem they tended to run into was a situation where a property had changed hands recently because, under state law, the notice was provided to the owners of the property as listed on the most recently adopted tax roll. So, if there was a change in ownership since that roll was adopted, then the new owners would not get noticed; the previous owners would receive the property owner notification. That was why state law also provided for that backup protection of requiring the notification be posted in the newspaper. The Town had already gone beyond that in requiring that on certain land development cases a notice also be posted on the property itself, and that was a decision the Town had made to try and provide that extra safeguard to make sure people knew what was going on in the area in which they lived, worked, or played. Mr. Dalton added the certified tax roll was delivered to the Town once a year, so they dealt with trying to overcome the issue where somebody bought the property immediately after it was delivered, or it did not show up properly on the tax roll. Fortunately, the Town s practice, which was not mandatory by any law, was to also notify the HOA, in the hope that they could help push the information out to their neighbors. Also, it was Town policy to send both the property owner notifications and public hearing notices to the newspaper for both P&Z and Town Council for applications like Master Plan, zoning, etc. State law only required property owner notices for a P&Z meeting and public hearing notices for Town Council, but the Town did both for both meetings, which was above and beyond the state requirement. Commissioner McKaige said on the subject of elevations, they often got a piece of paper that said it was a west elevation or east elevation. He asked if that was looking to the west, or if the west was to their back. Mr. Dalton said depending on the architect, sometimes the elevation might say front, rear, side, etc., but if it gave a direction, it was the direction the elevation was facing or the direction looking from the building out. Commissioner McKaige asked if standards set in the PDs generally exceeded the Town s requirements, and whether The River Walk was an example of that.

27 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 Mr. Dalton said generally speaking yes, but The River Walk at Central Park was a completely different animal in terms of style, purpose, and intent. Part of it had been in a SPA with general office uses and part of it had not. From that standpoint, he would say it exceeded it, but there were too many layers to The River Walk to try to measure it to what the existing SPA might be. It would not be a fair comparison, because it really was apples to oranges. Commissioner McKaige said he was just looking forward to where the action was likely to be in terms of activity. It might take a little while, but they were going to see an awful lot of River Walk stuff. Last, he did not touch on 380 agreements under development agreements. He asked what he could tell them about those. Mr. Dalton said they did not deal with 380 agreements from a development application standpoint, only development agreements. The 380 agreements, like the ones in Lakeside, dealt with starting infrastructure to entice development, and were not associated with development proposals. Commissioner Whittaker said he was interested in the discussion that applications came in on Mondays, were reviewed on Tuesdays, and they were committed to getting Town comments back to the applicant within 10 days. He asked if staff kept score of the process from application to delivery of whatever was required for a project. Mr. Dalton said yes, they had the ability to track all of those milestones. Commissioner Whittaker asked how frequently they met their 10-day commitment. Mr. Dalton said that was part of their performance measure in their budget. When they started tracking it two years ago, they set a goal of 90%. The last number they turned in was at 97-98% on time. Rarely did they miss unless there were extenuating circumstances. Commissioner Whittaker said, so if he wanted to look back at their record and see the timeline for a project going from concept to construction, they would have that kind of record. Mr. Dalton said staff kept track from an internal standpoint of their performance. They did not actively look at the developer s performance, but could put together that information. From time to time there were questions about how long it was taking in the process, and they had done numerous timelines to illustrate staff s commitment to the 10-day timeframe versus how long it took the developer. Commissioner Whittaker asked if he got letters or comments from developers that he might call complaints about the length of the process. Mr. Dalton said not routinely. He had never personally received a letter from a developer that talked about the length of the process. Through the review

28 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 process, they were in constant communication about what needed to be done; the major issues that were outstanding; what were the public hearing dates they had to meet; when did they need to get their plans in to give staff enough time to review what they asked them to do and get them on an agenda; etc. That was the process, and what they spent their time doing every day, on the phone, through s, and in meetings. Commissioner Whittaker said if they were meeting that goal of 97% effectiveness, it sounded like they did a pretty good job of meeting the needs of the developers. Mr. Dalton said yes, in his opinion. That was part of their conversation with any developer. They told them the process and that they would get comments within 10 days. What happened after that could not be controlled or dictated by staff. They could call them up and beg them to resubmit, but they could not put the plans on their desk. Chairman Hollingshad asked if a decision by P&Z to table an item could be appealed to the Town Council. Mr. Lathrom said no. If the Commission wanted to table an item, he always recommended that they take it to a date certain, because it saved the Town from having to re-notice, send property owner notifications out again, and put it back in the newspaper. There was a presumption of state law that they had gone through that process once, and anyone who was interested in attending that meeting to hear that item discussed had the opportunity to be there. It would show back up on another agenda in conformance with the Open Meetings Act, so they would get that additional notice there, but it saved staff from going back through the process of re-noticing and saved the applicant the money of re-noticing. Chairman Hollingshad said he was aware of the notice part. He had trained them well to always do that if they tabled something. Mr. Lathrom added Mr. Dalton was right in identifying the different motions available to the Commission, but he recommended against approving anything conditionally, particularly when dealing with plats. From a platting perspective, state law was crafted so they had 30 days from the time the plat was received to either approve or disapprove it. If they approved a plat conditionally, it was approved, regardless of whatever conditions they sought to impose on it. So, if they did not like a plat, he recommended they disapprove it with conditions. That way, they met the requirements of state law. They acted on it and disapproved it within the 30 days. The applicant could go back and fix it, and they could make sure they had a completed project in their hands that they were satisfied with before granting approval or sending it forward with a recommendation to Council. Chairman Hollingshad said the reason this detail was so important was because this was that administerial function where the state law required them to

29 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 approve things that complied and take action within timeframes. It was not an area they had discretion in like they did when zoning and other things came before them. Mr. Lathrom said, and plats were the one area where they did not have the ability to continue. The applicant could ask that the plat be continued, and they would typically ask that they provide that request in writing, but the Town could not unilaterally table or require that the applicant table their plat and bring it back, because of that 30-day timeframe on the decision by P&Z and Town Council. Mayor Northern said there was financing involved in a lot of these projects, and a lot of times the Council heard from a business owner that there was a hold up. Usually what ended up happening was that they recommended the business owner meet with their developer and staff to see what the hold up was, and usually that resolved the issue, because the developer at times was not letting the property owner know that there were outstanding items on their side. So, sometimes she thought that was what they were hearing in the community, and there was not always that communication between the developer and the business owner. Mr. Dalton said that was a very good point. Aside from Town staff reviewing the development applications for conformance with all of the regulations, they spent a lot of time managing expectations of developers in terms of the process timing, because they had small timeframes, but again he thought staff had done a good job of meeting their commitment. Mr. Watson was in front of Council at a recent meeting talking about the retail climate, and he was questioned about the process. He had a lot of good things to say about it, but said some of the criticisms he heard were about the high standards in Flower Mound, which was what made Flower Mound what it was. So, they did not hear as many complaints necessarily about the process, but did hear a lot of reaction to what they had to do to build something quality and unique in the Town. Chairman Hollingshad said he sympathized because the developers had a tough job. They were trying to bring the stuff the Town needed together with their engineers and consultants that were doing work for them, and at the same time maybe dealing with a transaction to buy the land and the financing that went along with that. That was why the timing issues became so critical and so expensive. His experience in seeing how the planning team with the Town had evolved over the last few years was that there had been a lot of progress made, and they should be proud of that, because it seemed like all of the steps in the process at the Town s end were being done more efficiently and in a way that was responsive to what the developers were needing. Also, this presentation came about from discussions that he, Vice Chair Goss, Mr. Dalton, and Mr. Powell had over the months. Having a relatively new batch of commissioners, they were thinking back to some of the things it seemed like it took them a long time to learn that they could speed up the process for the people just coming on, and this was one of them. They hoped it would be useful to have it all explained in one context so they could see how it fit together. He thought the copy of the slides was a good cheat sheet to keep handy as things went along.

30 FLOWER MOUND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 9, of 30 [Chairman Hollingshad closed the work session at 7:49 p.m.] TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, TEXAS ATTEST: DOUGLAS S. POWELL, AICP Executive Director Development Services Cindi Price, Administrative Assistant