Cleveland City Council

p. 579 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 8, 2024 3:00 P.M. MINUTE BOOK 31 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE MET IN A REGULAR SESSION THIS MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2024 AT 3:00 P.M. AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING PLACE IN THE CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL BUILDING. Present and presiding was Mayor Kevin Brooks. Also present were Vice Mayor Avery Johnson, Councilmen Bill Estes, David May, Tom Cassada, Dale Hughes, Ken Webb, and Councilwoman Marsha McKenzie. Others in attendance were City Manager Joe Fivas; Shawn McKay, Assistant City Manager/CFO; Sue Zius, Administrative Coordinator; Christy Brandon, Assistant City Clerk; City Attorney John Kimball; Police Chief Mark Gibson; Fire Chief Chris Bates; Chris Gaylor, Assistant IT Director; Seth Sumner, Transportation Planner; Tommy Myers, Public Works Director; Robert Varnell, Planning and Community Development Director; Tim Rader; Jodi Riggins; Cathy Andrews, CDBG Coordinator; Warbrit Lowery; Hal Taylor; Interim School Director Kelly Kiser and Tim Siniard with the Cleveland Daily Banner. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag, prayer by Vice Mayor Avery Johnson, Mayor Brooks announced a 10-minute recess at 3:05 for the solar eclipse viewing. Mayor Brooks called the meeting back to order at 3:15 and the following business was then entered into: WAIVE READING OF MINUTES Vice Mayor Johnson moved that the City Council of the City of Cleveland waive the reading of the minutes of the Regular Session of the City Council held on March 25, 2024 and approve them as written. The motion was seconded by Councilman May; and upon roll call, the motion unanimously passed. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no hearing petitions and communications. HEARING PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Brooks stated today’s meeting is being held to hear public comments concerning a request to allow Cleveland, Tennessee Planning Commission to amend multiple sections of Article 7 Final Plat Requirements and Article 8 Requirements for Townhouse Subdivisions in the Cleveland TN Subdivision regulations concerning the platting approval process and requirements for administrative review as well as the process for submitting plats. Robert Varnell stated late last year he was asked by the Planning Commission to review a staff approval process that includes a higher number of lots than we currently allow, so anything over 2 lots goes through the Planning Commission process. If it’s under, we have an administrative review process already. In 2022, the State Legislature amended the law that has criteria that would allow the Planning Commission to delegate authority, no more than five lots, and it wouldn’t have to go to the Planning Commission. Up to 25, a preliminary plat would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. The memo in your packet, which we would follow, would allow staff approval process to be a greater number if that preliminary plat had already been approved. A preliminary plat is exactly that, it's preliminary. It's got a little bit more site related constraints. The final plat often will mirror it, so we do go through a process with the Planning Commission if there's 20-30 lots. State Law gives us the authority, the legislative body to grant the Planning Commission to give authority. If you make this change, it's not going to impact what I do, or the staff does when we review this stuff. We already make sure it's following all the ordinances, state law, federal law, etc. This does allow some larger developments to move at a quicker pace. There are situations where things get pushed to the next month and that is the reason builders and lenders began asking questions about why we can't do it. Councilman May stated it speeds everything up, cuts the red tape. What do you think the minus’ would be? Mr. Varnell stated p. 580 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE -580- MINUTE BOOK 31 from a staff perspective, we're doing the same level of work, we just won’t prepare as many memos for the Planning Commission. The other caveat is the benefit of the public process at a public meeting. Councilman May asked what if the applicant doesn’t like your opinion on his plat, can he go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Varnell replied yes, as they do now if someone doesn’t like what I ask them to do. Like an appeal. Councilman Webb asked when this would come before Council. Mr. Varnell stated you do not see plat approvals. The only time you see things is when we're at the very beginning if they had to rezone. Mayor Brooks then declared the public hearing to be open. He then asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the approval. Planning Commission member Ben Berry stated this is something we’ve had on our minds for a number of years. Final plats are placed on the consent agenda and really nothing to discuss. This amendment removes the red tape. The upfront process is still the same. You have a preliminary plat that shows staff what you intended with the property, and it includes the design of the roads, all the utilities, infrastructure, and how the lots are laid out. It shows the design before we review. We have comments, it that goes through the process and once it gets approved, they start the construction. If you build what you said you wanted to build, we have already approved, it doesn't need to come back to the Planning Commission. The reason this has become so important is townhomes. They’re becoming more and more a part of our agenda at the Planning Commission. A townhome is a single-family home that is owned by a person, and they have platted lot lines. The only difference in it and detach single family homes is the shared wall. With a townhome the new construction process is, you have a preliminary plat, site plan to staff, Planning Commission reviews it, build the townhome, put in common lot lines, driveways, get a survey back out to look at the driveways, locate those walls, surveyor goes back and makes another plat and it's submitted to staff again before the deadline. Staff reviews it and gets it to Planning Commission, 4 weeks later, Planning Commission votes on consent agenda. The process is more complicated than it needs to be. This is cutting out where this is calendar dependent. If they miss a deadline by one day, it can be 7 weeks before the next Planning Commission meeting. Councilman Webb asked what communities are doing it this way. Mr. Berry stated Hamilton County has been for a long time. Davidson and Knox counties. Councilman Estes asked what counts as a minor or as a major. This would have been a big thing to discuss, limiting it to townhomes and not all preliminaries. Mr. Berry stated on your agenda is to give the Planning Commission the authority to make that decision, as that is their responsibilities for plats. Townhomes is the biggest problem we are trying to solve, but the State code sets the threshold of 25, but if the builders builds exactly what they showed, then there is no added value to come back before the Planning Commission. If we can streamline a process without negative consequences, there is value there. Councilman May stated it doesn’t change any of the checks and balances that the city has over this development in any way. It drops some of the red tape. Councilman Estes stated these do come back. A subdivision will have 85 lots then it comes back it's 62. Those are major changes that would be covered here. When you talk about where the green space has to go, how much green space, how much egress, you know that's going to be the 10% to 5%. That gives the city staff a lot of leeway that doesn't come back to us when you start making those kinds of changes. This memo wasn’t seen until Friday when we got our packet. Mr. Berry stated what you have is a discussion for Planning Commission to have if you give us the authority to have it. Councilman Estes stated he is for it, with townhomes. You speed up the process but at the same time, you’re eliminating it here. Also, it can be brought to the Planning Commission by the Planning Director, it ought to be at his discretion, he can bring it back to us. It’s not written here. It is written like this is how it will be not for Planning Commission to decide. Are we giving and ceding over authority to the Planning Commission if so? This is moot. Or are we really setting the bounds from which they have to operate? Where this is not moot, and we really need to hammer out some specifics. Mr. Kimball stated in the staff report there is language of what he would like to see the Council delegate, but with specific limitations, so that this would be followed, the Planning Commission would not go beyond that and the two would work together. There's two scenarios. Is there a preliminary plat and you go up to 25. If there's no preliminary plat, you can go up to five provided those other conditions are met. This is language not in the resolution but what Mr. Varnell is planning to recommend to the Planning Commission. You could say we're OK with the Planning Commission delegating authority to staff, provided it does not run afoul of these principles that Robert has put in the memo. If you want to limit the delegation to the Planning Commission consistent with Roberts report here, then you could take the resolution and add this into it, into the body of the resolution p. 581 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE -581- MINUTE BOOK 31 and bring it back in two weeks, or you could say the designation of the resolution would be subject to the limitations on page three. Mr. Varnell stated he was asked by the Planning Commission to give, through their motion to give that list of how far I can hear this. That was part of the motion to get things moving. If there's things that need to be added to it, it's not dead in the water today. It’s an adjustable document. Councilman May stated in his viewpoint if you don’t have confidence in your staff and you don't have quality staff to do their job then it’s not going to get done anyways. Councilman Estes stated there still needs to be checks and balances. I've seen our staff, our planning staff, move the needle to holding developers more responsible, requiring sidewalks requiring more green space, ingress, egress, requiring roads be built. The needle has moved to protect the public more than it was 10-15 years ago. This is not a black or white issue. It's where are we going to land, and this is something where we can help both sides. Keep the city and citizens protected and with townhomes, maybe we could just limit it right now to. Councilman May stated you know you've got something and it's working in other cities and other counties. Councilman Estes asked what if we just do townhomes now and relook at it in six months. They'll see if there's a problem, as I don’t remember us ever having this hiccup of timing in my 18 months for anything other than townhomes. Mr. Berry stated we don’t always see the hiccups at the Planning Commission but I’m sure Mr. Varnell sees them. Councilman Estes stated some of the hiccups he sees, developers who do what they're supposed, there aren't hiccups. Developers that are always looking for an edge, a quick then there's then there's problems. Councilman May stated it still boils down to staff. The Planning Commission can make all kinds of rules and regulations but if you don’t have staff to do their job, and I have confidence in staff. Councilman Estes asked for Resolution 2024-33 be removed from the consent agenda to new business for further discussion. Councilman Cassada stated this sounds like something that's not on fire that has to be done right now or is there a reason. The Planning Commission asked you to come up with something to come to Council, don’t you think it's fair for them to read it before it comes to us since they are more in depth of what's going on. Mr. Varnell stated it was discussed at 2-3 consecutive meetings. They have not seen this document. Councilman Cassada stated he would like to defer to the planning commission as he has a lot of confidence in them. Mr. Varnell stated if you are not ready to delegate the authority to the Planning Commission, then it should come back before you. Mayor Brooks asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the approval. No one spoke. Mayor Brooks declared the public hearing to be closed. Councilman Hughes left the meeting. Mayor Brooks stated today’s meeting is also being held as a public hearing to hear public comments a change in the ownership interest of members for Southside Wine & Spirits located at 1450 Fritz St SE. Christy Brandon stated the City Council previouly approved a new certificate for this location, but through the application process with TABC, a request was received to issue a revised certificate of compliance which lists both Tithi and Jaymin Patel as applicants. Mayor Brooks declared the public heairng to be open. He then asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the approval. No one spoke. Mayor Brooks asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the approval. No one spoke. Mayor Brooks declared the public hearing to be closed. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Brooks stated the Consent Agenda was presented during the Work Session. Councilman Estes requested Resolution 2024-33 be moved to new business. Councilman Estes then moved to approve the following items from the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Councilman May; and upon roll call, unanimously passed. a. Resolution 2024-31 – Authorizing the Mayor to sign an agreement with Ragan Smith for professional services relating to the Mouse Creek Greenway Phase VI Project (PIN 128170). p. 582 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE -582- MINUTE BOOK 31 RESOLUTION 2024-31 WHEREAS, in connection with the Mouse Creek Greenway PIN 128170, the City desires to enter into the attached professional services agreement with Ragan Smith Associates; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed agreement, and now desires to accept the proposed agreement with Ragan Smith Associates for the referenced project, and to further authorize the Mayor to execute the same on behalf of the City of Cleveland. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cleveland, Tennessee, in regular session assembled, that the City Council does hereby approve of the attached agreement with Ragan Smith Associates for the referenced project described herein, and it further authorizes the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Cleveland. [on file in the City Clerk’s Office.] This 8th day of April 2024 APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/John F. Kimball ___________________________ City Attorney Kevin Brooks, Mayor ___________________________ Shawn McKay, City Clerk b. Resolution 2024-32 - Authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter of engagement and contract with Henderson Hutcherson & McCullough to audit the accounts of the City of Cleveland for the period July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024. RESOLUTION 2024-32 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ENGAGEMENT LETTER AND A CONTRACT WITH HENDERSON HUTCHERSON & MCCULLOUGH TO AUDIT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE WHEREAS, the City of Cleveland has received a proposal from the Certified Public Accounting firm of Henderson Hutcherson & McCullough, to audit the accounts for the period from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to enter into an engagement letter and a contract with Henderson Hutcherson & McCullough, and to further authorize the Mayor to execute the required engagement letter and the attached contract on behalf of the City of Cleveland. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cleveland, Tennessee that the Mayor be, and hereby is, authorized to sign the engagement letter and contract and all other necessary forms for said audit on behalf of the City of Cleveland for the above referenced contract. [on file in the City Clerk‘s Office] Adopted this 8th day of April, 2024. APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/John F. Kimball ___________________________ City Attorney Kevin Brooks, Mayor ___________________________ Shawn McKay, City Clerk p. 583 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE -583- MINUTE BOOK 31 c. Bid Report – Paul Huff Parkway at Peerless Road Traffic Signal Project. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kristi Powers, Budget/Purchasing Coordinator DATE: April 8, 2024 RE: Bid Summary – Paul Huff Parkway at Peerless Road Traffic Signal Removal and Installation SUMMARY: The City advertised to accept sealed bids on April 3, 2024, for the Paul Huff Parkway and Peerless Road traffic signal project. One bid was received and is listed below: • NABCO Electric Company, Inc. $184,432.00_________ COMMITTEE FINDINGS: No Board or Committee findings. FISCAL ANALYSIS: Funding is available. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends award to NABCO Electric Company, Inc. d. Motion – Selecting M3 Technology as Audio/Visual Consultant for the Cherokee Hotel restoration project. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bryan Turner, Director of Building and Project Development DATE: April 8, 2024 RE: Cherokee Hotel Restoration – Audio/Visual Consultant SUMMARY: City Staff requests approval to select M3 Technologies to provide audio/visual services for the new City Hall and City Council Chambers as part of the Cherokee Hotel restoration. These services are to be obtained under an existing cooperative agreement. There is no cost with procuring this service until a/v equipment is selected and installed at a set rate provided in advance of purchase. The design services from this consultant are at no additional cost. This company has an extensive resume of similar scale projects throughout southeast Tennessee. They were recommended by MHM, the architect for the project, and will join the ongoing design process for seamless integration with the final construction documents. By obtaining the a/v services separately, the City can establish a direct relationship with this consultant that could extend beyond the construction phase into a warranty period and ongoing assistance with the technology provided. e. Motion – Issuing a new Certificate of Compliance to Southside Wine & Spirits, LLC (Tithi Patel and Jaymin Patel) due to a change in the ownership interest of members. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. p. 584 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE -584- MINUTE BOOK 31 REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Vice Mayor Johnson stated on 13th Street/Barnes the road was widened and at one point it narrows down. Do we know if they will widen and pave the rest? Mr. Myers stated he will take a look at the site and let him know. Councilwoman McKenzie stated the conversations we've had today about the greenways and the different projects that's going on in Cleveland, I just want to say that I think Cleveland's in a really good place. We're moving forward. I think we're doing great things for the community. I think the community is happy with what's going on and I haven't heard any complaints. I just want to say thank you to the staff and everyone that is responsible, City Council, everybody that's participated in this downtown revitalization and all the parks, everything, the Greenway, Cleveland is just in a good spot. Councilman Estes stated on the 20th of April, at Blythe Oldfield a circus is coming to town at Blythe Park, just like they did last year, was huge. There's a lot of community 501c3 participants. If you can get over to Blythe on the 20th would be great. Next, he asked that Cleveland Utilities come and give an update on broadband. Mr. Fivas stated they are coming to the next meeting to talk about their budget. Lastly, to my colleagues, we talked about everything during the work session that dealt with parks. Quality of life. I'm thrilled that up here, what we're talking about is about our kids and grandkids and things we'll never see. Everything you go see in the world in Europe and whatever people built that knowing they would never see what it looked like when it finished. This is important stuff and people, they're not futurists. I'm proud to be a part of this and that we're thinking this way. I mean the same to staff, not just with us, but I appreciate the staff taking that. That stance, that's all. Councilman Cassada stated I just want to echo what Marsha and Bill both said, I want to thank the staff city staff for what they're doing. If it's from down Inman St., the greenways to green spaces. We see the city moving to Cherokee Hotel. It's an exciting time and I just, I can't say enough to thank Joe, you, and your staff and what y'all have done over this period of time and what we’ve got to look forward to in the future. So, this is an exciting time in, in the City of Cleveland. Councilman May had no report at this time. Councilman Webb showed a photo of Westside Drive and 25th Street ditch at the intersection. He then asked what the timeline was to improve that area, as it seems to get worse, and people continue driving off in the ditch. Mr. Fivas stated we will fix it in the next couple of weeks. It’s actually a massive project, with a fire hydrant and utility pole. Councilman Webb stated it we can shore it up just a little to keep people from running off until we do a major project that would be good. NEW BUSINESS AND ORDINANCES Mayor Brooks stated the next item is Council discussion of purchase agreement from Phoenix Investors, including due dilligence process for this purchase. Mr. Fivas stated he believes we’ve already covered it during the work session and has no additional comments. No action needs to be taken at this time. We we have some additional information to to share over the next couple of weeks and as we get comfortable enough to take us to the next step, we'll have it on an upcoming agenda. Mayor Broooks stated the next item is Council discussion of State Historic Grant. Mr. Fivas stated it’s imminent that we’ll start receiving soliciting bids for the Roy’s Alternator building. We should probably have those bids back in May and then they will begin construction. We're probably pretty close to having full design stuff for the Cherokee and we'll probably roll up our sleeves and start getting into a little bit more of that. As a part of that is obviously the funding. You know we're well on our way to working on the historic tax credits which are a Federal process. The State has the State Historic Grant, which is just an allocation of funds. p. 585 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE -585- MINUTE BOOK 31 They have raised it up to $500,000. You have to be pretty much shovel ready which we are or at least with your design. So that really limits the number of people that participate, and we're very hopeful that you'll have a project that we worthy of funding. With the approval of this, it just gives us the approval to submit our application next week to the State. Councilman May moved to approve staff submitting the State Historic Grant application to the State. The motion was seconded by Councilman Webb; and upon roll call, unanimously passed. The following Resolution and staff memo was presented in full: a. Resolution 2024-33 – A resolution granting authority to the Municipal Planning Commission of Cleveland Tennessee to delegate review authority for eligible subdivision final plats to planning staff. RESOLUTION 2024-33 A RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORITY TO THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF CLEVELAND TENNESSEE TO DELEGATE REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR ELIGIBLE SUBDIVISION FINAL PLATS WHEREAS, the Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 13-4-302 thru 13-4-310 establish provisions for power to regulate and adopt subdivision regulations controlling the division of land; and WHEREAS, the City of Cleveland Subdivision Regulations were adopted and contains provisions for the authority of and the approving agency of the Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 13-4-302(d)(1) provides that a Municipal Planning Commission may delegate approval authority to staff as outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 13-4-302(d)(1), provided that the municipal legislative body first approves of such delegation by a majority vote of the legislative body; and p. 586 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE -586- MINUTE BOOK 31 WHEREAS, Tennessee Code Annotated, as amended, in 2023 by the adoption of Public Chapter 994 by the Tennessee State Legislature, amended Section 13-4-302 as follows: (1) A municipal planning commission may delegate the responsibility for approval of a subdivision plat to the planning staff of the municipal planning commission by a majority vote of the municipal planning commission that is taken at a public meeting after being placed on the municipal planning commission's meeting agenda and notice being provided as required for other matters before the municipal planning commission. (2) This delegation may only include subdivision plats that include: (A) No more than twenty-five (25) lots and only if the development received preliminary plan approval through the municipal planning commission; or (B) No more than five (5) lots if the development did not require preliminary plan approval through the municipal planning commission; provided, that: (i) The subdivision complies with such regulations governing a subdivision of land as adopted by the municipal planning commission pursuant to § 13-4-303; (ii) No request for a variance from such regulations has been requested; and (iii) A division of land requiring new road or utility construction is not approved by the planning staff under this subsection (d) unless the plan received preliminary approval by the municipal planning commission. WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing has been published in a newspaper in general circulation in Bradley County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Cleveland, Tennessee that the City Council does hereby grant authority to the Municipal Planning Commission of Cleveland to make amendments to the Cleveland Tennessee Subdivision Regulations delegating final plat approval as outlined in the attached documents. This 8th day of April, 2024. APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/John F. Kimball ___________________________ City Attorney Kevin Brooks, Mayor ___________________________ Shawn McKay, City Clerk TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Robert W. Varnell, Director of Planning and Community Development DATE: April 8, 2024 RE: Final Plat Delegation PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis T.C.A. 13-4.302 includes the following language: (1) A municipal planning commission may delegate the responsibility for approval of a subdivision plat to the planning staff of the municipal planning commission by a majority vote of the municipal planning commission that is taken at a public meeting after being placed on the municipal planning commission's meeting agenda and notice being provided as required for other matters before the municipal planning commission. (2) This delegation may only include subdivision plats that include: (A) No more than twenty-five (25) lots and only if the development received preliminary plan approval through the municipal planning commission; or p. 587 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE -587- MINUTE BOOK 31 (B) No more than five (5) lots if the development did not require preliminary plan approval through the municipal planning commission; provided, that: (i) The subdivision complies with such regulations governing a subdivision of land as adopted by the municipal planning commission pursuant to § 13-4-303; (ii) No request for a variance from such regulations has been requested; and (iii) A division of land requiring new road or utility construction is not approved by the planning staff under this subsection (d) unless the plan received preliminary approval by the municipal planning commission. (3) A municipal planning commission shall not delegate to its planning staff the authority to preliminarily approve, finalize approval of, or certify a subdivision plat, regardless of the number of lots proposed for the subdivision plan, consistent with the parameters of this section, unless the municipal legislative body approves such delegation by a majority vote of the legislative body. The City Council must Grant Authority to the Planning Commission to delegate authority to staff to review and approve Final Plats in accordance with the updated language above and the specific restrictions as outlined below: 1. The Planning Director, may approve changes that involve minor revisions from the Preliminary Plat approval including, but not limited to: A. Minor shifts in the location of lot lines, streets, or open space. B. Minor changes in lot or unit count, resulting in an increase (or decrease) of less than five percent of the total number of dwelling units among unit types. C. Other changes that do not significantly alter the overall layout of the plan and its basic development concept. 2. Major revisions, including those listed below, require approval by the Planning Commission: A. Change in the number of lots or units resulting in an increase (or decrease) of five percent or more in total lot or unit count. B. Modification(s) to the patterns of streets or street connections, internal and external to the project area, that decrease connectivity or significantly alter traffic patterns, except for changes that result directly from discovery of topographical or environmental obstacles that could not reasonably have been known at the time of initial subdivision approval. C. Changes affecting 10% or more of the open space, including but not limited to its area, location, accessibility, or degree of contiguity. D. Reduction in dedications to the public. E. Changes to subdivision boundaries that exceed five percent of the area of initial approval. F. Changes that will increase the area of disturbance of slopes of 25% or greater or increase the area of manipulation of the floodplain. G. Any change that significantly alters the overall layout of the plan and its basic development concept by more than 10%. 2. Staff Recommendation APPROVE Councilman Estes asked if this language just mirrored state law. Mr. Kimball responded the resolution, yes, it is verbatim. That is the most you can delegate to the Planning Commission. You don’t have to delegate any of it but if you don’t the Planning Commission cannot delegate to staff. Councilman Estes asked for clarification on the definition of subdivision plats. Mr. Kimball stated any lot that has to be subdivided. Right now, Mr. Varnell, under the old code language if it is more than 2, has to come to the Planning Commission. He can do a minor plat, which is one lot into 2 provided certain conditions don’t occur. Councilman Estes asked if the Council passes this resolution, can the Planning Commission can limit itself on what it grants staff. Mr. Kimball stated yes. He understands what Mr. Varnell memo envisions what Planning Commission would do in amending the subdivision regulations in order to then give him the authority to do staff approvals, provided it meets the state law and those principles outlined there. Mr. Varnell said yes, correct. Councilman Estes asked Mr. Varnell where the restrictions came from, as some we actually talked about, some came from our discussions. Mr. Varnell stated some of it came right out of my head and what I would want my checks and balances to be. Some came from other municipalities who have a certain level of this. So many different p. 588 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 8, 2024 PAGE -588- MINUTE BOOK 31 places. Councilman Estes stated if I say this wrong correct me, we're giving the Planning Commission carte blanche up to state law. If we vote for this resolution, it's out of our hands. They get to decide going forward. This is going to be the only time we get to tell the Planning Commission. No, you don't have that much authority to give away. We can limit it here. Because once the ship sails, it's gone. We have no say over it. I'm just let me make sure my colleagues know that. The way this is written is as much latitude as the state allows. That's what we're giving the Planning Commission. Mr. Kimball stated that's fair now. One way to change that would be for you to say we're only going to delegate this authority to the Planning Commission to in turn delegate to staff by specifically limiting the delegation to what is written on page 28. If you're worried that the Planning Commission will go beyond what Robert is going to recommend to them, that's written on page 28, then you could delegate only to that extent. Councilman Estes stated he’s hesitant to adopt something off the top of his head. I'm hesitant to adopt carte blanche up to state law. Mr. Kimball replied would you be more comfortable if the Planning Commission met and said yes, we would like the Council to delegate only to this extent and no more, and once they've said that, you will know what their specific desire is. Mr. Varnell prepared this based on the comments he heard and on his own research. Mr. Fivas stated one thing we all agree on the townhome piece. I mean that that's always been continuously an issue. It's probably more of the subdivisions. One thing is that if there's a preliminary plat and it's approved, what you're approving is that. It's not that if there's a minor change, then it comes back is that in there it gives you know he can add three or four houses or more roads or anything, is that you're also giving a lot more flexibility and really comes down to the principle of how much, change will the Planning Commission and this body make that that no one will ever see. I won't see it. Jonathan signs the plats. No one will ever see it. It's a question we take great responsibility in doing that, but with that there's also you make mistakes, or you have one set of eyes seeing it and approving it and their might be other compounded mistakes. We all agree that giving some more flexibility is a good thing, especially with people trying to make transactions. But as far as our internal processes before our internal process had always been based on if there's a Planning Commission meeting. Now you're going to have every single developer or every single builder calling us, putting pressure on us to say, well, you can sign this as soon as you can. That's going to be a lot more pressure every day coming from the surveyors, from the builders and saying you can do this. An inherent pressure coming from these folks is that there's going to be mistakes made. There's a buffer because you always have to wait for the Planning Commission, and you go, and you get it right and you look at it a couple of times. But if there's no backstop, you're going to get the calls. It will create stress and pressure internally on the system. You usually have a couple weeks before the Planning Commission meets and you can look at it a few times and get it right and that’s where mistakes are made, as you are losing that buffer time. We want to give more flexibility, but we want to make sure we get it right. Councilman Estes then moved that we ask the Planning Commission on how they would limit the authority they grant the Director of Planning, if given these powers and let us discuss at our next meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman May; and upon roll call, unanimously passed. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Brooks announced the following: a. The next City Council meeting will be held on Monday, April 22, 2024. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Brooks adjourned the meeting at 4:08 p.m. _________________________________ _________________________________ Mayor City Clerk