Metro Council - Regular Meeting

Or anything? You just wanna Okay.

Sorry for the delay in starting. I had a little bit of trouble logging on, but, welcome, everybody. Thank you for joining the meeting. Let's, proceed on into the agenda items.

Alright. Thank you. I'll go ahead and get started. This is Julia Williams with planning and office of planning, and I'm gonna share my screen. So the first portion of excuse me.

The first portion of the policies, that we can discuss is under article seven, understanding committees. So we have currently a site inspection committee. This committee has not convened in likely ten to fifteen years. And because it hasn't, convened in such a long time, I was, proposing that we would just remove it if it's not gonna be used. So I didn't know if there if you all wanted to discuss that and any issues that you may have with the removal of of that site inspection committee.

Any concerns from the committee?

Yeah. I don't have any concern with it. You know, if it hadn't been used, obviously, it hadn't been needed. No sense in having it on. I mean, does it harm anything to have it there? I mean, is there any instance that you think we would need it earlier?

Since it hasn't been used in so long, I don't I don't I don't see where it's necessary anymore, but, you know, it isn't it isn't doing any harm other than if people, you know, were to read the policies and it's and it's in there. There's a perception that there that this committee does exist. And when we go over the committees with the chair, we do not include this one with, like, the policy and procedures, planning committee, development review committee, and LD and T. So I I I just wouldn't wanna give the perception that this is a committee that actually exists if we're not gonna use it anymore.

So No. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Bill.

I understand that. I I think it makes logical sense to remove it. So I'm in favor of removing.

And is this not done by the staff right at this current time? Aren't they commenting on the site?

Our staff does comment on the site, And we take pictures of when we post the sign on the site. But staff isn't necessarily considered part of the site inspection committee. We're just telling you all, when we present cases, what we see on the site.

Yeah. That makes sense to get rid of it.

Yeah. If if there is that function that is being performed by staff, but they're not officially part of the site inspection committee, I would concur with getting rid of it.

Agree.

Okay. Then I'll present that to planning commission when this goes to planning when you all, if you all think it's ready to go to planning commission. So I'll move on to the next one, which is planning committee. So there's some language to change in the planning committee. So what we're seeing is a delay between items that, have to go, currently to planning committee.

We are being we are being asked by Metro Council quite a bit, to have land development code changes. And we are often not able to deliver those in a timely manner because of the steps it takes to get to Planning Commission. And one of those steps is the Planning Committee. So what this does, what this language does is allows the planning director to determine if that land development code change should go the planning committee or be directly noticed to the planning commission for a public hearing. And what that would do is prevent this this delay in those, those code amendments from, going to planning commission.

So it would allow for, the planning commission to just hear those cases when they're ready should the planning director determine that that that's, that's okay.

So there's still the opportunity for public comment, but it's during the planning commission's meetings as opposed to committee.

Right. And similar to this committee and and the the planning committee that public comment is still available at the planning commission.

I think it's a move, makes it easier to get it through. I'm I'm in favor of that.

We're basically just streamlining, cutting cutting out of cutting out of step, so to speak.

I've given the option to cut out this step. So you think it's necessary, that's fine. But, you know, I'm all in favor of saving all the time I can to get to the end end result.

So, I recently I think it was either early this year or late last year brought forth financial institutions. And, you know, I that would have been one that could have been just directly noticed for planning commission because it had very little interest, and it was pretty straightforward. So it would be, you know, that kind of thing that is relatively quick, that would kind of bypass the planning committee and and go straight forward to the planning commission.

Thank you.

Alright.

I would support that. Yes.

Okay. If there's no other comment on that, some of these other changes just have to do with, renumbering. I don't feel like we have to go through that. So I'll jump on to the next one. I'm gonna stop sharing so that you don't get dizzy with me scrolling.

Alright.

Okay. So the next one is a policy in, policy 11 regarding notice. So this is the notice of filing application, what we essentially call the early notice. So the recommendation here is to remove this essentially because of the federal law requiring all of our notices and anything that we send out having to be ADA accessible. With this with the requirement for everything that we send out to be ADA accessible, we often more often than not receive early notification, and it's handwritten.

And it's not in a digital format that and our staff does not feel comfortable typing that information in for an applicant, because I our staff doesn't wanna be responsible for mistakes made on that early notice. And we, like, we would not be able to make this ADA accessible. Accessible, so we would not be able to meet federal law in sending out the early notice for like, through our GovDelivery system, which is, you know, people sign up to receive emails of our notices. All of those notices have to be ADA accessible and including the early notice. And with those being handwritten often, we just would not be able to make that ADA accessible and meet that that law.

In this case, you're talking about the applicant is basically responsible for that, but because the the early notification, you don't get it in that form from them. Right? Is that what you're saying?

So we get the we get the the early notice part of the application is it's part of the development plans, zoning applications. I think waivers listed there as well. And that is perhaps through the applicant. So the applicant is required to send out the paper notice to, first and second tier or well, not always second tier, but, adjacent property owners as well as the current residents as per the policy. That part doesn't have to be ADA accessible because it's coming from the applicant.

But because we are required through the GovDelivery to send out that notice via this policy, we cannot make that ADA accessible because it's it's not generated by us, but we are sending it out.

Well, you certainly can't make a statement that it's compliant. You know, that's not for you to make. You you you have to what I was saying is it's for the applicant to make the the statement that it's compliant or not. So, I mean, if that that's what this is doing, then you have to believe that I agree. Is that

I'm

I'm gonna admit. I can't understand. I can't understand. I didn't understand any of that. I'm sorry.

It's it's up to the applicant to declare that. So it's not up to you to do that. If that's what this is doing, then, of course, it should be admitted because you can't do it. I agree with you. Did did that come through clear?

Yes. It is something that the app, you know, the applicant sends out, but it's also written that it that that the office of planning is required to send it out digitally, and it's usually via PDF. It's something that we just scan and send out via GovDelivery, but that scan is not ADA accessible, especially if that it's I mean, either way, if it's typed or handwritten, it we can't make that ADA accessible as required by law.

Well, how do we make all of our other notices ADA accessible that we send out?

We generate those notices. Like, the postcard notices, that's something that we generate, and we can make ADA accessible because we generate those.

K. So, Julia Julia, in this section here, this is all actions for the applicant to do. And, basically, you're saying since it's on them and it's not we're not generating it to make it ADA compliant, then this is this is not a waste of time. That's not what I wanna say. But it this is it it's something we can't control, so, therefore, we don't really need to have it in here anyway. Does that kinda sum it up?

We can't control, you know, if the, you know, the applicant can send out paper notice, and it does not have to be ADA accessible. But the requirement that the notice gets sent out digitally to the GovDelivery recipients is the piece that makes makes it non ADA compliant. So which is something that our office is responsible for sending out notices 88 that are ADA compliant. So when we get that notice from the applicant, it is not ADA compliant, and and we can't make it that way.

So I I just how do you make a a notice compliant? Are you saying that the notice that the applicant is what he's applying for is ADA compliant, or are you saying the notice itself is compliant?

So the the notice that is prepared by the applicant is this office may receive a copy of it, but we can't make it ADA compliant. Now if we were to prepare, like, the postcard notice, we can make that ADA compliant. That goes through our IT department because it's something that we generate, and we can make that ADA compliant.

What what is the what is the what makes it ADA compliant or not? I mean, does it have braille on it or something? Am I missing

So there's color, and I'm probably gonna really describe this horribly. But there's color differentiation, size of font.

If I can jump in, Julia. It also Absolutely. It also the real issue is it has to be able to be read by a screen reader. People who are visually impaired when they use a computer, they use a software that reads the text on the computer out loud so that they can hear the text because they can't read the text. So the real issue there is with making it ADA compliant is it has to be able to be read by that screen reader software.

But Adobe reads, and Word just reads, through screen reader as well. So I I guess

I think the issue is that we get a lot of these early notices handwritten. They they send us copies of the PDF that was handwritten.

Right. And so going back to kind of the original, I guess somebody asked this. I was trying to go down this path. We couldn't set the requirement to where they have to send it in PDF format, OCR, which is what makes it readable. And then we upload it, and then it's now it's a readable document. And then it's we're done. And and I guess the real question is what's the benefit

of Exactly.

Early notice?

Exactly.

So when this was adopted into the policies, it was to give certain cases here of the zoning map amendment, the detailed district development plan, general plan, modifications or amendments to binding elements and waivers. It was to give the public notice essentially as soon as that application was received. That was the purpose of this is to to get that notice out as soon as possible. You know, we since I think during this time, we've improved GovDelivery, and we send out a weekly activity report to those same recipients. So all of those recipients receive the weekly activity report, which goes out on Wednesday once the case managers get assigned.

So, essentially, they're getting that notice on a Wednesday, immediately after that case manager has been assigned. So it's a little bit of a duplication of the weekly activity report. They're going to the same people other than the mail the the mailed notice. We don't mail out the the weekly activity report. So, you know, the the early notice would be early notice to adjacent property owners if they have to mail them. But as far as the GovDelivery goes, that, that's essentially covered through the weekly activity report. Does that make sense?

Yeah. Could we not remove the requirement of us sending it out and then just have it go straight through through the applicant, mail it out like they do the other ones that you said we don't have to make compliant? They just send it directly out, and then you just continue your weekly mailer. Can we not do that?

Yes. We could do that.

I don't know about everybody else, but I I like that idea because then it's not just on a report, but then it's taking the burden off of staff to have to deal with it as well and putting it back on the applicant.

So, essentially, what you're saying is that the paper notice would still go out?

Yes. But via the applicant

Okay.

Which takes it away from it having to be ADA compliant. Correct?

That's correct.

Yeah. And and I'm in agreement with with that as long as there's a benefit, to the public for for having that initial application.

Yeah. I was gonna say how soon would this early notification go out as opposed to what we would send out? So, like Yes. If they did it on a on a on a Friday, they could get notification on Friday and or Monday. But if the report doesn't go out till Wednesday, then it's I mean, a couple more days, I get it. But if there's a benefit of giving the getting the information out, then, yeah, I'm with, you Andre. Let's put it on them and office staff.

So, the applicant has to mail those, those paper notices out no more than seventeen days following the submittal deadline date. So whoever gets the digital notice, they're gonna get that right away. If you got you're gonna have to wait for the mail to come to get your early notice.

Yes. So the early notice is that is takes longer than the real notice. So is that what you're saying?

Yeah. Because, you know, if you get a digital notice, it happens right away where you're gonna have to wait to get the, you know, the the paper mail notice.

But

they're also they're also two different audiences too. Right? Because the the report that you're putting out today, it's for anyone who signed up. Where then if we do the early notice, it's just the tier one, tier two property owners. Correct?

Right.

Well, I I absolutely agree that the staff shouldn't be burdened or shouldn't be, you know, trying to send out the notice. It should be on the applicant's responsibility to migrate DeAndre and Mark sharing that, you know, if we can accommodate that and just put it back on them, that's the way we should go.

Okay. Yeah. I can change that language to, keep the paper notice and then remove the digital notice. That's not a problem. And if if that's what if that's what, you know, we're we're thinking there, I'll I'll move on to the next thing.

Okay. Yeah.

Okay.

And

this goes, this is Rachel right here.

There we go. Yes. So Rachel Casey, obviously, planning supervisor. I'm gonna go over the next two pieces because I've been working on some other things in conjunction with this. So we received a resolution from counsel in 2025, really right around this time last year, that asked us to look at expanding notice requirements for zoning changes, and that will be coming through the planning committee next week, via a text amendment to the land development code.

And the resolution also asked, us to look at creating signs for neighborhood meetings for zoning changes. So, like, physical signs, like the ones we place for the public meeting on the property. So as sort of a compromise, we are putting the expanded notice in. Our our recommendation is to change the land development code for the actual physical notice cards, but to place the neighborhood meeting sign requirement in the bylaws. So if you'll see here, it it says neighborhood meeting signposting requirement for a zoning map amendment.

It specifies that this is only for development sites totaling five or more acres. So this only applies to zoning changes on sites totaling five or more acres. And this would require a sign be posted conspicuously on the subject property at least ten days prior to the neighborhood meeting date. So the neighborhood meeting is in between that pre application and the formal application stage. So that's the general requirement.

Zoning map amendment, five or more acres. You have to place a sign on the property on each road frontage at least ten days in advance of the neighborhood meeting. The design of the sign shall be created by office of planning staff and shall include the property address, the existing and proposed zoning, and then the neighborhood meeting information, the the date of the meeting, the time of the meeting, the location of the meeting. And then here's sort of the kicker, is that this is gonna be the responsibility of the applicant. So our proposal is that we, office of planning staff, create the sign design, and then we it says that we shall establish an approved retailer for the sign and provide that retailer's information to the applicant.

And then it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to purchase and post the sign in accordance with this section. So this is not going to be staff's responsibility. This is going to be the applicant's responsibility. We already have a retailer that we use for our zoning signs. We've talked to them about this process, and they can make it work.

We can give them a design and then send applicants their way to purchase the signs from the company. So we put this here in the bylaws just so that it's not necessarily a requirement of ordinance If somebody gets it up eight days before instead of ten days before, it's not going to completely derail their process like it would if the mailed notice went out. But this is our compromise to try to conform with what the resolution asked us to do, but also place this burden on the applicant and not place additional burden on staff. So thoughts about a neighborhood meeting sign?

So I I think it's a good idea, but I guess two questions. Why would we make it our limited to just five acres? Why wouldn't we just do all neighborhood require every any site that requires a neighborhood meeting? And and then my other question is, in instead of restricting them to the vendor, why couldn't, Metro us create a PDF file that they we didn't send them, give them the require the print requirements, and they can give to their printer that they normally use or anyone?

So first question with the five acres. Five acres was something that we staff came up with because we didn't want to place additional burden on some of these smaller, more what we like to call our DIY applicants that may be just doing, you know, the kind of zoning change cases that come across, to the planning commission that you guys would be familiar with. Very recently, we've had a few that are just, you know, asking for to go from a single family to a triplex, something that's that kind of small. And then also, additionally, like, other properties, more urban properties that are just they're like an existing building. They're not you you know, know, they're just trying to change the zoning, but they're not building anything.

So the reason we came up with the five acres was just to try to kind of lessen the burden on those DIY applicants, those smaller applicants. And then as far as the sign goes, I I think we could be open to that. I would just have to put a little bit more parameters in the bylaws here, I think, about what the sizing and everything would be would need to be. That's kinda why I just went with the office of planning will create the design and then be purchased. We can look at at I have no issue writing that up to have, like, a PDF print available, but I'll just have to write in some more specific parameters about what the sign design would have to be because it would need to be a certain size and material.

It does say constructed of a durable material, but we may need to be more specific in kinda doing the corrugated plastic or something like that.

Okay. Yeah. I'm I'm not as hung up on point number two. Right? I I do think that it should be if you got one vendor, you should at least have two, right, just to spread the love and then also to, in case one gets overwhelmed and then they start saying, well, I couldn't get my sign because this vendor was taking too long. Then it puts it back on Metro.

Right? I agree with that.

But but then, but then my first point, I can see and and I can picture the, I can picture the the the person that I'm thinking about in my head. I won't say any names, but saying, hey. This site didn't have a notice for the public meeting. And then we'll say, well, it was only five acres. Well, it's an important site.

You know? Then you get into that whole, you know, going round and round about, you know, what's important, what's not important to the community. Where to me, if you just make it a blanket thing, understanding that, there are kinda opportunities or chances where it's not as important, to have it on the site. But I think given the cost and everything, I think it's still kind of a reasonable thing just for community protection.

That's Well and and and I see where you're coming from there. And I actually think if we if we go that direction of just straight any zoning map amendment, then I definitely would want to explore other purchase options, you know, allowing people to have other purchase options that way. You know, with the idea here is, like, if it's five or more acres, they're probably gonna have a, you know, either an attorney or an engineering firm representing them that can easily get the signs. I think I definitely, if we go that direction of zoning map all zoning map amendments, I wanna explore offering in some more purchase options so it makes it easier for folks. K.

You know, we there are a lot of cases we see that are less than five acres that, you know, are contested and and made signs. And and my is that a misconception on my part?

No. I think it's just you know, this is specifically for the neighborhood meeting. You know, the sign is absolutely still gonna be posted everywhere for the for the planning commission public hearing because that's a requirement of state law. So this is just for the neighborhood meeting. And, again, our idea was just trying to ease the burden on some of the smaller applicants, but I'm okay with with doing all zoning map amendments. And like I just said, I will explore making the purchase options easier for those smaller applicants.

Alright. Well, I I'm okay with those changes. You know, the only thing I would think about getting other vendors involved is, you know, if whoever you select would have to have different locales, you know, more than one place. You wouldn't wanna force anyone to go to the East End or the South End or, you know, to seems like you you the one you should talk about using is more than one location various areas? Yeah. Accessible?

I think that I can we can instead of I mean, we can have our established retailer that we already use, but it's best stamp and sign. But what what we what I can do is before we bring this to the planning commission, I will update it to try to make it easier so that the applicants could choose their own vendors, but I'll just have to put more specific parameters on the size and material of the sign here in the bylaws. And then I think people could use their own vendor, as long as there's you know, like like T'Andre said, we can provide them with a PDF of what the design is and then be specific about the size and the material of the sign if they purchase on their own.

Okay. Well, with those conditions, I'm in favor of, you know, making the changes that you're proposing.

Okay. Sounds good. Anyone else, Mark or Sharon, have anything?

No. I like both, both those options. Is there, when you're first talking about it, I was kinda thinking, alright. If this is on the applicant and not us, which I like, what's the ramifications if they don't? You know, I know you said if they did it eight days instead of ten, but what if

So I think placing it in the bylaws puts it more in the hands of the commission rather than if it's in the land development code, that's law, that's ordinance, that's very hard and fast. Right? If you if you don't notice according to law, you have to re notice. There's there's, you know, there's nothing that can be done. When it's in the bylaws, it's more up to the discretion of the commission.

So if they don't, like, if they post the wrong size or they do it eight days instead of ten days, I then think it's more up to the discretion of the commission to hear that complaint and make a decision on whether you would like them to redo the process because enough people didn't see the sign in time, but it wouldn't it wouldn't hold them hard and fast to it like it would if it was directly in the land development code.

They're still skin in the game for them to do it correctly and or Yeah.

Because it's all it could still be at the discretion of you guys, of the commission if they show up to the public hearing, people show up and they say, hey. The sign the neighborhood meeting sign never got posted, then it's up to your discretion to say that wasn't appropriate. That didn't follow the bylaws. Redo the meeting.

Okay. Alright. Yeah. I'm good with that then.

And I didn't realize I was still on mute. I'm sorry. I I agree with the changes we've discussed.

Okay. Sounds good.

I think we

can proceed to the next one here.

Let me find it before I share again. Right. Alright. Right. I just I I put this up on the screen because this is the section where it's located. So 114, I'll scroll down to the to the language.

Yeah. So this is 114 under land development and transportation committee. And then the subsection, if you'll scroll up just a little like, just up to that next page, Julia. Yeah. So subsection eleven four six is what the planning director or designee is authorized to approve.

And so, what we're looking at is adding the ability for the planning director designee to approve preliminary subdivision plans, so major subdivision plans, at the staff level. I think we've seen over the last, year and a half every single subdiv major subdivision that's come through, which we're not getting that many anyways these days that are just straight major subdivisions. I know you guys have seen some with rezonings, and, obviously, that's still gonna go through the the appropriate change in zoning process. But over the past year and a half, what we've seen with major subdivisions is they're coming through completely land development code compliant. No waivers or variances requested.

There hasn't been a waiver requested on a major subdivision ever since we changed the code two years ago to remove that utility overlap, provision. So we haven't had a subdivision with a waiver or any discretion, since that change was made. And then even over that year and a half, we only had one planning commission meeting where any, community members showed up to speak for or against the major subdivision. Every other one that has come through in the past eighteen months has had, no public comment whatsoever. So we would still have the ability, of course, as we do with every staff approved approved plan if we if staff feels like there's an issue, either technical or if it's controversial, that we can still bring it to committee of the planning commission, most likely DRC at this point.

But we feel from a staff level that it's just adding an extra step in the process for these completely land development code compliant subdivisions to bring them to a public hearing as a hard and fast rule.

Yeah. I would agree with that.

I agree also.

Yes. I concur.

Yep.

Okay. Sounds good. I mean, I think a lot of what we're seeing and what you'll see us continue to bring forward is that it's frustrating to the community. It's frustrating to staff, to you guys, and the community when we bring forward plans to a public hearing, ask people to make comment on something that's completely compliant with the plan, and there's no discretion for the planning commission. And it leaves all three parties frustrated, makes the community feel not heard, puts the commission in a place where you guys feel like you can't respond to community comment and then put staff in a position of it meets the code.

There's nothing more we can do. So I think the more that we can put these staff compliant and or LDC compliant plans just at the staff level, I think, will really help with a lot of that frustration that we're feeling in the community.

I agree. Okay.

Well, that was it. I think I don't think there's any more changes, Julia. Did you have anything else?

There was just one. This one's more of a cleanup, that is dependent on, the the subdivision, and that is eleven four eight binding elements and development plans. Essentially, it's removing the preliminary subdivision plan, from this section and leave and, leaving this to excuse me, to just amendments to binding elements. And then the the category three development plans and then the removal of this language in basically, the states that conditions of approval are the same as binding elements, but I added that language, something similar to, the language that, Rachel had just, presented. I will scroll back up to it.

So where it says conditions of approval associated with the preliminary subdivision plan shall be assigned the same status as binding elements associated with development plans. So I took out the core piece of that language and then put it with this, with the the language in the area where Rachel spoke about the minister review of of subdivisions. So I'll scroll back down to that.

And, again, with the subdivisions, I know you guys said you were good, but just to reiterate on something. Of course, if it has a waiver, it's still gonna come before the commission, But we also see a lot of major subdivisions that have steep slopes or environmental constraints, and those also still have to come before the planning commission per the land development code. So any any subdivision that has any sort of discretion or special circumstance is still going to come before the commission. It's only this major subdivisions that are completely compliant, no waivers, no environmental issues that will be staff approved.

Okay. So could you

I believe that's it. Oh, I'm sorry.

So we're just gonna approve this to be heard by the planning commission, the whole planning commission? Is that the process here?

If you think it's ready, if you think it's ready for planning commission to make decisions on the policy and procedures, then we'll we'll schedule it for a public hearing, and then we're we can receive public comment on that. So I think, you know, the major changes with the early notice and essentially just removing the digital notice and keeping it the paper notice. And then under the neighborhood sign, looking into other vendors and eliminating the five acre site, I think that's what I've what I've been hearing. So I would say if you all are ready to move it to a to send it on to planning commission for review, then we can go ahead and do that. May wanna maybe take a vote on that.

I'll I'll I'll defer to Laura on on whether it needs a vote or just an agreeance.

I think it just needs a voice vote. All in favor.

Okay. Yeah.

Yeah.

And, Sharon, I'll let you do that do the honors of all in favor.

Yes, ma'am. Certainly. Certainly. All in favor, I'll respond by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? No? Alright. Yes. We'll proceed on.

And we'll make sure it goes on a planning commission, that is not heavily, docketed. Yeah. Alright. I think that was that was it. Oh, let me stop sharing this.

Okay. Alright.

Alright. My screen's was blank, so, thank you all very much. And, we'll see you on some of you on Wednesday and then some of you on Thursday. Hopefully, all of you on Thursday. Perfect.

Nice. Good. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Bye

bye.