FNI Code Diagnostic

[Jordan Strohmeyer]

The Code Diagnostic Report prepared by Freese and Nichols is posted for review and discussion. The report evaluates the City’s current development regulations for organization, consistency, and alignment with state law and established planning practices.

Code Diagnostic Report:
https://tx-lagovista.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/10794/Code-Diagnostic-Report-PDF

 

[Frank Robbins]

The Code Diagnostic Report prepared by Freese and Nichols is posted for review and discussion. The report evaluates the City’s current development regulations for organization, consistency, and alignment with state law and established planning practices.

Code Diagnostic Report:
https://tx-lagovista.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/10794/Code-Diagnostic-Report-PDF

I am generally OK with the diagnostic. I agree going chapter by chapter considering the three main points in your/Jordan's email. I have more issues with the sub regs/Ch. 10 than FNI. I suggest using Cedar Park's subdivision regulations as a model. I also have some detailed improvements in a "red line document" to Section 3.1200 Unsafe Buildings that the staff has had for weeks for their comments. FNI's comments about drainage are good. Therefore I would recommend the city not adopt BSC's recommendations, but incorporate BSC's language and policy issues, especially those dealing with adding maintenance and enforcement in Chapter 6, into the code rewrite process. I have a number of questions concerning the report and Chapter 5, Signs. The biggie has to do with community event signs in the ROW that are content specific, yet the city attorney said we could be content specific for community event signs in the ROW.