Staff outlines permitting timelines, OpenGov portal and new 'project champion' role to streamline development reviews

City planning and development staff used the commission’s May 12 special meeting to walk through the city’s development review process, outline typical review timelines and explain planned changes intended to reduce delays for applicants.

Director Howard (Planning & Development) described three broad phases for most projects — entitlement, land development and vertical construction — and reviewed authority in the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and cited sections of the Texas Local Government Code that govern annexation, subdivision and zoning reviews. Howard told the commission that pre‑application meetings are encouraged (and required in some cases defined in the UDO) so applicants and staff can identify site constraints early and avoid downstream delays.

Howard said the city’s timeline from application submission to the first planning and zoning commission (PNC) meeting can be up to six weeks to allow for staff review, notices and publication. He added that from a PNC recommendation to a commission decision can take up to four weeks. He said some reviews require third‑party civil review and that unresolved items in one phase can delay subsequent permits.

To reduce back‑and‑forth, staff said the city will assign a "project champion," a single point of contact for each project who will consolidate technical feedback from planning, engineering, public works, fire and health and convey clear, consolidated requests to applicants. "We will be implementing, like, what's called a project champion," Howard said, describing the role as project‑dependent with the champion drawn from the department most relevant to the work.

Howard also reviewed the OpenGov online permitting portal: when applicants submit in OpenGov, staff completeness checks are performed and applicants are notified by email if attachments are missing; in‑portal messaging and real‑time status updates are available for applicants to check progress. He noted conditional workflow fields (for example, a proposed food service use triggers health review) and said staff are reviewing opportunities to consolidate repeated attachments and avoid multiple, fragmented applications for essentially the same project data.

Commissioners pressed staff about specific pinch points: appeals from the Zoning Board of Adjustment go to district court, not back to the commission, Howard said; inspectors and plan reviewers should aim to respond promptly (staff noted a 48‑hour goal for inspections and asked the commission to understand capacity constraints); and the city plans annual standardization and cross‑training for inspectors to reduce inconsistent outcomes between pre‑inspection and final inspection.

City Manager (addressing the commission) said combining planning and health functions was intended to improve cross‑collaboration and expressed optimism about incremental process improvements now being rolled out. Commissioners repeatedly asked for timely, reassuring communications to constituents — even a brief acknowledgment that a request has been received — to avoid the perception that the city is unresponsive.

Why it matters: Developers, property owners and residents testified that protracted or unclear review steps have created delays. The project champion and streamlined OpenGov workflows are intended to reduce repetitive requests and shorten overall elapsed time to permit issuance.

What’s next: Staff said some new large projects already have project champions assigned; the city will incrementally expand the practice and is updating standard operating procedures and the fee schedule where appropriate. Staff asked commissioners to collect constituent feedback and forward examples for staff diagnosis and follow‑up.