[0:14] Good. >> All right. Um, I'd like to call this

[0:19] meeting of the planning commission to order. It's Wednesday, August 5th at

[0:23] 7:01 p.m. Um, I'm Elizabeth Saul. I am subbing in for our chair Allison Miller

[0:30] is the chair of this meeting. Uh first item on the agenda is a roll call. So

[0:35] Elizabeth Amanda

[0:41] » and I see online we have James Whitesides.

[0:46] » Yep. James Whitides. >> Great. Um and I think that the five of

[0:51] us constituted four. Is that correct?

[0:56] All right. Next item on the agenda is to review and approve the July 1st, 2026

[1:02] meeting minutes. If everybody had a chance to verily review the minutes,

[1:07] single page, I move to um

[1:14] [clears throat]

[1:18] a second. Uh oh, we have five. All right, go to five then.

[1:24] Okay. All those in favor, I I opposed. All right, the item passes. And here we

[1:32] are at the top of our meeting. Uh the public hearing on the 2026 comprehensive

[1:38] plan. So I'm going to get to my things to the script.

[1:44] Um, so I'd like to open the public hearing uh at 7:03 p.m. um on August

[1:54] 5th. The purpose of this public hearing is to approve the comprehensive plan

[2:00] periodic update for 2026. We'll turn it over to Maggie B for the

[2:07] staff report and recommendation. Right. I'm gonna go ahead and share screen

[2:12] here. I have uh tries to put together a little presentation uh or I'd love your

[2:24] hopefully everyone online that

[2:29] James can you see that I'm ready to share.

[2:34] » Yep. >> Okay.

[2:36] » We can see it. >> Okay. I'll try since we don't have a ton

[2:40] of people online, but this since this is for the record and it's for the comp

[2:43] plan, I just want to walk through even a document. Um, what I did was try to go

[2:48] through kind of the the big picture um using some of the slides that are the

[2:53] that consultants have provided to us um and kind of merge everything into one

[2:59] comprehensive uh overview. So, um, not going to touch on everything, but, uh,

[3:07] the staff report packet kind of has the overall summary as well.

[3:14] So, um, for tonight's hearing, I just kind of wanted to briefly go over the

[3:17] the why. Um, this is my mandated process. Um, we'll go over some of the

[3:23] growth allocation and the planning process for 24 and six. some major

[3:28] changes to the plan. We might find out the big brand element we have um how we

[3:34] are going to give and stand

[3:43] way too much stuff on my screen here. I'm sorry I can't.

[3:48] All right, so why are we here? The state law requires it. So GMA requires all

[3:52] cities periodically review and update their comp plan. So here we are. uh 10

[3:57] years from now will be clear again. Uh it is maintain the pretty much the same

[4:03] structure as our 2021 plan but been substantially rewritten reorganized and

[4:09] expanded throughout the chapters. As you are all well aware of our statuto

[4:13] deadline for December 31st of this year reason we're here today because we also

[4:20] have the regulations that correspond with each regulation. So, uh, this is

[4:24] kind of the first step in that process. Uh,

[4:28] and so we're hoping to get this moving forward to be council next month

[4:35] next month.

[4:40] Sorry guys. Um, so quickly we went through a lot of

[4:44] public engagement dating back to 2024 when we started the raing workshops. Um

[4:50] those kind of were to kick off this whole process and we have four different

[4:54] workshops all four followed by five plus community outreach event that we did

[5:02] tonight fair community block party

[5:08] a couple online surveys for how the parks and red and then how specific to

[5:14] find the element by

[5:19] um and respect all

[5:26] as far as the timeline uh we've just prepared and issued the checklist at the

[5:32] end of March March 26 March 2026 sorry um and then we also issued 60-day notice

[5:40] before required by law and issue between April

[5:48] the foundation um their comment period we went through

[5:53] and did not have any file. So that went through very smoothly. Um we published

[5:59] our meeting and that

[6:08] um again this is the hearing or the drive recommendation. We're not

[6:15] a recommendation to the council. Um and so we do have the ability to

[6:23] change it and be able to get some public feedback

[6:27] um with the goal of in September adopting the plan. I do think when I

[6:35] originally did this we were shooting from September 8th. They actually got

[6:38] pushed to September 22nd. So there is

[6:44] that so keeps us on track. Um, as far as planning, we're going out to 246. We

[6:50] have that population target for the city plus our growth area about 3,539.

[6:58] That adds approx 410 residents and for additional housing

[7:04] units of about 365. Um

[7:09] overall looking at the inventory um and the pandemic and then under

[7:14] underutilized land um it did show that we had capacity for that growth and we

[7:20] wouldn't have to adjust our urban growth boundary. Um we would have accommodate

[7:26] without expanding. Um and because of our population size, we do not have to

[7:30] address the mandatory housing density provisions, but we are okay with some of

[7:35] those um uh big goals and policies to achieve

[7:41] some housing um initiative just by choice and not by handling.

[7:47] It's really awesome. Um so what's changing plan and why did revise uh nine

[7:54] chapters and then uh and we have the one brand new climate resilience element. Um

[8:02] what was interesting is the number of goals if you remember how much time

[8:06] planning was originally the number of goals that we basically doubled. Um we

[8:12] added a more consistent numbering format and then um we do have that ready.

[8:18] Um so there's just not required optional

[8:26] um I don't know how much I need to get into

[8:30] this huge uh group here but um climate resilience we were required to address

[8:38] address um really what we've done into the facility fairness and environment.

[8:44] Uh so we were looking really at those hazards like wildfire, snow flooding,

[8:50] extreme heat drought, snow that loss, we added that severe storms as kind of home

[8:57] right after those. So um that was a great thing to add um because that is

[9:04] becoming a reality for us. Um and then uh just looking at our the equitable

[9:11] access to find the information uh and decision making for all residents. Um

[9:17] there's a separate female staff reduction set and that applies to cities

[9:22] that are over 6,000 in population. So if you didn't follow it under that

[9:27] that

[9:31] we did choose to create a single element but we did incorporate that was like

[9:37] throughout the cont.

[9:45] Um the housing we went home just two goals um down to six goals. In our

[9:52] current plan, we added new policies, new barriers. We added um plans for

[9:57] emergency as far as housing, new workforce housing goals and

[10:03] still addressing

[10:09] people. Um we expanded to build housing policies and that was again as a place.

[10:18] Um just some numbers through here. our additional housing units. We did again

[10:22] 361. We went in and did that deep dive of if we were to um how's our works

[10:32] um what kind of housing plan would that be? So I added that number here um

[10:39] 635 um and you'll see that I plan on the

[10:44] extra pages I need and I do have

[10:49] question about that additional analysis of

[10:54] you know what how how many people will be

[10:57] how how many more how student how's everyone who works here and just a

[11:03] different kind of analysis for what looking at. So um to look at is that

[11:09] through 61 what we strive for

[11:17] look at there's some analys

[11:27] which is kind of shows you a big reason why

[11:33] it's income Um

[11:39] here. So uh with our land we uh we have nine goals. Uh we added longer

[11:47] sustainable building design. Um added more climate resilience um

[11:56] reference

[11:59] extensions. Sorry to go ask whe

[12:25] elements um around those relation

[12:31] Um and then uh transportation

[12:37] reorganized that added a new wildfire operation coordination bill. Um added a

[12:43] new standalone parking and move that from another element

[12:48] where it was more

[12:54] where it should have belonged. Um and then we did retain that level of service

[12:59] after the same as we've had. Um and then again US student remains death from uh

[13:05] state highway. We talk a lot about that services still

[13:14] did expand from one goal to five. We were we did a lot of work through this

[13:19] as we work through our utility element. I think we addressed a lot of the the

[13:24] questions. Um

[13:28] uh grass wildfire related utility

[13:33] shut off energy resilient

[13:41] economic development elements. Um we added another

[13:46] mining

[13:49] strategy there. Um there was also notes about the the

[13:55] production and number of the we had or

[14:02] um and then uh yeah part

[14:07] it was down and then park really expanded along with

[14:13] our post and that was adopted last month council that we incorporated into this

[14:18] larger expans ethics. Um it stands

[14:24] and um started our safety private collaboration.

[14:30] Um talked about how our Spanish visitors have really impacted our harms as well.

[14:40] Overall just with uh how how we have complied with state law as far as our

[14:45] review deadline our um adoption or corporate climate element the housing

[14:51] element requirements um state

[14:56] participation plan and then our new um and so there's

[15:03] phone through which is a lot more detailed um and I know this is just high

[15:07] level one I try to write a lot of stuff Um but uh we are recommending approval

[15:13] of this. um we have listed back but like all those corrections things like that

[15:20] obvious

[15:23] and we can still make recommendation because whatever but tonight um we would

[15:29] recommend that that you

[15:37] approving it to reounce recommending approval from city council.

[15:43] Yes. um as drafted and then including any drafts that you may have that we

[15:47] would attach that um we did receive one public art that I

[15:54] for you all. I don't know if everyone had time to look at that

[15:59] and watch your emails. I didn't copies. Um

[16:04] » I think those are really bad >> and we we did we'll go over it. Um

[16:10] we'd like some state regulations and we can kind of talk about it if you have

[16:13] questions. Um anyone didn't get it

[16:20] or decision tonight.

[16:27] But really they had some just uh comments on the land use settlements. Um

[16:37] immigration housing

[16:42] » they had some comments but should we speak on now

[16:50] recommendations? I think I am sorry I just want to make

[16:55] sure I got on the record that they did that we did receive this last time you

[16:59] discussed it. Um and then we discussed that

[17:01] » that is the only public comment I received aside from comments from the

[17:06] the concludes my presc

[17:13] if there are questions I as far as process um I I think now we open it up

[17:19] to no first we ask if there's any questions to the staff what it says here

[17:24] oh questions of the staff regarding process or

[17:35] » I don't

[17:39] mean James um I have questions

[17:46] um regarding process and I I sent them in to Celeste and you like late last

[17:53] week so I understand you guys didn't have too much time to review

[17:59] some of them um like things like that which hopefully we can resolve. Yeah.

[18:09] » And then some of them were uh I'm trying to find my email.

[18:16] There we go. Um

[18:22] okay. Um,

[18:26] one of my questions was about um, GMA requirements and the the funding

[18:34] requirements for for GMA that they be funded in order to appear in here. We

[18:40] have several TBD funings in the in the plan. Yeah, that's okay. We did discuss

[18:46] that. Okay. with um the public department about it and it's pretty fun

[18:51] that I can find that and the department of commerce have not they've seen this

[18:56] they've looked through the red draft and they they give us some feedback but not

[19:00] not all that um that we have incorporated and so um from my

[19:05] understanding it's fine to have that in there the way that it's

[19:11] for the department conference we're not going to get things or any

[19:16] Um, okay. That's not what it says in code, but I

[19:22] as long as fine with it, that's great. The other uh one I had a question about

[19:28] was about the the to see between the transportation elements, transportation

[19:33] improvement plan, the capital facilities element. I know that and I I dug deep

[19:38] into some reds. I got into a deep black hole of

[19:44] online food on Friday. Um, and it looks like we have a history of approving the

[19:49] transportation improvement plan in like this spring in order to be able to

[19:54] submit it. Uh, we could submit it by August 1st and I don't think we did that

[19:58] this year. I saw a record of just got adopted. I saw that it got there was

[20:06] a hearing on it but not not a hearing sorry a study session where it got

[20:11] presented almost. I will but anyone can get back

[20:19] and I have money is just whatever. Yeah, because the

[20:24] money I mean the year the money is spent sometimes that would be weird like when

[20:29] you receive the money you spend the money and I understand that that

[20:33] but the total dollars amounts being different and the project must be

[20:37] different and so the adopted change that we're

[20:44] going to put in the but

[20:49] we have right there but so look at and make sure they make adjustments to

[20:55] the language for consistency.

[20:59] But the tip that was adopted, do we have is that what was in the plan or

[21:07] I sent them? >> All right,

[21:12] cool. Um,

[21:17] my actual question. Uh, all right.

[21:23] Let's go. Uh, we can now open this for public comment.

[21:29] Do we have anybody see person? So,

[21:35] » um, I was just gonna sit in. So, I know this is coming to council. It's not, you

[21:40] know, going on. Um I do have

[21:46] so at this point >> if you state your name.

[21:48] » Oh yeah. >> You need me to go somewhere. Is this

[21:52] okay? >> Right there we are.

[21:54] » I can hear you. >> See Christ 583.

[21:58] Um I think that uh referencing RC's 3 RC3

[22:06] is the lighter. Um, I think they have some legitimate concerns. Um, I don't

[22:13] really know how to address those. I think I got the gist that they were

[22:19] concerned about the density issue which [clears throat]

[22:23] has always been there and how to um balance that with the state requirement

[22:31] allows you know um use to come in. Um,

[22:37] so I guess my concern is that

[22:43] there's no there's no safeguard to keeping those

[22:48] ADUs even though part of the process was

[22:54] increase the number of supplies so you have a better chance of affordable

[22:57] housing when actually what it very likely happened and has some cases to

[23:03] say some lower price than being bought out

[23:07] for second home. So, how do you do how do you control

[23:12] that? You don't. I don't. But that is a that's kind of an unintended consequence

[23:17] of providing just lower smaller lower price

[23:23] and I've been aware of that all the way along. That was one of my concerns with

[23:27] that. But how do we if it's public property you don't have any control on

[23:34] but that you know it just sort of I know that's happening so that for now it's

[23:41] public >> all right thank you we have anybody

[23:44] online

[23:50] so I'm just here

[23:54] » all right Marco please provide your name and address and make your

[23:59] » Sure. Um, my name is Marco Aurelio. I live at 149 West Benton Street and uh

[24:06] I'd just like to comment on the um the density issue and housing in general. I

[24:12] know there's a mandate in the uh in the comprehensive plan to include housing

[24:16] for workforce. I saw the 80% of the uh average median income in that. So since

[24:23] the Widner group has been building in Levvenworth from the behind Safeway

[24:29] which we still had a comprehensive plan at that time and now the new the new

[24:34] development by uh the reindeer farm there on Chumstick that equals 580 plus

[24:40] units. Okay, that's about the biggest density Levvenworth has ever experienced

[24:44] in its entire existence and represents a 40% growth in Levvenworth. And I had

[24:50] made a motion when I was on city council to impose uh inclusionary housing, which

[24:56] is a Washington state law I think you're all familiar with in that growth. And it

[25:01] would have represented the largest increase if we had imposed 10 or 20% of

[25:06] that mandated workforce housing would have represented the largest workforce

[25:12] housing or even affordable housing in the history of Levvenore. And I'm

[25:17] curious why that never happened.

[25:24] When I made the motion, it was rejected by council. But why didn't the planning

[25:28] commission support imposing workforce housing exclusionary policy on the

[25:35] widener committee, the widener development group, telling them they had

[25:39] to build workforce housing or they can't build in in love as a percentage of

[25:43] their growth?

[25:46] » Uh, thank you for your comment, Marco. Do we have anybody else online?

[25:52] Um I I have Dory and Dorothy, if you want to speak, I can

[25:59] allow you to talk and uh you want to unmute yourself and then state your

[26:04] name, address, I'll give you a few seconds.

[26:11] » Hi. Um can you hear me? >> Yeah, we can hear you.

[26:16] » Okay. Um, my name's Dorothy Johnston. I live at 10404 Eagle Creek Road.

[26:24] And um, I just was um, listening in to make sure that the comment letter uh,

[26:31] written and submitted by residents coalition of Chalan County RC3 that that

[26:37] had been received and that everyone had a chance to review that. And I

[26:42] appreciate um um that some of the folks have actually read that and are

[26:49] commenting on it. That's pretty much all that I have right now.

[26:55] » Thank you, Dorothy. Anybody else?

[27:07] » TC, would you like to make a comment? So state your name, your address.

[27:21] All right, we'll assume that you do not wish to speak. Uh

[27:27] you're not muted. Um all right. Well, we are going to then close public comment.

[27:32] Uh public comment is still at this time. Um all right, commission. Is there any

[27:37] discussion or motion on the recommendation of

[27:42] plan to

[27:46] fix

[27:57] I if the the comments that particularly influen

[28:04] are interesting to me because it feels as if me and the council here in the

[28:11] last 12 months have touched on really all of these items sometimes in deep

[28:17] discussion and had

[28:21] had there been uh approval of our minutes or

[28:28] action, you know, the people here from the RC3 actually, you know, listening to

[28:32] what was happening in council meetings. I think so much of this has been touched

[28:36] on. Yes, there's some great ideas here, but it feels like great ideas coming

[28:40] from an area where we have put in some serious time and effort already. And so

[28:46] I I well I don't disagree with some of the things that they're saying in here.

[28:50] I feel like that uh the commission has torn over quite a few of these items and

[28:56] you know the ideas of um that are put forth in here while you know very good

[29:03] are feel a little old in and I'm you know I haven't been on the commission

[29:07] for too long but we've discussed a lot of these items uh multiple times and in

[29:11] them and so this I struggled with these comments only because I feel like had

[29:17] anybody from the RC3 been president in any of our meetings, they would have

[29:21] really heard some deep and thoughtful discussion about the subtitles as

[29:25] opposed to kind of putting them on us like late in the thing some like as

[29:29] something we missed when I feel a lot of these things, not all of them by any

[29:32] means, but a lot of these things were things that this commission has not only

[29:37] looked over but thought through and so I just wanted to, you know, make sure that

[29:42] everyone knows that these are items that we have not only looked at but in depth

[29:48] and I understand why there might be some frustrations as to where

[29:55] our recommendations are going as opposed to what may have been said by the

[30:00] community in the 2024 forum or a lot of other items of fear. But, you know, I

[30:05] just although I hear them, I feel like, you know, he me, not just me, but

[30:12] together have really gone gone over a lot of.

[30:17] And I just want to put it out there that I feel like we have not not covered

[30:22] everything, but, you know, taken an in-depth look at a lot of.

[30:27] » Yeah, that's a really uh thoughtful point, and I I wanted to address a

[30:33] couple of things. But they did bring up that maybe they're not there. Um like

[30:39] like the the whole idea of of a you know neighborhood feel or keeping things like

[30:45] they are now is is not we can't do that. We're going to have by the Department of

[30:50] Commerce to take those languages out of our thought because it it creates

[30:54] barrier for people that are trying to build something a little more

[30:57] affordable. And so we have to balance all of these things together. We have to

[31:01] balance like the parks and the housing and our our commercial zones and it's

[31:06] all like the tourism like it is all you know sometimes they they pull against

[31:11] each other. um can look like we're not missing when

[31:14] we you know we really are like you were saying it's it's um it's a it's a

[31:20] balance and I I think we've spent a lot of time um trying to figure out figure I

[31:27] think you guys hour to hour

[31:30] » I I think that we need to be very careful when we do try to preserve a

[31:38] neighborhood's character Um because

[31:43] often preserving a neighborhood character is preserving the racial

[31:49] makeup of that neighborhood which is not what we want. want to be

[31:56] more inclusionary, whether it is

[32:00] of other races other than white and Asian uh or um

[32:09] you know different abilities uh different income levels. Um, so

[32:17] yes, we need to be able to offer housing that is affordable to people who earn

[32:25] different incomes. And doing that is offering different

[32:31] options of housing. And part of that is also

[32:40] doing housing that is smaller or or just different options.

[32:47] And so we just we do want to be more inclusion. We want

[32:52] to make certain that all of our neighbors are welcome in our food.

[33:00] Absolutely. And I know that one of the other things I mentioned withinary

[33:04] zoning and I don't think that the comp plan now sort of us doing that. It's not

[33:11] it's not like we're not allowing it. It's just I know that the mayor has

[33:14] talked about it a lot. It's um it is very difficult in a town size um to get

[33:23] something. >> I would say we're exploring lots of

[33:25] different ways to require the inclus of affordable housing

[33:32] in our council

[33:36] the one specific option.

[33:41] » Yeah.

[33:46] » See, that's precisely to say I I just want I just want the

[33:51] constituency to know and understand that like not only have we looked at a lot of

[33:55] these things, we have looked at every angle to try to figure out a good way to

[34:00] include these things and bring them into the comp plan to bring them into the

[34:03] vision of where Dworth is headed. You know, and if you would review our

[34:09] minutes, you'll see you can really see what we have done or what we have

[34:13] discussed and where you know what avenues we have looked at which it feels

[34:18] to be a lot of a lot of the different things to to you know to address some of

[34:23] the huge needs which are you know brought out and some for sure. there

[34:27] just, you know,

[34:31] feels like it's been as in in a lot of in in a lot of what I

[34:37] see. >> I'll just refer to one other thing that

[34:39] I, you know, based on the like community feel and listen, I feel like well,

[34:45] there's an offsides. I feel like some of these comments that are brought

[34:50] in here are talking about wanting to be, you know, closer with our neighbors,

[34:55] which actually if you have density, you have more neighbors, you can be more

[34:58] close. So, like I that's like the sort of comment that I would, right? But um

[35:02] and I I think that you've done a lot in our design uh you have designed for

[35:10] triplexes and multi multi-unit um buildings to

[35:16] research from many different places. ask the public at, you know, you guys had

[35:21] staff had a a great display at uh one of the community open houses and received a

[35:26] lot of feedback there and then sort of revamped our our design requirements as

[35:33] far >> resial

[35:36] design standards. Thank you for the direct title. Um we had several meetings

[35:40] about that. So, I refer to that uh those those meetings those updated uh design

[35:46] requirements which hopefully both balance the the the need to house young

[35:51] people or accommodate young people in our communities while also making sure

[35:55] that we um feel cohesive in the community and that the community doesn't

[36:01] the built community doesn't feel out of line. Um

[36:08] um you know neighbors neighborhoods themselves

[36:14] in my neighborhood um we have had two community events within the last month.

[36:22] We had a backyard uh concert theme and then

[36:31] um and then we had um you know a neighborhood barbecue.

[36:37] That is a part of how neighborhoods bring neighbors together. So what it

[36:44] takes then is actual neighbors doing that

[36:50] and that's not the plan but

[36:56] that is you know something that neighbors need to take responsibility

[37:01] for themselves. All right. Um do we have any discussion

[37:06] um not related necessarily to the comments that we received but just about

[37:10] the plan and of itself or the motion

[37:17] James has his hands up and sorry James doesn't notice your hand

[37:23] » yeah no no worries I I think it's um I think it's important for us to remind

[37:29] the public and remind everyone that the comp plan is meant to open doors for us

[37:32] and provide opportunity community to write code, but the city council scopes

[37:38] what the planning commission deals with. So in all of these scenarios like it

[37:42] returns to the commission to decide what our scope is and we right now are trying

[37:46] to deliver um on most of the areas that have been raised as comments and I think

[37:52] the comp plan is this is this comp plan is more holistic than anything has been

[37:56] before and gives us more opportunity and I think everyone should view it as that

[38:01] and make sure that we don't feel like it's pushing us in a in a direction.

[38:04] It's actually just leaving more doors open for the city planners and the

[38:09] planning commission to work with the council to deliver better code. And

[38:14] again, planning commission's responsibility is code. And I think it's

[38:18] very incumbent on the public to understand what our role is and that we

[38:20] don't decide our own docket.

[38:31] If there's no

[38:35] planning recommend to the city council 26

[38:45] draft and with the discuss

[38:50] format spelling

[38:55] there a second. All right. Any more discussion before we

[39:00] vote? All right. All those in favor? I I

[39:07] » change. All right.

[39:12] Um so the vote was 1, two, three, four, five to zero for approval. Um

[39:21] and the motion carries. All right. At this time, we'll close the

[39:25] public hearing on the plan periodic update for 2026.

[39:36] All right. Can't believe we have anything else in

[39:40] our agend [laughter]

[39:46] that didn't take as long as I thought. I added a lot a lot. I'm very ambitious

[39:52] for the August meeting, too, just because we have so much.

[39:55] » We do have a lot. It's all really exciting. All right. So, um I like how

[40:00] you added um like gave these giant chunks of ABC D under five. So, we'll

[40:08] get to Yes, I did. Thank you for

[40:19] 7:40. Um, okay. So, we'll go to item five in

[40:24] our agenda. Development regulations review and discussion. Let's go to item

[40:28] 5 a code of update. Uh, all right. Maggie. Yeah. What? Well, I'm asking for

[40:36] your thoughts. We had a deep dive on this and about 11 was like the single

[40:41] event. Um and so the thing with that the intent of the original the way I got

[40:47] that was I

[40:51] population estimates both for money and getting back

[40:58] and getting back housing as well. um it doesn't much way to do it

[41:06] and I would this is my recommendation to kind of what I'm running around but

[41:12] » we can discuss in perfect specific to us which is what we

[41:18] building situation any so yes >> and then the second portion

[41:25] you the way I have it is by their community

[41:30] » I how they >> why it

[41:35] » right now I don't even think I don't know true

[41:39] » yeah because what if if and when there was to be an annexation and we l to then

[41:44] that's something that can be dealt with permit by permit case by case at that

[41:48] » we have drafted for annexation when we bring in

[41:53] we will address this now >> so let let the people in charge a bit

[41:58] deal with them now when when it becomes nec necessary. We can look at it and if

[42:02] it's already filled, that sounds like we're already

[42:06] » comfortable with that. >> Yeah, I agree.

[42:10] » And I know but the council had directly mess

[42:18] preapproved plans

[42:21] there. I know something about >> Allison was going to draft a memo and

[42:25] she never looking forward to reading. Okay. So

[42:29] » I the more come is I believe in April instead of six

[42:36] months. So I get to October. So we have a hearing and oh just

[42:43] » I remember the memo was going to say something along the lines like we're not

[42:46] going to pursue anything that has to do with trying to tag something for any

[42:52] amount of time or any reason. And you know, we also talked about a gray area

[42:56] regarding like, let's just say that you built the ADU and want to live in it and

[43:00] not your house. Are we now going to control how they rent their house out

[43:02] because they built the ADU? Like, and so like I struggled with the idea of we we

[43:08] struggled with the idea of how how you would even start down there. And so we

[43:12] all said she she would draft some sort of like verbiage or language that would

[43:16] help us tell the city council that that's not something that we thought

[43:18] that made sense for us to even engage in because once you start down that path

[43:23] how even how you start and then where where does it end? So

[43:29] » and what was what's the time frame on that again?

[43:31] » I think

[43:35] » okay you need to see something for the September then if not earlier.

[43:41] Okay. I I don't want to

[43:47] We have a 4% count and what I have on the agenda with council at our next to

[43:53] discuss that sites and then to kind of give my idea like hey I'm not going to

[43:59] have anything. I was hoping I have at least I go on

[44:06] that piece and then I need discuss

[44:12] » universally in favor of not having so

[44:17] um and so >> see they'll try and summarize a little

[44:21] bit of the discussion I'm >> a little fuzzy on it but basically

[44:28] you know it's some cost from the city it's already taken doesn't matter how

[44:31] many people use it. So, there's really no paying from the city. You know, they

[44:37] people do pre-approved plans to save a little bit

[44:42] of money. Um, but housing is housing trying to support

[44:49] more housing. We're trying to support types of different kind of housing

[44:54] for that. Uh, another big piece of it is the breakfast movements

[45:01] lapse on sale of a property and so you know in our thought

[45:10] the next owner probably won't be allowed to have directives there. So the sale

[45:15] would if they were able to get on that date from that go away

[45:24] go back. >> Yeah. And you know, I think that the

[45:29] city benefits by having more ADUs

[45:35] and that's why the program is development begin with and we don't

[45:39] really see Ben breakfast as a negative you know we

[45:44] don't want Ben breakfast that's a different discussion

[45:47] but I I think we don't see the use of plans

[45:56] that may or may not be everybody like this. That is

[46:00] as a a negative. >> I think the other when you say housing

[46:03] is housing uh one aspect of that that we're going to be maxing out our our

[46:09] friend percentage. So like the we're basically there and so if if that one a

[46:17] three plan ADU becomes a bed breakfast that means that the next ADU or next

[46:24] thing that's built is not going to be so like there's still going to be the same

[46:27] number of bed breakfast no matter or not.

[46:34] So you guys don't have can I can I Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. This is the discussion.

[46:40] Okay. So So you guys don't have an issue with they take the pre-approved plans

[46:47] that uh saves [clears throat] them quite a

[46:50] bit of money actually. I my my my field for sure and whether

[46:55] they use it for commercial enterprise or they use it for real housing. Good point

[47:00] for you because it will be housing. >> Don't we have an example? Let's let's

[47:05] talk about the example Simon's given us. So Zeke like in some cases people need

[47:11] to be able to use a pre-approved plan because it's a cost-saving measure to be

[47:15] able to stay in their home because they need an alternative income source. So we

[47:20] can't be restrictive on the use

[47:25] » in that sense. Yeah. Um well actually I would disagree with you. I think that

[47:30] why we why we came up with that plan was specifically to promote

[47:35] those folks who wanted to not get real creative but have just a stock idea for

[47:41] a unit. uh after saving some money that would be providing

[47:46] smaller units more affordable but for housing like long rent like 30day plus

[47:53] wasn't for adding helping folks out I get your

[47:58] point J but still it's still there's money money in bed and breakfast

[48:04] is very substantial and I my personal my perspective I don't want to subsidize

[48:11] that I said we're going to put that um it

[48:14] could stay a bad breakfast forever and never does become really kind of

[48:19] housing. So I think if we're going to help the housing situation even a little

[48:24] bit by fuel uh you you could have these have a plans

[48:33] that that would ease your cost but you got you got to provide some housing

[48:37] directed. That's where we're at. Not down the road. And uh so

[48:43] part [clears throat] of my thing I think it brought up was if in fact people shut

[48:48] off as an ADU and then they change it to a better electricity. Okay, this hasn't

[48:54] been done yet, but so if you change it, then you pay back what you what you save

[48:59] on change. You know, money you save by going to that plan, you owe back um and

[49:07] most way you don't get a big savings like that uh for commercial property.

[49:13] That's that's coming from you.

[49:18] My feeling is that most bed and breakfast if you're required to live

[49:21] there aren't necessarily giant commercial enterprises. They're

[49:26] supplemental income people. Um

[49:30] and the I think it would be different if we were um the city was actually paying

[49:37] something for each of those. But the fact that the money in the cost

[49:43] um and that I think that the more people that use those plants better because

[49:48] that means that the production of of housing is is

[49:54] granted it might not be housing for people living here right now but that

[49:58] makes the production of housing less expensive on the um so I I would

[50:06] any any hurdles or anything that we're going to people go through in order to

[50:11] um to do that I think is mental if I'm a person who um might be able to rent out

[50:18] um uh rent out at a good rate on uh my ADU in the beginning then that tenant

[50:26] leaves and I need to find I haven't found another tenant might be off season

[50:31] it might be something something might not find a big tenant I would love to

[50:35] have the option to fill that space to be able to make mortgage payment payment on

[50:40] on the loan gap of that ADU through some other means to have that option. So

[50:46] procluding that option seems like makes the financial calculus a filing at all.

[50:55] » I would disagree. I my my only argue I hear where Steve is coming from. My only

[51:00] argument is this. We have a cap on. >> It doesn't matter what units are bed and

[51:06] credits. We have this many units and we have a total cap on betting. My my

[51:12] argument is who cares which which ones of those are right now. Yes, the city

[51:19] created an idea of helping infill housing by creating accessory dwelling

[51:25] unit pre-planned units. Okay, that idea they can't control the use and

[51:31] utilization of the idea. And [clears throat] so the idea was put out

[51:34] there by the city of Grey and use and utilization as everyone has talked about

[51:40] is different across the board and trying to tell someone okay we're going to help

[51:46] you out to the tune of x amount of dollars in plans and pre-ermitting and

[51:52] you are still going to go out there and spend a quarter of a million dollars to

[51:55] build said a new or whatever the cost might be for you. how how they can

[52:01] directly use that in any time frame doesn't make sense to me. Especially if

[52:06] we have an overall path, if there was no overall cap on bed and breakfast units,

[52:11] then I would say absolutely we can't just be uh assisting commercial

[52:16] enterprise as he says. But since there is an overall cap, I I don't understand

[52:20] why it matters which units are bed and breakfast as long as we have a cap on

[52:25] the overall units that are that would be my my right because if

[52:30] there's a if there's a hard and fast number on that in a permitting process

[52:33] they go go through. Can you can you demonstrate why it matters which ones

[52:39] are that would be my that would be my only argument to your comments.

[52:44] » Right. Right. But every time you build one, you're up over every time you build

[52:50] an ADU. [clears throat] You're increasing the overall supply and

[52:54] so you are going to increase the bed and breakfast supply more bed and breakfast

[52:59] are going to be built as no because breakfast are not based off the bed and

[53:04] breakfast are based off of a certain we we discussed this in the last one that

[53:07] we were talking about. are based off a certain specific amount, not necessarily

[53:11] the overall stock because we don't bring the uh apartments into housing stock for

[53:16] bed and breakfast or anything like that. So, I believe the stock is specific to

[53:20] what it is. So, uh building more than fill housing in the ADU portion doesn't

[53:24] necessarily increase the stock to increase the percentage uh that 4%

[53:29] number to a more larger number of housing units if I remember correct.

[53:34] » It would take a lot of it would take a lot of housing units too. I think this

[53:37] is Zeke, this is part of the thing like if we would have to see massive jumps in

[53:41] housing units in order to see the total number of ADUs allowed change

[53:45] substantially. I I forgot what the number was, but it's

[53:48] something like 40 new units to even move it one one more ADU allowed in town.

[53:55] » Um it's it's very narrow.

[54:00] » Anyway, that's my perspective. >> Okay. um discussion.

[54:03] » Yep. I'll have that session feedback. I know

[54:08] that I can language I have support

[54:15] and then I take back to them on how I was going to ask you. Um so we're

[54:23] changing how we're going to what's going to make our count. That's what I

[54:26] understand. We're not going to include it. Before somehow multif family was

[54:30] being included and now it's >> should be. So

[54:35] » yeah, >> what are we going to what do we where

[54:38] are we getting our stock number >> from the um the office of financial

[54:42] management their um population estimate for housing units. They take the census

[54:47] data plus all the data we report monthly to them for housing. We're taking the

[54:52] single unit. So how many individuals notes

[54:59] or housing >> straight up positive

[55:03] » um and of those 4%. So if an ADU is added that would

[55:09] be I mean it could be a unit but >> and it is a living unit. So, so we added

[55:15] 40 ADUs, it would add one permit for one one more existing

[55:21] » uh uh >> it takes a lot of

[55:26] to%

[55:37] and it was it was not index had been updated and it would not

[55:43] accurate. >> It's not

[55:46] » nothing is going to be 100% but this is a lot more accurate based on fact data.

[55:52] We are reporting personally are reporting to um the

[55:57] office. >> Okay. based on the public issuing

[56:01] permits were on. So every April I would report

[56:09] and based on that I feel pretty confident

[56:15] » basically it's real life. We know where the source is. Perfect.

[56:22] » I mean, yeah, everything's >> Well, this is an antidote, folks.

[56:27] » We started this. I had one bed and breakfast in my neighborhood. Now I have

[56:31] four. >> Are they Are they I have a question. Are

[56:35] they a problem? Because I have three in my neighborhood and one right here. Not

[56:38] a problem. >> And I have no issues with it at all. So,

[56:42] you know, like I don't disagree with you. They are popping up everywhere.

[56:45] when you look at the like before we both lived here for extended period of time I

[56:50] would agree with but I I don't see any issue with it yet I haven't seen one

[56:54] even small issue with it >> I would agree I haven't had fact I know

[56:58] every there >> me too I'm the same way but it's just

[57:02] like they are spreading and >> we are almost at our path

[57:07] » yeah and I Zeke I I think it's important too to acknowledge Zeke that the cold

[57:12] beds problem for us is not necessarily in ADUs it's and second homes that are

[57:16] empty. Like we have a we have we're we're we're fighting the ADU problem

[57:21] over or sorry the B&B problem and we have a very strong position to maintain

[57:27] control I feel. Um I think the rest of the commission agrees that our position

[57:31] is very strong to main control of B&Bs but we have no control over empty second

[57:36] homes >> and that's an even bigger problem for

[57:38] our community. [snorts] >> Oh, I totally agree. Okay, it's pretty

[57:42] awesome. Yeah, you can't even talk to those

[57:47] » four on my screen. >> Yeah.

[57:49] » All right, I think we're ready to close item number 5A and move on to item 5B,

[57:58] parking code update. Uh, Commissioner Parabar uh drafted the

[58:04] » Yes, I did. And quickly >> I was in in our packing

[58:09] um with three different ways to consider calculating. Maggie, did you want to say

[58:14] anything before? No, I I'd love to start with any question and then because mine

[58:20] are just very very draft based on state law.

[58:26] So I rather start. >> All right. Simon fe and the parking

[58:30] programs. I uh was uh tasked with putting together an idea of uh coming up

[58:36] with what the cost of a fee what a fee and new structure might look like and

[58:39] what the cost might look like. Um because we had an amazing parking plan

[58:44] provided um in February, I was able to use all of that data, we provide a

[58:49] pretty concrete idea of what uh for easy proposal to the uh city council of what

[58:56] a fee and loop program would look like, how that would um easily easily be

[59:01] calculated, how that will take shape. And then I put in also um a couple of

[59:07] you know obvious uh ideas and then an opinion as well um of the fee and lube

[59:13] program by um looking over how I how I put this together. I you know kind of

[59:19] double down on the idea of that because we've had uh pretty much the most recent

[59:26] idea of cost you can here at the city. We know what a park install cost. We've

[59:32] I mean the the numbers are here. It's it's about 100,000 and I feel like that

[59:37] is if you ask me that's the idea. That's that's where we should sell. Um that I

[59:43] understand that it seems high but so does the cost of parking. So is the

[59:47] value of a parking stall um in Levvenworth and I don't think we should

[59:53] you know in the idea of trying to help development short the idea of driving in

[59:58] any. So, you know, if you read through my book proposal here and kind of see,

[1:00:03] you can see what the cost of it is to the developer and the idea of it, but

[1:00:07] what the real cost of it is, especially uh, you know, the cost what the city has

[1:00:11] to pay to put forth something like that. I think that that's really where we

[1:00:15] should start. I'm absolutely uh willing to come off that point. I just feel

[1:00:20] strongly that the proposal that was, you know, put forth really talks truly to

[1:00:26] what to and how important parking is inside of

[1:00:31] city rooms 11 in the commercial district question about that. Um, and I didn't go

[1:00:36] back and read the study. >> That's okay.

[1:00:39] » But I think you would have. Um, so the 100,000 and especially compared to the

[1:00:45] number two thing that we're getting to on land value cost the 100,000 the cost

[1:00:49] for the city to construct >> that was an average. So I took

[1:00:52] » of the different Yeah. Y of the of the garage. Does that also include the land

[1:00:58] value? No, I don't think so because I I I

[1:01:02] believe that the city owned all the land underneath their proposed structures.

[1:01:06] So, I was just going off of I was just going to the land

[1:01:10] » the cost of the city to build, which is actually perfect because if we already

[1:01:14] own the land, then we really truly know cost of construction as opposed to what

[1:01:18] the land value might be extracted. >> But you could also say that the

[1:01:22] opportunity like the opportunity cost plus the cost would be more than enough.

[1:01:26] » Certain certainty, >> right?

[1:01:29] Certainly. Okay. Absolutely. If you added the land in there, u you could

[1:01:33] easily you could you could absolutely you could absolutely add the land

[1:01:36] possibly. >> Oh, please.

[1:01:41] » Yeah, Simon. So, the number the number is interesting. Um

[1:01:47] to me, the kind of the fee the fee structure being like almost an exact

[1:01:52] half cost of of what we think it would cost to build parking spots. Um,

[1:01:59] is there precedent for that? I didn't catch that in in what I read.

[1:02:02] » I I I miss what you're saying. I I uh in the in the cost to construct method,

[1:02:08] which was my first one, it averaged out 98,000. That was what I thought the

[1:02:13] city's cost to construct was. I offered other ideas. I was just trying to put

[1:02:18] forth I thought this was honestly, guys, I thought this was going to the city

[1:02:21] council. So I tried to I tried to talk to somebody who didn't know anything

[1:02:27] about what we were talking about if that makes sense. So I tried to lay it out in

[1:02:32] okay here's a cost to construct method here's about what the developer might

[1:02:36] think the cost to construct is here is what other people are doing in ideas and

[1:02:42] then trying to meld them all together. In no way am I saying that the we should

[1:02:46] we should have half the cost to construct at all. James, I'm actually

[1:02:49] saying that we should be uh fully behind the number one, the cost to construct

[1:02:54] method, as it's based off of the the ARC the ARC February report.

[1:03:01] » Okay. All right. Yeah, I'm I'm just uh catching up on reading this. I didn't

[1:03:05] » No, I apologize. >> I read it I read it a couple days ago

[1:03:08] and have uh emptied my brain a couple times since then. So

[1:03:12] » So So I If you're asking me what I'm behind, it's number one. I think that I

[1:03:16] think the cost is $99,000. And I think that that's where we should start. If

[1:03:20] there might be incentives uh put on that or if you're doing things that the city

[1:03:25] would like you to do or the direction we're going if there needs to be you

[1:03:28] need to bring in a little bit of the idea of uh the you know uh discount

[1:03:34] developer discount table bring that in. That's totally okay. But you know for as

[1:03:39] far as me and Lou I believe that $99,000 should be our starting. That was that

[1:03:43] was the gist behind this and I just trying to put

[1:03:47] » uh to someone who had never heard what a loo was before and explain it in them.

[1:03:56] » Oh, sorry. >> I think the adjustment scheme could get

[1:04:00] really complex. That's why I'm I I was just looking at the option two again,

[1:04:05] rereading that. Um, so yeah, I think a a flat baseline with with maybe very

[1:04:10] simple adjustments allowed, >> including like maybe a a total project

[1:04:14] cost scheme, but I don't know what that would look like.

[1:04:17] » That's fair. Absolutely. >> Uh, please can you tell us what the city

[1:04:22] said? >> Yeah, so they they really appreciated

[1:04:26] this and I think for people that did understand construction, they were like

[1:04:30] definitely not number two. That is not that problem. Yeah, but that would be

[1:04:34] what what I think it should >> precisely right. That's why I put for

[1:04:37] put it forth so you could see what where different minds are coming from in the

[1:04:40] real estate. >> I think uh council

[1:04:44] you have developed and has no parking in commercial like that number one is

[1:04:50] what is norm. >> That's right. Uh there was there was

[1:04:56] discussion about and and there were against here but there was discussion

[1:05:02] about okay they pay the fee and over the city build parking then the city gets

[1:05:07] the residence from that >> right

[1:05:09] » and so should there be an adjustment then they're like but they get the

[1:05:12] benefit of not having parking >> well they also get the benefit of this

[1:05:15] of the space in the building that might be a floor space or whatever that might

[1:05:19] be that could be beneficial to the building itself right and so

[1:05:22] » and and you know he brought up earlier. He said, "Well, what about the owner

[1:05:26] getting the money for the parking?" And I'm like, "The issue here is is we are

[1:05:30] talking about the parking that makes the business happen, not extra parking that

[1:05:35] the owner might get some money out of, right?" And so the whole idea is that

[1:05:39] you you you as the business necessitate the parking so that your business would

[1:05:44] function, not so that you can make a couple extra bucks off of it, right? And

[1:05:47] so, and so you either look at it as a sunk cost of I'll never have this

[1:05:52] business space, this floor space, but I'll have parking, or you pay the

[1:05:56] onetime fee in Lua. That's why it kind of feels like a bit of a slap on the

[1:06:00] wrist. And then you get the opportunity of having that floor space in perpetuity

[1:06:06] in your building, which you would hope is much more beneficial than the parking

[1:06:11] space of which you're willing to pay. But they also get to decide that size,

[1:06:15] right? But no, that's not true because there are some property owners that are

[1:06:20] forced into paying this fee because they can't. There there are there are a few

[1:06:25] property owners that are now with the closing of Front Street that that's

[1:06:28] going to be imperfect duty. There will be some disenfranchised people. Maybe

[1:06:33] that's where the developer table comes in and says, "Well, since there's no

[1:06:37] vehicle access to your property, we're willing to make a deal." But that could

[1:06:41] be on a case-by case basis as opposed to

[1:06:49] I feel like like I'm not a big fan of the discount table because we just bring

[1:06:54] it hard, but I feel like that justification might

[1:07:00] » like if you physically cannot put in a parking space,

[1:07:06] you're not charged. And that would be easy to

[1:07:10] » it' be easy to write the code. He's in determinist

[1:07:19] James.

[1:07:22] » James, go for it. >> I'm just getting lazy and not putting my

[1:07:26] hand down, but it this is a good discussion.

[1:07:29] » Um I I was curious um is a big slap on the the one time fee.

[1:07:37] That's a big like onetime fee. with the finance.

[1:07:41] » Well, but that's what I'm that's what I'm wondering. It's like maybe what we

[1:07:44] would consider it is actually we could consider instead of a one time fee some

[1:07:48] sort of like payment scheme over time or something else or rental. We we

[1:07:54] discussed this and what it gets into uh well I shouldn't say we we as a council

[1:07:59] we as a commission have discussed this idea before and what it what it gets

[1:08:02] best into is this uh gray area at the city of who's controlling this who's

[1:08:06] watching these things who's looking over things do these

[1:08:10] » you have to charge them >> and so and and so the idea of a one-time

[1:08:14] fee that feels pretty aggressive >> they and a developer is absolutely

[1:08:20] willing to pay this for sure. Uh there is like if you if you call cities who

[1:08:24] have implemented these sort of fees and talk to people, you will find that the

[1:08:28] developers just look at it as an opportunity cost and that's how it works

[1:08:32] and it just gets paid. Especially in an area like Levwood where you really want

[1:08:37] the floor space. You don't want you don't you you would rather have the

[1:08:41] floor space. That's that's because that's how you rent out. You don't rent

[1:08:44] parking spaces. That's a bonus to everybody. You rent the you rent the

[1:08:48] floor space. And I feel like if you were a developer, this would be something

[1:08:52] that, you know, it sounds it sounds large, which it is large. And the cost

[1:08:55] of the city is that large. And this money then gets to be taken and put into

[1:08:59] the fund that directly affects our parking, which is huge. Now, this isn't

[1:09:03] going to happen all the time, but when it does, bang. I mean, this is a lose to

[1:09:08] our parking, which is very we need that. So,

[1:09:12] » I mean, you saw a very

[1:09:17] tear down to that model

[1:09:22] or between where it's going from something.

[1:09:25] » It's not and that's where I where

[1:09:34] like what is that? >> I didn't even get into that. That one

[1:09:36] scares me a lot. But I'll let the city deal with that because they've already

[1:09:40] created that >> you're looking at like well it was a

[1:09:43] market before now it's going to be a restaurant or is it or going to be a

[1:09:47] assembly state like a theater or something where have a lot more people

[1:09:54] but that 50%

[1:10:00] I look like

[1:10:07] like we have our all of our parking use is kind of broken out. So, it's easy to

[1:10:11] do on a case- by case basis, but it really puts the illness on the city

[1:10:15] council or excuse me, on the city employees, which is kind of a tough

[1:10:19] extra, you know, I that's that's one of the reasons that I remember that we

[1:10:22] talked about not trying to implement because what Elizabeth says makes sense.

[1:10:26] They should be kind of charged yearly for this, right? But it's like that

[1:10:30] would be the best way, but how on earth can we implement that? And who's going

[1:10:33] to make sure that that fee structure? That's exactly right. One and all. And

[1:10:38] so, yes, it does feel large. I understand that the council uh the

[1:10:42] commissioners might, you know, see that and be like, whoa. But the truth is is

[1:10:46] while while being large, it's absolutely worth it to a developer, especially. So

[1:10:51] if a developer was going to come in and buy a building at a million half $2

[1:10:55] million and make a $2 million change, I can tell you from $4 million of money,

[1:11:00] $100,000 for $200, what may even $300,000 of the parking fee will just be

[1:11:06] an opportunity cost in the overall, you know, or they'll figure out a way around

[1:11:11] it. So yeah, that's been asking

[1:11:18] that often. >> Well, what where it happens right now is

[1:11:25] everything that gradual or when I think that expanding that's

[1:11:32] where I want to talk about

[1:11:38] to where like it increases the amount of time

[1:11:44] Yeah, >> that's fair.

[1:11:46] » Um, >> if the change in use increases the

[1:11:48] parking capacity that need then that's when this would come,

[1:11:52] » right? >> Not 50% but if the change in use decides

[1:11:57] because the use is going to decide the parking necessity is that how the

[1:12:00] downtown commercial works anyway

[1:12:05] the list of use.

[1:12:11] So right now you're not an expansion of

[1:12:19] tell. >> So what if I were to buy uh the Peter

[1:12:25] James gallery turn it into two hotels and then that would change the use of

[1:12:30] the pizza. The motel are different because no matter where you are, that's

[1:12:34] why parking or hotel hotel

[1:12:41] » really >> that's where

[1:12:46] they can. >> Okay. So if they can they can't even go.

[1:12:51] » Okay. which is why we have those like small slippery parking lot things

[1:12:56] through the hotel

[1:13:00] parking spots.

[1:13:04] So um we uh move to review the changes to the parking code. Yeah. I think again

[1:13:11] this is like a first step. Yep. Uh so like on page

[1:13:17] I think again right

[1:13:23] you guys um sense the first page of pageap

[1:13:34] 14

[1:13:40] and this came

[1:13:45] from the group about right based on that we don't have to change this and maybe

[1:13:54] it's um it's not working but I guess that what

[1:14:00] we're trying to say here is I think I'm not in the right place where

[1:14:06] » it's page six of 59. >> Okay, I see. Okay. So then it talks

[1:14:12] about purpose of the chapter is to assure an adequate number of environment

[1:14:29] development costs housing minimize services

[1:14:39] for RCW. you about that I had to add

[1:14:47] but I just that was just something to kind of show that we're looking at

[1:14:53] you scroll through um I bureau

[1:15:01] um I still work with but I think shared parking is kind of this big deal because

[1:15:07] of mixeduse development now. And so the

[1:15:13] idea was to instead of just having

[1:15:20] parking,

[1:15:26] I'm thinking like garage parking garage.

[1:15:39] So maybe something's over on them. Um anyway, the idea here is that

[1:15:47] and there's different hours might be able to get a reduction. I I

[1:15:53] love the idea of the shared reason. I like that we're not going to require

[1:15:58] that you hire out a qualified professional unless you have a

[1:16:02] production of greater than something. Um I might even that far. Uh

[1:16:12] but the other thing that I would think is in B one we say that uh in greed use

[1:16:22] the same parking provided and loading stalls provided the hours of operation

[1:16:26] not overlap. That's going to be very few times. I think what we care about is

[1:16:30] that their peak hour doesn't overlap, right? So that mean um because that's

[1:16:38] just qualify almost everything to say their hours.

[1:16:41] » Yeah. >> Yeah. Service the service too.

[1:16:45] » Yeah. >> Yeah. Big service hours would be

[1:16:48] perfect. That way gives everybody the opportunity to do their own thing,

[1:16:54] » right?

[1:16:58] Sorry I'm talking. Yeah. That was the coffee. If you look at the what I

[1:17:03] crossed out in the red, that's the exact coffee that was in there. So I said I

[1:17:10] So instead of um what what would you like to say

[1:17:16] peak hours peak hours of operation?

[1:17:25] Anything else? >> The hours of peak parking demands do not

[1:17:29] overlap.

[1:17:44] Well, >> does it matter too much? I mean, I guess

[1:17:49] certainly I look at it as okay, what are the uses? What hour do they

[1:17:56] think there's a lot of common sense stuff and ULI has papers about this sort

[1:18:01] of thing. We don't need to I would expect that

[1:18:05] they >> so there is a way to uh quantify it

[1:18:08] without the business like telling you what they think it is

[1:18:12] as opposed to what being deemed to be I guess is my

[1:18:16] » and number D s talks about that there's this share parking manual methodology

[1:18:20] which if they post something greater than 25% they have to get it qualified

[1:18:25] actually to do that might >> or more than five spaces or something

[1:18:32] like that. Like if it's 25% of like two spaces is like so think we probably want

[1:18:39] to add and this is only for shared like shared parking.

[1:18:42] » I know but like you know there's a lot of places that are like small businesses

[1:18:46] next to each other like the opthalmologist and the chiropractor and

[1:18:50] the you know they don't each like you know all the spaces all the time. Um,

[1:18:57] » but they also don't own the building and they don't control the parking spaces

[1:19:01] necessarily. >> Fair enough. That's an example. Um and

[1:19:05] so that actually is I guess an issue of like yeah the building use and the

[1:19:11] building permit that's what really so right now we're doing the change we're

[1:19:16] going to look at that doesn't reduce

[1:19:28] any change of occupancy that more

[1:19:34] there.

[1:19:40] » Yeah. says meeting

[1:19:43] » but but to some extent I mean with the idea of like what we were coming up with

[1:19:48] or discussing at prior meetings of the not having any parking minimums and

[1:19:54] letting the market decide the building developer is deciding somewhat but they

[1:20:00] can take responsibility for whether they can rent out the area to so I

[1:20:06] » and also I would double down what Elizabeth is saying there to the fact

[1:20:09] that wouldn't we want leave the use and the usability to the landlord. Like if

[1:20:16] the landlord wants to do triple end leases and the uses are going to change,

[1:20:19] we want to have some something more guard rail in place as opposed to

[1:20:23] specific to each use. If those uses change, does that mean our parking

[1:20:27] requirements for a building that's already in place are going to change?

[1:20:31] » How Yeah. How would that I mean, how would we I think that's an enforcability

[1:20:35] issue. >> Exactly. That's I agree with James. I I

[1:20:38] hear what we're saying. I just don't know how on earth we could begin to

[1:20:42] enforce those changes of use as the building mors or whatever it

[1:20:47] » that's when they're adding

[1:20:53] whatever >> okay

[1:20:56] » they already have like >> okay

[1:20:58] » so right now that would >> that would happen yeah so see there's a

[1:21:03] lot of if ends or plus there's so little chance of these small things happening

[1:21:08] And this is anywhere. So I was thinking we had something that was developed out

[1:21:12] by state and they do a multiuse something. This

[1:21:17] could really useful if they operate different hours or they're trying you

[1:21:22] know they have a giant don't want more

[1:21:28] see that a lot of places are getting wiped out. We also have like how we this

[1:21:35] is a big deal. We also as we go larger in this you'll see we have a policy to

[1:21:41] subgr

[1:21:48] and C4 covers us because the community development director and the public

[1:21:52] works director have to approve the arrangement. So we are I guess we're

[1:21:58] we have finally said I guess people that matter the people that look at this

[1:22:03] every day and say yeah

[1:22:06] » I my question is what is the difference between B and C

[1:22:10] » I think E was I don't know I think B was just left over I think I added all the

[1:22:17] shared I was like in

[1:22:22] the same thing event isn't supposed to be because I think Joy is more like this

[1:22:28] church the church operates on Sundays but this building over here operates

[1:22:33] during the week and so they got so good in it so we use their

[1:22:37] » and the peak hours thing can be with the uh we operate the dentist office here in

[1:22:41] the morning and the restaurant and bar at night and you know we don't

[1:22:45] » I I was just wondering if um we could have it all under you know join you

[1:22:53] owners refer to two more land uses parcels of land or two or more land uses

[1:22:58] within a development and make it

[1:23:03] » yeah one set of subullets is what I was thinking

[1:23:08] » just add another add another comma to see where it covers like the

[1:23:23] cuz I think we want the same things.

[1:23:41] » No, don't. Great. You have everything. You have everything there. You have

[1:23:45] everything there. >> Um, but that makes complete sense.

[1:23:49] That's fine. Purpose of a first draft. And then we have the study if they want

[1:23:54] to go higher agreement. Yeah. And I would like to

[1:24:02] I like that it's a reported agreement. I like that it's reported but the can we

[1:24:08] say greater than 25% or a certain number of spaces

[1:24:21] I think that easier.

[1:24:27] Yeah,

[1:24:30] they always have the ability to I'm just thinking about small uses.

[1:24:38] I'm just thinking about who aren't going to want to hire qualified professionals

[1:24:42] but they demonstrate all this right

[1:24:49] only up to 25%. So this they only have but a lot of those are only

[1:25:03] if they're sharing two parking spaces and they have like if someone requires

[1:25:07] two and they want to share three parking spaces that

[1:25:15] I guess if they can show the

[1:25:20] » if they can't meet if they can't meet like a few of the if they meet a few of

[1:25:24] the criteria under B then they wouldn't even have to worry about 50% of the have

[1:25:29] to pay for study no A >> well they can only get 25% of no it said

[1:25:35] up to it's up to 20 I guess that's the difference between B and C is that C um

[1:25:43] » B is broad and C says specifically two or more 25%

[1:25:48] further studies indeed

[1:25:59] I guess the question is do we want to push people towards the study or do we

[1:26:02] want to let no >> let let there be a gray area that is I

[1:26:06] mean we put a lot of gray area on our city officials to uh you know um see

[1:26:11] these things of the peress and figure them out

[1:26:14] » without giving you guys like specific guidance. And so I worry that this might

[1:26:19] put more on this on you than necessary. >> 50% seems like a big number to have.

[1:26:23] That's why I was wondering where No, there's not. I'm just using the example

[1:26:29] of two two uses each required two spots. I think they want to share one shared

[1:26:36] three spots and then they would have to I don't

[1:26:41] think that's going to happen very often. I think they should have to I mean like

[1:26:44] I think about my chiropractor they go in 157

[1:26:50] minutes early I don't have

[1:26:54] know

[1:27:08] » they don't share office.

[1:27:14] » What is our only mixeduse? Is it is it the dentist office out there? The kids

[1:27:20] in the dentist office area and the investor zone. Is that our true?

[1:27:25] » I mean, we've got buildings that are all the same like the right building.

[1:27:29] » Yeah, it's about >> certainly, but they are under that

[1:27:34] parking department. So, it's almost like you have a point to talk about. I hear

[1:27:37] what you're saying. I'm just saying like what

[1:27:41] » that's little ones where there's a restaurant that you know like a held

[1:27:46] above. >> Yeah, absolutely. Sed downtown.

[1:27:50] » Yeah. [clears throat]

[1:28:04] » I worry about stuff I don't worry about. So I don't think

[1:28:09] » yeah and again sorry for brand new I don't for any

[1:28:18] go to the next >> this is the biggest one that part of

[1:28:23] discussions a lot

[1:28:30] of that work. So if I scroll down to 14 128

[1:28:37] » sent me but I like the idea of breaking it down the big paragraph

[1:28:44] in all zoning districts and parking shall be provided for this chapter

[1:28:50] as always any new structure.

[1:28:55] Okay, this is the change that increases parking requirements.

[1:29:01] That makes more sense to me. >> When it said that the parking

[1:29:04] requirement, let me know exactly what was so agreement.

[1:29:16] » Should I say the square footage? >> How would we define size of square

[1:29:22] footage? Whichever one we define, let's use that. You should experiment because

[1:29:26] the size >> again just I don't know it's fine

[1:29:32] » and it's square and and there are multiple square footages. I'm just going

[1:29:35] to go ahead and be hilarious here. We say GBA or GLM. GLA is all above grade.

[1:29:40] GBA is every bit of square footage. Doesn't matter if it's below or above.

[1:29:47] » Never heard that before. Gross story. Can we define that? Okay, perfect. As

[1:29:52] long as we define it. And that's how it's well that's how our

[1:29:57] that's how our parking is here.

[1:30:01] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[1:30:02] » So, >> is that an interior measurement? I've

[1:30:04] never heard that. >> Yeah, it's um

[1:30:07] » I'm gonna look it up. I'll take >> I'll see how we find out. But, um

[1:30:16] anyway, that that's clear how it was it was before. I just feel like this is

[1:30:21] easier. I can watch Central a little bit, but I definitely sides.

[1:30:28] » It's 80% the rate met.

[1:30:37] » I mean, do you want to make them have more parking spot?

[1:30:46] I think that's >> Well, my concern is that

[1:30:50] » Well, my concern is that building expansions are getting feedback.

[1:30:56] » See, I this is why I made that comment earlier. So we can exactly we can do all

[1:31:01] these things and then people will try to figure out a way to kind of start the

[1:31:04] system in like not just general

[1:31:11] » it gives them that buffer to be able to add a little bit

[1:31:18] » I don't know I mean you know in my mind basically grandfathering all these

[1:31:23] businesses that have never contributed to the

[1:31:28] parking Fair enough.

[1:31:31] » I'm not saying it's the right way of looking at it. I'm just saying that

[1:31:36] it's worth talking about. >> So what? Yeah. Recommendations.

[1:31:46] » Yeah. >> You know, they make changes that require

[1:31:52] parking. They should pay for the parking.

[1:31:56] » Yeah. We could say anything that occasion

[1:32:07] feels more fair to

[1:32:12] » increase. >> Can we do a hypothetical here? I just

[1:32:17] love to hear how it is. Like if they went down if it does require more

[1:32:20] parking, why would you charge more? for increment.

[1:32:28] But do you have to if you have

[1:32:33] » if you did the Pam Oliver in the Tri which used to be

[1:32:41] anyways and you you did that and you remodeled

[1:32:45] that building to a brand new but you didn't change any use. Every every floor

[1:32:51] remained the same rentable space ch without changing the tachki shop use but

[1:32:58] you remodel your entire building. Okay. We have no provision in here for just

[1:33:03] remodeling it. Just spending the money that would make you buying the big room.

[1:33:09] Is that is that correct? Am I right in saying that? Okay. So So to spend all

[1:33:14] the money remodeling this and then you can have triple N leases, right? A

[1:33:18] triple N lease is a triple net lease, meaning that the person that comes in is

[1:33:22] allowed to do whatever they would like to do inside the walls of your building.

[1:33:26] You allow them full access to do whatever they want. So

[1:33:30] » thing, but then the >> but then the people would come in and

[1:33:32] change the use of the building technically, but we have no way to

[1:33:36] recoup that parking change of use if if if the if only one tenant were to do it

[1:33:42] at a time. And so I I worry that we are actually kind of if we are barking is

[1:33:48] what we talk what we call it here and and so important we're kind of missing

[1:33:52] the boat there. There are ways like we've discussed there are easy easy ways

[1:33:57] around this thing as a develop

[1:34:04] » any change in the use of occupancy or any building experience.

[1:34:10] » Oh right. any change in the use

[1:34:17] increases the bargaining unit. >> But if you don't change your use as the

[1:34:21] developer when you do the like like I'm just trying to

[1:34:24] » Well, so if if you only expanded 49% and that change didn't necessitate no

[1:34:30] parking, you know, >> the legal process with the city for

[1:34:34] changing >> I just feel like

[1:34:43] Oh, there's nothing.

[1:34:59] » All right, let's not let's have one conversation. Um,

[1:35:03] Maggie, can you repeat your your point about what happens?

[1:35:07] Okay. So we have two different

[1:35:31] » and the business license the uh the the tenant applying for the business license

[1:35:36] will will trigger a change of use that will affect the landlord.

[1:35:41] » I mean, the big >> Okay. I'm I'm just trying to make sure

[1:35:46] that I understand it. And and Okay. >> And so then what the the landlord would

[1:35:52] need to do is be able to include the cost of

[1:35:56] » would need to pay the fee in if goes down, they don't get that money

[1:36:04] that I

[1:36:07] That's the thing. It's a cash model. That's the weird thing is the capital

[1:36:10] expense, right? >> Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. But it would be

[1:36:14] baked in. So they go back.

[1:36:21] Or I guess if you look at it from the landlord's perspective, if you pay the

[1:36:25] fee in the love, you could offer a superior rental product to the market

[1:36:32] because you have that already taken care of. Right. Right.

[1:36:37] » Yeah. >> Precisely. Precisely. Right. So, so as

[1:36:40] the landlord, your your your economic benefit of paying the field for the

[1:36:45] change of use would be that you would have that in perpetuity as a as

[1:36:52] you would own it, but I guess technically you kind of would be.

[1:36:56] » Yeah. Which brings up another point. I don't know.

[1:37:01] Well, probably don't want to go there, but

[1:37:07] does the fee and loo increase over time. >> Absolutely.

[1:37:13] » If you look at my calculations, you'll see that if you can base the fee and loo

[1:37:16] off this and then you can periodically update that. So, so the fee and loo is

[1:37:22] actually especially based off of like number one in my proposal would be the

[1:37:26] best because that's the easiest thing to periodically update because there are

[1:37:30] places we can absolutely get gather said data and do it every 12 months. So you

[1:37:36] can have something to keep >> in our code

[1:37:42] for the schedule. >> Yep. Exactly.

[1:37:47] » So the 12 months want to make sure that that's

[1:37:53] not right because that has to change. Absolutely. for the way I have

[1:38:04] it

[1:38:11] instead of again my woring parking outside

[1:38:24] right I I I

[1:38:29] It's not require we're not going to have any threshold. Sorry,

[1:38:34] it's just going to say the amount that's

[1:38:42] that price that I said to criteria they

[1:38:48] say in this area.

[1:38:53] » Yeah. And the establishment can change. >> Yeah. And that's that's what matters

[1:38:57] because that's what keeps the whole idea program up to date because that's why if

[1:39:02] you read the proposal you'll see that the I mean there is when counties or

[1:39:07] municipalities just put the flat rate on it and they and no one ever double

[1:39:11] checks the flat rate and then it just becomes a nonsense thing that's just

[1:39:16] there and those flat rates are terrible. So doing it this way, like Maggie has

[1:39:21] proposed is absolutely the best and smartest and most up-to-date way and it

[1:39:26] keeps the municipality. So >> um I'd like to discuss the lack of edits

[1:39:31] to the next section uh 130 the elimination. It's just the right

[1:39:37] underneath that sorry >> um which basically says that when it's

[1:39:43] been provided but an existing user is added to an existing usage will not be

[1:39:47] eliminated elimination will result in less cause

[1:39:52] and required chapter. I think there are several cases where um

[1:40:00] existing uses I mean I just keep thinking of the hotel ley

[1:40:06] situation that makes sense to develop front street right like doesn't make

[1:40:10] sense to have street

[1:40:15] » but it doesn't say that they said if elimination result less for factor I

[1:40:20] mean I think we should extend that to say it shall not be eliminated. If it um

[1:40:27] basically we need to provide an out saying they can

[1:40:36] applies to everyone

[1:40:46] constructing not

[1:40:51] status construction

[1:41:01] instead of like instead of constructing or providing you say instead of

[1:41:06] providing on site. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:41:14] But if you have excuse me,

[1:41:24] » that makes sense. I just want to make Yeah, I just want to make sure

[1:41:30] and and I want to make sure anyone go into like that's how I would interpret

[1:41:33] it now.

[1:41:44] Yeah.

[1:41:50] » All right. So, we have 150 is the next place where there's

[1:41:56] Oh, the number. Yeah. that we're not

[1:42:07] about that

[1:42:12] work in progress that they might but yeah we did update that yeah so we won't

[1:42:18] dig into that one I I brought this to council last time they had no concern

[1:42:23] except um and point industrial look at

[1:42:31] too much.

[1:42:36] » Oh yeah, that much.

[1:42:41] » Hold on. I wouldn't disagree with her, but the larger the campus, the larger

[1:42:45] amount of employees you're going to require to run campus in the brewery,

[1:42:48] not maybe not so much because brewing beer is like a, you know, you do it then

[1:42:52] you wait a little bit until the batch goes through. But like in other

[1:42:55] situations, you know, the larger you get, you're scaling probably for

[1:43:01] you might I mean, so maybe the parking department isn't

[1:43:04] » industrial, they're very likely to want to be able to to construct the amount of

[1:43:09] parking that they need. I don't know. industrial things that are built out.

[1:43:13] They know how much like the probably knows how much parking it needs and then

[1:43:18] it has that facility and it's perfect facilities when you get that I guess

[1:43:26] maybe just a general industrial maybe we wouldn't use

[1:43:34] » I would just go I would just lower the industrial just because I do think that

[1:43:41] there's a purpose to I just data

[1:43:47] like this. You don't want to do a millyilly.

[1:43:49] » Yeah.

[1:43:56] This exact

[1:44:00] now I can dig into a lot of other data. I would just go Yeah, I would I would go

[1:44:05] more rather than

[1:44:08] you don't want to I'm sitting down. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:44:13] and I only

[1:44:20] put on so

[1:44:25] you guys have I felt like a lot of

[1:44:33] accurate and actually

[1:44:41] make sure that what we start

[1:44:50] and our electric

[1:44:59] 19. >> Oh, yes.

[1:45:04] » This thing's a nightmare. I'm sorry. >> 14

[1:45:13] my concern is around one requiring it uh irrigated landscaping. I feel like there

[1:45:20] should be an option for non-erated landscaping and also

[1:45:26] you know thinking about issues landscaping

[1:45:31] and fences. on a different

[1:45:36] » Okay. >> This is parking lot actually.

[1:45:40] » Yes. >> Yes.

[1:45:43] And fences are under

[1:45:49] parking. >> Yeah.

[1:45:53] permit. >> Well, there is.

[1:46:01] » So, I did add language about

[1:46:07] » there's something here about

[1:46:11] things, but whatever. I don't >> talk about different fire departments.

[1:46:18] » Okay, that makes sense. But yeah, like just thinking about wildfire situations

[1:46:25] in terms of landscape maybe >> and I thought and I'm sorry I thought I

[1:46:29] updated have this section that talks about uh choosing trees that are

[1:46:36] specific to the climate and >> yeah but that's

[1:46:42] » and and trees I'm less concerned about. >> Sorry, I'm trying to find it. There's a

[1:46:48] reference to trees that go on.

[1:46:54] » Okay.

[1:46:59] [clears throat]

[1:47:07] » That makes sense.

[1:47:12] Like we make sure that >> Yeah.

[1:47:16] » I'm from doing that. I think the main thing

[1:47:29] is that there's a certain

[1:47:35] standard. So we have like applies to everything. Um

[1:47:43] » yeah. So there's a continuous 5 foot metal undergs

[1:47:49] except on the side runs.

[1:47:55] » I'm sorry. I know I read something. >> I'll take this a little more. I'm

[1:48:00] hearing hearing you. >> Okay.

[1:48:09] » Yeah. statement and we added like I don't want

[1:48:15] and then saying

[1:48:21] but

[1:48:24] I know whenever I program here that I I run it by fire and

[1:48:31] I say and I look at our fire Are you

[1:48:39] » and I have them make sure that I know last

[1:48:46] what is your first I think the first round.

[1:48:54] So we are active being very

[1:49:06] um complex

[1:49:11] farm. >> Yeah, they requested that I could put in

[1:49:16] some like native plants and not irrigate it.

[1:49:24] We need to have that so

[1:49:30] they were trying to

[1:49:39] think.

[1:49:43] So yeah, I did put that note on there. I said this must be like if the plants die

[1:49:49] forever. So maybe we have if irrigation proposed

[1:49:55] a plan. We need to make sure they have check

[1:50:06] usually.

[1:50:10] » They do. So you have to have the back. >> Yeah. So long

[1:50:16] separately

[1:50:25] anywhere that says

[1:50:33] fire

[1:50:39] and

[1:50:44] Yeah.

[1:51:08] » Yeah.

[1:51:12] Um, moving back up to B who had a question was about the APA accessible

[1:51:18] parking. Oh yeah, there it seems like that whole section. I'm not opposed to

[1:51:23] that but should go down where we talk about

[1:51:29] parking vehicle station.

[1:51:34] Oh yeah, page six. Yeah. And it would have like

[1:51:45] I think there's that building

[1:51:50] for that. But but yeah, I see. Yeah.

[1:51:59] All parking lot is except there's no minimum number

[1:52:04] parking. That's what I was going to ask. So like should there be

[1:52:09] well if there's a certain number parking lot there is parking lot.

[1:52:18] So that's I guess I could say that when it's

[1:52:26] like I don't know what it's

[1:52:31] measured I know there are a requirement

[1:52:37] so this

[1:52:44] draft thank you for making a draft I only

[1:52:48] Thank you for making a draft. >> This is just like ah um that's Yeah,

[1:52:54] we'll find out. I'll talk to

[1:53:01] » I feel like this is the only thing that we're gonna last probably going to get

[1:53:04] through. But yeah, is there are there any other things like to highlight on

[1:53:09] this? Yes. Okay. So, uh, if we go down to

[1:53:18] 14 127

[1:53:21] the driveway standard

[1:53:26] driveway

[1:53:33] 14127

[1:53:38] and then scroll down

[1:53:42] This is a new state law changes to driveways but

[1:53:49] this sorry this was something I wanted in public

[1:53:56] and it actually needs to have some kind of measured level because it can impact

[1:54:01] the driveways and over

[1:54:06] problems and or too much or not arterial service, hey

[1:54:17] people

[1:54:20] stand all

[1:54:24] um so this parking is a requirement added to parking definition

[1:54:34] whatever they're already

[1:54:40] Um our miners residential right now

[1:54:46] we have so

[1:54:51] um parking off any out

[1:55:02] there's what we have find

[1:55:09] And we have um legal nonform services

[1:55:16] area

[1:55:20] requirements

[1:55:27] a little bit saying we already have

[1:55:33] » right Now they have to down up to six states for resident.

[1:55:40] Um and grass block outside.

[1:55:58] So improvements things that are required by state law. Um, that's really what I

[1:56:05] so I can make those recommended. There's really nothing more

[1:56:19] that um pretty much in your pack about it was a lot of work. Um, but it

[1:56:26] was really just to show you feel free.

[1:56:35] So, I really want you that she got some great background

[1:56:42] sheet how they they

[1:56:46] very simple. Um, but anyway, we're still still going through it. We'll get more

[1:56:52] updates on this stuff. Um I think the art and public zoning stuff

[1:56:59] and more definition.

[1:57:03] » Perfect. Good. >> Amazing.

[1:57:19] » Don't worry about it. >> Okay.

[1:57:21] » Well, if you find anything else, let me know. I took your comment. I appreciate

[1:57:25] you. Thanks for being here. Dave, I talked over you or anything. Thanks for

[1:57:29] being here. >> Um, appreciate entertain a motion to

[1:57:34] » motion. So move. I like that.

[1:57:38] » I'll second. All in favor? I >> All right.

[1:57:44] » Thanks for

[1:57:50] » the fe thing. Um I it was just it was just ideas that I feel

[1:57:55] » I don't have a feeling either way. I don't want to make it feel like the the

[1:58:00] has to feel the commissioners have a feeling either way. And with just like

[1:58:02] there's four

Planning Commission Meeting 0.05.2026

Transcript