1
00:00:04,340 --> 00:00:10,340
Do you need everyone and welcome to the Westland Planning Commission meeting. It is Wednesday's September 2nd,

2
00:00:11,060 --> 00:00:20,280
2026, and it is 601 PM, like to call to order. And if Lynn, if you could please do roll call.

3
00:00:21,320 --> 00:00:24,660
Yes, chair. Okay. Commissioner Wallvotney.

4
00:00:25,420 --> 00:00:28,060
Here. Commissioner Salty.

5
00:00:28,800 --> 00:00:29,320
Here.

6
00:00:29,980 --> 00:00:31,020
Commissioner Cacherous.

7
00:00:31,680 --> 00:00:32,040
Here.

8
00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:32,900
Here.

9
00:00:34,840 --> 00:00:35,560
She'll see.

10
00:00:36,100 --> 00:00:36,360
Here.

11
00:00:36,920 --> 00:00:37,120
All right.

12
00:00:37,260 --> 00:00:38,860
We have five members in attendance.

13
00:00:39,480 --> 00:00:40,040
Thank you.

14
00:00:41,040 --> 00:00:41,240
Okay.

15
00:00:42,740 --> 00:00:47,260
Next on the agenda, we have public comment related to land use items, not on the agenda.

16
00:00:49,520 --> 00:00:51,920
So far, we have one person signed up to speak.

17
00:00:52,120 --> 00:00:56,160
So if Susan Collins is here and would like to speak, we'd love to hear from you.

18
00:01:16,480 --> 00:01:21,960
Remember to state your name right have it all written down. I just got to see it

19
00:01:22,780 --> 00:01:27,720
Hi, I'm Susan Collins and I'm a Westland resident in the Robinwood

20
00:01:28,860 --> 00:01:29,500
neighborhood

21
00:01:29,500 --> 00:01:36,980
Thank you for coming tonight. Thank you for letting me be here and to say my little two bits about

22
00:01:37,940 --> 00:01:40,460
my vision of the vision

23
00:01:45,830 --> 00:01:46,510
I

24
00:01:46,510 --> 00:01:51,830
Want to draw to your attention the upcoming legislative review of a project that's said

25
00:01:51,850 --> 00:02:01,410
is called Highway 43 Vision. The two most affected neighborhoods, associations, Robin Wood and

26
00:02:01,410 --> 00:02:04,650
Bolton have formally asked a multiple occasions

27
00:02:08,240 --> 00:02:11,240
that before the code language is associated

28
00:02:11,240 --> 00:02:17,880
with this proposal goes before the Planning Commission that it go to a physical open house where

29
00:02:17,880 --> 00:02:25,120
people may look at and comment on the proposed code and comprehensive plan changes. For whatever

30
00:02:25,120 --> 00:02:28,560
reason the city has not honored this request.

31
00:02:30,790 --> 00:02:33,790
Commissioner Deetz, her current tremendous credit

32
00:02:33,790 --> 00:02:40,810
has written a letter to the planning staff making a formal request. I would like to both as myself

33
00:02:40,810 --> 00:02:47,370
and also a member of the Robin Wood Neighborhood Association Community Development Committee.

34
00:02:48,390 --> 00:02:55,830
Again request before any such proposal as this is brought before the body that there be an actual

35
00:02:55,830 --> 00:03:05,210
physical open house for consideration on these proposals. Thank you so much.

36
00:03:05,750 --> 00:03:06,810
Thank you very much.

37
00:03:10,640 --> 00:03:15,520
Lynn was there anyone else signed up to make a public comment?

38
00:03:16,220 --> 00:03:19,720
No, we do not have any other people requesting to testify.

39
00:03:20,440 --> 00:03:27,530
Okay. Thank you. Next on the agenda is the tentative decision adoption of final decision decision

40
00:03:27,530 --> 00:03:35,970
decision, pardon me, and order DR-25004, LA-2502, proposal for a class to design review and

41
00:03:35,970 --> 00:03:43,130
property line adjustments, a mixed use development at 2410, 2422, 2444, Tamler Drive, an 1800

42
00:03:43,130 --> 00:03:44,310
blank and chip road.

43
00:03:47,370 --> 00:03:52,650
The hearing and record for this application was closed on August 10th, 2026, and no further

44
00:03:52,650 --> 00:03:54,930
public testimony will be accepted for this application.

45
00:03:54,930 --> 00:04:05,410
The Planning Commission deliberated to a tentative decision on August 26th, 2026 and will vote to adopt the final decision in order containing the denial findings this evening.

46
00:04:07,170 --> 00:04:07,170
So,

47
00:04:09,710 --> 00:04:19,870
to begin, good evening. Tonight we are here to vote to adopt a final decision in order for file number DR-25404, LLA-2502.

48
00:04:19,870 --> 00:04:25,830
The Commission made a tentative decision to deny the application on August 26th, 2026.

49
00:04:26,570 --> 00:04:30,150
The final decision and order contains findings to support that denial.

50
00:04:31,090 --> 00:04:35,470
This is a quasi-judicial decision, unlike in legislative hearings where personal opinion

51
00:04:35,470 --> 00:04:39,610
may come into play, quasi-judicial rulings must be grounded in the relevant code.

52
00:04:40,230 --> 00:04:43,370
I now ask the city attorney to cover the preliminary legal matters.

53
00:04:45,420 --> 00:04:52,040
Thank you chair. As the planning commission is sitting quasi-juditially, any decision

54
00:04:52,040 --> 00:04:57,140
it must be based on testimony, argument, or evidence in the record, and must address

55
00:04:57,140 --> 00:04:58,740
the applicable approval criteria.

56
00:05:00,620 --> 00:05:07,760
Do any members of the Commission wish to declare potential or actual conflict of interest or bias?

57
00:05:11,720 --> 00:05:20,320
Seeing mostly head shakings. Okay. Do any members of the Commission wish to report any say visits or expertate contacts?

58
00:05:22,240 --> 00:05:23,800
Commissioner Catraisky.

59
00:05:25,180 --> 00:05:34,740
Yes, I'd like to report an expertate contact. The day following last week's decision, there was a post about the decision on the Western community page on Facebook.

60
00:05:34,740 --> 00:05:40,400
I briefly engaged in two or three comments, strictly tempting to be helpful in correcting

61
00:05:40,400 --> 00:05:42,280
a few inaccuracies in the discussion.

62
00:05:43,060 --> 00:05:47,460
There was also an aggressive ill-tempered commenter who was personally and directly

63
00:05:47,460 --> 00:05:53,660
commenting me by name, repeatedly denigrating my character across multiple comments, making

64
00:05:53,660 --> 00:05:55,280
me feel targeted and unsafe.

65
00:05:56,140 --> 00:06:02,860
I made one comment in response, defending myself against his assassination of my personal

66
00:06:02,860 --> 00:06:06,700
character and integrity. I didn't believe this was

67
00:06:06,700 --> 00:06:09,480
exparte because we had voted. I understood the

68
00:06:09,480 --> 00:06:12,400
decision to have been completed. As before, I remain

69
00:06:12,400 --> 00:06:15,020
impartial on biased and we'll be voting strictly

70
00:06:15,020 --> 00:06:18,200
according to the consideration of the code in effect.

71
00:06:21,370 --> 00:06:24,630
Thank you very much, commissioner. Anyone else?

72
00:06:29,620 --> 00:06:33,420
All right, moving on. Does any member of the audience

73
00:06:33,420 --> 00:06:35,860
wish to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission to

74
00:06:35,860 --> 00:06:38,540
hear this matter or their impartiality?

75
00:06:40,690 --> 00:06:46,630
I can't say the audience, so I'm going to defer to you all to tell me if anyone is raising their hands.

76
00:06:46,790 --> 00:06:49,010
Ms. Dughal, we don't have anyone in the audience.

77
00:06:50,290 --> 00:06:51,730
Great. Anyone on mine?

78
00:06:53,050 --> 00:06:53,310
No.

79
00:06:54,510 --> 00:06:54,790
Perfect.

80
00:06:56,030 --> 00:06:59,290
That concludes the legal matters.

81
00:07:03,540 --> 00:07:03,720
Okay.

82
00:07:05,140 --> 00:07:07,400
Moving on to deliberations.

83
00:07:08,640 --> 00:07:12,620
Does any commissioner wish to comment or make a motion?

84
00:07:15,440 --> 00:07:25,200
I think I probably should comment because I asked for there to be two versions of the motion.

85
00:07:26,320 --> 00:07:27,520
And I want to explain myself.

86
00:07:28,140 --> 00:07:33,040
It was my opinion at the end of the last meeting that things got a bit muddled.

87
00:07:33,840 --> 00:07:38,100
What is clear is that all five of us in attendance voted to deny the application.

88
00:07:38,640 --> 00:07:44,860
We provided a denial with kind of, in my opinion, two rationales, and if we're signing our

89
00:07:44,860 --> 00:07:49,660
names to this, we need to decide if we want both of these in the denial or only one.

90
00:07:51,560 --> 00:07:59,300
One of the denial basis, rooted in Section 38, was novel as far as I was concerned, and

91
00:07:59,300 --> 00:08:02,480
prior to Wednesday had not been brought up by anyone.

92
00:08:03,080 --> 00:08:09,260
And we discussed that code section as a group, I thought pretty extensively, and Dan explained

93
00:08:09,260 --> 00:08:09,800
his analysis.

94
00:08:10,240 --> 00:08:17,660
And the other was extremely multifaceted, mostly bringing up sections 21 of the code in sections

95
00:08:17,660 --> 00:08:18,140
55.

96
00:08:20,020 --> 00:08:25,820
And in my opinion, the question, the veracity of things that had been addressed in staff reports,

97
00:08:27,200 --> 00:08:32,420
which was absolutely fine, but I felt like I personally did not have sufficient time

98
00:08:32,420 --> 00:08:39,320
to satisfactorily dissect and discuss these sections of the code and them as the basis for the

99
00:08:39,320 --> 00:08:39,720
denial.

100
00:08:40,340 --> 00:08:45,640
So for that reason, my inclination personally was to deny on the basis of section 38.

101
00:08:46,380 --> 00:08:52,080
But obviously, the way that we phrase this motion is the will of the majority, obviously

102
00:08:52,080 --> 00:08:53,540
not strictly my own.

103
00:08:53,840 --> 00:09:00,440
So I just wanted to present these options and discuss everything that we had brought up and come

104
00:09:00,440 --> 00:09:11,540
a conclusion as a group. I have minimal experience with editing motions and I would be very

105
00:09:11,540 --> 00:09:18,640
grateful to Darren or Gary or people with a little bit more experience in coming to the table

106
00:09:19,940 --> 00:09:26,280
and setting parameters for how we do this. So that's what I wanted to say at the outset.

107
00:09:27,880 --> 00:09:32,440
chair just really quickly you mentioned a couple of times chapter 38 did you

108
00:09:32,440 --> 00:09:36,800
inform you yes I did I'm sorry chapter no

109
00:09:36,800 --> 00:09:38,740
I'm sorry thank you

110
00:09:44,630 --> 00:09:51,070
would any of my co-commissioners like to speak yes

111
00:09:51,070 --> 00:09:52,670
Commissioner will want me

112
00:09:56,640 --> 00:09:59,940
thank you chair I can

113
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:30,960
I understand the issues you brought up. I actually think that all of the findings apply. And so I support, I mean, I can support either one of them because they end up at the same place. But the order that includes all of the findings relative to chapter is 21,

114
00:10:30,960 --> 00:10:39,140
and 48 and 55 is my favorite of the two options.

115
00:10:40,100 --> 00:10:44,640
I do have one comment on it's actually one is editorial,

116
00:10:44,820 --> 00:10:47,880
and the other one is a little bit more.

117
00:10:48,460 --> 00:10:52,060
And this is on age one, and it's on both versions.

118
00:10:53,040 --> 00:10:56,100
So it's in the third paragraph, third full paragraph,

119
00:10:56,420 --> 00:10:56,980
the overview.

120
00:10:58,580 --> 00:11:03,980
And the second sentence says the residential component of this decision is subject to

121
00:11:04,900 --> 00:11:09,520
court, 197,400 for clear and objective standards.

122
00:11:09,720 --> 00:11:11,560
I'm okay with that.

123
00:11:12,140 --> 00:11:17,700
And then it goes on to say, and the mandatory procedure outlined in House Bill 413, which

124
00:11:17,700 --> 00:11:20,980
does that hold the curing prior to making it a sit.

125
00:11:20,980 --> 00:11:22,420
I disagree with that.

126
00:11:22,520 --> 00:11:26,960
And the reason that I did is that we have, we have, we have, we have, we have, we

127
00:11:26,960 --> 00:11:35,840
are goal-posed to the decision-making criteria, the requirements and the criteria for making the decision

128
00:11:35,840 --> 00:11:40,800
are established for SR-197.

129
00:11:43,140 --> 00:11:48,200
And because of that, because of the timing of that, which is subject

130
00:11:48,200 --> 00:11:54,860
to what the applicant was originally submitted or if it was complete,

131
00:11:58,980 --> 00:12:01,940
then it goes back to the date that it was submitted.

132
00:12:02,120 --> 00:12:05,580
Those were the decision criteria, because even if it had issues,

133
00:12:07,200 --> 00:12:11,660
then planning staff used those criteria at that time,

134
00:12:12,200 --> 00:12:14,380
make comments on the application.

135
00:12:14,380 --> 00:12:34,340
That is the line in the sand as far as I'm concerned and that House Bill 4037 did not go into effect in July 1, 2026, which is well after that date when the application was submitted.

136
00:12:34,340 --> 00:12:47,300
So, that's my biggest concern about the EASER app, the EASER app, the decision in order.

137
00:12:48,860 --> 00:12:53,620
I had one minor comment, and this is the first paragraph at the top of page 3,

138
00:12:54,980 --> 00:12:59,840
and it's during the discussion of the motion, Commissioner Salty made a motion to amend the motion,

139
00:12:59,840 --> 00:13:05,940
made by Commissioner Deeds, and then it goes into a book, and so it's that after

140
00:13:05,940 --> 00:13:14,160
Commissioner Deeds, there needs to be a comma, or a colon, or something, to link

141
00:13:14,160 --> 00:13:19,980
the following quote, addition to it. So it's it's minor, it's editorial. So

142
00:13:19,980 --> 00:13:28,080
however that gets resolved. And those are my thoughts on both decisions and

143
00:13:29,700 --> 00:13:37,180
Okay, so can I just, can I just restate that just to make sure that we over here, making the edits, got all of that straight?

144
00:13:37,900 --> 00:13:51,040
On the first page, third paragraph in section one, are you proposing that the language starting and the mandatory procedure be strict in?

145
00:13:51,760 --> 00:13:57,340
That's my, that's my thought based on the effective date of

146
00:13:57,340 --> 00:14:04,220
House Bill 4, Respeven and the goal post role that we have in place

147
00:14:04,220 --> 00:14:05,240
Your other statute.

148
00:14:05,680 --> 00:14:07,840
Would you like me to cop on that chair?

149
00:14:08,540 --> 00:14:09,480
Yes, please.

150
00:14:10,040 --> 00:14:14,240
Okay, and also I don't know about you counselor about me, but I'm getting a

151
00:14:14,240 --> 00:14:15,700
kind of a bad echo from them.

152
00:14:15,740 --> 00:14:17,180
Are you hearing that as well?

153
00:14:17,500 --> 00:14:19,520
I'm hearing it a little bit as well.

154
00:14:19,520 --> 00:14:23,080
Do you know if there's anything we can do about that on your

155
00:14:24,800 --> 00:14:25,300
doesn't?

156
00:14:25,480 --> 00:14:25,760
You're getting,

157
00:14:27,920 --> 00:14:32,680
or is that usually what happens when, if that's just how it is, that's okay.

158
00:14:34,740 --> 00:14:39,820
I'll answer basically what I can on the fiscal post rule.

159
00:14:41,380 --> 00:14:47,880
227, what's 78, which is the fiscal post rule that applies to standards that are in effect

160
00:14:47,880 --> 00:14:49,580
when the application is first committed, which

161
00:14:49,580 --> 00:14:51,200
may say a applicable approval criteria,

162
00:14:51,960 --> 00:14:54,220
a procedure is not applicable for approval criteria.

163
00:14:55,060 --> 00:14:58,220
So unfortunately, that could be changed midstream.

164
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:11,260
Whether we want it to or not. And so when they requested that we apply 4037, even though it was midway through

165
00:15:11,260 --> 00:15:13,700
the process, we were required to.

166
00:15:20,370 --> 00:15:27,090
Thank you for that explanation. However, I have one other concern, and that

167
00:15:27,090 --> 00:15:39,430
is a point that I brought up during the previous meetings that the applicant requested an extension

168
00:15:39,920 --> 00:15:47,530
within two weeks after the application was deemed complete. That's completely unheard of.

169
00:15:47,530 --> 00:16:16,870
I mean, there's a hundred and twenty-day clock, and for what reason they requested, I mean, the reason they requested is, is, is unknown, I mean, not explained the, the request that was provided to us, and so in my, in my estimation, I mean, we should have had, we should have had a hearing on this and ran it, it's all water into the bridge at this point. We should have had a hearing on,

170
00:16:19,150 --> 00:16:36,150
on in May or in June and well before HB437 actually went into effect and I'll if that's the requirement for a procedure

171
00:16:37,270 --> 00:16:44,230
I'll back down from that but I just want all of this in the record because at some point this stuff has to be ironed out

172
00:16:46,850 --> 00:16:51,730
Probably, as you've sent during our training on limited land use decisions, so.

173
00:16:51,910 --> 00:16:55,450
Yeah, so I mean, I completely agree with you, Council for Commissioner.

174
00:16:58,410 --> 00:17:05,090
Unfortunately, the way that the law works is we have to make a decision within 120 days of the application be deemed complete.

175
00:17:05,650 --> 00:17:12,730
It's up to the applicant if they want that period of time extended and they can extend it by up to 365 days.

176
00:17:12,730 --> 00:17:22,080
So I understand your position and I definitely can agree with you and empathize with you,

177
00:17:23,070 --> 00:17:28,710
but you know, to the extent that they wanted 4037 to apply,

178
00:17:28,970 --> 00:17:34,910
they were able to extend the 128 period and extend the timeline for a hearing and

179
00:17:34,910 --> 00:17:37,870
have it applied to them by moving that data.

180
00:17:38,730 --> 00:17:45,890
Okay. So I guess based on this discussion, I'll just vacate my request to remove that.

181
00:17:46,430 --> 00:17:48,390
That, or should but at least it's in the record.

182
00:17:59,990 --> 00:18:07,850
Okay. So, Commissioner Wolvani, the standing instruction or request is to add something on page three.

183
00:18:09,650 --> 00:18:17,530
A colon or a comma between Commissioner Deeds and the applicant. Is that correct?

184
00:18:22,520 --> 00:18:29,520
Yes, that's correct, or some additional, additional verbage.

185
00:18:31,620 --> 00:18:36,020
Anything to better link into the, into the quotation.

186
00:18:40,360 --> 00:18:41,040
Concerties.

187
00:18:41,700 --> 00:18:49,640
Yeah, I just wanted to bring up one, one issue I had as far as when we go down to the findings.

188
00:18:51,280 --> 00:19:00,160
There's the revised staff supplemental findings and exhibit A, and I would argue that those

189
00:19:00,160 --> 00:19:06,460
findings are pretty contradictory to the motion that we made and are trying to adopt.

190
00:19:07,080 --> 00:19:13,640
And I would ask that those B removed because they are essentially directly contradictory.

191
00:19:14,620 --> 00:19:20,760
So if you go down to the staff findings in the supplemental, you'll see,

192
00:19:30,760 --> 00:19:35,240
the recommendation for the findings are in both motions.

193
00:19:36,540 --> 00:19:45,960
Are you referring to, I'm not sure if Darren's in person to you guys, but the findings that support the denial are in the actual document itself.

194
00:19:45,960 --> 00:19:52,480
and then I believe exhibit, the exhibit is the old findings that were originally recommended by staff.

195
00:19:52,660 --> 00:19:55,340
So those are the ones that are being adopted if that's what you're looking at.

196
00:19:55,560 --> 00:19:59,980
The findings that support the denial are in the actual body of the...

197
00:20:00,000 --> 00:20:09,000
Yeah, I'm talking about the appendix and then you scroll down to the tanners staff, supplemental findings from August 10th.

198
00:20:11,990 --> 00:20:18,750
So, the old findings would be the ones that supported the original decision, which recommendation, which was approval.

199
00:20:19,530 --> 00:20:24,070
The findings that support the denial are in the actual body of the document.

200
00:20:38,720 --> 00:20:42,880
Let me see if I can pull it up for you if Darren isn't a current person.

201
00:20:50,460 --> 00:20:56,340
Actually, I am here. You want us to pull something up on screen?

202
00:20:58,140 --> 00:20:58,540
I'm sorry.

203
00:20:58,760 --> 00:21:00,740
Do you want to simply put something up on the screen?

204
00:21:01,080 --> 00:21:05,060
I'm not to pull it up on screen, but just to confirm the commissioner's question.

205
00:21:05,780 --> 00:21:12,240
Yes, I believe commissioner Dietz is referring to, let's see here,

206
00:21:15,300 --> 00:21:21,420
section 3 of the section 3 of the

207
00:21:22,280 --> 00:21:24,760
I know decision order, where it says,

208
00:21:24,880 --> 00:21:26,400
Darren, I'm sorry to interrupt you.

209
00:21:26,460 --> 00:21:28,240
Can you speak a tiny bit louder, please?

210
00:21:28,380 --> 00:21:29,020
Thank you.

211
00:21:29,120 --> 00:21:29,280
Thank you.

212
00:21:29,280 --> 00:21:29,520
Microphones.

213
00:21:31,320 --> 00:21:31,620
Is

214
00:21:36,070 --> 00:21:36,770
this better?

215
00:21:36,810 --> 00:21:39,010
You've got my, you've got my, like, Darren.

216
00:21:39,270 --> 00:21:43,430
Yeah, that one, that one's not participating tonight.

217
00:21:44,430 --> 00:21:48,150
Yeah, so in a final decision orders under section three findings,

218
00:21:49,210 --> 00:21:51,990
it lists the commission,

219
00:21:52,570 --> 00:21:54,990
make denying it based on the findings of FAC contained

220
00:21:54,990 --> 00:21:59,410
and the identity to the staff report, the commercial identity to the staff report, residential,

221
00:21:59,810 --> 00:22:05,910
and the revised staff supplemental findings that were provided at the public hearing.

222
00:22:06,710 --> 00:22:15,370
And then including the following, which are the findings of the Nile that are embedded

223
00:22:15,370 --> 00:22:17,570
in the final decision in order itself.

224
00:22:17,710 --> 00:22:23,330
So I believe I'll state for Commissioner Deeds and she can agree with me, that Commissioner

225
00:22:23,330 --> 00:22:28,870
Dates is questioning whether the supplemental findings should be included in that attachment

226
00:22:31,080 --> 00:22:35,780
because they directly contradict the denial findings.

227
00:22:37,740 --> 00:22:42,220
So the supplemental findings basically supersede the denial findings.

228
00:22:42,600 --> 00:22:45,800
So it's instead of rewriting that entire document.

229
00:22:46,440 --> 00:22:49,920
It's essentially saying that original document continues to apply

230
00:22:49,920 --> 00:22:55,420
except where the supplemental fighting's control, if that makes sense.

231
00:22:56,260 --> 00:23:00,940
Okay, but where does it say that in the actual final decision in order?

232
00:23:03,700 --> 00:23:07,100
I'm not sure if it says that expressly, but that's typically how the supplemental

233
00:23:07,100 --> 00:23:09,940
findings will supplement the original final findings.

234
00:23:10,040 --> 00:23:13,400
Okay, but is there a rule against taking it out?

235
00:23:14,320 --> 00:23:15,260
The original findings?

236
00:23:15,760 --> 00:23:19,100
No, the revised staff supplemental findings specifically.

237
00:23:21,420 --> 00:23:26,140
Not if you would like to, but are the supplemental findings the ones that actually were

238
00:23:26,140 --> 00:23:32,940
provided most recently, or you mean the ones that were sent to us for today in Exhibit

239
00:23:32,940 --> 00:23:39,180
A. It's at the very, very bottom of a 200 page document and it's, you know, which I'm assuming

240
00:23:39,180 --> 00:23:47,340
those are the ones that were provided after the initial hearing. I think that those support other

241
00:23:48,260 --> 00:23:52,540
approval criteria beyond the ones that you've used to recommend denial. I'm talking

242
00:23:52,540 --> 00:23:58,080
about the ones from August 10. Are you talking? Yeah, okay. That's correct. So those

243
00:23:58,080 --> 00:24:02,160
I believe are speaking to approval criteria that you are not using to base your

244
00:24:02,160 --> 00:24:07,680
denial tonight. If to the extent that they are, they will be supplemented by the

245
00:24:07,680 --> 00:24:11,500
additional approval criteria or the additional findings to the extent that they are

246
00:24:11,500 --> 00:24:16,460
not, they're still important to the making the final decision.

247
00:24:24,910 --> 00:24:27,250
Commissioner Robotnis had his hand off for a minute.

248
00:24:38,700 --> 00:24:40,140
I think you can't hear you.

249
00:24:41,940 --> 00:24:43,880
Mr. Robotnis, I think your mic is not working.

250
00:24:44,740 --> 00:24:45,120
Sorry.

251
00:24:45,880 --> 00:24:46,380
Thank you, Chair.

252
00:24:47,540 --> 00:24:49,880
I'm actually looking at the supplemental findings right now.

253
00:24:50,740 --> 00:24:56,600
But I am trying to recall it on a decision in order where this has been done previously

254
00:24:56,600 --> 00:24:59,980
And I'm coming up with...

255
00:25:01,300 --> 00:25:06,480
With nothing. But I'll take a look at this and just see what I think. Thanks.

256
00:25:15,120 --> 00:25:16,160
Commissioner Cajorisky.

257
00:25:19,390 --> 00:25:21,490
I'm a little bit just thinking out loud.

258
00:25:25,830 --> 00:25:28,290
The motion that you wrote was quite

259
00:25:28,290 --> 00:25:38,730
dense. That was like a lawyer. I'm impressed as an English major. That was pretty good. It's so dense.

260
00:25:38,730 --> 00:25:48,910
I feel like we didn't, we didn't really have an opportunity to go through that carefully.

261
00:25:49,430 --> 00:25:55,490
It was already prepared and written, it seemed like from the beginning, I just struggle

262
00:25:55,490 --> 00:26:00,910
with that a little bit, it just fills uncomfortable.

263
00:26:05,290 --> 00:26:14,630
I do agree with what Commissioner Salty pointed out about the, it not being in compliance with

264
00:26:14,630 --> 00:26:22,290
blocks and the access loop in the streets, but I do have some discomfort with that first

265
00:26:22,290 --> 00:26:28,630
motion. I just need to say that because it, yeah, I just need to say that.

266
00:26:31,700 --> 00:26:36,340
Can you go by me? Yeah, sorry. Mr. Deeds go ahead. Yeah, can you tell me what your own

267
00:26:36,340 --> 00:26:37,260
comfortable with?

268
00:26:47,860 --> 00:26:52,460
The way that it arrived fully formed, that we hadn't had any discussion

269
00:26:52,460 --> 00:26:56,740
about the pieces of it during any of the meetings.

270
00:27:02,290 --> 00:27:05,370
Yeah, it's difficult for me to articulate beyond that.

271
00:27:05,570 --> 00:27:10,350
There's just something about it that I'm having a hard time supporting.

272
00:27:11,450 --> 00:27:15,650
I do support the motion that Commissioner Salty put forth.

273
00:27:17,290 --> 00:27:23,270
And I just have concerned it's important to me that the work that we're doing here is not undone

274
00:27:23,270 --> 00:27:24,270
and this,

275
00:27:26,760 --> 00:27:28,440
yeah, I think that's all I want to say.

276
00:27:37,600 --> 00:27:40,200
Mr. Wavati, it's your hand up.

277
00:27:47,780 --> 00:27:50,660
I chair, sorry. I meant to take it down before, but I will comment.

278
00:27:51,380 --> 00:27:54,860
Some of the things that strikes me about the supplemental findings is that

279
00:27:55,480 --> 00:28:01,760
it's providing basically support to the applicant for the denial that we're doing.

280
00:28:02,620 --> 00:28:09,700
So it's providing supporting language in areas that we're not considering as being

281
00:28:12,040 --> 00:28:18,560
the problem areas that we think it should be denied.

282
00:28:20,760 --> 00:28:25,400
Finding that little odd and that we don't usually do that.

283
00:28:25,760 --> 00:28:32,100
I'm trying to figure out the precedent for this in the decisions and orders that we typically provide.

284
00:28:33,280 --> 00:28:42,220
So, typically when staff rights findings, we provide evidence and we, I guess, we consolidate

285
00:28:42,220 --> 00:28:47,540
the evidence into arguments and then produce recommendations based on each applicable

286
00:28:47,540 --> 00:28:54,460
approval criterion and the supplemental findings were based upon additional evidence and arguments

287
00:28:54,460 --> 00:29:03,900
that we received prior to the deadline, but after we'd already provided the initial staff report,

288
00:29:04,640 --> 00:29:11,600
and so those supplemental findings were to supplement the original staff or embuttings

289
00:29:11,600 --> 00:29:17,360
that your planning mission had received when staff was still recommending approval.

290
00:29:18,180 --> 00:29:22,700
So that was produced prior to your decision to deny.

291
00:29:25,390 --> 00:29:43,210
Thank you. I just saw that it's dated August 10th. But that being the case, that's prior to our deliberations last week and our continuation of those deliberations on the final decision in order.

292
00:29:43,210 --> 00:29:49,790
correct. I'm just trying to figure out what to understand why any of the stock

293
00:29:49,790 --> 00:29:59,970
in the 200 plus pages would be included as a pivot A. So basically because we have to

294
00:30:23,480 --> 00:30:31,360
So, we have approved applications where we have denied applications and denying applications has been based on what we've done in the past.

295
00:30:31,360 --> 00:30:37,360
on Pacific items and not going through every single,

296
00:30:39,500 --> 00:30:42,420
every single finding that was presented

297
00:30:42,420 --> 00:30:43,380
in the Staff Report.

298
00:30:44,620 --> 00:30:52,100
So, I'm sure that you all made emotions based on just one or two applicable approval criteria

299
00:30:52,100 --> 00:30:56,340
that you thought were not meant to be, but I can almost guarantee staff behind the scenes

300
00:30:56,340 --> 00:31:01,660
we're reviewing every applicable approval criteria and check whether it was not or not.

301
00:31:01,660 --> 00:31:07,760
whether that made it into the final decision, I can't say one or the other, but I think as a best practice

302
00:31:07,760 --> 00:31:13,860
it's good to show your work and show why each applicable approval criteria is never not met.

303
00:31:14,880 --> 00:31:21,720
That can be adopted into the final decision if you want to, or it can just be part of a staff report, it's really up to you.

304
00:31:36,220 --> 00:31:42,780
Christian, I'll take. Did you want to weigh in? Yeah. So when I was going through the findings,

305
00:31:43,420 --> 00:31:52,360
most findings specifically just at applicant response and there wasn't actually a city response

306
00:31:52,360 --> 00:31:59,560
to them and I know that specifically for 74 because I ran it. So I would just be careful how

307
00:31:59,560 --> 00:32:05,580
we kind of say that we've reviewed everything when most of it I think has been pushed through before

308
00:32:05,580 --> 00:32:09,200
actually find it from the city, it leads to that's why understanding. And I think what the

309
00:32:09,200 --> 00:32:15,920
supplemental response that was done on August 10th, that was completed was kind of the

310
00:32:15,920 --> 00:32:20,660
help resolve some of those issues. But I don't, I think you went a little far, and also

311
00:32:20,660 --> 00:32:26,480
saying that it's all been reviewed when there's not a city response, it's literally titled

312
00:32:26,480 --> 00:32:27,600
applicant response.

313
00:32:29,260 --> 00:32:35,100
That's fair. I think what I mean when I say it was reviewed by city is they took all applicable

314
00:32:35,800 --> 00:32:41,980
documentation, they weighed the evidence presented to them, and then they adopted the findings

315
00:32:41,980 --> 00:32:48,560
that they agreed with. So when there is evidence in the record that they agree with the applicant,

316
00:32:48,820 --> 00:32:54,080
they will adopt that information. If there's evidence in the record that opponents agree with or that

317
00:32:54,080 --> 00:32:56,420
they agree with opponents, they will adopt that information.

318
00:32:59,950 --> 00:33:03,410
Yeah, is that stated somewhere? It's stated by saying

319
00:33:03,410 --> 00:33:05,170
that that's the applicant's response.

320
00:33:05,630 --> 00:33:08,270
And it's been provided there to the findings.

321
00:33:13,100 --> 00:33:15,340
Commissioner Wavotney and then Commissioner Dates.

322
00:33:15,540 --> 00:33:15,920
It's okay.

323
00:33:23,510 --> 00:33:24,070
Sorry chair.

324
00:33:24,430 --> 00:33:26,030
I thought I'd roll over to my hand.

325
00:33:26,930 --> 00:33:28,490
So, Commissioner Dates.

326
00:33:29,790 --> 00:33:33,670
Yeah, I mean, I think from what I'm hearing is that

327
00:33:33,670 --> 00:33:38,930
maybe we should just go ahead and remove the staff findings

328
00:33:38,930 --> 00:33:42,650
from August 10th just because it seems a little bit

329
00:33:43,770 --> 00:33:45,810
I don't know, contradictory,

330
00:33:47,990 --> 00:33:50,950
is anyone else on board with that or no?

331
00:33:52,390 --> 00:33:55,930
My recommendation would be if you move, if you remove August 10, Spindings, I recommend

332
00:33:55,930 --> 00:34:01,650
you removing the other ones as well, and then only adopting them in the way that your commissioners

333
00:34:01,650 --> 00:34:08,090
had talked about adopting them in the past, which is simply based on approval criteria that

334
00:34:08,090 --> 00:34:14,970
feel have not been met. So essentially striking the entire previous findings document.

335
00:34:16,950 --> 00:34:18,970
Rather than just talking to someone than not others.

336
00:35:07,540 --> 00:35:08,900
Would

337
00:35:13,440 --> 00:35:26,140
anybody else benefit from about a 10-minute recess just to think this through? I would. Okay. I would like to recess for 10 minutes, and we will return

338
00:35:28,570 --> 00:35:36,630
at 647, please. Thank you. Commissioner Wavotney, are you there? Yes. Hi. Okay.

339
00:35:38,750 --> 00:35:45,310
If anyone else has anything they would like to say, or, I'm sorry,

340
00:35:49,340 --> 00:35:51,480
you did you hear all that?

341
00:35:55,470 --> 00:35:56,470
Yes, I did.

342
00:35:56,950 --> 00:35:57,310
Thank you.

343
00:35:57,350 --> 00:35:58,990
All right, just making sure that everything was going.

344
00:35:59,130 --> 00:35:59,830
Thank you, sorry.

345
00:36:00,190 --> 00:36:01,250
Okay, welcome back to the meeting.

346
00:36:02,310 --> 00:36:06,710
If anybody has anything that they would like to say or if anyone would like to make a motion.

347
00:36:06,710 --> 00:36:15,190
And I'm happy to share the notes I've made if you can read my handwriting.

348
00:36:16,590 --> 00:36:18,170
So can I try to read?

349
00:36:18,530 --> 00:36:19,130
You may.

350
00:36:53,640 --> 00:36:53,820
Yeah.

351
00:36:54,180 --> 00:36:54,740
Commissioner Salty.

352
00:36:55,240 --> 00:36:58,640
So I'd like to make a motion for option one.

353
00:36:58,840 --> 00:37:02,260
Motion doubled out findings for CDC chapter 2148 and 55.

354
00:37:03,840 --> 00:37:07,260
I moved to adopt the final decision in order to now findings based on less than

355
00:37:07,260 --> 00:37:14,820
Community Development Code 21, 48 and 55 as presented in the 90R-2504, LL-82502 with the removal

356
00:37:14,820 --> 00:37:17,420
of exhibit with A and its entirety from,

357
00:37:32,180 --> 00:37:35,840
and the additional added verbiage from Commissioner

358
00:37:35,840 --> 00:37:45,600
Mulvaney regarding, specifically, I think it was like, I'm sorry, well, I don't

359
00:37:47,880 --> 00:37:48,400
know if I need

360
00:37:48,400 --> 00:37:49,140
to go into it, do I?

361
00:37:49,440 --> 00:37:53,560
No, I think that's that should work, I think I need to repeat what he said, right?

362
00:37:55,760 --> 00:37:56,560
Okay,

363
00:37:58,610 --> 00:38:00,650
can we have a vote, please?

364
00:38:04,930 --> 00:38:05,390
Thank you.

365
00:38:07,610 --> 00:38:08,490
Commissioner Deetz.

366
00:38:11,010 --> 00:38:12,290
Commissioner Cacherisky.

367
00:38:13,630 --> 00:38:14,710
Commissioner Wallotney.

368
00:38:16,230 --> 00:38:16,430
Yes.

369
00:38:17,550 --> 00:38:18,550
Commissioner Salty.

370
00:38:18,850 --> 00:38:20,250
Yes, I'm sorry for pushing your name.

371
00:38:22,410 --> 00:38:23,710
Chair Schulteen.

372
00:38:24,370 --> 00:38:24,770
Yes.

373
00:38:25,450 --> 00:38:25,690
All right.

374
00:38:25,690 --> 00:38:27,870
the motion passes five to zero.

375
00:38:29,250 --> 00:38:29,790
Thank you.

376
00:38:31,700 --> 00:38:31,940
OK.

377
00:38:32,800 --> 00:38:35,240
And I believe that is all we have on the agenda.

378
00:38:36,660 --> 00:38:37,920
I'd like to thank all of you.

379
00:38:38,280 --> 00:38:39,840
And meeting will adjourn.

380
00:38:39,960 --> 00:38:41,540
It is 650 p.m.

381
00:38:42,380 --> 00:38:42,860
Thank you.