Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

disconnect. Okay. Hopefully we're in the clear. Thanks, Scott. Well, we'll see if I get

river design review noticing requirements. Um we've added some extensions to approval durations and we've created a new um simplified minor replap process. We u codified a quasi judicial type 3 city council process, a process that we've been doing for many years. Anytime a major master plan goes to planning commission for recommendation to city council, that is what is going to be a type 3 CC process. So, it's not actually creating anything new. It's just codifying an existing process. I believe you might have gotten a letter today um questioning that process. So, I want to clarify that. And then, um creating a new chapter for interpretations and determinations. And as always with um code updates, we just double check our um statutes and administrative rules and make sure we're consistent with them. The proposed amendments do implement um council's housing goal. Um it has a strategy and actions and the action is to adopt development code and entitlement process improvements that remove barriers and speed up middle missing middle income affordable housing and infill development. Um there's several um entitlement processes that uh the code in chapter 4.1 and 4.2 uh address to implement this. For example, the requirement um to allow a addition to a multif family structure to go through a simplified process would make that um that application a lot faster versus having to go through a full site plan review application. They cohes also um implement council's goal for transportation infrastructure and that is by um proposing amendments to the uh bicycle chapter in chapter 3. So the proposed amendments I'll just go through um I know at the work session we stopped and talked about each one. I didn't know how you would like to do that tonight just because it's a public hearing. Um if I should just go through the and I'll highlight what changed

since the planning commission's um work session as well. I does anyone have a strong feeling. I'll lean on all of you. Felt like we had a pretty robust discussion the work session. So I think highlighting the changes and and if we want to talk about that we'll just if it's otherwise okay. Perfect. you can do the water ski version.

So, um, in chapter 1.1, the general administration, we did change the the amendments proposed to change the time period from 3 years to one year that approved subdivisions can develop under previous standards. So, nothing changed there. It's still going from 3 to one. Lots of new definitions, including a new definition for trash receptables.

Perfect. Um and then in title two uh just amending the setbacks uh the rear yard setbacks for the lowdensity residential district from 20 ft to 10 ft allow more useful space to be developed on those lots clarifying the architectural design standards and when um there was a comment today also submitted on this I just wanted to address the only thing that's being changed here is just being clear and objective um there's some ambiguity that it says um in the code that you have to apply design standards every 40 feet. And the question always came up, was it the first 40 feet or does it mean after a building is 40 feet or larger. And so we're clarifying it does not include the first 40 ft. So nothing else is changing. The amount of architectural features is not changing. It's just making it clear that it applies to a building once it gets to 40t or longer. Um then some new amendments to clarify that overhead doors um are 8 feet or wider can only provide access to garages and um all other overhead doors would have to be 8 ft or lower. And we talked about the reasons for that amendment at the work session for the commercial zoning districts. Oh, and in the residential and commercial um we added fiber cement as a design um option.

Good. Uh for the commercial zoning districts, uh we are proposing to delete the conditional use permit for retail buildings over 50,000 square feet in the commercial convenience district. Um there was a lot of inconsistencies on that in that chapter and this will just not even require a conditional use permit for a building versus a use. And then the flag poles will just be regulated um by the zoning height. In chapter 2.3, this is our mixeduse zoning district. just adding veterary clinics for large animals in the mixed employment sub mixed employment district. Uh architectural design standards, just clarifying that our middle housing um structures would just have to comply with the um design standards in the residential district, not the commercial design standards. And then we are deleting that um outdated section for the mixed riverfront zone. two proposed amendments um that just the very simple since we are already updating these use tables in the commercial and mixed use districts. Uh there's been a lot of interest from and there always has even before the house bills that if you have a commercial use can you convert it to a residential use and we do have that new section but people just don't know that it's there. So we're adding it in the use table similar to how we've um added the affordable housing reference. So just letting people know yes you can just go to 3.62 6200 and see the requirement. So nothing is changing. It's just adding a reference so people are aware that it exists in the code. Uh for the industrial zoning districts deletes the um for personal and professional services deletes the requirement for a conditional use permit. Um the the a thought again is we do want some personal and professional services there. uh let's just have clear and objective standards for them and not make them go through a conditional use permit. And then we wanted to clarify

the allowable area is not just for buildings because of um could be for um outdoor seating or food carts as well. So just want to clarify the the size limitations applies to the site not just the building. And then for the child care facilities, um, want to be consistent with House Bill 309 3019 and eliminated the locationational requirements. Um, so they can go anywhere in the industrial district. They still um they just wouldn't have a conditional use permit for that or they would still have a conditional use permit. It's just they can go anywhere in the industrial district. The special planned districts, so this is where all our master plans live. A couple of them just needed uh some minor amendments. Um the medical overlay zone uh adding hospitals as a permitted use in the medium density residential zone which implements the purpose purpose statement and the main um reason behind the medical overlay zone is to allow hospitals in the zone. The water overlay zone we're relocating a process for tree removal to 4.1 where all the processes reside in the code. So, there's still a process. It's just relocating it and clarifying what that process is. Juniper Ridge employment subdist clarifying some setbacks. Um, and then the Ben Central District, the there's an amendment on the next page that I'll share with you. For the Ben Central District, the commission um was supportive of the exempting exterior alterations to existing building form design um but during the work session, but there was some questions about well, can they just remove all the windows? And so I'll show you a proposed amendment on the next slide. Uh and then Discovery West just uh removing a density statement that is not clear objective. So the proposed amendments after I met with the uh core area advisory board um this last week on Thursday, I um showed them the proposed amendments. I shared

with them commission's um discussion on the loss of window glazing which they were very thankful that you even pointed that out and we're supportive of retaining some windows. They weren't sure the like no net loss. So their proposal to the commission is that no no more than no less than 25% net loss of blazing. Uh depending on the use they feel like there might be um some reason to have less windows. In other cases, they felt like a lot of the um either building codes would dictate the um number of windows or that uh the developer would actually just want to retain the windows or maybe even add more. So, they just thought 25%. Um so, that was their recommendation.

Can we just read that again? I'm not sure it's saying what we're supposed to be saying. So, they can So, today they are subject to design review. So, we're saying they are not by saying the word exemption. Exterior design alterations to existing buildings that result in less than a 25% net loss of glazing are exempt from the design standards. But the second one doesn't make any sense to me.

So, this one resides in our site plan review chapter. So, it's a little bit different. Um, it's just ex exempting existing buildings located in the Ben Central central district where there is less than 25% net loss of glazing. They don't have to go through that process at all. as long as they are not um having less than 25% glazing taken away. Is this not reading right? The first one's confusing. All right. If it's less than 25%, you're exempt. Wouldn't it be if the if it changes so that there's no more than 25% reduction in windows?

Maybe it's just a wording. Maybe you should say reduction instead of net. Yeah. trying to get it to not lose less than 25%. Is there and I don't mean this negatively but a stick on them and say if you do board up the whole place you're going to have to do design standards you're going to have that's what it should be saying. Yes. Okay. ideas if it's less than 25% positive something that's your exact yeah maybe maybe that retain 75% or more of window glazing is exactly you got 100% of windows take away 75% or more 25% or less would be to say 75% or more

in the end we have a slide with proposed amendments and so we can word smith in the end to make maybe Rene you can take a peek at it while we go through the rest of the president and we're all saying the same Yeah. And do I think Scott brought up kitchens or whatever they need to, but there's at least leaving 25% of that of the existing school. Yes. Yeah. Does anyone have any comments on the 25% because that was what they were posting. That's right. Okay. Good conclusion. That gets it.

They were thankful. I wanted to pass that along that um that was not their intent. So title three um is our lot parcel and block design access and circulation chapter. This really cleaned up a lot of language overall in the chapter that wasn't clear and objective. And it also clarified when street access to existing on-site parking for a dwelling unit can remain a lot of times they'll want to have alley access but they want to keep their street access because it actually provides access to an existing garage or parking. So, we just want to make sure it's very clear that they can. Um, a new one is to allow through lots on local streets have one access point per frontage, but only on local streets. And then providing consistency for uh storm water requirements. Just referencing the Ben municipal code, which really does have the regulations for storm water in the landscaping, tree preservation, fences, and walls. Uh, change this to 8 months. So clarifying that a deferral is allowed for up to eight months for on-site landscape insulation and street trees and planter strip landscaping. The commission was concerned that six months was too narrow of a time. So we did propose to bump it up to eight and that's in your draft.

Thank you.

Uh fences and retaining walls. Uh just requirements for decorative arbors gates and similar features because that's been an issue. Uh vehicle parking. Uh this allows some flexibility. So, if a parking lot is 1/2 acre or larger and is doing new surface parking, they are subject to the climate friendly and equitable rules for um tree coverage andor solar requirements. And so, instead of them having to pick one or the other, they are allowed to do a combination of the requirements and do some trees and some solar. And then the driveway length, as we talked about back in the day, we put 30 feet in and now here we are. We're going to make it 20 feet for the spacing for the driveway length. uh bicycle parking standards. Uh just basically reorganized it and then added uh long-term bicycle parking spaces and short-term bicycle parking spaces and several new options for meeting parking requirements, not just U racks, but uh vertical wall-mounted racks, bicycle lockers, and also requirements for oversized bicycle parking. Um the public improvement standards in chapter 3.4 4 and amendments. Um it's it's similar to what's in the code today. It's just referencing the uh new plans at the Ben Park and Recreation District. But the the the gist of this is still requiring a developer to meet with uh the Ben Park and Recreation District for acquisition of land for construction of a park if they meet certain criteria. And this is just requiring them to meet and negotiate. It doesn't force anybody into anything, but it is a requirement for sites 10 acres or larger. And if that site happens to be located in the Ben Park and Recreations Park search area map and then utilities for 36 3.5600 this allows some flexibility to allow overhead utilities to remain there. Um

however if the development requires extension of the mainline to provide services to new portions of the main line and the connections those have to be placed underground and this is for projects that are subject only to minimum development standards review. So like a single family dwelling unit, uh a duplex, triplex or middle housing type uh of uses. Chapter 3.5 is our other design standards. And all we're doing here is reducing the north south lot dimension from 80 ft to 50 ft to match the actual uh lot size requirements in the underlying zoning district. So they don't have to do a bigger lot just to meet this. They can just do the same size lot and still meet standards. I know you received a letter today with a comment about that being like the formula was being redone. No, nothing's being redone for the solar lot standards or for the solar setback standards. We're just trying to make it more flexible so that the lot um depth are consistent. And then for the solar setback um from the northern lot line, the second part of the code update on the screen there, this is just adding additional height because our heights have increased over the years, but we've never updated the tables to reflect those heights. So now they'll be able to go to a table and say, "Oh, we're going to be this tall, and this is the setback that we have to um propose." So again, not redoing any formulas, just clarifying um or doing a lot of things for consistency. And then title um on-site drainage. Again, similar to the other amendment in chapter 3.1, just clarifying that if there is um on-site drainage, um there is a process that they could look at in title 16 for off-site drainage. And then chapter 3.6, this is our special standards and regulations for certain uses. Uh just needed to u clarify the height requirements for accessory structures. um some consistency for our manufactured home park section with um the statutes. Uh

this comes up a lot when we have preapps for drivein um with drive-thru facilities. Just want to clarify the setback for a drive-thru lane. Uh temporary uses, just want to clarify that it is not a permit. So, we're renaming it to temporary use authorization. And then short-term rentals, just some minor cleanups and identifying a process for modifying it, which is a type one. Title four, this is where again we have a lot of process changes. Uh deleting a lot of sections that are irrelevant such as the pre-application conference. We just these meetings just don't occur, so we don't need to have them in the code. Uh revising the lot of record process and criteria. um added the approvals for subdivisions, partitions or construction of needed housing section that's consistent with another statute and then clarifying the review authority. As I mentioned at the work session, it's just scattered everywhere through 4.1. So, we're just putting the review authority in one section and you can look and see um what the process is and who the review authority is for that specific process. Um, for the final action in type 2, three, and our new 3CC applications, we add a 100 day review period. Um, for affordable housing projects, a normal review period is 120. This is in the statutes and we need to just make sure it's in the code so planners are aware of it and they can follow the requirements. Uh, added a requirement for posted notices. So if the applicant does not post the notice for a type 2, three or 3CC application in a timely manner, then it will um uh delay the clock so that way we get the site posted and the process can begin. And then for the type four, this is our legislative procedures which is what this code update is just it was um it was not organized very well. So I reorganized it so it flowed correctly. And then um

there is some notice of decision requirements that uh it's just good to have in the code so everyone's aware of who you have to notice for these types of projects. The Dashuites River design review, this is the one that's being relocated to this chapter since it's all about process and it includes a process for tree removal. It creates a type one process only for firereaks to mitigate potential fire hazards and for disease or hazardous trees. And then there was a whole bunch of submitt requirements in that other chapter too which we just moved over um to this chapter. And then this is for the type three um uh and 3CC quasa judicial hearings just um and the filing of a staff report for hearing today. I guess it requires the the staff to provide the staff report to the applicant, but we all can access it through City View. And so, um, we're just deleting that requirement, but we are making it clear because of the statutes that the staff report still has to be available 7 days prior to the hearing and available at a reasonable cost. So, we're just adding that in the code for consistency. Uh, deleting a uh the standing section because there is no local appeal that it references. And then the rest of that section is actually in the definition uh chapter for standing and then or for party and then consolidating the categories of public testimony. So it's just public testimony not for or against or neutral.

So happy about this. Yeah. So make so much more questionable my Yeah. Um and then close of record clarifies that the record actually remains open. So when the planning commission makes a recommendation to city council tonight, the record is still open until the council closes it.

And then uh continuences just made some revisions to be again consistent with the statutes. And then limitations on approval uh revises duration of approval for site plan review and land division applications and then adds new extensions for site plan review applications, phase site plan review applications and phase land divisions. Um whereas today there was no uh there there is not um extensions allowed unless the council adopts a resolution. This just um puts it in the code. Don't get m Renee. This next slide's really bad. Um

yes. So I don't know what happened and I I this I need to make this amendment. It's our site plan review extension. Nothing is changing from what was in the packet. It's just I realized that um it is very very repetitive. So a singlephase site plan review had identical phase site plan review requirement. So I just combined it. It reads the same way as our phase land division application. So I just looked at that this week and last week and couldn't believe it. So this is a proposed amendment that you'll see on the last slide. Nothing changed. It's just leaner.

Yes. And then this was a change that we highlighted at the last one that's in your packet for the land division extensions. Um so uh for a land division extension, it can be for a single phase or a um phased application. They can request a one-year extension. Um for a singlephase or for a multi-phaseed, they can request an extension on the first phase or the last. And in order to request that extension, um we just revised it to the highlighted section above. And we talked about this last week and it is in your packet. I just wanted to highlight it that it's still there. And then limitations on approval. Um because we significantly revised those last sections for approval durations and extensions. We no longer rely on what initiation of use is. So we are deleting that. And then for modification of approval, uh we worked on creating a new review process. So you can still modify an application or mod modify an approval, but we've separated it into type 1, two, and three processes. And we also included a new one for a modification of a condition of approval, which um comes up. And we it would be great to have a process in the code to support that request. And then in chapter 4.1, the declaratory rulings, this is our new section for interpretations and determinations. Uh we also updated the development agreements which we renamed to statutory development agreements. Uh clarify what the review process is. This is one of those few where it is still a type 3C quasi judicial process but city council is the sole review authority on these and it adds a whole bunch of just normal requirements requirements approval criteria um um effective date and duration of approval and then the table that we talked about at the work session. Uh normally you've only seen bits and pieces of it. Now you've seen the whole table and we wanted um well it

needed updated because of the new type 3CC application needed to be included. And then now we are into submitt requirements and minimum development standards review for um in chapter 4.2. So new submitt requirements will be and planners this will be very helpful for them is a phototric plan and a phased site plan. And then the phase site plan that is needed because the requirement will be that if you're applying for site plan review and you have more than one building it has to be a phase site plan. So now we want to make sure that we get a submitt requirement showing that phase site plan. And then minimum development standards review for all other uses. All other uses is um uh not middle housing. So we have a section for um single dwelling units and middle housing. and then all the uses captures a lot of other commercial industrial type uses just smaller in scale. And so we wanted to add an exemption that if you're just applying for a self-contained food cart when located in an existing approved paved parking lot that does not include any other food trucks, new outdoor seating or other site modifications that they don't have to go through this process. Another one is the one I mentioned earlier, implementing a council goal is to allow that minor expansion to existing multi-unit developments to be reviewed with MDS because once in a while we're going to apartment complex and they'd like to add one or two units and instead of going through this whole process, it could just go through minimum development standards review because they likely already have the parking and the bike racks and the landscaping. Um, so it just simplifies the process significantly. And then the last one's approval criteria, similar to what we do for housing. um minimum development standards. It just requires possible improvements to an alley approach. So if it is a commercial development and there is an alley and one of the approaches at each of the ends is not improved, they will be responsible for improving one of them.

And then talked about the phase development for site plan review. And then this is the the design review which will work smith in the end about um exempting buildings in the Ben central district um as long as they're leaving 25% waste.

75 75. So, chapter 4.3 land divisions and property line adjustments um just revised and relocate durations of approval and the extensions to the process chapter of 4.1 created that new type 1 minor replap process and clarifying that a title report is a submitt requirement for property line adjustments. And then for 4.4 are conditional use permits and 4.6 Six couple amendments for conditional use permits. Uh just a process that if the conditional use permit is for a project only going through minimum development standards review, that's the criteria that the planners look at, not site plan review. And then for the land use district map and text amendments, adding a new criteria for uh quasi judicial enhanc plan and development code text amendments. So, if a master plan comes back and they want to um change some of their um development code sections, this would be the the criteria that they would have to comply with. um almost to the end. For chapter 4.9 annexations, we added a new exception for area master plan for development of properties in the North Triangle expansion area because that um area now has a master plan called the Careway Master Plan and then allows sites in an area plan that are 1 acre or smaller with existing development to annex without a development proposal at the discretion of the community development director. And then our new chapter which is our interpretations and determinations. Um an interpretation will be uh these again were existing. They were just relocated from chapter 4.1 but it allows an applicant to request uh when a provision of the bend comprehensive plan or development code are ambiguous in terms of meaning or intent. So if they need clarification on something they can apply for an interpretation. They can also apply for one um on an interpretation of a provision or

limitation of a development approval issued by the city in which um there is doubt or dispute. So again just relocating those two and then clarification there. So if they're asking for clarification while they're doing their planning they're just requesting staff to write that clarification back to them. That's not coming later when you're doing the staff report. Do it early. could be after a decision's been issued on a development. Yeah. And someone needs help interpreting maybe a condition of approval or some other aspect of the approval.

Yes. And then the determination again relocated. So status of a non-conforming use or development and then the when determination of similar land use. So like I said at the work session all our use tables all refer to having a process for determination of similar land use but we didn't. So this is going to include that process and the interpretations just the approval criteria um if someone were to request it the proposed interpretations consistent with the common meaning of the words the Ben comprehensive plan um the legislative intent for the words u there's just a number of criteria that they would have to meet to um be able to request that and then the determination for a non-conforming use. Um there's ways they can demonstrate that that use um is uh legally established. So they can submit like copies of building or land use permits issued at the time, some zoning code standards. Uh just trying to demonstrate that that use is um what the status is of that non-conforming use. And then the similar use, there's just three things. The proposed use is consistent with the stated purpose of the zoning district. the characteristics of an activities associated with the use are similar to one or more of the uses that's already allowed in the table and that the proposed use is not listed as a permitted or conditional use in any other zoning district. And then lastly, variances uh updates the approval criteria for variance to maximum heights. And then based off the work session with um planning commission two weeks ago, there is clarification in the proposed amendments that a height variance cannot be combined with other height adjustments, height bonuses or height incentives. So for additional amendments, I went through them with you. Uh if when a

motion is made, I would just ask that if commission is supportive of these amendments that we add um that reference to conversion from commercial to residential uses to both of those tables. Um one table's in the commercial district and one table is in the mixeduse districts. And then that very um wordy site plan review extension cleanup. Um that proposed amendment I did not want to put back on here, but we can reference the slide. And then the exemptions that hopefully we we can figure out exactly how to word this to help um convey what we are um trying to say

and I can answer any questions that you may have. The city council hearing is not until November 5th um for whoever decides that they would like to attend that. So, can you clarify the 25 and 75? Forgetting the language for that, but they say they don't want more than 75%. 25. You can you can get your window down to your glass down to 25%. Yeah. Just keep 25%. So, if you add four, you have to keep three, right? Yeah. I think it helps if there is the context around it in terms of I think if you have four, you have to keep one. 25%. Oh, you have to keep one. We're only 25% of the overall glazing. Okay. Wait.

So, if you had four windows, you could not have design review if you took away three of them. Correct. You you could lock up like actually I think I was backwards. Yeah, I'm totally flipped on this. I thought you you could lose 25% but you had to keep 75%.

Well, I think part of it is a discussion. Is it a retail type walk by main street feel or are there other uses that are going to come in and say we're not really retail? Uh, and I think what they're saying is, yeah, we get it. We want to keep open windows and glazing, but you know, we may need to close things up like Scott brought up the kitchen. Uh, and they settle on 25%. They could go as low as 25% of just glass, right? Yeah, that's but it says less than 25% net loss. Yeah.

Yeah. the rewarding version I was going to suggest um see if this helps or not and then you all can also discuss whether you want to make a different recommendation to council other than what um the core area advisory board um provided to us. So exterior alterations to existing buildings that result in no more than a 25% net reduction in glazing are exempt. So no more than So in that case it would be if you have four windows of the same size and you kept three you would need to keep three to be exempt from design. That's what I thought we were saying.

Yeah. And Right. Yeah. 75% you know a rectangle of the building side front and whether you put new windows old windows you you got glass left at the end of the day. Now not 100% glass and maybe not total retail Main Street but some percentage. So Rene's language is getting to to the spot. And I'm thinking if we do it with windows, we're going to get stuck cuz someone might pull off. Oh, no. It says glazing. It says glazing. And I assume we might want to say square footage if we need to be specific. I'm not sure if just leaving it 25% is clear enough to everybody that that's a good actually. I have that language in our residential in terms of how we calculate it. So

I think area would be a good addition. And if there's a um you put net reduction of glazing just so we don't have less and loss. Well, getting back to lesson second question of is that the right number? But it's just uh you know at the end of the day at least 25% of the front is glass. I'm hearing two different I I think it would be easier to understand if we kept it in a positive like you you were exempt if you retain 75% of the

of it versus this. Yeah. If we did 50% it would be the same however you interpret it. [Laughter] Sold. So, we're talking the window area, not doesn't have to be the precise windows, but as long correct. And I and I hate to throw a wrench in this, but I mean, we're talking we're mostly concerned with ground floor. Yes. Right. Uh doesn't really mention ground floor. Um

and that's and generally when we have glazing requirements and ground floor, they talk about up to a certain height and that kind of thing. And that's the more main street direction rather than the upper floor, lower floor. Correct. So I I'm hearing that we want a larger glazed area. Is that right? Yes. Okay. Correct. So yes, then I think that's opposite. And correct me, Paulina. If they were talking, hey, yeah, you can do whatever you want to do, but you got to have 25% at the end of the day open and clear. We're saying 75% open and clear on some of this discussion. We're not there yet, but I'm worried that might be too restrictive. 75%

like forcing assuming that we're I understand what we're talking about is requiring that they keep 75%. Is that is that what we're talking about? That's what we're talking about. Okay. I'm worried that that might be too restrictive, but I don't have only if they want to go less and they just have to go through the whole then they have to go through the design review, which I think makes sense because you can also trying to keep the character. That's why that they were being exempted was because the buildings, it's the existing building. We're talking about the existing buildings in the core area in the central district. In the central district. Yeah. Can I clarify? Uh glazing doesn't necessarily mean see-through. It means

reflective surface. So even if they or or um or area advisory board discussed as well. So they could just they could leave the window and cover it over flat class. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think back to No, they were saying that we only had to keep 25%. That was my understanding from their conversation. Uh, but they were open to ideas. They There's only a handful of architects on this board. Um, and that they all got comfortable at 25, but they were open like if the commission felt that that was too low, they weren't against going a little high. I don't know 75% because I can't speak for them. Um

so so if I understand correctly so the over two things trying to strike a balance right retain the character but also allow flexibility for new uses. So, but not encumber people with a whole bunch of process, right? So, if it's 25% or less change loss, go for it. You don't need anyone's permission. But if you want to do more, then it goes through review. Um, well, it's too close. I think more is better. So, you want actually have to go through

Sorry. If they want to take away Oh, yeah. only do 20%. Whatever. Okay. We're I think we're talking the same thing. The idea is if there's a whole bunch of glazing and you just want to lose a bit of it, like 25% or less, go ahead. If you want to take away more, it's probably going to change the character. So, the city would like to look at it. Right. This is that core area which is largely industrial at the moment. Right. So you're not we're not talking about a lot of buildings that have a lot of glass to begin with. Well, not necessarily. Right.

I think what their thought is too is that a lot of them are older buildings. So they just want to redo the front facade, but they're not going to be there forever. Eventually they're going to tear them down and rebuild them. So, they don't want to go through an expensive process, but they would just like to be able to update their facade and not go through the project the the design review. And the three that we heard from was um something green something. Yep. Somewhere that's green. The they wanted to be a market, but it's still just the um giving plate. The giving plate and there's one other one. It's in your staff report.

Yeah. They were looking for flexibility for tenant change over and so adaptive reuse of the buildings without investing a lot of money in it as Heling said with the intention that this area would be a lot of it over time considered a holding I mean if they fixed it up today they might be sitting there for a couple years until the new stuff comes up that's going to have the base open in shops and retail. So is there a compromise? is that 50% if you know and and not trying to say at three windows or porn just say at the end of the day you have to have 50% of the square footage of that ground floor as Scott's saying is got to be glazed open glazing well I would also say

um uh if you're dealing with an existing building that already has like mostly glazing then you could take away 40 30% of the glazing and still meet the underlying requirements of the zone so I think there needs to something in there that uh buildings that retain 75% of the existing glazing or meet uh current glazing standards for that underlying zone because if if it's just all glass I am that's a good I like that they have window up above on an industrial that's just not much glazing. I guess the question is you just said the underlying what is the underlying that's required if they are going to do some renovation

and then the underlying would take care of the ground ground floor requirement because that's spelled out in the underlying zone student I want to say it's 40% so it depends one if you're on a main street and not on a main street there you go um and then if you're on a main street I want to say it was like 40 on the first floor and 20% on this any floor above And then um if you're not on a main street then it is less. I think it's 25 and 20. Amy's double checking but I believe there it is. So 40 and 20 if you're on a main street and then if you're not on a main street is 25 and 20.

Well Renee or Colin would you consider the central district all of a main street feel and all the cit? Well they're they're identified in the in the code. specific street. Yeah. All right. Yeah. Like Third Street. Um we've been trying really hard to get stuff. Well, then it's on the books already. Right. Right. Well, the under the glazing per already.

Yeah. I would just think this like maybe this would only kick in if there happen to be a building that the glazing doesn't quite meet current standards, but someone wants to go in there and like you know the example of doing a restaurant having a kitchen needing to block out a window then it would work for that. But then if it already has a lot of glazing then it like they shouldn't be restricted if there's already a lot of the minimum allowed. Right. Right. I like that. I think probably figure that out. And did we want to mention ground floor on that? That the underlying zone

underline covers it. I would be supportive of doing 50% instead of 75 just for like number one clarity like I I mentioned before and also flexibility like okay I think that that's I think it's a trick bag to to get into windows that are in the in the site now it's really just if they're going to do renovation end of the day use two new windows and two existing and if you get your numbers you're there versus well you can get rid of one versus the other but I I would go with 50 also. I could I could vote for that as well. Yeah.

I know we're kind of getting into deliberation, but I want to do this before we close the Yes. And I want to clarify that if we I don't know how it's going to read or if they has something. So, let's get we go 50%. Um, if you want to say though if that 50% is actually equal or more than the actual requirements, um, we need to clarify that they're fine removing more if they can meet the underlying like the 20 and 25. Just need to word that in get that in here because if let's say they have

90% of the facade has got windows but they only need to pro being provide 25%. I think Scott said yeah it's back stop if they they can remove as many as you can if they have more than they currently is the minimum requirement they could remove all the way up to right this doesn't say that though I want to say to catch that I think that's what that actually means 40 right not let me try to work on that that was the that was the standard 40 I mean the other thing I know we've done this before where we kind of get the idea across And then maybe it written until city council meeting or something like that.

I think Rene is going to take a stab at putting something together and then come back later and deliver time pin in it for everyone except Renee. Thank you. And then was there okay next steps. Um I think I did have a couple questions. I didn't want to interrupt um earlier. Um the so the sighting um metal sighting is still listed as can't be over 50% of in residential zones. Oh residential and that includes like RH and RM and Uhhuh.

I was just thinking like you know there's a lot of especially some of the larger multif family buildings. Um, granted, metal gets beed out of projects quite a bit, but it's something we always push for because maintenance and things like that. And I think we've had a lot of buildings that have come up that have a considerable amount of metal sighting. And then even like with small homes, I mean I don't really apparently it says the use of sheet metal or flywood must not exceed 50% of the wall area.

Yeah. Yeah. And that was just like it was kind of confusing to me cuz most of the like I've never seen I guess I'm not used to plywood being used for I mean usually it's fiber cement if you're going to do a panel system and metal panel. I don't see it as being kind of a negative that needs to be restricted. I mean it's I would agree with that. But is that number not right though from the% perspective

the I I wouldn't put a restriction on the amount of metal sighting. So the way it would read then where we added fiber cement we would just add metal there as exterior finish on vertical surfaces must be primarily of materials such as masonry wood sighting um shingles fiber cement metal or stucco and then not have that 50% limitation metal panel seems like it's getting it's getting to be an awfully long prescriptive list with a caveat to that and I've seen this on other ones is they don't allow uh shiny like galvanized and maybe we just go to something like that. I I don't know. Maybe we just need to cuz that's you know the the

I don't know that was kind of like a trend for a hot second of the galvanized metal but that's I think that was probably more the intent of it that that the thought was would be shiny type stuff but that's it's becoming more and more common to see like the corrugated on well and they and there's so many different so many different styles now. In fact, uh there's well a rendering of that gets thrown around a lot, the 181 Franklin. I mean, that was I don't think it's more than 50% metal, but it does have a considerable amount of metal sighting on it. That's a mixeduse building, but it's a little different, but that's for the residential portions up top.

So, it also says smoothbased cinder block construction is not permitted on the front facade. Cinder block construction for side and rear is permitted.

So Scott, let me just make I don't know. Uh I don't really that's not that big of a deal. Uh it's it's funny because we never use cinder block as a CMU. Um but generally that's split face when it's on us. You could but it said smooth face. Yeah, smooth face. You could like be just okay with the really long prescriptive list and like might just move the metal into into that. Yeah, you could move metal into there and then where it says metal right now, you could just say um galvanized shiny or metal or highly reflective metal such as be clear objective. Clear objective. Highly reflective isn't clear and objective. No,

I don't think so. Highly is not specific. Reflective. Reflective. Reflective is everything. Glass is reflective. Yeah. The world we're talking about metal though. Say reflective is less problematic than highly reflective, but not necessarily funny. If you can see yourself in the middle, forget about me. So if we add metal to the list of materials that which section what's the reference it's section 2.1 900

900 design standards for residential ABC little fruit and it's on page 12 of the page It's like right above 2.11,000 where we added fiber cement. And I'm not sure if that was the intent was thinking that metal seems more commercial or whatnot. Um, but I could also see it for single family homes on the outskirts

materials such as So if we take out the use of Well, I don't know. Are you talking about taking out the line, the use of sheet metal or plywood must not exceed 50% of the wall area? Is that what you're suggesting, Scott? I was I was suggesting putting the metal on the list of uh such as masonry, wood sighting, shingles, deco uh uh metal panels. I mean metal panels, cement or metal. Yeah, metal panel. And then I'm not sure about and I I'm a little perexed at the plywood part because

still there. Yeah. Um, I don't do a lot of small residential construction, so it's like I've never seen plywood unless it's like a board and bat system, but usually that's not like intended as a long-term, right? At least no blue tarts. middle slash over. Yeah. Well, we can just as um Mer Johansson said, just strike that sentence and then just move the metal over. I think that's reasonable. I think it's also like I don't know why we wouldn't we wouldn't want metal siding especially like you know in in the

fire. Yeah, fire. Um, not going to finish that that sentence. But

what I I guess I'm what the purpose of this Okay, I'm I'm interpreting the purpose of this this paragraph is we're wanting like normal attractive sighting for for the buildings. it. I'm not sure the long list is actually really accomplishing that purpose. I'm thinking it was probably a much more complicated uh thing of I mean, I've worked on buildings where it's it has to be from this height to this height. Here's a list of materials and here's a list of materials and here's a list of materials and you could have

up to a certain amount of this or something. And I think when you take some a code like that, which I'm imagining Ben probably had at one point in time and start to simplify it, then you end up with this remnant of like when you get rid of all those little nitpicky designations, then it ends up like, well, you just have to have this and and maybe someone tried to I mean, I guess a concrete wall, you know, maybe someone wanted to do one that was just board form concrete or um concrete Yeah, something like that. And we wouldn't want that.

I mean, it seems like what what this list really is in my mind is these are commonly used residential housing materials. I mean, they're standard kind of Well, there are some people that will try and gain the system. I mean, yeah, if I guess I I guess I'm I mean I

What are you suggesting? Okay. So, I I guess I'm I'm actually suggesting something that's like a little more descriptive rather than specific materials because if there's new new materials are coming out all the time, like recycled stuff that comes out pretty cool and I don't want to limit us from being able to use that because it's not on this list. It's got to be clear and objective. It it it does. Um and it still says materials such as just strike the first and second sentence and say what we don't want

face as of right now in the code all it says is smooth base cinder block construction is not permitted on the front facades and then it is on the side and rear amazing yeah I mean to be honest fiber cement wasn't on this and I guarantee you that most of the buildings that have been built under this use fiber cement so Right Right yeah well I mean we're trying to clean up the code. So,

so back to Erin's point as far as how much you can really prescribe and there's a new one coming or there's a recycled, it's usually often when I've done standards and guidelines and design guidelines is to show what you don't want. Don't cinder block break up your front storefront. Don't use this, don't use that. And this might it might be three things following Pauline's thing and that's it. And then let the architect create good materials. Yeah, I think like Pauline said, just the first two sentences I think is what you had said and then just leaving it at smooth face. I'm fine with that. Is everyone Does anyone have any objections? Yeah, the smooth face that I really Okay, we can Scott want to keep going.

Yeah, I just had one other thing which was uh what was the conversation with the fire official light? I did not have time to Okay. um do that. But I did add it to my list for my next code of approval. Okay. Um I'll go ahead. I'm going to go from right to left. State right to left. Um Erin, do you have any other questions for staff? Um I did notice in the public comment a couple of requests from uh the parks and wreck about um being able to remove trees. They're here tonight. They're here tonight. Okay. All right, then. I'll let them address their own concerns. Awesome. Nathan,

I don't have any additional questions. No, Scott. I'm good. Bob, good. Okay, we will go ahead. Or Renee, did you before? Okay. No, that's fine. I just wanted to check while listening. No, no problem. Okay, we'll move into public testimony next. Um, I've got two people to comment. Um, if you have it, you can bring it up. And so we'll go ahead and start with Zara. Yes. Sarah. Yeah.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Sarah Gansel and I am a park planner within Recreation District. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Um I did submit written comments to the record as you read with you. Um but I am here to emphasize that the code continues to len process for fuel reduction and forest health in upland areas of special interest or ASIS. We have been asking for a clear and more efficient process since at least 2021. I do want to commend the city for reducing barriers to fuel reduction within the walls. This is an important step towards protecting our community. The very nature of upland ASIS though means that they are mo more prone to fire than areas along the river. They are steep, dry, and heavily vegetated. Exactly the kind of place where a fire can break out and spread into the adjacent neighborhoods that they typically border. After the fire in Sisters uh just last month, we all know just how real threat this is. BPRD has completed flow reduction work in two ASIs, but we have several more that need to be done. While the city did approve these projects, the code doesn't explicitly allow it, and the review process adds delay and expense without providing meaningful oversight into the area of forest health and field reduction. I do understand and respect the need for a review process to prevent misuse, but I'm advocating for an easier process. A type one process similar to what's in this package of code amendments for the WS would continue to provide appropriate oversight without unnecessary delay. I want to further recommend though that for public agencies like BCRV which have different motives than private land owners that there's an exemption from

review. We employ professionals with backgrounds in forestry and ecology and we already collaborate with vendor and many other state and local agencies to prepare science-based prescriptions. So, with all due respect to planning staff, having our work reviewed by non-speists doesn't add value. It delays our projects. It costs taxpayers more money and it slows down essential wildfire preparedness. So, in your recommendation to council, I urge you to include an amendment that one allows for tree removal for fuel reduction and forests how in upland ASIS. two, include a type one process for tree removal in ASIS and three exempt public agencies from review within the WS and upland ASIS. And on that note, I believe DPRD, CUID, and OSU are the only three public land owners with land in the laws or in an ASI.

Thank you. What a question. When you're talking about review, you're talking about on your public uh your parklands, not outside the correct. So when you're cleaning, you're cleaning your lands. You're taking that in consideration. Sorry.

Um good evening, commissioners. My name is Sarah Hickman and I am the natural resources and trails manager for Ben Park and Recreation District. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here this evening. Like Sarah, I submitted written comment for the record and I support was updates and I'm compelled tonight to advocate for one to update the proposed code of amendments to the commission and reviewing the lack of process to address fuel reduction in forest health and upland ASIS um here in the community of Bend. From my understanding, this has been a request for years, and this code amendment is an opportunity to impactfully grow the community's wildfire resiliency. Uh, wildfire has always been present on central Oregon landscapes, and that hasn't changed. What has changed is fire suppression in the natural systems and the growing population. Natural areas such as Ben's upland ASIS are steep, dry, and heavily forested and often back up directly to neighborhoods and homes as planned per city growth. Thoughtful and place-based fuels reduction prescriptions invest in the safety of our community living alongside healthy forests which decrease the impact of wildfire. Um the current code does not allow the removal of any vegetation unless noxious from the landscape within ASIS and adding to the critical issue of fuel loading in and around Bent. The addition of upland ASIS to the code amendment allows land managers such as BPRD to address fuels at the landscape level and not limited to planning overlays that can create costly delays. The district respects and understands the land use review process to prevent misuse to the protect the central Oregon environment that we love. At a minimum, I support the code uh providing a type one review that includes upland ASIS. However, like Sarah, I advocate for public agencies to be exempt from review to best address large-scale fuel work. BPRD is a public agency whose vision is to connect our community to nature and values

environmental sustainability. Serves as a trusted steward of public lands and should be empowered to act swiftly to address wildfire risks. For over 20 years, BPRD has been leading public agency performing fuels reduction and forest health projects in and around Bend. We employ professionals with backgrounds ranging from forestry, ecology, climate change, and environmental sciences. The district collaborates and has agreements with federal, state, and local contractors to ensure projects are done with science-based prescriptions to balance public safety and promote forest health. The barriers of the current review and cumbersome code language force us to react versus respond proactively to conditions on the ground to protect the community that we serve. In your recommendation to council, I urge you to include this essential amendment that allows tree removal for fuel reduction and health and upland ASIS and to include a type one process as well as considering the exemption of public agencies from review within the WSI upland ASIS. Thank you.

Thank you, Brad. Good evening. My name is Brad Thomas. I'm an architect in town working in market rate and affordable multif family housing developer. Um I want to ask that two items be considered in these revisions. One is regarded bicycle parking and one regarding building height definition 1.2. Um the first regards the proposed revisions to the bicycle parking 3.3.600 600. Uh, I really support the city of Ben's recently and proposed improvements to our bicycle infrastructure and that this effort goes alongside that. And I also want to ask the changes be tabled with regard to multif family housing. Of particular concern for major mold during the site's thus developable developable are the requirements on the location of short-term parking relative to the entry and the increased size for portion of the spaces for oversight bikes. When land is cheap, this may be easily doable, but on the types of infill sites where we really need a lot of housing development and where housing development has been most challenging, this can create challenges. Uh, I would love more generous pipe storage wherever I go on my big oversized bike with my daughter, but also feel the city needs housing production far more urgently and I ask that these changes not be required for multif family housing. Um, it impacts site layouts and has potential to render some share of sites undevelopable on many more sites that'll cannibalize space from auto parking and ship additional tenant cars onto the street which is a greater externality for the city builder. Um so I'd suggest if we don't feel we can lose housing production um for this

that we that we table the bike changes too. Um, and to give an example, if you had a project that would pencil in the MU zone with a zero setback, um, and all of a sudden you required they have 25, let's say it's a 100 unit development. You need 25 spaces for short-term bicycle parking within 100 ft of the primary entry, which comes out to 50 foot wide by 6 foot deep and or 8 foot deep for the oversized parking. Um, so you've got a de facto six or eight foot setback even where there is a zero minimum setback. Um, so it's it's some of these knock-on effects that I think are worth reconsidering on that. Um, on a completely unrelated note, I would love it if this opportunity changes to the development code. Would consider clarity on um how height is defined with buildings. uh currently a low slope roof flat roof building uh the height is measured from the top of roof structure and the parapits can extend uh some degree as is necessary. I think that's the right way to do it. Uh I would ask that uh similar amount of grace be extended to slope roofs which are maybe more regionally appropriate. So you not consider the highest point of that roof to be uh the height of the building. Uh but we measure it from the same point. So top of uh top of occupied space structure um and then some some amount of empty space above that uh the way it's currently done uh incentivizes uh flat roofs with large parapits and disincentivizes more regionally appropriate slope roofs. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, Colleen and Amy, do you guys have comments? Any of the public testimony? Um, I'll let Rene and Colin address the

the B park and wreck, but real fast on the the bicycle parking. Um, there is a administrative rule that requires bicycle parking for new multi-unit developments or mixeduse developments of five residential units or more. So, our code has been consistent with that. Where we're not 100% consistent and council was supportive is the requirement is that it is for 1/ half a covered bicycle parking space for multi-unit and we require one. So, we are requiring more than what the statute requires, but you have to require um at least parking for multi-unit um according to this OAR section. Um there's three there's new retail development, all new office and institutional uses. Um all major transit stops and any park and ride lots that require land use approval. And then all new multi-unit developments are mixed use with five or more.

Didn't we also take away all the parking requirements, car parking requirements, right? Yeah. Wouldn't that like if you had the same piece of property now you have less you have more land available because you have less required parking on the site. Right. Correct. And then in addition um I know there's concerns about all the parking have to be located within 100 of the front door but 75% of that parking can still be inside. So there's two options. Either 100 ft from the front door or 75% be inside and 25% then only has to be

and notch the building or whatever for the 25%. But back to the requirement, that's a state statute that we have to follow. Is that correct or right, it's 660-012630. That's an administrative rule or administrative rule, right? But again, it requires a happy space. We are require the code currently requires one. We're not proposing any changes to that. Um, but I just want to be upfront that it is exceeding what the statute requires. And correct me that's directive from the council to be felt to the one. Is that correct?

I believe when we went through the um code updates to comply with CFAC uh the decision was to bring it to one do you happen to recall whether this question of what the impact would be in terms of the building out and penciling for housing going from half to one. I mean, more always sounds better, but if the cost wasn't taken into consideration, um, no, I mean, there's also the adjustments process that a applicant can go through now to reduce their bicycle parking requirements. So, if one is too much, then they can apply. Let me get that real fast. Are you talking about the adjustments?

Yep. Yeah, I just right where I went. uh for de developments that require bicycle parking. Uh the min minimum number of spaces for use by residents of the project provided the application includes at least one half space per unit or the location of the spaces are required in other sections of the chapter provided. See uh minimum warrant trying to think that following development standards may be adjusted. So sorry, you still have to maintain the one half space. So minimum number of spaces for use by residents of the project provided the application includes at least one half space. That keeps it consistent with that statute that you were just talking about.

And then the location of spice spaces as required in other sections of the chapter provided you can exempt that provided that lockable covered bike parking spaces are located within the development site. The adjustment section is essentially like a varian a variance or very like variance process. Yeah. So, so if I'm following what he's saying, you don't have to do any parking. You're doing multif family for example and or affordable and you have to do those percentages for the bike parking according to our code. But you can ask for an adjustment to drop it a little bit, but not a lot. It's a light adjustment. Is that right? Right. You can't get rid of it or you can't cut it in half.

You still have to five. Okay, that answers the question for me. And Amy was looking at our past. Yeah, it looks like we've required consistently one space per unit going back at least I jumped back to 2019. It was there back in 20. So it's been there for a while. So it's not new. It's not new. So, so if the amendment process is there and you can knock down a half, that will cut some square footage out of the building as as we heard from our

testifier and but we can't get rid of it or we can't really make major modifications I think is what I'm hearing. Right. Statement. I have no comments on the matter, but um anybody else on and Renee the Ben Parks and Right.

Sure. So um the Upland ASI regulations are in chapter 2.7. It just it's considered an overlay or special plan district and that is that's a chapter we honestly don't refer to very often. So it was not on our radar to make amendments with this package. But if the planning commission wants to take that on, we could do that possibly in a separate package. There are other elements of that section. We I think we'd also want to update. There's some outdated terms and processes definitely need to be clarified. So I think it would be a lot to try to take on with this package. That would be my recommendation. We want to look at it holistically and do a comprehensive update to that. Um, I'd recommend that

I'd suggest if we could uh update it but limit it to the request from uh tonight specific to fire. Um, that would be uh in the public interest. Yeah, I I think that's achievable. Um, we are getting a significant amount of input not only from the park district but from lots of other property owners within the city because of, you know, all of the fire issues that have been happening recently. So I I think we're going to need to be in in the code and looking at these more frequently um and with more modern eyes on it. So yeah, I think they can

prioritize it. Um but yeah, with some good feedback. I think uh a type one process is is something that we would be in favor of. Um we also just to be clear, we do now have a urban forester who's on staff. So it's not our planning staff that are just being signed this with everything else. We actually have a specialist who can look at um any application that deals with with trees. But um the distinction between a type one and a type two is not just a local jurisdictions's sort of perview or determination to make. We we do have to rely on some guidance in state law that tells us what we can treat as a type one and that's more limited in discretion than a type two which requires notice to neighbors. So, we'll just have to make sure that if we do this and we want to have a type one process that we need to make sure that the criteria don't require um interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal judgment, which is the legal test that we need to to look out. So, I think we can get there. Just it's going to take more than just trying to figure it out tonight. So,

so Pauline, you're not done yet. Yeah. But if I got you right on on their process, so today they've got to go through more review. No Forester's been on board. Now we have Forester, which if I'm correct, would help speed this up. Yeah. And then if we have to clean up the actual language, that could come to us separately then.

Yes. So, regardless of what we do with the code, we're going to have our urban forester who's a certified forester who's on our staff looking at these. Um, and so that would should speed things up and add some consistency because he'll be looking at every one of them. Um, but as far as the process, we're going to have to stick with what the process is today. But I'm I can support moving to a more tight one, not only for the the park district, but um anywhere else that it makes sense because I do want to be able to the the the season where people can get in and remove vegetation um is somewhat short and people are always trying, you know, they they're trying to get their contractor line up and get their permits and adding additional time to that always compresses things a little bit workier. So, Colin, could you I think we're on Well, I I think I'm in sync with you, but could you just recap what you would propose staff?

Well, I'd have to. So, we're going to council on the 24th of Oh, October 22nd.

22nd of October, so a month from now to just talk about the tree code in general and because we're at about at a year of it being in effect. And so I think coming out of that we may have some smaller changes to make um to just sort of tweak things that we're not going to have big policy changes with only one year of experience under our belt. But um if possible we but we could potentially get something um addressing the ASI specifically and maybe the type one versus type two there. Um to do a bigger look like Rene was talking about at the entire ASI section of the code would be a little bit more of a lift. But I think we could look at it sooner than later.

Yeah. I feel like we just need to have like a fire resiliency package. Yes.

And that that is one of council goals is to to to look at the code, I I we don't really have a work plan on how we're going to do that, you know, from chapter 1 through chapter 5 of the code yet. But but I think to to the extent that we can fold more of this into everything every time we're looking at the code, that is going to further and foster the council's goal. Colin, would you say that it's reasonable for us to include a recommendation to change it to a type one or consider it um in our recommendation to council tonight? I mean, I I think it depends on how you word it. I think it'd be helpful to get a recommendation on the package that's been presented and worked on and then also saying for future work we recommend that

that the um staff you know consider or look at converting or or considering a changing the type two type one for ASIS fire reduction. Thank you Con. Yeah, thank you. The second thing that they asked was for to exempt public agencies from review altogether. But I remember the trail in Drake Park and allies very well

uh that parks and take out and we made quite a bit of progress on that I think by having the planning commission involved in that discussion. uh since we represent the community at large, uh we didn't want as many trees taken out as Parks and Wreck did. So, I don't think we I would be in favor of just exempting them just based on that. That was kind of our most iconic place. I I would concur. About two years ago, there were some misunderstandings and there's a lot more taken out than and actually crossing into private property. Ian also just did remind me that um we don't even exempt ourselves. We have some problems and

we get city applications. The city wants to do a thing. There are numerous cases where somebody is the applicant and you know they work here and they're applying to do a get a planning approval. So then the city holds itself to the review of quilt. Not not that people can't ask. I understand the question, but I'm just pointing out the city goes through the land use process administered by the city. Okay. Any more questions for staff? No, but I just want to re reiterate the how we uh measure height is a great idea and um I think that's something that we really should consider.

I think there's some bills that have been passed. they don't go into effect for some time but there might be um an opportunity at that time to look at how we measure height because of some requirements and I just briefly glanced at them I don't have to even provide an overview but height was in there and I was referring to measuring it the way the building code measures which I'm not familiar with so I don't even know what that means I don't know what a parade is flat roof the part of the wall that goes up a little bit past the like in sisters all those buildings have the facades and every every flat roof most every flat roof has a has a parapit and so we don't

so yeah so like Brad's example that he's saying is if you're standing at the sidewalk and you're looking at a building and let's say the height limit is 40T the top of that roof could be 40t and then your parapit which is 3 feet four feet something like that that doesn't count above it so that so then you're looking at right along the property line if If you can go right up to the setback or right up to the rubber line, 40 ft right there, that's your height. If you had a sloped roof that started much lower and went back, if the we measure it currently from where that ridge, the peak is, so when you think of 40 foot off of a gabled, a sloped roof versus a flat roof,

one of them is going to seem more imposing. And so there's different ways of measuring building heights. Um, so it's something that I've and I've talked with Pauline about this for years and if they do and I mean I'm not I'm a short time on the planning commission, but I would like to be involved if Yeah.

Well, maybe what we could do is recommend our package tonight with the two things. One was the uh height and the other is the uh other request, the process thing that just be looked at by staff. Found Nathan's idea that you're this is a recommendation from planning commission just to work on it in the future and consider so this package plus those two things just to say take a look if that helps if it doesn't help staff because they want to do it anyway then we don't need to do it I'm worried that the the building height recalculation is like a little bit outside of the scope of this amendment we're not talking about anything

we're talking about a different meeting where we dive into those more those more in depth, right? Bringing it back just a connection not some days fly just extra stuff in the future topics. It's not awesome. I would be perfectly happy to revisit the amount of bike parking required at different places around the city too. Renee, how are we doing? Oh, I believe Pauline has some merged language. Do you I can read it. There's but it did change. Oh, this is the for going back to the Yeah, I got it. Okay. Oh, you got that one. Okay. Okay. Let me show my screen.

Yeah. Oh, good. Better if you can share and you don't have to listen to us read it.

Okay. Okay. Um, so the first change would be about the the materials for residential. So just struck everything we talked about and also the last sentence. So basically because we're saying in the the highlighted no smooth face cinder block construction shall be permitted on the front facades. We don't need to say oh but it can be on the side and rear. So just keeping that one sentence.

Fantastic. And then the two exemptions Renee worked on um which I kind of mirrored for the site plan review section. So for the section that resides in the Ben central district, it would be this one where exterior alterations to existing buildings are exempt from design review if the alter authorizations result in no more than a 50% net reduction in transparency glazing or the proposed transparency glazing is equal to or greater than the minimum required by that 20 and 25%. And then the next part is what would go in the site plan or design review chapter and it says existing buildings located in the Ben central district if so they'd be exempt from design review if the alter alterization alteration I alterations result in no more than 50% reduction in transparency glazing or the proposed um is equal to or greater than the minimum requirement in back in that one section and I will double check all the numbers and reference references.

Sounds good. But do we do ground floor or no? Well, one thing I was going to point out is when we you all were talking about 50% net reduction being the threshold, that does not refer to whether it's on upper floors or ground floor. It's just that entire facade. So, if you want to be more specific about where any potential net reduction might occur, it's not currently captured in here. But the underlying code does talk about underlying code does. So the second part of the floor would take you back to the ground floor and upper floor minimums. You could just say and no more than 50% reduction in ground floor transparency.

I like it. That's what that was just Yeah. Okay. I don't think we have that many tall buildings over there, but second, third floors, but No more than 50% net reduction in ground floor transparency glazing. Yeah. Transparency blade on the ground floor. Let's make Okay. This is how the founding fathers go. Imagine it only took him a few months. So then does the second

I think they sound like they need to meet the joke. [Laughter] That was the most funny commission joke. [Laughter] Okay, I think this would be the four, three, four, five amendments.

Okay. Any more staff questions? Feel ready to deliberate. Is there any questions of written testimony that you had for staff? Pauline pointed out a lot of it as she was going through her presentation. I just wanted to make sure we were able to answer any questions you had. It's always very well done. Yeah, I have no comments to the written testimony. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Okay, we will go ahead and close the public testimony portion of the hearing and move into deliberation.

I mean, thanks To be honest, I'm I'm I'm I'm pretty happy with the with the the changes that Pauline brought back here or actually I assume she had to but but it was really good. Um I'm happy with the amendments. I still would like to look at the the bike parking requirements. I still think that there some of them are uh excessive, but um yeah, I guess I'm pretty good with moving forward. Um I'm very supportive of um recommending these proposed changes um with the additional amendments uh that we have on the various slides um that where they exist. Um, I would also be supportive of recommending that council look at the type one changing the what's it called the upland ASI review process to a type one

as well as was right was that was the tree removal for necessary fire fuel reduction within the waterway overlay zone is in this current package of amendments that's being clarified as a pipeline process. Yeah. Overall, I think you did amazing work. Um like I mentioned probably if I remember right last meeting um I can't imagine better stewards of our development code. So I appreciate you all I got to say.

195 pages of amendments was a lot. Uh, thank you for the the changes that you added from our previous discussion. Um, I agree. It sounds like a type one for Upland ASIS is something to consider. Colin suggested that it might be possible to bring that to council in October as part of the reporting back on the tree. Report back

uh on the tree code, which I think that would be great. And uh I'll Yeah. So other than that, I am good. I don't understand about building height measurement. So I'll leave that to the rest of you, but I'm happy to be educated and thank you for the description. Not at the moment, but some point in the future. Looking forward to learning all about it.

Um, thank you for putting it all together. Um, a lot of work. I don't have any comments. I do think I'm in agreeance that I think looking at the fire code for every private owners, everyone I think would be beneficial and so thank you for bringing that up in October. Make no comments. Good work. I've talked enough. So, uh, good work. Uh, the one thing I would have to say is I wish there was a little more time between the working and the planning session so that if there are some things that there would be time

to to iron some stuff out or follow up or whatever. I'm But all in all, I'm happy with it. Uh, ditto on everything that's been said. Um, supportive. Uh, thank you again, Pauline and Amy. I'm good to go. Same thing. Good work. Would anyone like to make a motion with

I move to recommend that the city council approve the legislative amendments to the Ben Development Code uh to keep standards relevant, processes efficient, and identify opportunities for improvements with the proposed amendments prepared to us for us by staff? Question. Does that include the recommendations to do this extra work separate? When you say amendments is I did not include that as that's not part of this motion. This motion separate. Yeah. Okay. A second. Would we like to include a re or

I think you could maybe take that up next after this. Um okay. Take a vote. I favor I Okay. Vote moved. So then you want a motion to uh you can discuss somebody can make the motion you can this is sort almost it's a little bit of informal guidance less formal than the motion to recommend. So it's I was going to say is the recommendation need to go through that process. Yeah, that's a question.

If there's if there's, for example, if there's unonymity among the planning commission, which I think there is, and there's understanding from staff on the the request or the direction, um, if Pauline and Amy are clear and have enough, it's enough for me. It just it just needs to get communicated effectively to to the council and I think somebody's going to be there to emphasize that point. So, that's enough. Uh but that's coming at a different meeting, right? Well, it's a whole separate work task than this. It is. It is separated. Oh yeah, that's right. We talked about doing this in October 22nd, which is before you said it doesn't go till November,

right? The October 22nd work session is our annual report, our first annual report to the council on implementation of the tree code. So we could, as an aside, mention there could be other related amendments. This package of amendments is plan is scheduled to go to the city council November 5th. Um, and so it could be part of commissioner comments to count that point except it might already be addressed by the time we get there if you enforced. Yeah, we can discuss it during the tree code thing, but then also

the commissioner who's representing the commission's deliberation on the 5th of November could re-emphasize that element of the discussion. you know, sounds like it'll be represented. So, do you feel like you need us to make a motion to look at the type one for the ASIS? No, I think the discussion was pretty clear. I don't think I don't think anyone feel strongly about making a motion and it can it can come up in the work session on the 24th of October. 22nd. Sorry. So many meetings. So many Wednesday. So many Wednesdays. meeting lit October 22nd. Well, I think we are good. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And then we will ask for commissioner who's available on November 5th to I think I'm available. You available Scott? Y we can have two, right? Sure. Sure. More than right. Well, he can talk about You both don't. Okay. Plan on two of you. I flow. Okay. Next, we'll move into reports from commissioners. Aaron, uh, nothing to report.

I actually have a request. Um, we I would I would like us to have a retreat of the planning commission, a meeting where we don't have anything on the agenda. We we'll often cancel meetings rather than that. I would really and actually maybe even in if we do have things on the agenda, but a chance for us to talk about the work that we're doing in the bigger picture. Every year when the council does their goal setting, you ask us about what are the important things, but we've never really had a discussion among the planning commission about what are the important things that we feel like we really need to address. And it's our one opportunity to get those in front of the council. And if we don't spend time ahead of time, we're kind of here on the cuff talking about it. So my request is that we do some kind of a planning commission work session where we're looking at our own work plan and our own planning and the things that we feel are important for our community.

Timed nicely for the goal setting session as well. It would be great if it was before the the year end soon. Yes. I mean, we have Yeah. So, a a recap of what we've done and where we think we're going. I think it would be really helpful for us to have that discussion with the goals for this bienium we're in now set. Would you like us to talk about because council has priorities for the next two years, would you like us to discuss where planning commission fits in with those?

I mean, that that would be helpful. and even a response back on some of the things that we have done that kind of they move on and then we never really hear about what happened and what was the result. Um, so it'd be really our, if I got this right, our goal setting session because they're already set for the next two years, but we could fine grade under their goals if and actually look at what goals they have to see what things we should be involved with in terms of pushing the So, I was thinking we were at the end of the two-year cycle. So, we're in the middle of the two-year cycle for the city council. Just started the new one in July

at the community uh retreat. The mayor had an interesting point because she was trying to make the connection back to us from the council and I had indicated to her from my experience counselors trying to go to all these meetings can't do it physically. It's just crazy. But we talk about quarterly our council rep would be councelor Platt coming and telling us what they're doing and then we can link that better with us. So maybe we have a quarterly with him and then we start adding some meat to that at the end of the year.

Maybe. I do recall that at the retreat and I know that council has discussed in generally I'm not recalling exactly the specifics of how they were going to try to engage more and interact more with the advisory bodies. Um, let me look back at that and see if I can find some more concrete steps that council has already envisioned to try to make sure that you're in the fold more and those elements where to implement their goals would involve the planning commission. Um, so let me let me

the thing that's at the top of my list is fire and and and that's a really big topic and it affects a lot of things but a especially after the fire is so close to sisters this year. I mean it just gets closer and closer to thinking about what that looks like and then you go around town and you're like oh wow like maybe we shouldn't be putting all these wooden fences five feet from every house you know like I don't know. So anyway, I just I feel like uh the council gives us direction, but also we because we're like citizen input, right? So we also give council. So I don't I don't want to wait two more years to have that discussion.

I like the idea. I I I heard two things. One, an offsite for us to do planning. Um and then secondly, how we sync up or stay in with the city council with city council. I mentioned at some point also maybe meeting with some of the other committees at the retreatable housing and traffic and um

I think that would be really beneficial. So we're not like just working in silos, we're communicating. that came up at the retreat and then I think we discussed it together as well as if it's not only having the committee or the commission come and talk to us but also maybe some joint meetings on subjects like the housing folks with us on a housing issue and I find that very productive and I think they get a chance to give us input and vice versa. We we had good discussion for that when we were doing all the cottage code and all that stuff and we had the affordable housing committee representatives committees here in the room to talk about it. That was very helpful. It would be interesting to do an update on when you had

done all that stuff that we've done and what the results of all of that are. When you had the economic development staff come, that was really helpful, including our later discussions. So, if we could figure out a way to not overload you guys, but to fill our gaps with some of our commissions.

Yeah, I think I want to be just careful in that council has priorities set out for their goals over the two-year period. um we are most often directed by them. Our workload is guided by council's direction to us, not typically the reverse. So um I just want to be careful in that we have already quite a bit on our planning division work plan, which seems to grow each month the next several package of development code updates Pauline already has on her list to do. Um,

but we could certainly bring all of the staffers who anticipate being in front of the commission within the next two years in implementation of the council goals kind of lay out what you're what's in store during the next bianium. Yeah, that would be great. Yeah. I think it's it's not coming up so much with new goals for them because they're set who's implementing what and who's on first and how are we how can we help commission I mean not a advisory committee comes and really hangs with us for a little bit here's what we're doing for a half hour boom boom boom or if there's some joint subject again housing I move over and let them sit with us and we can talk

I do agree and council was interested in that especially on some of these meteor topics where they're not getting two distinct recommendations from two of their advisory bodies, but you all have talked with each other, right? Yeah. And and are providing counsel with um with a collective recommendation.

I think the part of uh Suzanne your idea that like resonates most with me is something that I think is like really valuable is doing that like the synchronization the before the goal setting process, right? before they do the the go like we have that big round table meeting with the council and discuss the things that we as the planning commission like want to see like to have the process where we we come up with those ideas to be a little bit more involved

and to to maybe be a bit more structured. Um, so it might I don't know if like spending a lot of time like creating a separate set of goals is like a really productive use of our time, but I think that being aligned in our priorities going into goal setting sessions I think is really important. I I'm not saying that we we create a new set of goals for ourselves, but the but the issues that we are talking about and the work plan that we have and and really looking at what are we doing proactively rather than reactively, right? Yeah.

I mean, I think the topics that seem to come up a lot here are right in line with council goals like fire being the the number one thing that keeps coming up. Fire, housing, fire and housing, right? Transportation, housing, transportation, building height.

I think we're we're um we're in sync. Yeah. Yeah. So, anyway, I I agree, Suzanne. It would be nice to have like maybe a a less structured time to talk about these things and maybe bring in some fresh ideas as opposed to just responding to what's so in terms of making that happen. What's the calendar look like? Is there a free slot in the next month or two? The whole summer off. We might not have a I'd need to look at I need to consider what ex what that agenda item would look like and what it would how it would be framed up. So, it will take me some time.

Well, I'm not happy to get together with you and talk a little bit about what I was thinking if that would be helpful. That would be helpful. Thank you. I have no comments.

I have an update. Is this the time update? So, I got an email from a land use chair and vice chair, Robbie Silverman, uh, like a week ago saying that she would like me to come and or I guess zoom in that um, the land use chair networking group. So, all the different uh neighborhood groups or districts or whatever they're called have been chatting and um the East Development where they're proposing some modification to the commercial provision. I don't know the details u but so let me just read what she said. Bob, hope you've had a good summer at this month's land use chair networking group. Uh the topic of the eastern development trying to back out on the retail commercial component that was an integral element of its original master plan came up. The conversation continued on what seemed to be a trend and developers getting master plans approved promising retail and commercial to uh create complete communities and as the projects get built not delivering on this promise i.e. uh Petrosa

uh wildflower uh

yeah so the group was hoping that we could have someone from the plan commission speak about this issue at our next meeting and I recommend that we extend the invitation to you the meeting's Thursday October 3rd from 4:30 to 6 and blah blah blah um to which I responded sure happy to do it um yeah so What my intent would be is to go listen, learn, do a little bit of homework in advance in terms of what's been approved. Are there requested changes to the approved plans? Not um speak as an individual, but basically um under understand the issues and then come back. And that might be another topic for our offsite

is because the these these topics come up a fair amount where the public feels that they're getting the bait and switch. Um whether that's true or not, you know, is open to interpretation. So that's what's been requested and um yeah, does that sound reasonable? I think so. So are are you talking about going to this and then coming back and reporting on it like during council action and reports and kind of Yeah. giving us a Yeah. rund down. That sounds great. All right. Col.

Yeah. I just want to give some background on that just so everybody's aware of of what's happening. So, um, the city, you know, in 2016 in the expansion areas and and and in the opportunity areas within the existing UGB, but 2016 is when we expanded the UGB identified not only lands that were necessary to bring into the into the UGB um for residential, but then also for employment uses. And so there was um and and there's actual policy, deliberate policies that were put into the comprehensive plan for around these complete neighborhoods. And part of that was to add commercial and mixed use land designations to the expansion areas and the opportunity areas. U but subsequent to that in the in the intervening n years since that took effect um there's been some state legislation that um basically allows uses to be put onto those commercial lands, commercial and mixed use lands that um weren't allowed in 2016 and and generally aren't wouldn't normally be allowed by a commercial zoning districts. And that's the case that's happening in both Easton and potentially in Petrosa um for uh affordable housing. Um there's state law now that's I mean it's been not only the last legislative session but the one previous to that and then some elements that even even predate that. Um but that basically say cities shall allow affordable housing in following you know in instances one of them being on commercial land. So, we're sort of preempted from prohibiting that. Uh, this is there's been a lot of emails that are going around because of the involvement of the neighbor. I think this I think what happened is there were some neighborhood public meetings that the developer was required to hold in order to put an application in um that that the neighbors became aware of what was going on. The city has now received an application for at least one of them to to for site plan review, but

there's no required amendment to the master plan. So no action by the planning commission, no action by the city council, the state. Basically said, not only Ben, but all jurisdictions within within Oregon have to allow these types of uses within their commercial zone. So I just want everybody to be aware that this is not coming from the the city, the city council. This is something that every jurisdiction has to accommodate. Well, so then what happens to the goal of complete walkable neighborhoods? Well, I mean perhaps you mean when they come up here and they talk about community should invite someone from, you know, the legislature to come and explain what being addressed because

because that that wasn't we, you know, we weren't involved. I think I think what we're going to have to do is the next time we're looking we have a growth plan that we're we're um starting the next big step. We've got an RFP that's out in the street right now. Um, that's but it's going to be a four-year project, but we're going to have to analyze our residential uses and our commercial uses and and the playing field is has changed fairly substantially since the 2016 UGB expansion because now you can't make the same assumptions in our residential zones for what what's going to be built because now we have the S 2001 and and and all of the the sort of follow-up legislation from that that allows lots of middle housing on what we had usually anticipated. to just have one house on you can do a lot of things. So, but now and then and then on the flip side, there's now commercial uses that are allowed in commercial zones that don't give us the employment lands that that we had assumed. And so, in our in the assumptions that we make in our land supplies, we're going to have to be a little bit more um I don't know just creative in understanding of what or projecting what's going to be be there in the future. So it could potentially allow us to have more employment land than we would have otherwise because you have to anticipate that a certain percentage of it would be would be developed residentially. So maybe we can have more commercial land to make sure that some of it is

I'm sure it's a very lengthy topic but I'm a little confused. So going forward, so forget what's been approved and you know the changes of the state code and yeah now if they want to put housing where they thought was going to be commercial but for example this new plan is there a way to comply still complying with state law have commercial retail space within a plan principle residential community so that it's uh walkable.

We can allow commercial in residential areas. Well, we didn't we make it like uh houses on a corner uh in residential could be converted to commercial and maybe that's No, but for the developer if there's more bucks to build, you know, but let's say it's 20 acres or I don't know, whatever. There's a corner that was going to be commercial and that's what all the residents buying into that want. But then the developer is like, I'm not getting any offers from coffee shops, etc. So, but I'm getting a lot of demand for houses. I can plop another 20 houses in there and there's no

just be done. Is there a way to almost like require a vertical mixed use or something? Exactly. Exactly. I mean under the state legislation that we have to follow it says that on commercial land they can build multif family affordable housing. Um, so I don't think that we can we can say can you say affordable like is it prescribed but could we say could we say that if you were to build residential in a commercial zone you have to have you can build an affordable housing up above the second floor does no wait

I mean that's the thing just I mean it pisses me off because when like I've worked on some master plans and when you're doing it it's like you develop this gradient you look at transportation you look at like where is the heart of an area and you have these commercial and you you know you kind of go down from there and you know that's the last thing that's going to get built because it's not it's it's not even that's not necessarily pro well there's more question marks put houses in they know that houses are going to sell and it's the last thing and then to not do it is just and especially if you're a house that you paid premium because you knew you're going to exactly

and then you get screwed So I have a question to clarify. So when you say that the state says we can add it, do we have to subtract? So if you had a 5 acre knuckle on the corner across from Caldera High School, I don't even know what the acreage is. That's pure commercial. But now they want to take it and put houses there or affordable apartments, whatever. I I like the idea of saying, "Oh, we're going to have our commercial because in this area we really need it, but you got to go up above with apartments or condos." We can't say that.

You can't. So we have the state senators and reps being city planners again like 2001 HP 2001 it kind of ridiculous now I understand because about two meeting three meetings ago the council debated the whole you know where to put one of the counelors was saying it's got to go everywhere everywhere well you know the market's going to dictate we know that if you put them in the back 40 people aren't going to come the local neighborhood's not going to support it but for the corner across from Calera I'm like this is prime waiting to happen and they didn't even give it a Yes. Yeah. Well, just just to make sure all the facts are out there, there's eight acres there. This is proposed for four. So, there's still a remaining vacant four acres of commercial. So, just everybody's aware of that. So, now is that how much of that four acres is in the right way, right?

So, there's an ASI. It's a PL four acres that are platted and they're finished lots essentially, but but I mean, they could come in with another. So, so am I hearing there's nothing the city can do to contact your legislator? I think is the answer. Say this is too far. Yeah. And this this is not first time we've had this discussion. Room is filled not that long ago when when it was public facilities that we were talking about having to allow deed or yeah income qualified housing. And so now that's a that's a mandate from the state. So I just want to make sure that everybody's aware that the genesis of

No, that's very helpful. Thank you. Not the right answer but very helpful. Well, I have three things. One we just one we just talked about the commercial. Uh the second one is retreat. I totally think we need to do it. I totally agree with the whole discussion about getting ideas and things and directions for us not just goals for the for the council. Then my third thing is a simple one for Ian. Our two folks from the park district came and they introduced themselves separately but they didn't say we the park district are asking for these things. So, can you clarify for us planning commissioners, were they asking as separate outside of the district or are they representing the district when they asked those things?

Great question. I assume they're here and introducing themselves as park district employees. They're here on behalf of the entity, the Ben Park and Recreation District. So, I thought that was clear to me. It question didn't even occur to me. I heard a lot of parks and wreck emails down. So, I would but I saw a bunch of letters at least one of them along letterhead. I just maybe clarification. They did submit two public comments separately. Senator Yeah. So they're on city view if you want to read. Okay, Renee.

Oh, I only have one thing. It's about scheduling. So, um, items that we had queued up for your October 13th meeting needs some more time to be refined. So, we probably will cancel your next meeting, but I do anticipate we'll have items all through the rest of October and November then. Um, so just keep an eye out for the posted agendas. Any advisory committees want to come and visit with us the 13th? Well, the other I mean I would Rene formal meeting.

I'm not sure I'd be prepared for that. I really need to understand what council's priorities are for our division, let alone the commission. I don't have a good sense of that. So, and Suzanne, you're the one who suggested, so I'll turn it to you. But when I heard, you know, off-site brainstorming, to me, that's not a staffheavy lift. It's basically the commissioners kind of expressing what they feel is important and us kind of distilling down some priorities. It'd be a quorum. So, let me let me publicly noted.

Let me add something. Yeah. I'm hearing I mean I heard retreat, I heard offsite. These are things that governing bodies of public bodies sometimes do. Um I wasn't talking off-site. I was just saying here. Okay. Planning. I hear Vienna is really Wow. Yeah. What's the budget?

So, that's that's good clarification, Suzanne. Thank you. Um, this sounds to me like a work session. Um, it sounds to me like whether it's brainstorming or whatever fancier word we want to use. It sounds like it is probably close enough to the business or maybe anticipated or aspirational business of the planning commission that it's probably a public meeting which which is fine. It just and you've kind of you've kind of taken off site off the table for clarification. I was just going to say that because public meetings because of the way the law works can happen in certain places and not others. Um, it is possible for a governing body to do a retreat

that is not that doesn't meet the the um isn't subject to the public meetings law. But this doesn't s it's a very narrow circumstance that a public that a governing body of a public body can meet and not be a public meeting. There are some true retreats can sometimes fit in that category, but if this is related to the work of the planning commission of the city, it's going to be a public meeting. Best place to do that is probably in this room. It sounds to me a little bit like a work session with some ideas. Yeah. Yeah. Which which my last point, sorry.

Um it does actually take a lot of planning. Um I agree it doesn't necessarily have to be a huge lift, but to have an agenda that is going to work well and have the right information so people can work through whatever they want to work through group. does take some planning and coordination and sometimes that happens offline with leadership of the group like a chair and a vice chair meeting with with staff to do some you know brainstorming I guess and planning. So it can happen but um I'm really skeptical of the ability to get something together in a meeting or two or three uh after the idea comes up. So, don't want to be too much of a downer, but I don't want to underestimate how much planning it can take to be effective.

Well, I'm going to meet with Renee to talk about what I was thinking about. And unfortunately, the next meeting got cancelled because my feeling was we've had all these canceled meetings and why wouldn't we do this work that we really need to do when we have these canceled meetings? But I it sounds like November or October the 13th is just too soon. Yeah. And just to clarify, so yeah, bad. I should not never said retreat or offsite or whatever the hell I said. And yeah, so it was more about just brainstorming and I assumed it would be public because we're kind of a public thing

and I I assumed it'd be here. It'd be noticed. Everybody would be here. So I was not expecting a huge amount of work from the staff, but I can see that you don't want to just let us be here all by ourselves. It's got only so and I say that not really because of that. It's so so staff can be prepared to help it be productive. I mean if you if the commission decides that you want to hold a public meeting to brainstorm. I don't think that's the best use of your time without some prep to make it productive. But that's that's just my two cents from whatever here. Well, I think you know we talked about other committees and commissions if like maybe it's a time where you know Sure. uh they come

core area advisory and affordable housing they come to the planning commission meeting and we have kind of a work session with them maybe they bring their their concerns or something

and this is the time when I will remind encourage not not really remind but encourage you as an individual member if some one of you has a real interest in what's going on in the core area and wants to connect with the chair or vice chair of CAB the core area advisory body board pardon me just as an example example, you are welcome to come and and should I would I would encourage all of you to do that. Um so and you know maybe one of you can brainstorm with a cab member and um I think it's just coordinating with staff so that when you do get together in a work session or whatever we call it just should be productive with good agenda. So I have jumping into brainstorming. So maybe each of us take on

exactly a sister advisory board. You could get to know your fellow volunteers and do that outside of Kora. That's fine. But if if uh this is where I think you were going was if an advisory board meets monthly or many of them do. We could have it together, right? not not us going over subjects but they could put their their agenda together and say meet here at the same time. It's possible. I will say those meetings where a couple advisory bodies get together. They generally happen with some input if not direction from council. They don't want to encourage advisory because again you're all serving at the pleasure of council. You're doing

particular distinct things depending on which body you're on. There are times the council kind of wants input from a couple multiple different groups and that will come at council direction like Ebok transportation bond oversight committee has been engaging with CAB on a topic or two and so that's at council direction that's sort of the most recent example so get to know your fellow volunteers do that you don't need me to be involved in that so we tell you when you're talking about joint meetings that really should come from so so what I was actually getting at like divvy up. Yes.

And and each of us attend their meeting so not impose any new stuff. We go listen, learn, and then report back during the reports from planning commissioners. But just to clarify, committees never meet together not to do do policy work because the goal has to be, you know, from the council and all that. But I mean, would it be bad if somebody came and said, "Set the chairs up so we can all sit around table and listen to what you guys do?" You know, I think it can be great. Um, I it's it's just a work session where you're talking to each other without any direction or guidance from council, which I'm not sure that's the best use of your time, but maybe maybe you disagree.

You're not really going to have much to do. I think I think it's been really productive when they've come when we've had a topic like when we were doing all the housing stuff affordable housing committee come John that discussion what what are you all doing that that's a discussion that I'm encouraging you to go have with members of those bodies but I think when you have something defined to chew on as as two groups usually at the direction of council I think you'll just get more bang for your buck in terms of your time you have a task yeah if you want to go talk to each other you can I was going to say I've gotten drinks with random people from various advisor. It usually goes south pretty quickly.

Multiplying it by seven. Okay. So, no meeting on the 13th. Take that off. That was a long time. Who's playing that night? Anything else for N? No. Sorry. Okay. So, nothing more. Um, can I add that I'm sorry I forgot to add this. I won't be here November 10th.

Okay. And I did just remember one more thing. Yes, we have a new staff member who's in the room and I think it was but it took Caitlyn Landry is our planning technician. So you might remember Chris Oliviera left the planning division, moved on to police um position and so Kayn is our new planning technician. Um I got really shy. jumping in and doing a great job. This is like week two for her. So, she's here learning the ropes about managing, maintaining planning commission meetings. Sorry about that. You won't be here November 10th. Thank you, Margo. I'm not that I have nothing to

nothing. Great. Meeting adjourned. Yeah. Love you.