Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

and we're here let's go i will call this meeting of the dallas planning commission for and we're here let's go we have an echo i will

I have nightmares about that happening, by the way.

Tell you what, I'll say things and then you wait three seconds and then say the same thing and see if you can fool me. I think we are good to go. We seem to be okay. All right. Once again, I call this meeting to order for the June 11th meeting of the Dallas Planning Commission. Would you please read the roll, Benjamin?

Yes, sirs. Commissioner White. Here. Commissioner Newell. Commissioner Schulte.

Here.

Commissioner Banford. Here. Commissioner Kowalsch. Commissioner Groh. Here. And Commissioner Swanson let staff know that he would not be present tonight. Quorum is present.

Thank you very much. Next we will proceed to the approval of the minutes. If anyone has had a chance to look over them and has any questions or adjustments, please bring them forward now. Hearing none, I will call for a motion to approve the minutes as written. And a second. I don't think we need to discuss it anymore. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. All right, we are moving on to the continuation and actually just the deliberations regarding to our public hearing of Conditional Use Permit 2602 regarding the property at 11875 Orr's Corner Road. to develop an RV park in conjunction with the golf course. Approval criteria is Dallas Development Code Chapter 4.4.040. I don't believe we have to read any of the... Yeah, whatever those things are called now. It's been a warm, busy day. Anyway, so we are at the point of deliberating. We have additional information from the county. We have rebuttal from the applicant. Let's see, we don't really call for testimony anymore. So if someone would like to open our discussion.

I'm just wondering if we can get a summary from staff. We did get a staff report, but if there's maybe a little bit of an oral just to let us know where we are. There's an echo to that. yeah it's got a high feedback yeah i'm just kind of wondering yeah just to make sure i think we got something else uh more to the the record this evening just to hand it in so i'm just staff to introduce anything new to the record that we didn't receive as far as as part of the packet a week ago yes would you like to take that on

Sure. So as part of the staff report for this, we had the supplemental evidence that was submitted by the applicant. That's the traffic memo from Sandro Engineering and a water memo from Keller and Associates. There was also a letter from the Armstrong family. In response to that additional evidence, Polk County submitted a new letter of testimony rebutting that evidence that was submitted. That's all in your packet. The evidence that's new is the applicant's rebuttal to the county's rebuttal, which was received after the staff report was assembled. So that's kind of where we're at on that. Yeah.

Right. Were there any questions of staff regarding that summary or on any of the things we have been presented with? If people would like a little longer to review those, we can do that. I know...

And I have some just questions to staff here too. I we're still here that while I understand, uh, the county has reviewed the information that was provided. We have a little more detail on vision clearance and other things, uh, some turn templates and, uh, other information that the applicant has provided. And we get the memo from Todd Whitaker. from the county that says the recommendation is still that the planning commission deny approval of the conditional use approval until such time that the applicant has satisfied one of the following. And I'm just kind of curious here. We, we have, you know, the conditions of approval here that staff has recommended conditions of approval and the recommendation is not denial of what, at least what the county is, um, requesting. Uh, and we have instead here, uh, proposed condition applicants shall obtain a revised access permit from the Polk County Road Authority so we're sort of we we recognize that they are the maintenance Road Authority and that they have a role in this we're not doing what they are requesting from what I understand here is at least what the county engineer has stated, recommending that we deny approval until time. And so from what I understand, this would put the application such that it would be like a denial without prejudice, that the applicant would then come back with a new application for conditional use. They'd have to get approval, though, from the county on time. on the access permit. But what we have is here a draft condition. I notice that draft condition number four does not have any sort of time stipulation here as to uh when we would expect the applicant to obtain the permit we're saying yeah we'll we'll honor this but uh i'm just kind of wondering staff's thought on on assurances that we will get that the applicant will obtain that. I'm kind of curious as to the feasibility of structuring a condition when we have concern about that are stated by the county, and I'm not even certain that the applicant will obtain the permit. I mean, they've got an appeal period and everything else to the county. So we're just kind of have this condition here. Applicants shall obtain a revised access permit from Polk County. We're not saying, you know, prior to a building permit or prior to start of operation or anything like that. Do we add something like that to provide some more assurances? What's staff's thought on that?

Yeah, if the Planning Commission wanted to add some additional parameters around that, that would certainly be appropriate to specify. Are they supposed to get that before the building permit, before occupancy of the park? Just kind of where in the timeline they're expected to accomplish that. That's certainly within the Planning Commission's authority to specify that.

To follow up with that, if we don't have that stipulated in there, is it possible that there would be no check in place, that the city would not expect the applicant at any time to obtain that permit? There's a condition of approval, but the applicant could say, well, I'm going to get that in a year or so.

Is that possible? So without language to the contrary, kind of the default would be the occupancy stage that they would need to have that in place by the time of occupancy.

Is there an occupancy permit? Occupancy is usually associated with a building permit, right?

Yeah. I mean, so occupancy maybe isn't the, the correct, uh, word in that case, but it's, um, essentially it would be at the, before they start occupying the site with RVs before they start functioning as an RV park. Um, It's kind of the cutoff for that.

If the commission chooses, we could modify that condition to provide more assurances, and that might also help with Polk County. They would understand that there is a certain thing that must be accomplished before they can actually operate the RV park. Certainly, yes. Okay. Are you finished? I have some other questions, but I think I raised this at the last hearing where the report identified. I think we have condition number six. Actually, if I can even say that, I'm going to use some water here. Applicant shall place a stop sign at the Y intersection of the internal driveway. And we have more that was part of the applicant's Oh, I know. Thank you. Under potential mitigation measures, page 12 of the agenda packet, we do have a stop sign that they're recommending, but there's also a yield to oncoming vehicles sign and some other things, some striping. There's four bullets. One's kind of a maintenance thing, but I'm just kind of wondering, can we also consider adding the additional items here that the applicant has identified under potential mitigation measures.

I don't see why you couldn't. I mean, the applicant themselves, their materials have identified that, so yeah. Thank you. That's it for me.

Done? Yep. Anybody else have any I had two questions. First off, the reason Condition 4 says a revised access permit, that's because they already have an access permit for the existing driveway for the existing use. We're not talking about revised from what we got last time, correct?

Correct. It's revised from the existing use.

Okay. I would support some kind of time positive modification to that particular condition. It seems to me from the two things we received since the last meeting, There's a conflict between what the county thinks it can do and what they believe is legal to do. So it seems to me that the ball is in the applicant's court to secure that access permit, and they believe that they can do that. So I wouldn't. I wouldn't think – and that's really outside our purview being a different governmental authority. So I can't – I don't feel comfortable stopping our approval of the conditional use if that's what we choose to do simply because we want to make them get that permit first. It seems like the two of them are going to work that out and – It may come to legal challenges and who knows what, but it's, I don't feel that's actually in my purview and maybe the attorney would can, you know, consider commenting on that.

Well, I mean, if it's a, if it's a County issue, then yeah, you can't, can't say what the County is going to do. I mean, I, And you can leave the access permits up to the county, right?

Right. And the applicant feels that they're in the right to do what they want to do. So that's their job to do whatever they need to do to get it from the county. Mr.

Chair, the staff answered my question, though. It is in our purview. The question has been asked and answered. It is our ability to apply this. We are in legal ability. to apply to just make sure that the applicant follows through on a condition that we are proposing. And I've asked the question of staff as to when we would assure that. And I haven't received a good answer as to, yeah, there would be thus and so as a default. Occupancy, well, we don't really have an occupancy permit here. So I'm just saying that I would feel it would become my personal thoughts on prior to commencing the applicant shall obtain.

That's all that I'm thinking given what we have here. Sure. Yeah, no, I agree with you completely. And I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. What's that?

Why don't we make it part of the condition? Yes. A certain timeline say prior to improvements on the property or instruction prior.

Yeah.

So something that the instruction starts, however you want to phrase it.

And that would ask an answer possible question that the county may have. I I'm also sort of thinking of the relationship of we're not just giving the county lip service where we are.

No, no, no, we, yeah, no, we recognize that it's their authority. And we don't want to leave them hanging without a time positive date of when the applicant has to take care of that. We all know how that works. So do we have any suggestions for how to word that additional time positive condition in there?

I mean, so it kind of depends on when you want to specify that. But an example could be to specify that, you know, prior to construction, the applicant shall obtain a revised access permit from the Polk County Road Authority.

That sounds good to me because that keeps the applicant from spending a bunch of money and then having a problem.

still allow them to submit engineered plans for their building permits for their other components. Okay. While having that access permit being processed concurrently. So, yeah.

So what I'm hearing you saying was changing condition four to prior to construction, just adding those three words.

Does that. I'm also wondering at the, towards the end. Yeah, that's fine. Whatever it is, the, the threshold there is, um, construction grading, whatever, whatever works for staff as a measure to say, okay, this is the time. So yeah, it could be prior to construction if that's what staff wants. And then, then followed by the way the condition reads currently, the applicant should obtain a required access permit from the Polk County road authority. I would also recommend adding and shall construct improvements if required. So that is a possibility that, uh, The county may approve the permit, yet require certain improvements, widening of the bridge or doing something. And that is what it would be expected there, that the constructions would be there if required.

That be totally in under the purview of the county to require those prior to issuing the permit?

They may have that, that might stipulate on their permit. So I guess the latter part I would, I'm flexible, but I do feel strongly about the beginning part there, a prior to something that- I think we need to have evidence that it's been taken care of.

Any more comments or concern? I would entertain a motion to adjust or to, are we ready to vote on this? Okay. Hearing no further comment, I would entertain a motion to approve the conditional use permit with the additions to condition four. And six. and did well, we didn't really work through what we want on condition six. It sounds like then we need to discuss that, okay?

I like the idea of adding the yield and striping and just having all three listed in condition six. I think that's fine.

I guess my feeling is the stop sign is the minimum that would make it safe. And if the applicant wants to do more, they can still do other things They also may find other things are necessary based on what the county's permit is. And I wouldn't want to put in here that they have to do a bunch of things that the county may not want them to do.

Well, and that's, do we recognize in that case then and any other signage as required, if required by the county?

other traffic control modifications. How's that sound? Yeah, traffic control. Yeah. So as I see it, it would be applicant shall place a stop sign at the Y intersection of the eternal driveway and any additional traffic control measures.

That's broader now.

Yeah. Yeah. As required or as, what would we say, required or as specified in the permit or? Yeah. Or we could even just leave it up to what the applicant wants to do as well as what's in the permit. If we just say any additional traffic control measures as required or as desired.

Or as specified in the applicant's traffic memorandum.

that that wouldn't then yeah memorandum i like it that specified in the applicant's memorandum and that just ties it to what the applicant has provided and not to what additional if you're concerned about what additional things the county may require

tie it to what they've said as opposed to what might come up through the permit?

There might be additional things. They're all minimal, reasonable things.

I mean, they could have to do other things based on the permit.

Yeah, I don't see it extended that it's too difficult for them to achieve. At least the, you know, there's one, I think the bullet number four is more of a maintenance thing, an ongoing thing. So it's really, well, it's one, two, and three. They're not numbered, but the first three bullets there.

So... then what I'm hearing is stop sign at the intersection, Y intersection, and any additional traffic control measures as contained in the applicant's materials? As specified in the applicant's memorandum.

They can memorandum by, what was it?

Sandro Engineering. Yeah. Tecmo.

Six and with four.

Would someone like to make a motion to that effect? I wish you would.

Thank you, Scott. Mr. Chair, I move approval of CUP 26-02 for the RV Park at the Dallas Golf Course. With the conditions identified on page five of the staff report and the agenda that we have this evening, specifically the recommendations of approval with the following modifications. to condition number four, the modification shall include the words, the first part of the sentence prior to construction comma, and as reads the applicant shall obtain a revised access permit from the Polk County road authority period. And then also to revise condition number six to read as follows. The applicant shall place a stop sign at the Y intersection of the internal driveway and other traffic control measures as specified in the applicant's memorandum by, what was it, Sandral Engineering? engineering period those are the two changes second

All right. Any discussion? I think we've discussed it publicly.

Go ahead. Because I think you wanted to include constructing if required. So there's a remaining part of item four if they do, in fact, have to. Or was that omitted because it was sufficient?

No, we decided not to add any more before.

But I thought it was instead of revised, it was required access.

Yeah, I was wondering about that.

The end part of number four is what we're discussing? So we're talking about the end part of number six. Oh, end of number six.

Okay.

Rather than revised, I think is what we agreed upon.

Okay. Well, he's making the motion. He can make it however he wants.

So that's the only difference.

Do you want to amend it, the motion?

Oh, I don't want to amend it.

That required?

Well, okay. I'll go with revised. Okay.

Yeah, the motion maker here, I can sense the consensus here of the commission. Instead of as specified, as required is what we agreed to.

Specified is what refers it to the traffic control memo.

We all obtain a required access permit rather than revised access. in number four.

No, no. Well, they already have an access permit.

Right.

But it's prior to construction shall obtain the required access permit, meaning we have a change in use and they have a new permit.

But they're revising their existing permit. Their existing access permit. Okay. All right. I think we've killed four. Could you read your verbiage for the end of number six again, please?

End of number six? Mm-hmm. Okay. So, yeah, so the end of number six goes, and other traffic control measures as specified in the applicant's memorandum, and then we have by... Sando. Sando Engineering.

Okay. Okay, that sounds good to me. Do we have any further discussion of the motion? I will call for a vote. And if Ben would do the honors, please.

Commissioner White. Yes. Commissioner Newell. Commissioner Schulte. Commissioner Banford. Yes. Commissioner Kowalsch. Commissioner Groh. Yes.

We are unanimous. Thank you all for that. There's a little blurb I'm supposed to say about our decision will be published and anything to anybody. It'll be on the back of your script.

Oh, there it is. Okay.

Thank you. I knew there was going to be something in here. All right. An order reflecting the commission's decision tonight will be mailed to the applicant and all participants of record within 10 business days. All righty. We are now up for discussion of our Committee for Citizen Involvement Initiative, the annual citizen engagement report. I believe, I'm not sure who's... Are you taking this on or I know Brian was involved in this and I'm not sure who was going to present.

going on? Yes, so that's a good question. So I'm the one who put together the citizen involvement report for 2025. It sounds like the citizen involvement program and the committee that's being formed will be reporting on this annually going forward, but we're kicking it off by sort of gathering some statistics from the current year to provide some kind of snapshot into what we've been doing thus far. So the future committee has something to build off of.

I miss it. Does it say what the committee consists of? I didn't see that in here, right? What is

Exactly. So in the introduction section, it talks about how the Committee for Citizen Involvement, as it currently exists, is essentially the planning commission. And so there is the proposal now to break that out and have it be a separate body. But until that time, this is – this is the body and so here's the report that it says uh in the uh comprehensive plan that you'll be providing annually to the uh city council so um the way i look at it is there's two separate subjects interrelated but separate subjects we are required by law to file this and to tick a box

And to me, it does it very well. It's backward looking. I just have one question about it. And from my point of view, that's great. That serves the purpose of ticking a box. The question, he just left. It says in here that there's no budget for 25 and 26. There's an allocation of funds.

Is that different than a line item? He's concerned about budget for 25-26, but I believe we're almost done with 25-26.

Yeah, so the report we're giving is for 25-26, which we're like three weeks away from finishing. So I wouldn't be concerned about the budget for 25-26. We used to have in the city budget years ago a line for the CCI. In fact, it was a line for the Planning Commission, and that was taken out. we still have budget authority within the Economic and Community Development budget. And so if the Planning Commission acting as CCI wanted to do some sort of publication or a mailing to the community, that's within the Economic and Community Development Department's budget to be able to do that. So you do have budget authority to be able to spend some funds, and you would just work within the Economic and Community Development Department's budget to do that.

Citizen Advisory Committee is a different subject. The budget for that is different than what's being referred to here. CCI? Citizen Advisory Committee. That kicks off on Monday.

So that's completely different than the CCI. That's my question. Yeah. So John's referring to a kind of a side conversation that we've been having, which is the kind of a visioning for Dallas, a big picture vision. And so we have the 2030 vision, which was adopted – several years ago. Uh, we're almost at 2030. So we're kind of realizing that vision hopefully in some ways. Um, but the city council wants to do a new vision for, you know, 25 years out in the future roughly. So we're looking at doing a 2050 visioning process with the community. Um, and so our recommendation, uh, working with John is to have kind of a citizen advisory committee lead up that effort of the public engagement process for the visioning process and including a consultant to help with that. So yes, that is totally separate. Those funds are coming out of the city manager's administration's department's budget and that's budget for next year. So yes, completely separate.

My point of view, this goes to the city council and it's great. We're done. And to them, it's kind of a rubber stamp thing and That's my view on it.

So the CCI report is required as part of, I'm sure Jess talked about this when I was out in the hall. So the CCI, which is the planning commission, right? That's part of your work as planning commissioners. In the comp plan, it requires us as well, you as a group to look at the community engagement efforts that the city has made. Several of those are related directly to the planning work that we do, but some are beyond the planning work scope. And so we have not traditionally given you that report as staff and you have not forwarded that report on to the council. So we're doing what we should be doing according to the comp plan.

So we are giving you the... Actually, you used to do it and then there was a lag.

Yeah, we probably did it. But for the last several years, we've not been doing it. So we're trying to catch up and do it the right way. And so this report that you have just demonstrates there's a list of things that the CCI tracks in the comp plan. This report captures all of that. And so it's just your opportunity to kind of review that, ask any questions you might have. If there's anything missing that you saw, oh, hey, we also did this. That's information that we could include in the report that goes up to the council. So that's really what you're looking at tonight.

So it's just procedurally goes to the city council.

You would make a motion to recommend the CCI report be presented to the city council.

So I have a question. You said you have budget for the citizen involvement, the other committee that started.

The visioning committee.

Visioning committee. Do you have a budget for the survey in 2026? Yes.

So the National Community Survey, that one.

The city will conduct every two years a citywide survey regarding city issues.

Yes. So we did that. We started doing that survey again in 2023 or 2014. Yeah, I think it was 23. And so it was supposed to be done in 25, but it didn't get done. And so we already did that this year. So that was done in 26. So that's already been completed. So yes, that survey has been finished and reported onto the council.

There should be one for 2023 through 25 and then another one.

We did a survey. We did a survey in 23. It was supposed to be done in 25 to meet the every two year requirement. The consultant missed the deadline to get that done. And when we realized that it was missed, it was kind of. beyond the range of when we want to survey this the community around the same time so we're getting the same kind of thoughts and feelings right you don't want to survey them like you know during uh you know maybe fall sports time and then again during tax season you're going to get different feelings so um when we discovered that the survey was missed at the two-year mark we just said hey let's just do it again next year so there was actually a three-year gap between 2023 and 2026 so the next time we'll do the survey will be in 2028 so it's again every two years So the survey for 2026.

So it's outside of this budget cycle then?

It's in the current year that we're in, and that was already completed and already paid for.

Yes, and so.

So the one in 2028? Yeah. That is outside the budget cycle. So we have an annual budget. Yeah, so that'll be in the 20. Yeah, 27, 28 budget. Okay. Yep. Sounds like it's been done up to 2025.

The money's been there every year.

Yes. Reasonable to assume it's going to be there. Yeah. So we budget. That's my question. Yes. We budget for it when the survey is going to occur in that fiscal year.

Thank you.

But we won't forget it again. Well, we didn't forget it with the consultants. Oh, okay. We had paid for it, you know, and we actually paid for it in advance. So we didn't actually allocate any money this year because we paid for the two surveys to be done in 2023. Okay.

So the consultant did it with the money he already had. We didn't have to pay him again. Correct. Good. Glad to hear it. Buying management. All right. Does anyone else have any more questions of anyone? I would.

Oh, go ahead. So this is going to go to the council. Is that correct? After we've kind of looked at it and said, yeah, this is good. And the council may have some questions about it.

Yeah, they may. So a staff, either myself or Jess, will be there to be able to answer questions. Or you can assign one of your committee members to be there as well and answer questions and present on the topic. It's really up to you as a committee what you want to do.

And we have some members of council, one particular that has been a member of the planning commission and kind of knows the uniqueness of land use law and how we have to process certain applications, quasi-judicial and the legislative ones, according to a lot of procedures. And hopefully the most council members already know that. I just see some, when I read through this, I saw like a, It was one of the implementation measures here on a policy, one of the policies on citizen involvement here. The city council should host an annual town hall meeting to discuss selected topics of interest to the public. I mean, the town hall may be great for social issues. It might be homelessness or something like that, something that's on the mind that's not necessarily linked. to maybe something that we normally see, like we just had a hearing for a conditional use or something like that. Do we need to sort of qualify things here? It was just kind of no town hall meeting was conducted in 2025, but there were some other things. Is there a need to kind of express that, gee, we had a a good attendance at the TSB work session than other types of outreach.

Jess, I have the report right in front of me, and I reviewed it a few weeks back. It talks about the technical advisory committee work that we had done in the last year, right? Is that included in the report?

Technical Advisory Committee for...

I think the TSP, maybe even the lock rail node or the mill site might have been included within the last year. I can't remember when those ended.

Yeah, so we had the TSP, we had the lock rail node master plan update, the mill site redevelopment plan. We also had an open house for the Dallas Police Station expansion. So we do capture that under citizen involvement events.

So I think, you know, there's yeah, the policy does say that we should hold at least one town hall a year. And that can be on a variety of issues. I mean, the police open house is an example of saying, hey, that was our town hall we did. Right. But and in years past, we had like a general fund fund. roadshow that we did. We did lots of different neighborhood meetings and town halls. This next year with the community visioning process, we're going to do a lot of town halls with that. The council also just directed us to amend the charter. So we're going to go through a process amending the charter. We're going to do a lot of town halls with that. So that's information that should be included in this report. I think that that's just, you can add that.

So someone beat the question. Someone doesn't say, well, so I'm not going to do anything. Maybe with the town hall process,

meeting is i think we have sort of an idea of what what venue that is yeah yeah this report is is designed to talk about more than just land use and planning right land use and planning is a component and a big component right and it's required under goal one of the land use planning laws in oregon um but it goes beyond uh just land use issues to community issues you know visioning um you know uh other services, police, parks, fire, and EMS. And so we as a planning commissioner, a CCI, should be, you know, as we at least annually go over this report, think about what are the things that have been going on in our community? Is anything missing from this list? And make sure it gets included in that list before you send it up to the council.

Make sure I understand. Are we at the point of, do we need to review this document more before we recommend it up to the council? Or are we prepared to make a motion to recommend this or to pass this on to the council?

Okay.

Okay. And I'm not pushing. Yeah. Would you like to make that motion since you are the whole reason this happened?

I think the honor is yours, sir. The reason we'll get to later. Okay. I would make a motion to approve this, to pass it on to city council.

Second. Second. There we go.

Moved and seconded.

You don't need to amend your motion, but you want staff to present it to the council. Is that fine? Okay.

Okay.

Excellent. Thank you for that. We have some discussion on the motion there. I'm just kind of wondering with the motion, we've had just a little bit of discussion here where staff said, yeah, we could kind of embellish. I meant just kind of the town hall one there. That was 117 there. And I'm just kind of wondering, are we going to give staff the latitude to make some qualifications, read it over one more time and allow them just if they see something, an error or something like that, or we want it just to be, is the motion just the way it is, or can we allow staff to make some changes?

I think it would be great if I can add to that. I think it would be great if you see things as you review the report when you go home tonight and read it because you're having a hard time sleeping or something. If there's something that pops in your mind of, oh, hey, we did this and it's not in the report, let us know. We'd be happy to add it. It's a pretty flexible document. There's not like so bound in legal requirements that we can't make changes between your recommendation and presenting to the council. So I would say if you see something that you want to add it in, just let us know. We're happy to do that.

Happy with that, Scott?

Well, I'm just asking the motion. I'm thinking that there could be some small embellishments, just clarifiers, so staff isn't given the question, why aren't we doing town hall meetings? It says it right here that we're supposed to do that. You can put something in there. Well, in certain cases, we can't do that by law. And I think that there are some things here. Unfortunately, and I think I've said this before, is that the way that the legislature is going in recent years, it's just more of streamlining things, less input from citizens. And that's an unfortunate thing. good for developers and others, but we have to follow the law. And I think that kind of that message, at least if it's verbally provided to council, I'm okay with it. I'm ready to, I'm supportive of the motion in general. I just kind of wondered if this is cast in stone before it goes to council or we're giving again some latitude to the staff to make some minor changes.

PB John Gerstle, My your staff from a supportive and there are questions that are capable of answering them and rather than trying to guess what those might be, I would just send it.

PB John Gerstle, Good will consider the motion that way any more comments. I would have moved and seconded. We've discussed it. I think a voice vote would be quite sufficient. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Motion is carried, and staff, it is in your court to carry it on as you all know how to do. All righty, and thank you again, John Schulte, for all of your impetus and direction and making this happen and paying attention to what's in the law. I appreciate that a lot. More in a little bit. Okay, well, we're at Commissioner Comments. Would you like to, or have we finished the Committee for Citizen Involvement phase? Okay, Commissioner Comments.

So the other part of this, from my point of view, this is a technical requirement. Capable people fill it. It's behind us. The much more important issue that I've been working on for three years starts Monday. That is the Citizen Advisory Committee. Brian's not here. That finally is an effort to get out in front strategically and understanding afresh the needs of the people in this community in a very structured way taking that forward. So my only point is what I've been after for three years is about to start on Monday. And it's being taken forward, called a 2050 Vision Citizen Advisory Committee. That's the name of it. And its purpose is to basically to do three things. The specifics, I don't know. That's the purpose of the meeting on Monday with the city council to begin to flesh out exactly how this is going to work. So I don't have those details. But the high-level purpose is this. First of all, to provide proactive strategic planning. Did you write this?

No.

Okay. To provide proactive strategic planning to the city council. It provides a foundational framework for future updates to our comprehensive plan and other infrastructure master planning documents to get going on strategic planning. Second, resource allocation. When you have a base strategic plan, then you align all your future capital improvement projects and annual budgets together. to long-term community desires. We begin to align our budget with the desires of what we hear in the community. It's a really big step forward for us. And third, the most important thing for me in talking to my neighbors is the issue during this process of community identity. To ensure that as this city grows, It retains its unique historic character and tight-knit community feel while sustaining economic opportunities. So that's a big order. This process is believed it's going to take over a year to do it. It's not that huge a project. Everybody's busy. We take it in bite-sized pieces. A project plan draft has already been laid out that takes us through 14 months to do this. And here's my hope in this process. It has a life of its own. This commission really doesn't have to do anything. It should have been done here. The Oregon Planning Commissioner's handbook says this should have been done here. It's been extracted and put in the city council. I don't know who's going to be on this.

You should be on it.

I have volunteered, and we'll see what happens. But I'd like to share one other thing with you, which is this. I hope together, A year, two years from now, we can begin to assume some more of this kind of responsibility. It's been hard for us to understand what this really means, a lot of resistance, and I hope we stay really connected with this process. And in the future, we accept it. because it's not scary anymore. We understand how this process works. I share this with you. About a month ago, whatever, the city manager and the mayor had a volunteer thank you night, a volunteer appreciation night at the fire station. Did a really good job. By the way, My compensation for doing that, for being there, I got a Dallas cookie. Have you ever seen that? Yes.

You got me. Yes, so cool.

I can put a file in my tax return. That's my compensation.

Anyway, check your date on it.

That's $10 you don't have to pay.

It's preserved for all time. Anyway, in that meeting, which I said was very well done, our city manager closed that meeting with commentary to the people who volunteer on boards and commissions and singled out this one. And what he said was, I don't think you appreciate enough how much our city council relies on you to bring forth policy. We have said that's not our job. We don't do that. We have elected officials to do that. And what he's saying is they are generalists. They don't, he says, particularly with regard to the planning commission, they need you. They rely on you to, to, formulate, and bring forward policy. And that's the second time I've heard it from him and from the city council. And so I'll end this way. This initiative is beginning. I'm so excited. I think it's what our city needs so bad. It'll have a life of its own. I really hope I'm on it, and I hope I can continue to report to you so that this isn't some abstract thing. And in the future, we take it on as a responsibility. That's my hope.

Good.

Thank you, John. Any more commissioner comments? Hearing none. Anything from staff? Anything we need to be aware of or scared of?

I've been pretty light lately in the pipeline. I don't think we're going to have a ton next month. Is there going to be a meeting next month?

We're scheduled for one.

We're regularly scheduled to have a meeting. We'll let you know as soon as possible if for some reason that doesn't happen.

I assume they'll let us know not to show up.

We'll let you know.

Or we have to show up anyway. No, thank you. That's good enough for me. Just curious if they've ever seen.

So this committee has requested to hear back when the city council changes proposals that you've sent to them. So you did recently send to them the mixed use zoning code language update. And the council did make an assortment of amendments to that proposal. And so it's going to first reading on Monday. The biggest of the changes was reducing the height limit in the mixed use zone. That was the most significant of the changes. There were some other tweaks as well, but that was the headline.

Thank you. That's really important to hear when things change, when we go on from us. So thank you. Appreciate it. And I assume we can access that first reading document on the city's website.

Yes. If it hasn't been posted already, it will as part of the meeting packet in the near future.

Are the changes highlighted or is it just the document as they set it forward?

So this will be just the document as they set it forward. It's the draft of the ordinance. Yeah.

When's the meeting for that? Is that Monday?

That'll be Monday.

Okay. Thank you.

All righty. And to staff, as a follow-up to our last meeting there, I think it was Greg who's not here tonight, but he said he would be reviewing the chair's script. We had a need to kind of look at that and just make sure it's up to date. Okay. But that's just a reminder. Maybe for next time. Good.

Did you have something, Brian? Okay. Well, if I don't hear anything else, we're going to get out of here before 7 o'clock. Meeting adjourned.