Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

going to call to order this meeting assuming I'm the acting chair again today. Uh the planning commission meeting for Monday June 16, 2025 and today we are having a work session on the code development or the development code update. Um but first we're going to start with the planning director's update. Thank you. I I won't uh take much time. Um Kevin's going to give you a little introduction on uh the work session tonight. Uh unlike a public hearing, we have um this is a project. It's a work session. So we'll be looking for your recommendations. We also have uh some staff and consulting teams online uh with us. And I believe we have uh that's uh Matt Hasty here. He'll do an introduction to his team. And I believe we have a PC member uh viewing online as well. Uh the next item we do um uh on your agenda is the selection of the chair. Um, we have been without a a a formally recognized chair um since December when Mark Frost um uh resigned his position uh after after being required to move. So, uh it it would be a good thing to have available as uh appointed chair. They have they serve as the uh really the the meeting orchestrator. They have no additional powers. However, oftentimes uh they do work with the staff in order to make sure the agenda is correct. Uh the scripts are written legibly uh and that they're translated well uh and any other kind of or orchestration protocol uh rules of order meeting minutes um that happen here. So um please uh give suggestions uh we are we are open to them.

uh member Hoffman has graciously uh served in the unofficialstead. Um so that was we're we're privileged to have you serve here first. So thank you. I would volunteer myself for this chair position at this point having done it a number of times since December. I've become comfortable with it. You're being personal. Great. So, do we get to vote on that now without uh the other members of the commission? I think seeing no other nominations, we will we'll refer this to the to the city council. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. I look forward to helping. Um I did have one question about the way that the work session is going to go. Uh with the comment about public testimony, I know nobody's online, but should someone show up? Uh what at what point will there be designated points where we allow someone for to give their input? For for the work session, we should have set aside an area on the agenda for uh unlike a public hearing when there is actually a scripted piece within the hearing itself for uh for interested parties to be heard. Uh with the work session, there's really no designate it's not a discussion matter. So um on their on the agenda next time we we should place uh an opportunity for public to comment on anything um you know whether that's in the beginning of the meeting at the end of the meeting uh we can determine that for next meeting given that we have no one online wishing to participate. Thank you. Are we ready to ready to roll on our next uh update? Yeah, thank you, Kate. Um, interim chair Hoffman. Thank you.

Um, again, tonight's work session is going to be um with the assistance of Matt Hasty and Carrie Breni from the consulting firm MIG. Um, the commission's last work session on the project was nearly a year ago, July of 2024. At that time you re reviewed the initial findings of the code audit which was the first phase of the project and we're now in phase two. This is the code update. Um last weekend Dustin sent you a last uh week Dustin sent you a packet of material uh including a cover sheet that provides some background as well as three documents that were prepared by the consulting team. Tonight, Matt and Carrie are going to provide a quick overview of the phase 2 process, review what we're asking of the commission tonight, uh describe the approach to structuring the development code, review and discuss um what we're referring to as module one. It's the first of four batches of code material that will be drafted and then discuss next steps. Um as a reminder, Dustin pointed this out. This is not a public hearing. It's just a work session, a discussion. Um, hearings to review, code updates are expected to begin in the spring of 2026. And, uh, as we discussed earlier, we if we get, uh, some interest from the audience, whether in the building or online, touch base and figure out when to to take those comments. So, um, with that, uh, I think I'll just turn it over to Matt. And Matt's got a presentation for us. And Matt, you can share at your leisure. Yeah, Matt, before you jump in, uh one thing to mention for for you all and those uh watching online, uh we do have an opportunity to comment on any item of the code at any time in writing. Uh it's an always open process. I believe we have a a designated website uh and page that allows people to submit

comments uh on any topic they find interested uh relating to their code. So, you do not have to attend in person uh on lovely summer nights to uh to participate. We uh invite participation at any time from home from um from from any party really interested. So Matt, sorry to jump in. Please uh take it away. No worries. Um and uh thanks for having us. Can everybody see uh the presentation I'm sharing? Okay. Yes. Sweet. Awesome. Well, thanks for having us. Um I'll do just kind of a quick introduction of myself and Carrie. So, um, as Kevin said, um, we're with MIG. Um, we're a planning and communications consulting firm. Um, our offices are in Portland, but we have offices kind of all over the western US um, as well. And so, and we worked on the first phase of the code um, audit/update project. Um, so some of what I present tonight is going to be a little bit of a recap or repeat. Um uh and uh Kevin did a great job of just kind of describing the topics I'll cover, so I won't um spend much time on that. Um I'll also note that whenever I say we, usually I mean Carrie or uh Katie Vickers in my office because they're really doing the bulk of the work with my oversight and guidance. Um so Carrie, I'll I'll do most of the presentation tonight, but Carrie's here to to chime in if I miss something um or as needed and also to help answer questions to the extent you have them. um we'll have some questions for you um as well. So I'll talk about that. We'll kind of present the overview and then we're going to walk through some questions with you which are basically questions that were posed in one of the documents that we sent you. It was the the article one provisions document. So um we'll walk through those and give you a little quick kind of background on those as we do that. Um and but before we get to that point, we'll just see if you have any questions for us as well.

And I guess I would say if you have questions during the meeting, feel free to ask if you know particularly if it's just something for clarification, if I didn't explain something super clearly or you just kind of need need to know more, let me know. Um and then otherwise we'll just kind of proceed in that way if that sounds good. Um all right, so just kind of a recap of the goals of this project. Um, I think, you know, overarching goal is really just to help you all um help you come up with a code that's just easier to use, easier um for applicants to use, easier for your staff to administer, easier for you all to administer when decisions come before you and you have to interpret the code or review an application for consistency with approval criteria or with specific standards. So that's really a pretty significant um objective here is just to make your code u more userfriendly. Um and then also um there's a couple of objectives here related pretty specifically to housing. Um I will note that this project is being funded through um grants both from the state and also from the city um or money from the city. And the state grants are really kind of focused on meeting certain housing requirements. Um, one is to make sure that any standards in your code related to residential development are clear and objective. They don't require the use of discretion. So, both the processes and the standards themselves um are clear and objective. And then the second is just to address a variety of statewide um housing um legislation and regulations that have been adopted in the last few years. I think you all know it's been a pretty the legislaturator has been doing a lot of things, the governor and the legislature and so um you and other cities um to some degree have some catching up to do just to kind of incorporate those things in your code. So those are the things that the state grant sort of portion of this is is focused on but we're really just doing the whole thing as one integrated project. Um but there is a certain

amount of you know states sort of objectives or particularly these and the city has additional objectives and one of those is just to make sure that you know we have an equitable and inclusive process as we're moving through the through and updating the code. I think I'll talk a little bit about um community engagement strategies we'll be um incorporating in this process, but that's a super important um goal for the city, for the state too. But uh I think you know Rivers particularly um interested in that as a goal. So uh this diagram or graphic is just kind of showing you the schedule. It's kind of complicated, so apologies for that. Um, and I'd say, you know, kind of the takeaways from this, um, are that this is going to be a pretty iterative process. Um, as you know, for this meeting, we sent you the first, um, quote unquote module of code. Um, updating an entire code is a lot to kind of handle and review and deal with. So, we're splitting it up into kind of these four modules, and I'll talk about how those are organized um in a moment, but that's partly just to give us all kind of manageable amounts of information to review and um discuss with you and for us to identify some specific questions related to each module. Um so, we've got kind of this series or this workflow where we prepare a draft module. We um review and discuss that with um Kevin and Dustin, with you know, with staff. Um, and then we come to you and talk about it. Then we go to the council and talk about it. Um, and then we kind of get to work almost right away um, on the next module and it kind of flows through like that. And after we've had um, a set of conversations with staff and you and council, then we um, update that first module. And then at the end we kind of combine not the end end but after we've gone through and worked on each of those modules individually we go through a process of then combining everything into a single um set of code

requirements and then we go through a review process on that again. And during that time period when we're kind of working through the kind of the I'll say the guts of the code um on these modules we'll also be um interacting with other folks out in the community and I'll talk about you know the ways we're proposing to do that. So we kind of go through um this module process and then we go through again kind of another iterative process of um preparing and updating a combined um code uh and again reviewing it with y'all. Um and then we prepare essentially an adoption ready um uh code um and then go through the the public hearings process with you and the council to adopt the code. And along the way, we also prepare a couple of supporting documents. You see kind of down near the bottom. One is some graphics to illustrate specific types of um development code standards or requirements. Um we also will be preparing a diversity, equity, and inclusion analysis and findings related to the process we've gone through and the work we've done. And then finally, um, helping prepare a staff report and findings that support the adoption process and show how this is all consistent with your comprehensive plan policies as well as with state requirements, um, the statewide planning goals and administrative rules and statutes. So, that's um, kind of in a nutshell, I guess, the process we'll be going through with y'all. Right now, we are scheduled to um wrap this up in uh the fall of 2026. So, it's a pretty lengthy process, but again, it's a lot of work, especially given sort of the scope of what we're doing with your code. So, um so just kind of a quick summary of some of what we said um needed to be done as part of that earlier phase of work, the code audit

process. Um this is really going to be a pretty significant update to your development code. There will be, you know, certain elements of the structure of your code that will stay in place, but we will do a fair bit of reorganizing. Um, many of the standards will remain intact, but we will update some of those as well. Um, we will um replace some sections of your code with um uh with provisions that come from other sources. I'll talk about that in a little bit. We're likely to create some new sections especially to address things um that have come out again of the state legislature um over the past few years and there will be a lot of just revisions to other existing or remaining sections. So it's going to be a lot of changes to the code. So again that's kind of why we're doing it in this um iterative and also um uh splitting it up into these four modules so that we're not reviewing all that at once. So we've as part of kind of um the initial um uh recommendations as well um we've identified kind of a framework for the code update in terms of how we intend to go through the process of updating it. Um and um I'm going to actually just kind of skip to the next slide. Um oh no I'm not back up a little bit. Um, and we had earlier on in the code audit process identified some options um, in terms of how to update specific sections. We'll likely still continue to do that. You know, as you see in the discussion questions tonight, there's some just some questions about that. Um, and I'll say more more about the organization in a sec. Um, just a little bit about kind of the engagement strategy. um uh Dustin and I think Kevin mentioned um you've got a project web page for this project and there's um a space on there for people to comment and to get themselves on an interested parties list. So that's an important

just platform or avenue for people to uh learn about the project to get themselves more directly connected to it. Um they can provide comments at any time as um Dustin said related to the code and the code update process. Um again we'll be uh meeting with you all um as well as the city council in a set of work sessions and then eventually hearings. We'll be conducting a set of meeters or excuse me meetings with interested parties similar to what we did or similar set of folks to whom we talked to um during the phase one code audit process. Um and that'll include um a focus group specifically with um members of the Latino community um that'll be organized and facilitated by the Next Door Inc. there with support from us. Um using your social media communications just to let people know about the process, what's going on, opportunities for engagement. Um we intend to um conduct some like super quick almost like popup online surveys or questionnaires. So they won't be long surveys. there'll be individual questions about specific code topics so that people can if they're interested respond pretty quickly to that. Um so that'll be something that happens also via the website and via that interested parties list. And then we're planning on um preparing some short explanatory videos um to help people understand this process. Um we're working on the first of those right now. Um, so they'll be pretty brief, you know, like one and a half to two and a half minutes, you know, understanding kind of how people tend to interact with videos these days. Um, they're not looking to watch really long things. So, those will be pretty brief and they'll just kind of help people understand what we're doing. Um, maybe hopefully answer some questions and give them the opportunity to then uh, you know, reach out directly to us to ask more questions. So, those are some of our engagement strategies as

well as again, you know, meeting with all of you. Um, so just kind of a quick review of what we've done so far in this process because we've been at it for a few months, not too long, but since about um, kind of late February, early March. So, we prepared a community engagement plan. Um, and it describes in more detail the things I just talked to you about. Um, again, we we spent a fair bit of time talking to Kevin and Dustin about what's the right way to kind of structure the new code and therefore the code um update process. Um, and I'll talk about that a little bit more in a moment. Um, we also have now drafted kind of the first set of provisions the or new provisions for code module one. Again, I'll talk about that a little bit more in a minute. in a minute. Um, you all have updated your project page to provide information about this phase of the process and let people know this is going on and we've started in on code module 2. Each of these modules is semi-independent. There will be connections between them, but we had enough uh info to get going on module 2. So, that's already kind of underway. And then again, as I said, um the uh production of that initial um explanatory video is also underway. So those things are in process and the other things we've we've done. Um so in terms of how we're structuring this um this code process and the code itself. So I think we made a reference in one of our documents to the TGM model code, but we neglected to define that acronym TGM. So I'll kind of tell you what that means now um if you're not familiar with it. So that stands for transportation and growth management. Um and the TGM program, the transportation and growth management program, that's a program that's jointly um administered by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and also the Department

of Transportation and it's um partly a lot of it is a grant program for local governments to help them with planning work um code updates, all kinds of things. But uh kind of early on in that program, the program commissioned preparation of a model code for small cities. Um and that was I think first prepared I more than 20 years ago or about 20 years ago. I can't remember the exactly the vintage of that. Um it's been updated a couple of times since then. Um and it's been used, you know, really pretty widely across the state, especially by small communities, smaller communities, um as they've updated their development codes. Um it is actually being updated again kind of as we speak and um our firm is actually helping the state with that update process. So, I would say this is a fairly um timely kind of um uh couple of processes here because we'll be able to learn from the update process. It's actually not me, but somebody else in my office who's managing that update process, but um we've already started to be able to kind of pick their brains um about um uh approaches to certain aspects of the code update and get information from the team that's working on that. So, that's that's kind of that's really nice for us. and some of the types of things we'll be updating they'll be updating they we excuse me um as part of this process. So um that's the the sort of basis the foundation for the structure of the the future code um and there's sort of four the four modules that we've broken this up into um mirror in large part the structure of that model code um and the first one is an introduction to the code. What's the purpose of the code? how is the code used etc kind of sets the stage for anybody who's getting into your development code and looking at it I hope this sort of understanding

that and then there's a number of general provisions and I'll walk through those in a moment here as well so that's the first module the second module is related to application procedures and land divisions right now you have um two titles in your code 16 and 17 is um subdivisions um subdivision requirements That's Oh, I got them flipped. Sorry. 16. Thank you, Carrie. Um 16 subdivision requirements. 17 is the rest of the code. So, we will be essentially combining those two. Um those two titles um and um the procedural stuff from title 16 will go into module 2. The standards will actually go into module 3. So, there is going to be some reorganization of that part of your code in particular. Um so um module two will be a good chunk of work and then modules three and four frankly even more work um because three will be your zoning regulations. So the regulations specific to individual zones um special use standards as well and then um and those are um primarily sort of development standards and then u module four will be community design and land division standards. So, some of the title 16 stuff will actually end up in module 4 as well. Um, so that's an overview of kind of the structure we're going to be working with um throughout this process. I'm going to maybe pause there and just make I'm going to check in with Carrie and make sure I got that right. Um, yeah. Okay. She's nodding her head in the There we go. Perfect. Um, so that's the overall structure. Um, the elements of module one. I'm not going to go into these in a lot of detail, but that's what you got in advance um of this uh meeting with the exception of definitions. Definitions will be in module one as well. But the definitions element, we've already kind of started

work on that in terms of identifying where you've got multiple definitions of your code, what you know, uh, the TGM model code, what what it um, says in terms of definitions, what some other example codes say, and ultimately we'll be sort of I will say cleaning up the definitions of in your code and making sure that all the terms that are used in your code are defined in that section. But that's really going to be kind of a working um draft that section and it will get it will change throughout the process. So we thought it would probably be premature to spend a lot of time you know reviewing that with you. So but we have started work on that as part of this module. The other parts of this module are again purpose and authority. Um what's the purpose of the code and who has the authority to update it and administer it etc. um a lot of record determinations. Um and then non-conforming situations um that applies to non-conforming uses as well as non-conforming development as well as non-conforming lots. So there's sort of different aspects of non-conforming situations. That's why we say situations and not just uses or development. And then code interpretation kind of how um any um issues associated with the interpretation of specific standards or terms or anything like that in the code if there was a question about that how that gets dealt with and then finally enforcement um of the development code provisions. So those are the pieces we've started working on. Um, and again, we've kind of for starters been looking at what your code says, what the TGM model code says and what some of the other codes we've worked on over the last several years say about different ways to approach um these types of provisions or topics. So, that's kind of that's what we've got going so far. Um, I'm going to pause here and just see if

you all have any questions or comments for us before we start asking you some questions. And then we have like about a half a dozen questions that we're going to we're going to pose to you and we'll just kind of walk through those. I think I've got two per screen for the next or two per slide for the next few slides. But I'm going to stop talking for a moment and just see if you have any questions for us about the process or anything I've talked about up to this point. I do have one question uh and it's about the code that was included in the packet that we have to review the module one code. Um are the items in there that are atalicized and in brackets is that stuff that's being deleted? I wasn't quite sure if this is all the new code language that we're looking at or if it is the old with changes. It's generally the proposed new except where we say things about your code says this or there's the blue boxes where we where we have basically some discussion notes to y'all or discussion questions. So I think it's generally um what's proposed to be new unless we say hey we haven't actually updated this section pending you know um getting some additional guidance from someone. I think that's that hopefully that's accurate. Carrie, anything to add to that? Um and there's also it's the general section. Uh the blue boxes are where we're requesting sort of guidance from the planning commission and the city council. Uh Kevin and Dustin have very like technical aspects that they have a lot of comments on that we will be working through with them but it's uh not quite as policy driven. It's more technical. So um a lot of the italicized things were yeah leftover options from

the uh model code that cities could choose to put in or alter and that's why they're italicizes. They aren't really things that are solid solidly in the code yet. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Anyone else have any questions? No. No, I don't think so. Okay, feel free to go forth. All right, so we're going to just kind of walk through a few questions with you. Um I'll try to kind of preface the question with a little bit of information about um what your code um already says or doesn't say about these topics. And hopefully I'll get that right. And if I don't, Carrie will correct me or Dustin or Kevin. Um, and I think in each case, you know, we're just kind of interested in any comments y'all have, any suggestions y'all have. We're not really looking either for like a a consensus recommendation. It's more just having a discussion with you and getting a sense of um what you each think. Um, if you all agree on something, that's awesome. You know, we're going to kind of um uh listen to what you all have to say. We're going to have a similar discussion with the city council. As Carrie said, we've gotten a lot of comments um on what we've prepared so far from uh Kevin and Dustin, and then we'll be kind of pulling all that together into a revised draft of this module. Um so that's kind of what we're trying to do with these questions tonight. Um Kevin or Dustin, anything to add? Anything to get that right? Yeah, I think we, you know, as Matt mentioned, we have some draft language here. I would not consider it formal final draft language. Um but it definitely from the model code um it helps support and organize some of these key thoughts especially in the background um in the introductory and purpose statement. Um these are they're important uh but they're also very common uh when it comes to the purpose

of a zoning code. Um how do we handle unusual situations, unclear situations? uh how does this represent you know the community's vision. Some of these are um are very they're they're common features to all codes. So, um there's definitely points and pieces where we are going to need to have uh some language updates and a lot of language updates as Matt mentioned, but I think uh you know, walking through I think we've Matt has highlighted and uh the MIT team has highlighted some of the key features to where uh we're we're looking for your comments or uh your thoughts. Uh we will be sharing them with city council. um you know Kevin and I will have the technical aspects too of you know our experience with them and where have we where has our code we think um opportunities to make those improvements we also want to see from planning commission you know from your vantage point um hearing quasi judicial request having to read the thing having neighbors you know raise issues has having developers raise issue from your lens um we're definitely we want to see that is you know from your perspective are there things that that have given you heartburn? Um you know fortunately in some of this hasn't you know the introductory provision hasn't really doesn't come up a lot with you. However um it is an important backdrop to everything that's going to come in the future modules. So thanks Matt. Go ahead. No worries. Okay. So again I'm gonna just kind of walk through these questions. I'm just I'll take them one at a I'll ask the question. We'll see what kind of comments or thoughts you all have. Um and again um Carrie may have something to add to kind of my intro. So the first question has to do um with the very first kind of part or one of the first parts of this um module which is um a

zoning checklist. Um so this is not a zoning checklist doesn't represent an actual land use decision but it is something you could codify um in your code. It's essentially a tool um for applicants to use and also for y'all to use um to make sure that people sort of understand what's going to be required and what types of things are going to be reviewed um as part of a land use process um especially for a type one application where these things it goes through an administrative review. So the question here is and and so you don't have a checklist per se like formalized right now in your code or your process. Um but you do a zoning review currently um at the time um as part of the issuance of building permits where you've got something that's an allowed use that goes through a building permit um application process but you're reviewing and making sure it's also meeting the the development code standard. So the question on this is you know does this seem like something you think um would be valuable to include and should it be codified in your code? Um uh so I'll just stop there. Carrie, anything to add on that? Yeah. So that's the first question. So just interested in your comments on that one. Comments? Yes. Uh the checklist would become a tool that would be mandatory if it was incorporated in the code. it would be a sort of a kind of a list or process that would have to be sort of you did this, yes, you did this. Um, and I guess if that's the case, um, I guess my only question would be to staff that, you know, an extra burden, um, is this an undue burden to you? Um, might it be an

undue burden certain applicants? Um, would there be flexibility in it or is it very Uh do we imagine it as a very um stringent checklist that could make it hard to do development or do you imagine it as actually helpful because it helps the applicant understand what they're doing better? Yeah. You want to go first, Matt, or you want me to go first? Um either way, I'm I'm happy to start and um and then have you go. Carrie might have something to add, too. I I'll just say really briefly, this is really meant to be more of a tool and something to help applicants than to add another set of requirements for applicants. So, it's meant to be a tool to help both applicants and staff just kind of know upfront before um the project is underway kind of what the requirements are going to be. Um so, that's the basic intent of it. It really is not supposed to be something that um is kind of an added step or an ownorous thing for somebody. That's that's my sense of it. Carrie, anything else? And then Dustin, um Dustin could probably chime in what how it's handled right now. They are doing a similar process right now that everything kind of goes goes every building that comes in goes through a zoning approval. This would make the idea would be to make it clear to the applicant what is being looked for and looked at. So they will have a checklist about setbacks. They will have a checklist about other requirements u maximum height they have a m and other items. So the the checklist would would be a tool to I would say clarify things for the applicant but Dustin would probably able to explain how it's working right now. Yeah. So currently uh we do have checklists. They're not incorporated into the code itself. They're listed in

applications. um does require you to read the application oftentimes before you uh submit it. Um so it's good. We like to advertise those expectations. Um ideally we're not looking for an undue burden on anyone. Uh but we we do try to be transparent and advertise things. Uh this I hope is intended to do that. I think as we get into uh the code too uh we are going to end up um well absolutely we will end up having more uses that are going to be permitted outright um just by virtue of the change in state law of of things that have changed and um we think you know that that is a procedural advantage. However um having more of those you know what does this mean? what pieces are there, what elements are required as a part of that um that we refer to them and they're referred to as type one processes. They're essentially building permits. Right now, um we review and comment on those as a part of the building permit application. However, nothing is particularly other than our own guidance and some of the outofode elements, there's really nothing that prepares an applicant for entering into that. So they submit a house, we start commenting on, okay, this is the height of the house, this is how many parking spaces there are. This is the setbacks. There's really no codified checklist that comes before that. Um, we have handouts that help people, but it's it's it is disconnected to some extent from the code. So oftentimes people will say, well, where is this in the code? Well, it's the whole code. you we're we're not going to be able to allow you to build something that is outside of the zoning setbacks and and this is kind of a the way we see it as a it's a preparedness factor. Be prepared. This this is what you should anticipate coming through this. Uh we are trying to

advertise this so that you know you may not like the answer but you should not be surprised and we no one likes surprises in the process though neither the staff nor the applicant. Yeah, I think it sounds like a good idea. Anything that will make any of these processes simpler for people before they start? Seems like a good choice. Awesome. Yeah. Any anybody else have any other thoughts? And if not, we'll uh move on to the next one. Yeah. Um just Yeah. I guess in terms of comparing comparing to what it is now, does it does this seem like it would accomplish that and making making people more aware of what um they would expect uh after you submit an application versus Yeah, I I think that's what it's intended to do. Um it doesn't work on its own. I think you know we're going to have to think about this in context well we'll have to also elaborate it in context of the process. So that next module when we start talking about procedurally how do you approve application pieces this should be modified to harmonize with that there is a checklist and this is the lane that you enter in they they should they should flow together so that they're not just two complete independent discrete items. So, um, so with a checklist, somebody could come in and say, "Hey, this is what I'm planning on doing." And you guys can hand checklist and they could kind of just see what to expect for or or they would also participate in it. I have I've been provided a checklist. Here it is. I I also understand or here are my questions about the checklist. Uh, based on what your expectations are, we have questions about what we should be delivering. It's it's both ways. So, it's not just a handout. It's also something that is

prepared by by an applicant, you know, not in drawing form, but but it should be an acknowledgement that my my plans have been reviewed. I understand some of the rules that I'm I'm building against. Um, or it's an opportunity to say, I don't understand. It's on the checklist. This doesn't make sense. So it it should give us a an early detection and early warning both applicants and staff of that yes, we understand the rules or no, we don't versus here's a project's it been prepared. I had no ideas what what the rules are nor have you advertised them to me. So yeah, I'll just yeah, I can add a little in there is um it's helpful to be able to get this process going with applicants before they finalize their design and submit their building plans. In jurisdictions, it happens is they get their building plans going, they've got their everything on the site and then they were unaware of all these requirements uh that they need to follow. So by having the checklist up front, we get this portion completed. that they can check all these things before they really finalize their building plans. Yeah. And I'll just maybe provide a little example um because it's a thing I've actually been working on the last few weeks. So, our firm, we um help cities and counties update their development codes, but we also often help um folks go through the the application review process. So, like right now, I'm actually helping with a process like that down in Marian County. Um, it's actually a county going through the county pro it's one department of the county going through the county's land use permitting process and they don't have to fill out a land use application. So, they go straight to a building permit application, but they still have to conform to the the land use planning requirements, the code requirements. So, um I they don't have a

checklist, which is fine. Um, so in helping them, we want to make sure that when they bring their built their plans forward, just like Carrie said, they are in conformance. So I basically created my own checklist. Um, and looked at do their current plans conform to that to help them get through the process. So that's an example of I had to do that for them as the applicant because the county doesn't have kind of its own checklist. So, you know, it it helps save somebody from like having to walk through that whole code themselves and kind of figure it all out before they get their project going. So, that's that's how I would sort of think about it maybe. Um, it is intended to be helpful. It may, you know, it requires them to do some thinking, but it's sort of doing it up front instead of once they've already like come up with a bunch of plans and find out they're not consistent with some of the requirements. So, that's how I would think about it or that's one example of a way to think about it. Al also in terms of process, a a checklist is typically much easier than a redesign. So, um you come in with a house that's 10 feet too tall. We will have wished that we had a checklist. Um because it's it's cheaper than than having an architect reduce the height. So, do do you find people coming up with a whole site plan prior to talking to somebody at the planning department? Not super common, but it it does happen. Occasionally, some people kind of get the design out front before they've had a chance to talk to staff and get more familiar with the code and and those are difficult those are those become very difficult situations. Um, yeah. So, I think we we really do try to be accessible. You know, we're here every day. We have a website. We have full-time staff. We're trying to flag things. Um however uh they it does happen and and again I

think if we are going to you know well as we're required to handle more and more complicated pro projects um straight to permit uses by right as required by the code you're going to end up with an increasing number of people and projects and large complicated projects going that way. Um that is something we want to be mindful of too. So, it's no longer just a single dwelling or a deck or an expansion. You're now into duplexes. You're now into land divisions that are required by type one. You a lot more things um a lot more call it ambitious and um dynamic and expensive projects are going to go through uh those reviews because the state has required you to do so. Um that is where I become increasingly nervous because it's you know a deck redesign is one thing a townhouse project or a um you know multi-unit project becomes increasingly difficult to redesign efficiently. Yeah. Just so it's it's it's in anticipation of more things coming through. I guess just procedurally if somebody is preparing for a big project seems like you would go through find out what your what zone your property's on and what the building standards are there. And how do how would this checklist get ahead of somebody going on to our current website and just making sure just by reading the code before they embark on a project. I mean, I think it would just give them a tool to make it easier to do that. Frankly, it doesn't mean they wouldn't necessarily do that. They might do it first. It's just kind of an another way to help inform them about, hey, here's some important things you want to be looking at when you're get preparing your application or working on the

design of your project. Um, and again, I think kind of what you're hearing is staff and consultants probably think this is a good idea, but you know, we want to see if you agree or uh or don't agree. I've heard at least one person say, "Yep, sounds like a good idea." Um, some really good questions about this, but what do you know, what do y'all think? Should we pursue this as part of this module or or not from your perspective? Yes, we don't have to vote on it. We But this is like everyone thinks it's a good idea and and and we I'd love to take different opinions too like you know this is not looking we're not looking for four three of you said yes and one of you said no therefore you you have no voice. So if there's caveats to planning commission generally supported this. However, there were um and this is in general across the board as we go through this, you know, caveats or conditions or con what do we not want to do? You know, we're supportive in this. Here's where it goes. Here's where we think it could go wrong or what you want to be mindful of. I think we we want to take those those notes as well. So, you know, I think it's great that we provide something to make maybe the the code more digestible for somebody who does want to maybe turn some, you know, turn it into a bigger project. But, um, I guess just procedurally in my head, I'm just like, wow, you I I would think before you invest any money into something, you would just read. I I think, you know, you we the code is used by all applicants. Yeah. Those who this will be their first and last project ever. So, you know, they they hit every blind spot, you know, that they go through. um those that have kind of a you know the most important project they'll ever do which could be their know their house, it could be their first other house. It could be their expansion. And then we have our institutional, you know, full-size

subdivision season pros. You know, you can hand a season pro the code book and say, "Here you go. This is this is what you do. You're a professional. You do this for a living." um that approach doesn't work when it's your first time. So, you know, if we have those opportunities to provide some, you know, a truncated list or here's all the high points or here's a series of high points that that you should be aware of, I think, you know, that's going to be helpful for our hopefully a greater class of applicant rather than those that, you know, it's not Hayden Holmes, you know, they do this for a living. They have a series of people. They have their full compleiment of engineers, architects, lawyers, you know, they do this. They speak the language. They know what to do versus, you know, your neighbor, you know, who, you know, they don't want to read the zoning code. They don't have time to. It's not worth their time and energy to do so. Um, probably on the onset or it could feel intimidating to do so. Yeah. Or they have read it and it just makes no sense, which is not an unusual question. Cool. Well, I think we have discussed this one. All right, I I will jump to the next one. Um, so um the next few questions really kind of have to do with um provisions related to non-conforming uses. So those are, you know, I think you all know this, but things that were permitted previously but are no longer allowed um within a given area. So it could be a use that's not allowed. It could be that the um the nature of the development is out of conformance with your standards. There's not enough parking spaces or whatever it might be. So, this first question kind of has to do with um do you have any thoughts about whether or not to allow some expansion of non-conforming uses? So, um right now um your code doesn't allow any

expansion of non-conforming uses. um that's different than than things that are allowed, but maybe they're out of conformance with some of the development standards, but in terms of the use, you right now don't allow that. And so the question is um is that is that good or um do you think it's um worth considering um allowing some expansion and that could be um up to a certain percentage. you know, you'd allow um up to a 10% or 20% 15% whatever it might be expansion of a non-conforming use. So, that's the question there. Do you want to keep it kind of as is, not allow any expansion, or do you want to allow some level expansion even though the use is non-conforming? So just as uh as context, you're you know this this code and section of the code comes up on page 17 in of the packet. Currently the the city code has a a purpose statement in it that the current zoning code basically says non-conforming uses. The goal is to see them eventually become conforming or run their lifespan and discontinue. um that that's the way the current Hood River code is set up. Um there are other options out there um you know not necessarily in conflict with your with your comp plan that that allow these uses to expand. Uh that would be a change from your current practice. So an uh example would be barberh shop built before it wasn't allowed in the residential zone. It's a use uh applicants today would be allowed to maintain that use in its 2,000 square feet uh and its 2,000 square foot capacity. It would not be allowed to become a 4,000 foot barber shop or or

2001 ft. We would we would not allow that expansion to occur by code. It would say the use is non-conforming. It cannot be expanded. Some codes in the state of Oregon would allow that to be increased 10%. You could add 200 square feet. Um that those are those are options that are out there. So yeah, and I'll say with these things like there's no right or wrong answers. It's really just you know what makes sense to y'all question or is it all or nothing? um could you apply this to certain use types and not other use types or if you I don't know like industrial you know the different use types could you allow or even within certain subsections of use types like a retail use or if you make it say a percentage that you can increase beyond the current I could I interrupt real quick and just ask when you're talking. Could you make sure you're close to your mic? Oh, I'm so sorry. That's okay. I catch most of what you're saying, but like some of it I don't quite Yes. Uh my question I apologize for all I did not I don't have a a versatile in the microphone usage. Um I don't either. If you if you would this type of uh provision apply equally I guess to all use types or could you craft it so that uh it would apply to retail for example or a certain type of class of retail or you know um type of use. Yeah, that's a really good question. And we have a question later on that talks about some exemptions um related to non-conforming uses associated with like single family residential. Um and so yeah, you could

um you could um apply this to uses certain uses or uses over a certain size or things like that. And then again, you can decide that you're going to even though it's non-conforming, you're going to allow some expansion, but not more than a certain percentage. So, there are different ways you could apply this. Um, I don't know if Kevin or Dustin have any sort of thoughts about those options in terms of, you know, would you want to or not want to um apply this sort of differentially to different uses or different size uses? uh our code currently does um it differentiates residential from commercial use. So uh internally there are some unique provisions that are written for um larger uses. Um it doesn't doesn't it's not 100% every use is different. However, there's a clear distinction between residential and non-residential and there is a clear distinction between uh uses over 25,000 square feet in size, I believe, or a certain there's a certain size cutoff that also is uh has its own section. So, I saw the residential um section in this and that that question's coming too. That's a that's an important one. Well, my personal feeling is I'm a I think just uh that a little bit of flexib a bit but not a lot of flexibility is a really good thing. When I think of small business owners exactly like the type you described. I've seen it happen where due to modernization needs or a way to thrive, they need an extra small amount. I think there should be limits but I would be in favor of changing it from away from for you know assuming this is not a residential use which sounds different for some commercial small uses to have a little

bit of flexibility but not you know what that amount is I don't know yeah I would agree with that and uh I think that it sounds like that prevents people who have nonconforming structures from having to come back to uh to the planning commission, right? Every time they if they wanted to expand it, we' we'd have to have like a hearing about it, right? Because we'd have to make sure that they still are within the nonconforming that we still approve of their non-conforming use. Either a hearing uh for a variance or an appeal based on my denial. So that would be something to where you know if if we were in the code now and we had a non non-conforming use the only answer that I have and essentially the only answer you have is shall not expand like that is that is pretty clear cut arrangement right now unless uh there was some sort of variance process that could get them use becomes difficult because there's really no use variance unless it's some sort of mathematical standard that they're looking at. Um, so that becomes that one becomes even more rather rigid right now. Okay, one more thing just uh pull that thread a little bit. He talked about coming back to the planning commission. And if you notice the language in section A, the last sentence in there is in it's bracketed in parenthesis or bracketed and italicized. And it does talk about this is an option. Code could be written this way to require in the event that we wanted to allow some expansion of a non-conforming use to require conditional use permit come back to the planning commission. Um so that there's some additional oversight rather than just having that in front of staff for review. So that's a it is an option as well. Does that sound right Matt?

You're muted. Matt. Yep. Sorry. As it's the unmute button disappears on me when I'm in the current view I'm in. So I always have to make it appear and find it. Um yes. So that is an option. You could um you could make it a conditional use and it could be something planning commission comes sees or not, you know. So, or it could be just essentially a staff level decision and like Dustin said, it would just come back to you on appeal or somebody wanted to do something even different more different or or you could have a varying degree. If it's a small enough piece, staff and it's non-discretionary, staff is authorized. If it's over a certain size, it's going to trigger it will trigger a public hearing. Y so kind of like site plan. We have a minor site plan, administrative type two site plan. I'm the deciding factor on that. You're the appeal body. A quasi judicial site plan one of greater magnitude. There's a type three. You are the hearing body. City council becomes the appeal body. So it can also be handled that way. Um if if you're if you're open to that. Yeah. So it's varying degrees. Yeah. something to that effect. I think it's good to give some flexibility to sometimes system. All right. I I think I'm hearing um generally people like the idea of providing some flexibility in this way and that some variability um in terms of the review process people go through makes sense as well. you know, in terms of the size or the scale or the scope um of the um proposed the the use and the type of expansion. So, I get that get that right. All right, I'm going to keep going. We got two down, four to go. Um so, and again, a couple of these are sort of

variations a little bit, you know, on the same theme. So this next one has to do with alterations to non-conforming development or structure. So this is not as much about whether the use is non-conforming but whether the um the structure or the development has some non-conforming features. So again it could be that it exceeds your height limits or it could be it exceeds you know lock coverage standards or whatever it might be. So the question here is um is should the code allow for um some expansion or alteration um of a devel development or building um even if it would increase the the nonconformance in that regard. So um or not I mean so the the right now basically you don't allow expansion or alteration for anything that's going to increase the nonconformity. So it's going to make it even more non-conforming um to a different to a given standard. So the question is um is it okay um to allow for some increase? again typically it's going to be up to a certain percentage um even it's going to if it's going to increase that nonconformity um to some degree. So um that's the question here again kind of a similar but a little bit different um question to the the other ones around this broader topic. My question is and I don't know if maybe there's an answer. Can you give an example of a detrimental result that you would get from increasing the degree of nonconformity without having to have a big conversation about it?

Um I mean I think for in I just don't know enough to like imagine what that would be. So it's this is a little like existential for me. I mean, Heights probably a good one, you know, that was the first the only one I could think of. But it also could be I don't know. Sometimes um cities allow for this, but they don't allow for it in relation to certain things. Like said, say setbacks, you know, you can um you can um if you're non-conforming related to setbacks, you just straight up don't allow somebody to get further into that setback area. Um, but lot coverage, you know, if if it's already covering a certain percentage of the lot and you allow to cover even more of the lot, you know, somebody could find that detrimental, I guess. I don't know. Carrie had I think the height one, but other ones you can think of. Yeah. I mean, for example, there's a house that is not meeting the front setback, but they want to put a second story on it. Would it be okay? I mean, it doesn't mean the setback, but they're going to increase the height, but the height isn't necessarily the issue with this house. So, can you still um would you be able to prove that? I could give you an example in current code, that answer would be no because the planning director would say the setback is not just a 2D separation. The setback goes all the way from the the Earth to the the top. So, we I would not I would not allow an expansion within the front yard setback. Uh even though it's 10 feet and they're not wanting to go 9 ft, they're looking to take the second story into that 10 ft. Um that is an area where we wouldn't allow them to expand because we see the setback as it's not a 2D area, it's a 3D area. Now, a house that was 10 ft in the front yard set back or it encroached in the front

yard set back and they wanted to put a rear porch onto their property with outside of that or an addition of their house to the rear. That is a circumstance where we would allow the it's the expansion of a non-conforming structure because the change doesn't make that nonconformity any it doesn't irritate that. It doesn't make that nonconformity. It doesn't increase the nonconformity. I'm not psyched about extra nonconformity. Things that give me heartburn include those kind of examples. So where the so height so building height. Yeah. So and this would be an issue where um say a structure was too tall built lawfully too tall. However, they wanted to expand uh the first floor to where it doesn't change the height of the building. Um it doesn't allow an the building to increase in height and whatever they added to would have to comply with the current code. It wouldn't just be automatically taller. Um those would be provisions where we would allow a structure to be expanded so long as it didn't increase the the nonconformity. Now, we wouldn't let them do a structure that was, you know, new addition to their home that was still too tall. Everything would have to everything would have to comply with now what the current code was. Sounds like we're leaning towards the only if they do not increase the degree of non choice. Yeah. I mean, in Car's example, if they're adding a second story to an already non-conforming to the to the front setback, I mean, it's not really necessarily I guess that would be a good thing to

bring to to the commission since it's not changing the footprint per se in the two-dimensional realm, but it is going up within that non-conforming area. Yeah, I guess it Yeah, that's uh yeah, current currently like if that were in just so you that and that's that's in my shop and my discretion, I would say this is an expansion of the non-conforming aspect. It's adding more mass into this area that is essentially set aside or more volume into the area that is supposed to be set aside for airspace between you and your neighbors. That is a that's a non-starter. Can I bring up an example and see because this one this is an example that I see quite I've seen come up between neighbors. an old shed that is in the setback exists pre setback rules. They want to rebuild it. It sounds like they can in the exact same um footprint. It would be okay to to rebuild it exactly as is but not expand it. Is that am I understanding it correctly? Right. So um we have the re we can get we're crossing over to the rebuild question here too. But uh yeah, for for that example, if you wanted to if that shed was say 10t tall, um we currently would not allow a 15-ft tall shed in the same location even though it occupied the same land space because it's it's actually taller. There's more mass within the setback. Therefore, it's not permitted. But if you wanted the same technically if you wanted to repair or rebuild it like for like same height l with height not an issue because that's what I've seen

practically come up quite okay and just I mean non-conformity is is you know it's an interesting realm because it's you got to be imaginative as to what consequence your decision could have but you know like the loss of a view if a neighbor next to you did app was able to expand upward from a setback that maybe protects your view. And if it was not there already and we were to allow it, that could potentially Yeah. If if you had a singlestory structure Yeah. next to you that was 2 feet off your property line, that's one thing. If that structure became a two or three story structure within that set within that same area that that could have meaningful effects so especially the neighbor I mean that's there right is if you're the neighbor so not increase the degree of non-comp one more sort of variation on Um, this relates to the ability to essentially rebuild or replace a non-conforming structure that's been damaged or destroyed. And your code's pretty um I don't know the right word, liberal, lenient, permissive on this one, I guess that's a better word. Um, so your current code says if a structure um or development is damaged by any means, it can be reconstructed to its pre-damaged non-conforming state. So even if it was non-conforming, if it burns down, gets washed away in a flood, neighbor's car runs into it, whatever, by any means, um it can be rebuilt um to its original non-conforming. It can't can't become more non-conforming, but it

can be rebuilt or restored or replaced to its uh previous non-conforming state. So the question here is just you know is that is that good or do you want to put any like limitations or sideboards on that? Because that's one thing you could do. You could say well can you you can't rebuild it completely to its non-conforming state. You know you could rebuild it to um but it can't exceed the height limit or it can't you know be rebuilt into a setback if it was you know violating your setback requirements or something like that. So you could put some or again you could put some percentage thresholds on it or something. So that's just a question. Do you want any thresholds on this or keep it as it is? I I personally like keeping it as it is. I would hate to just because something there was an accident burnt down, you know, if it was there and that's how you had it and that's how that was the characteristic of any particular lot and neighborhood. Um, I I would think that everybody around would have been used to that and letting that particular property owner make his lot hole again seems quite fair. So one one nuance to this one I think you know you all immediately and I think Matt immediately went to uh what what the law sometimes refer to as a force majour um or some act or um our code is damaged by any means. Um we've had people use this as they want to deconstruct their building and demo it themselves. So this is not necessarily an existential damage. This could be um we want to tear this down and rebuild it. Um, I think that's a clarifying point that we would we would want to make sure that was in there. So, can you

just reconstruct it? So, it is damaged because we tore it down and we would like to rebuild it. So, your shed, for example, maybe your shed is, you know, in it's it's operable. Um, it's in poor stat status. It's got mold in it. Somebody wants to tear it down and reconstruct their shed. That's not necessarily destroyed by any means. It is an active reconstruction. So, it would be good to to set the kind of the bar on that and I support leaving it as is or allowing the rebuilding by I don't think it's good to be so prescriptive of why personally not. All right. That then yeah damage the recon it would be a rec reconstruction. Yeah, as long as the Yeah, the non-conforming. It's not It doesn't have to be This could be intentional. You You would allow that. Okay. And again, can I ask everybody to speak into the mic just um I think you're you're good. The person on my left is uh Yeah. Yeah. And it's really hard to hear what people are saying when you actually watch the videos later if you don't literally talk into your microphone. I think okay cons met for purpose consensus from planning commission they would want to allow uh the reconstruction upon damage external force or applicant initiated reconstruction. Got it. Okay. Cool. With no expansion. Right. Okay. All right. Um we got one more I think that's related to um non-conforming um situations. So, uh, somebody asked earlier, um, you know, is possible to have exemptions, um, for certain things, and you do have some exceptions now for

residential uses and telecommunication towers. And so, the question is, do you want to retain those? And I don't know, Carrie, do you want to say anything more about or Dustin or Kevin about kind of what the code specifically says on this topic? Um um I uh it's really the residential uses the telecommunistication towers are going to be addressed really specifically in the code. So there'll be new requires new requirements for telecom communication towers uh when we write the new code. Um the old ones doesn't sound like there were many in the city of Hood River. So yeah, we are asking you if is it okay if we just want to keep uh have them be exceptions when the new rules come in for telecommunication towers um that the old ones are just grandfathered uh in your packet. This was on page 19 and the current code exception uh that's in there right now. It it does speak to uh uh it speaks to the residential and this this is actually similar code that we would probably recommend for your nonstructure, but it says rebuilt if damaged or destroyed. They differentiate the two uh for any reason provided it's reconstructed has the same or fewer number of residential units and s and serves the same use as the residential or the original structure. So I think it's intended to you can rebuild a residential structure with same number of units. It's not intended to allow you to rebuild a residential structure and use it for a commercial purpose. So your question is should we keep this blue text uh for yeah for residential or or the sentiment of it? Yes. And then communication towers. Um we don't really have a that's one of the features that we have to construct. We

don't have a telecommunication tower ordinance per se. There is an exception on non-conforming towers to be to be modified. Um it it has its own piece now. It it's not necessary. Um you do have it. Uh would you like to continue its exception or have it fall into the the the typical structure or do you have any feelings at all? I say yes. Keep this keep the exceptions. I had a question of clarification for the residential. So if it's non-conforming, you cannot add additional residential units. You may maint if anything happens you to a non-conforming residential use, you can keep the same number of say it was a duplex, I don't know, it would only be a duplex. Does this does changing this for residential have any benefits to affordable housing creation? For example, I have I I have two units. I want to create three smaller units, studios or smaller units. Do we see a world where it would be useful to have an exception of any sort? Matt, you got any comment on that? I mean, I I maybe, you know, I could see there could be some benefit. I mean, I think you'd want to um probably put some strings on it. If if what you're trying to do with that exception, for instance, is um increase the number of affordable units, then you might want to say if you know, you can do this in the event that um that one or more of the additional units, however you want to, you know, um structure it, are affordable to people in a certain income range, you know. So, I think you you'd probably if again if you're trying to achieve a certain goal through an exception like that, you'd want to be clear about what the goal is

and how you require that. That that's my quick thought about it. And I could see that being a benefit to meeting that objective. Then there's the question of I guess compliance o over the long haul on something like that. Um I am personally um just a I think housing supply without uh affordability requirements just the idea of creating more units is sort of is an important thing in and of itself and that's just a a note that I wouldn't personally necessarily see a need to make it a affordable ability requirement because I think that's just more restrictive and difficult to manage over years. But um I'm not even sure if this is something anybody else would consider to be an interesting exception. But I do see a need to allow creativity to get more um housing. So I don't have any answers though. Don't disagree with your idea. And like what then are we in a scenario then where we have like a 20 unit residential apartment building that burns down and then they rebuild it as a 40 unit building and that's loud without anybody having an opinion on it in the planning department? We want to be ready for anything. But um because like sure we may have more units of housing, but like are they quality? Are they just like deplorable tiny studios that are not really good for

much? I don't know. I think tiny studios can be valuable. I just think it's more of setting the expectation of of of what would be allowed and what not. Yeah. Um, so we could say, you know, you've interest in expanding opportunities for housing. However, there's probably some sidebars on that that you would want to maintain. Yeah. That maybe you wouldn't allow unlimited or beyond a certain percentage increase in the number of units or you'd make sure that, you know, the infrastructure around that in that area could support that or, you know, I think it sounds like some interest in this, but we like Kevin or like Dustin said, we'd want to put some sideboards on it. And I would also say that uniform quality throughout the you know if you have two units turn into three it doesn't mean that the third one's a junky one um in terms of quality material similar quality build if you're going to rebuild sort of uniformity. So we'll get in those clear and objective standards later. Yeah. Unfortunately I'm not sure if um junky is a clear and objective term. Um I know what you mean, but sub qual lower quality materials to the others. So not objectively the same. Y definitely get the I think we get get the intent. But yeah, that makes sense. So yeah, that's something we can we can explore, you know, as we're working on this section of the code. For sure. All right. Uh we have one question left for y'all and then if you have any other questions for us after this one, just let us know. Um so the last one we had in here um had to do with sort of um how we're going to approach um procedures related to code enforcement and kind of where those are going to those are going to lie. So the question we asked here

sorry I'm going to actually flip the kind of the full question. Um so um let's see um we've got some language we included in your in the document in your packet related to enforcement that comes from the um from the model code and that's language we could incorporate into the code update. Um the alternative would be to rely on the civil procedures that are outlined outside the zoning code for um how you handle enforcement. So, this one's kind of a wonky one. Um, anybody Carrie or Justin have anything to add or Kevin on this one? This is just I'll say an element of the model code that's not embedded in your development code and we're wondering is this something worth incorporating this way. Matt, I'd say one comment we have is we have not yet had an opportunity to discuss this with the city attorney and we'd like to be able to to spend some time with uh city attorney and and kind of debate pros and cons of making a change. But um from my perspective as a user of the code, uh I kind of liked the additional um information that's embedded in the model code. It just it provides more direction to me and I think to users than the existing code does. So, um I found some benefits to it, but um yeah, still have not had a chance to discuss with the city attorney. Uh the one I was having the planning director name dropped in this. Uh there's one piece that I do like. Uh it does kind of stratify um the kind of the severity and significance of the violations. Um putting a type one, type two. Uh currently right now, you know, we have um you know, it's really one type of violation that follows the same path regardless of its severity, whether it's an annoyance or or whether it's, you

know, kind of a full-blown health, safety, welfare issue. So having some predetermined categories uh within there that that differentiates the two I I think is helpful. Um you know, we we do do code enforcement. Um, however, we always like to pick, you know, the kind of the right tool and right process for the job. Uh, and so some of these things I think I I like I like it being explicit um not only for us as staff and using it, but also for if you end up as a as a co on the other side of a code enforcement issue um to know, you know, how uh how it's being enforced and what comes next. uh if you're a code enforcement if if you have a code enforcement issue and you have a complaint also it helps I like giving more information as a as a neighbor or as a complaintant you also have some some idea and access to the rules on on how does this happen rather than you complain and it goes into the ether and you don't know what's going to happen here whether it gets resolved or not or whether there's issues I like having it scripted out a little bit so whether that becomes born in the zoning code or whether it stays in the municip municipal code in a different place. I'm not particularly concerned about that. I do like it being explicit, though. We're we're talking about, you know, civil proceedings against, you know, our residents and our neighbors and our friends and businesses. Like, I think it's good to have a clear expectation of what's what's happening when when it when it comes to you. So, I agree. like the previous code was kind of vague or not definitely not clear in the penalty and abatement section. Uh and I think that it makes sense to have everything that's related to housing or meeting the code in the in the code itself. So you don't necessarily have to go somewhere else to

try and find the process of what's going to happen. And I felt like this was very clear Yeah. Any other thoughts on this one? Yeah, I I I really do like the clarity that it it would provide the the model the model code language that you guys um provided here. Just Yeah, I like that direction as well. Cool. Adds clarity for an offending party whether they know it or not. And you know, if somebody has a complaint, um I kind of think it's easier to to feel heard and understood what the complaint is to just have a different level of uh enforcement or stop work stop order. Yeah, I think generally that's well prescribed change in this case. I think the detail is good. Awesome. All right. Well, that covers the things we had to ask you about and very much appreciate all the thoughtful comments and um discussion on these things. Um that's, you know, going to help us a lot as we kind of move forward. And again, we'll be um having some similar discussions with city council and we'll relay what we heard from y'all um and the comments from staff as well when we talk to them. Um, so this has been great. Um, the only thing we have left in terms of the presentation is just to briefly talk about next steps. Yep. Um, maybe before I do that, do you all have any other questions from us while we while you've got us here? At least remotely. No, no questions. Okay. So, um, again, um, we'll be having a similar conversation with city council. Ask them

some similar questions. Relay what we heard from you. Um and then we'll be um updating that first module at the same time that we're working on um the second module. Um as I said, we are working on this um video. Um and again that that's it's going to be a pretty high level kind of what are we doing, why are we doing it, what are some examples of why this should, you know, might mean something to you and how can you learn more about or get engaged in the process. That's kind of the gist of that video. At this point, um, we haven't set a timeline exactly for when we want to organize and conduct these interested party meetings that are another piece of our engagement strategy. We want to be, I think, strategic and efficient about when we do those. Um, and so we've got, you know, this chunk of time in this working on these set of modules. And again, at the end, we'll be making more changes. So, at some point in the next probably I'm going to say couple months, we'll be organizing and conducting those meetings. Um, and we'll keep you and the council kind of up to date on when we're doing that. So, I don't we just don't have a specific timeline quite yet. Um, again, these brief questionnaires or surveys, we may ask people some of the same questions we're asking y'all um in those surveys. And again, I think our intent on those is not to have, you know, a couple longer surveys, but really just add some very short ones and kind of um notifi notify people about that via the project website or web page and social media. Um and um anybody who signs up for our interested parties list. So that'll be happening periodically. Um and then again um uh continuing the work on module 2 and then bringing uh that back to you similar to what we've done tonight. um and talking through um I wouldn't I won't say a similar set of questions but a set of questions that are related to um to the

mostly the procedural requirements that are going to be embedded in module 2. So that's what we have ahead of us. Um any quick questions about that or any questions about that? Makes sense. All right. Well, thank you all. Um hopefully there's still some sunshine out there and you get out there soon and enjoy it. Um yeah, thank you all uh for this very easy to understand presentation and for holding our hands through the process. Um this is all pretty exciting. Yeah, our pleasure. Thank you. Thanks for having us. Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Gary. Yep. Talk back to you later. Right. Well, I guess that's all we have today, correct? No, one more thing. One one more thing. Uh I just while I I noticed while we were switching gears from uh from voting on your on your chair ship you had actually switched from remote to here physically present. So, uh, just in order to have I know we can make this even more ceremonious, uh, there was a discussion in and a motion to have member Hoffman become the from interim chair to active chair. And, um, you all you you can you can vote for or against that to I just wanted to make sure it was clear in between the four of you that that was that was in place. So, still unanimous. Okay. Thanks. Thank Thank you for indulging me. Reading all the scripts. I should ask all and and we we haven't had anyone join online. All right. Okay. No public comment. Okay. Well, if there's nothing else, then we will adjourn the meeting at 10 after 7. All right. Thank you.