Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You're dead. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, I've got it all going whenever you're ready. So, okay. I will call the planning commission meeting of February 10, 2026 to order. But I have the roll call, please. Yeah. Uh Dan Fel here, Gary Lillard here, Roxy Ogleby here, uh Max Colive and Matthew Gity are absent and excused. Okay. Uh are there any changes to the agenda?

Yeah. So you'll have you'll see one item on your agenda. We had a public hearing for a petition and that applicant withdrew their uh their request and so you'll see that struck through. So we've removed that from consideration tonight. Okay. Do I ask for approval of the No. Approve of the consent. Any want to consider the minutes January 13th meeting? Yeah. I move to accept the consent consent agenda as presented. I second.

All in favor? I I Okay. Now on this agenda there is general public comments that is dealing with stuff not on the on the agenda on the agenda. Anybody want to give public comments on stuff that we're not talking about tonight? Okay. Now we move to the public hearing. Yeah. Okay.

Could I give a little clarification on one aspect of that hearing before we really get underway? I bet. I'm curious as to what our focus should be because it appears to me that we're essentially rubber stamping some state requirements. So to discuss whether we agree with it or not is kind of irrelevant. Am I correct? Well, I don't know if it's irrelevant uh because the recommendations, some of them are requirements and uh some of it's just guidance and and so it's um and I'll try to go through that in my staff report, but u you know like we have some terminology changes if we decide to just kind of do our own thing that we'll just be unique in the state as everybody else changes their terminology.

Okay? You know, so it's not necessarily required. We're not out of compliance for some of those things. Uh but there are things that are required to be processed administratively that we currently bring to the commission. And so those are things that could be challenged if we don't uh uh change those because those are state requirements. And and I guess I would say we're not really rubber stamping things. I mean, we had a work session, you know, last year, went to the council and some commissioners attended, but uh, you know, so we've we've kind of already vetted this through through a process and and so we're kind of here now at the 11th hour. Um, I guess fine-tuning and yeah, and if you're if there's things that you really have concerns about, then I guess that's what we're here for is to chat about those. And

good to know. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So, I am going to open the public hearing for housing related land development code amendments file number 01 zone 26. Applicant is the city of LRA. Um, would you read the rules of order for public hearing?

Yeah. The planning commission will conduct one legislative public hearing tonight. These rules of order are applicable to the this public hearing. This is a public hearing to consider proposed amendments to the land development code. Applicant is city of Lrand. State law designates this as a legislative hearing. Therefore, commissioner experte or prehering contact does not apply. The hearing will proceed as follows. Planning staff will present the report which includes applicable criteria and standards for the matter under consideration in the application. The chairperson will then ask for public testimony from hearing participants if present relating to the application. The chairperson may state a time limit for testimony. If no time limit is announced, testimony will be limited to three minutes. All testimony must be directed toward the applicable criteria. Oregon land use law requires that all issues raised by a participant during the hearing must be sufficiently clear and specific to allow the hearing body and other parties an opportunity to to respond to those issues. Failure to raise the issues during the hearing may invalidate a future appeal. The chairperson will then ask for any written public testimony to be read into the record. Any person that wanted to submit written comments in advance of the meeting had until 5:00 p.m. on the day of the scheduled meeting for such comments to be accepted and read into the record. Any person that was interested in providing virtual public comments had until 5:00 p.m. the day prior to the meeting to make arrangements with city staff to participate in the meeting. Public comments, whether written or virtual, were to email the mic book at cityville.org. The meeting is is available for viewing on YouTube live at the following link um YouTube YouTube city of Lrand. The applicant will be invited to speak first followed by proponents then opponents and then by any parties neutral to the application. An opportunity will be provided to parties to clarify any issues raised or to rebut testimony. Proponents then opponents will be provided an opportunity to clarify any

issues or to rebut testimony. If additional documents or new evidence is introduced during the hearing, any participant may request a continuation of the hearing, any participant may request that the hearing record be kept open for 7 days to submit additional written evidence or testimony for the purpose of responding to new evidence. Unless we waved, the applicant has seven days to submit a written response. The proceedings are being electronically recorded to be converted to written minutes. When testifying, please step to the podium and state your name and address. Members of the planning commission may ask questions of the staff or hearing participants at any time. The chairperson will then close the hearing or continue the hearing at a specified time and place. The planning commission may deliver a recommendation to the city council and direct staff to prepare prepare findings and conclusions which support the recommendation. All recommendations must be based on findings of fact from the staff report or evidence and testimony received which relate to the criteria of the land use decision. The findings of fact must be stated.

All right. Got the staff report for us, Mike?

Yeah. So, I'm just going to hit the highlights that are in your packet. All the ones that I think are, you know, I guess notable changes. There's a lot of really small things. So, I'm not going to go through all of them. And most of the small things are related to definitions. Um, there's a number of them that we're getting rid of because they're just not in use. Uh but the most notable definitions you'll see are uh you know the state's going away from the the term family and uh as we're defining housing and it's now household because we have we have folks that share houses especially in our community of college students that share houses and and sometimes there's more than one family. Um but anyway, so now they're using the term household. So, it's a single family house or single household, there's duplexes, and then there's multi-unit uh as they get in uh to those. Um so, anyway, there's changes throughout the code. And so, I'm not going to stop at each one of those and and point those out unless you want me to. Um then uh the ne the next big change that we have is we've we've had a medical hardship residence in our code for I don't know since around 99 I think is when we added it to the code at the request of a property owner and uh since that time we've had two medical hardship residences uh have gone through a permitting process and both of them were in the 992000 range and they're both expired and gone now and those houses have been converted into rentals that they were using as a hardship. ship. And since that time, we just haven't had any applications. And uh um and folks that are considering medical hardship residences are generally looking at ADUs as a as a better alternative than a house that would be temporary that you're supposed to remove at the end of the hardship.

Could you define that for me? A medical hardship. Medical hardship res.

Yeah. So, medical hardship residence is a residence like um in a way it's like a mother-in-law apartment or a family member that is handicapped. Uh rather than going to a care facility, they would uh stay in a like an ADU type house um on your property and it would be essentially accessory to your house, but once the hardship is over, whether they've moved to a permanent care facility or past, then that house is supposed to go away. And so that um anyway, so that's the purpose of the medical hardship residence and and we just don't have any in our community. Um and the other piece that uh uh kind of triggered this is a state law requirement or limitation that we can no longer uh tie that to a family member. So our medical hardship residence was tied to a family member of some sort. And now under state law, that could go to a friend. It could go to somebody that's totally unrelated. Um, and that was that was a door we did not want to open is uh that's what our ADUs and that's what our rental, you know, apartments and different things that we allow on properties is for and not just for anybody to put a house on their property and then rent it out as a hardship dwelling for somebody else. And so, uh, so in our code, we're just proposing to get rid of it because we don't have any and it's kind of an obsolete, I guess, uh, option.

What you're saying, uh, that replaces this, it's already in our language still allows for AD ADUs, accessory dwelling unit, but not necessarily a family member. Correct. Yeah. An ADU is open to anybody,

you know, and so that's the direction folks are going. Uh because the medical hardship residence requires that that home go away after the hardship is over once it becomes vacant. And that's a fairly significant expense to buy a house and stick it on your property for a temporary purpose. And so why not make it permanent? And since we've changed our code, we're accommodating more accommodating than we were in 99 for accessory dwelling units and smaller cottage homes that uh that's the direction folks are going. years ago. I was I think I was on the planning commission when the first one of those was approved. Yeah, I think you were maybe even both of them.

That after the person had passed away or whatever, the owner were not particularly happy about having to move that. Yeah. Get rid of it.

It's it's expensive to remove those. And you know, and they had a a good investment into that. They didn't want to get rid of it. Um so the next one that's notable is our variances. Um, so there's a a series of administrative variances that uh they're if they're very small in nature that I approve uh through a you know an administrative process that doesn't come before the planning commission. It's they're relatively easy to get. Um these are being uh they're recommended as a change. So this is kind of an option for for you Gary if you wanted to look at something that's state required versus optional. Um, we're actually changing this to something that's called an adjustment. And that happens to be uh kind of a terminology and a process that uh other communities throughout the state are doing. It's still an adjustment and a variance in my mind are the same thing. Um, but it just creates a simpler process and it's essentially the same uh same items uh that uh uh that I have authority to to look at such as u very small setback adjustments if somebody you know needs inches or up to a foot in uh in something and rather than coming here through a more complicated process, it's something that we can deal with in our office.

Is that in the summary? Uh this is on uh it's quite a ways into your packet. Uh I don't know if I have a page number on any of these, but uh

about that many. Did you get it? But anyway, this one also has some review criteria because the review criteria that was used before was fairly complex and it was intended for the planning commission type variances where um you need to have, you know, more strict criteria for demonstrating your hardship and and your need for the variance or the exception. And so this criteria is a little more accommodating for something that that's at an administrative level.

So it eliminates public notice, correct? No, there's still a public notice. Well, I take it back. I don't um it may eliminate. Yeah, because it this maybe takes it through an administrative process. Yeah. So, this does eliminate the public notice that was previously required and now because these are so minor that it's an adjustment that's over the counter and we can make that decision as part of a as part of another application process. Okay. So when you talk about making an adjustment, you're only making an adjustment to city- owned property, not like setbacks and things with neighbors.

It could be a setback. So for example, this is this one allows for a 20 20% building setback. So 20% somebody could ask for up to a foot on a sideyard. They could ask for up to four feet on a front or rear setback. Does the adjoining property owner have to be notified? No. Really? Not in this process. Okay. This is this is part of the stuff you said the state is required.

No, this is not required. This is this is recommended. This is what a lot of other communities have and are going to and so this was recommended by the consultants that did the audit that um this is something that's accommodating for property owners. And then the other piece is is every time somebody applies for one of these, they get it. So it's, you know, so they think that that's the other piece that comes into play is we've never ever denied a request for a variance of this size. And so why take why put somebody through that, you know, a complex process when you're going to approve it anyway? And so that's part of the recommendation as the consultants looked at it is how many of these applications has the city processed and has the city ever denied one? And we never have. My my concern if I were that adjoining neighbor and there was a variance because I think the setback right now is five feet

and the city chose to move it closer to my fence line without notifying me. I would be concerned about that personally and I I think any neighbor would be. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know how you feel about it but Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and I think the school of thought here for a sideyard setback, it's you're you're moving it one foot. So, it's 5 foot is the standard and then it becomes 4 feet. Is is that significant enough that you would want that to be uh come before the planning commission, Mike? I think it would be. And plus, it's five foot setback hangover. Correct.

Yeah. So I feel like the joint neighbors need to be uh notified and have an opportunity to at least uh voice an opinion. U it is a lengthy process to go ahead and do what has been done in the past with the advertising and the twoe notice etc. But I'm not comfortable with that. I don't know about you. I agree. So would your do you feel that way about all of the other ones or just the setback one? The setback is my major concern.

Well, it's up to you. You should wait till the end otherwise we might not ever get through it. The reason why I ask is because if you feel that way on all of these then uh um then we can add a whole section in there like we had before where requires public notice and make reference to uh a different chapter in the code where that public notice occurs to surrounding property owners. Well, with public notice like alley vacation or something, uh, you're having to go blocks away and I think we can streamline it. Well, I what?

Well, if you do public notice, it won't be streamlined because now suddenly it's not over the counter anymore. Can we tweak it to include adjoining properties? you could do like we have for our accessory buildings where we deal with similar siding and roofing. And I'll have to look at that section when we get to it to see if that's changed, but it would require your neighbor to sign off on no objection. Seems like that would be the alternative. It doesn't seem like there's a middle ground because we're talking about no planning commission involvement or planning commission involvement. Yeah, that's the next one. I just wanted to address number five.

Yeah. Well, although I agree with Roxy that the setback is probably the main concern, I can see the possibility or potential of the neighbors having some concern about any of those really. Yeah, I could see that. But I think the other thing to keep in mind is what you said before, which is which is these never get denied. They're they're small enough that if they came before us, what would happen?

So if we eliminate the planning commission's meeting and that would eliminate public comment that are don't Well, let me stop you for a second. So this is an administrative variance already and they don't go before the planning commission. The only thing that these do right now when somebody applies today is they go through a two-eek public notice process. We send out notice the surrounding property owners. They have an opportunity to comment and then we issue a decision. Still administratively, it just goes through a longer process. It's just not as long as a planning commission process. What this does is this makes it over the counter. So when somebody comes in and they apply for a building permit and we issue a building permit essentially on the spot or a zoning approval on the spot when they come in is if they ask for a deviation from one of the standards that fits this criteria, we potentially would approve that at the same time.

So do they just ask or do they have to get some justification? Yeah, there's review criteria down here at the bottom that they have to meet. So they you still have to meet the these review criteria for a deviation. Um It just it just eliminates the public notice so that somebody doesn't have to wait two weeks to get an answer for something that we're going to approve anyway. At least that's how the consultants looked at it is we've never denied done in the past. But I still I'm going to stand my ground on that. Yeah. I do I'm not comfortable with an over theounter decision that will affect an adjoining neighbor. So however we need to tweak that I think we should. Like I think

can it be appealed to the planning commission? Not in this scenario because it it makes it it's like a building permit. You can't appeal a building permit. Yeah. So what I'd recommend then is we'll uh maybe still call this rather than calling it a deviation, I'll look at still calling it administrative variance uh because that's where

notification Yeah, the section up above. And let me see what it has here with the part that's being deleted. Yeah, because it refers to this procedure piece. And so we'll keep this section because this refers to the code section that has that 100 foot notification and uh and has that twoe process. And so we're going to we would keep that same process in place. Are you comfortable with that, J? So,

okay. Do you want to talk about any of these other pieces in here or do you want to move on? Are you ready? Okay. So, the next one is the administrative review piece. Let me see. This is Oh, this is one of the state law requirements. We currently process subdivisions and those come before uh before you uh at the planning commission level and state law requires and has required for a number of years and apparently we've been out of compliance but uh requires those be processed administratively just like a lot line adjustment or a minor petition and they still go through a public notice. They go through a a two-eek review process. So folks get notice, but it would be appealed to you if uh you know if somebody wasn't satisfied with a decision or a conditional process.

Yes. So, this just moves it from uh from a planning commission review to an administrative. It's well, it's been a requirement for a number of years.

And yeah, it was just pointed out. They were just surprised that we we still do it this way, but you have any questions on that one? Okay. And then this is a big change. So, this is our public notice one. And so, some of you may uh remember this. So right now all of our public notices, it doesn't matter what the application is, is a a 100 ft buffer around the property and we just notify property owners within 100 ft. And uh and so this was something that came up uh at least in our work session u and the council asked for this change. And so the consultants put together this uh this table. And so we still have the 100 foot notification for the administrative applications that are smaller that are less impactful. Um but anything that comes before you, it's a 300 foot notification. And then if we have uh um and this is one that was uh a little more I guess concerning for me anyway was 300 ft is still isn't that far if you had like a sizable subdivision or a fairly impactful application. And so like a larger subdivision would be 1,000 ft. Uh so that property owners who are truly impacted by a subdivision or at least most of them would uh still get notice and have the opportunity to participate in the process. Um, and so that's what you what you have. The other one that is uh is new that we currently don't have is is when we have uh this would be part of a larger subdivision, but if we have a traffic study that's included, a lot of times we're looking at intersections that are well outside of a thousand ft of a subdivision. And as part of a traffic study, a consultant's going to be identifying uh possible changes to intersections. uh whether they have to widen and make turn lanes or, you know, put some kind of a put a stop sign there or do something. And we

wanted to make sure that the folks that are in the vicinity of of those intersections are also notified. And so when a traffic study is required that jumps the notification up to everybody that's along each side of a corridor that's being evaluated gets noticed so that they know that we're looking at their street and then also folks within 300 ft of an intersection. And so that's a fairly significant notice, but that's one that's been added to make sure that everybody that we think might be impacted has the opportunity to um hear about it and have the opportunity to participate. What is NA for?

Um I think NA is that there's just no distance, you know, so it's just this is just properties that are abuing the uh the street. So it's everybody. So they're just

Yeah. Yeah. So, it's it's really no distance. Do you have any questions on the notice or do you have any concerns? Yeah. Okay. Then the next one is accessory dwelling units. And uh this is for the most part it's it's the same. Uh some of these standards were just identified to become more clear. The one piece that is new is under the unit size. we're retaining the 800 square ft maximum um size for an accessory dwelling unit. But then also we want to make sure that when you're dealing with uh you know cottage homes or tiny homes that you still have a primary dwelling and your accessory dwelling is smaller than the primary and this is where uh the recommendation was for 75%. Uh we used to in our older code we used to it used to be 35% of the uh size of your dwelling and and now that we're dealing with cottage homes that's pretty small. I don't even know if you can even get a dwelling unit at 35% but 75% just make sure that your accessory dwelling is smaller than your main house.

So the 800 square ft is a state recommendation. No, that's our current standard and we're just reaching. Basically, it's an 8 by10, correct? No, that's 80 square feet. So, okay. Gotcha. 20 by 40. 20 by 40. Yeah, that's a pretty good size 80. Yeah, it is.

I don't think I have anything else to tackle in this one. Um, see the next one is our single family home standards. We're eliminating a lot of the manufactured dwelling, uh, things that are unique to manufactured dwellings. Um, anyway, uh, we're required to treat all homes equal. And so, uh, so that's going away. Um, let's see. I thought I had something else I wanted to point out. Uh, you can see a lot of the single family language is going away here. Um, let's see. What else do I have? I don't have anything else in this one to point out. Um, manufactured home parks are there's just a minor change in that. So, there's a state law requirement that folks can uh you can live in your RV in a manufactured home park as long as you're connected to full services. And so, so that's been added. Let's see in our cottage home standards. So, this is this is for cottage home subdivisions. Um the uh the one I wanted to point out just really had to do with uh um it's probably more for developers that are going to do a subdivision, but it's a clustered parking requirement. Um we've had uh you know the standards that are stried out are ones that are kind of subjective in nature and uh so some of our standards are becoming uh uh just more clear but also uh uh just trying to think of some of the developers that I've already chatted with um is uh clustering your spaces in groups of five or less and then having them separated by landscaping. and different things in order to um have some character in in that type of development. They tend to have a little

bit higher impact. And so having a higher standard for what they look like is important, at least for what we've learned from some of the neighbors that uh have chimed in on some of the proposals that have come before them. I don't know if you have any questions on the cottage home standards. We don't I think we only have one in our community at the moment. Then under minor petitions. Um see this is one I think we're just clarifying some of the standards. So I don't I don't have anything to really point out on this one. Um and then uh I think we already chatted about the subdivisions. Uh duplex divisions is kind of an interesting one. This is one that we're retaining the language. The uh the state has um a process they're calling expedited land division and uh essentially it's for creating like townhouse type developments and uh but they're still working on some code and it's so it hasn't been finalized yet. And so we're uh the consultant recommended that we not change our code to uh what is currently in draft form. And so, uh, so we're keeping our duplex division, uh, essentially it's it's a duplex that has a property line that runs down the common wall of a duplex. So, somebody can own each half of the duplex, just like a townhouse.

Mike, what do they mean by a duplex or a common wall land?

So, a duplex just by itself is just a housing type. And so, you can have a duplex on a piece of property. And then the common wall land division is essentially you divide your property so that each half of that duplex sits on its own parcel and so it can be owned just like a townhouse and so or a condo and so so that's really the difference and that's something that we currently have in our code and uh and so this process is just kind of bringing uh some of the standards more in line with a typical petition and uh then plus the state requires that we process those more in an expedited manner. And uh and so that's what this section addresses. Um so anyway, that's really all I have as far as hitting the highlights of of everything that's in there. So um if you have something that has jumped out at you as you've kind of skimmed through your packet, uh I'd be happy to kind of go back and revisit those. But overall, I think our audit came out pretty good because we had we had captured most of the uh changes that the state has made over the last 10 years. And and uh so most of our our changes other than some terminology is and moving the subdivisions to an administrative process. We're really just kind of recommendations for consistency with how other communities are processing similar applications. looking at you is a thing that has never made good sense to me.

Yeah. And that's that's one that we where we changed the code a couple years ago, maybe even more than a couple now to uh to reduce the parking requirements. And that was from the state, wasn't it? It was. Yeah. Yeah. The state. I find it interesting because I'm kind of watching uh uh you know some of the city manager Facebook comments with some of his postings recently, but there's there's quite a few where folks are talking about parking and wanting more parking

and the states of the mindset that people have less cars these days and some people don't have cars and so why have parking and they want us to get rid of all of our parking requirements and uh and eliminate parking lots because nobody needs cars. If you give them a parking space, somebody will buy a car to park in anyway. That's what that's that's the comment that was made and you know I just and that's that's the reaction I had when they said that too. Lots of uh but lots of uh but anyway we did reduce our parking requirements.

Yeah, we did reduce our parking requirements a few years ago to comply with the state requirements but uh did not follow their guidance to just eliminate it all together. That was a recommendation we didn't uh accept. Anyway, the floor is yours if you don't have any more questions. Are we ready to invite public testimony? Okay. I see Rod's chomping at the bed. So, yeah. Well,

essentially everything with the planning commission is kind of the same. you come in and get your permits, you do have a have a plan review of your all that stuff stays the same. So, there's still a planning commission. Um, variances that that was a good one to keep an eye on because I' I'd be kind of questioning some of these satbacks already. specifically I I as far as walk I don't think I have a 5 foot setback and my concern is that you know the setback is the problem it's fire is the problem with not maintaining a really good setback buildings in numerous towns were made out of brick because towns like this burned down several times not once numerous times And same with residential areas. One one small stone fire and a good high wind without a good setback sets the whole place ablaze. And so not offering a not offering a notice that strikes me as a very serious problem. And I think these are adopted by Oregon, right? So we could an individual county could take it or leave it. No. So different from the county. So the county the county rules are adopted in state law and then the counties then essentially adopt the state law as theirs. Where for us is we have there's certain things that are required you know like u where you allow single family where you allow duplexes um and the parking requirement. The the state has a specific requirement where

we can't require more than one space per dwelling. And so we've we've adopted those. So those are state requirements, but a lot of these are more guidance where the state has essentially created a

Yeah. And a housing policy of this is how they further housing and encourage you to do stuff and then you have to adopt your code or you know craft your code in a manner that furthers housing and makes things more affordable or easier for folks. and and so we have a lot of liberty to to change things and do things our way. Um but uh as long as we're not creating more roadblocks then uh you know the state generally doesn't meddle in our in our affairs. But and a duplex is you said could be two properties. Could can it be considered one property?

Oh yeah. Duplex typically is one property and so that's Yeah. So a duplex typically is Yeah. Yeah. And so essentially once it becomes two properties I you know I think you could argue it's not a duplex anymore. Now it's a townhouse you know and and we have a provision in our code that even allows for triplexes and you know in certain zones where you have a triplex and and you you theoretically could divide that and each one sits on its own lot and so now I've got a threeunit townhouse. I wish I had perused this submitted my 24hour question. Well, it's not too it's not too late. So, it's this is this is going to the city council in March, right?

And so, and this is online. So, if you go to the planning uh uh the community development planning web page, there's a link right on there says click here to see the code changes. And so this entire report is uh is on the city web page and you open in a PDF and then you can scroll through all this and you can look at everything. Right. It's 35 pages. Oh no. Oh no. It's like 200 pages. It's a lot. Yeah. It'll put you to sleep. But this is exhibit C. So I would started to print this thing. Oh yeah. No, don't do that. No. No. But I I just encourage you just jump to exhibit C. That's this section right here. And then you kind of miss a lot of the other kind of little minutia and

you know and stuff that we just kind of have to include in in our reports. But exhibit C is essentially a copy of all the amendments. Right. So the recommendation we don't have to looking at the setback and saying yes or no we don't to some extent. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. How much will state allow us to do that? Well, we could eliminate it all together. I mean, that's one of the things that was part of my question is that's one of those things that we've never denied one, but if that's when the planning commission wants to look at, you just take it out of the administrative and and it then becomes any any setback deviation goes to the planning commission. Good. I agree with So, but

so just to clarify for my purpose because I thought it was either it's administrative and no public notice or it goes to the planning commission, but there's a that's what's Yeah. What's proposed is to eliminate the public notice. But right now there is a process where right now there's publicly approved with public notice. Yes. Is that the stuff that's that's the stuff that struck out on the page just before this. Okay. Anyway, so this is the the current administrative process which doesn't really have any criteria. And so part of this was to establish criteria so somebody knows what they're uh what the rules are, you know, but uh

Oh, so it increases the objectivity of the criteria. Is that right? Yeah. It makes it more specific. So yeah, right now it's a little more subjective, but uh um you know, but the biggest thing, you know, which Roxy pointed out is it eliminates the public notice component because it makes it an administrative deviation. And so that's uh what I have a note to uh eliminate and take it back to the administrative variance process. So at least the public notice is still there.

It'll probably Yeah, it'll it'll kill us. Yeah. No, it'll be the same as it is today process-wise based on your recommendation. And we have at least I have I have on my computer I notic an area near your house. Is that the city that's doing that now? Part of software. Oh, I don't know who's doing that. Oh, that's that's interesting that that might be part of a building permitting piece. Maybe you're on Are you on the state building codes? Uh, well, maybe that's how you get it

because you're special. So, you because you because you registered I didn't even know that was a thing. So, double check. Yeah, I don't need to notice building up what just in my neighborhood. Oh

that's interesting. It must be software for the city because we do have a new website, right? Yeah, we got a new website. Yeah.

The notice Rod's talking about. Well, the broad game. Yeah. So, I'm guessing that that's when somebody applies for a building permit. it goes into a state building code software because that's how they process everything and then since Rod's a contractor or I guess even if a citizen can probably log in and create an account I don't were you sent yeah I I don't know how the notice I don't know how the notice goes out but you know but on the state you just create an account and uh and then you're able to go in and look at permits that are in the vicinity of your house and so maybe that could go through just our building department done somehow with the state.

Yeah, but I think you'd have to register with the state because our building department doesn't send notice out and so it must be something that's part of their system, part of the state system. some part of the solicitation for some small project. So yeah, just state solicitation, state, federal,

comment, but I'm glad you brought up issue because when we reduced the five 5,000 square foot lots to 3,000, now we have less of a lot to deal with and the variances would allow closer much like the old part of town where the 3000 there I'm sure there's not a 5 foot setback on the water. So I hadn't thought about the fire issue. Thank you. Was that a consideration with the uh building that's going on down there off of 16th Street?

Um well the a five foot setback is a typical uh is a typical setback and I don't think any of theirs are less than five and so the idea is that if if each lot has a 5ft setback that gives you a 10-ft separation which is which is a fire code standard. Anything less than 10 feet suddenly requires special uh construction.

Yeah. And then I I don't know how that fits in with HOA people that just kind of say, well, my my land, my rules, my right what I want, right? that we get into kind of gray area

become even more important in a regular shaped lot. You'll have 3,000 square feet with the narrow part they're building on. It would depend upon the lot. I'm thinking some of the excuse me some of the lots on the north side there's been a couple L shapes that they met met the minimum requirement but because of the way they were configured it just really crunched everything in public comments any more question sorry I was waiting for you guys to talk about something could you state your name, please. Oh, sorry. That's okay.

This is the first time I've ever been to a city council meeting. My name is Tim Ostero. I'm the owner of Plankronics and Archives Bookstore

and um I just recently had the fire marshall talked to me and stuff. And um he was talking about some changes that might affect a event space that I've been working on. And that was a lot of stuff I had to figure out. But anyway, I got a letter in the mail too and I didn't understand a bit of it. So, you know, I'm just trying to understand what I can do and what it is that's changing that would make it so I wouldn't be able to have an event space. Uh there's a lot of hoops that I didn't know I need to jump through and I'm learning that. But, uh, they were telling me that there might be changes that make it so it's not even possible. And I'm just curious if you guys know anything about this.

Yeah, I I only vaguely know of of your scenario, but uh uh so from a land use standpoint, we advise the building department that uh that your business is a permitted use in that zone. So, there's nothing that we have in our code uh in our land use code that uh that would influence the scenario you're dealing with. And so I would recommend that you visit uh when you have time is come into the building department. It's on the other side of the wall behind you and uh come in and chat with them because uh um I think everything that uh that you're dealing with anyway is through their office

and and I would imagine the codes that might be changing might be related to either building code or fire code. Yeah. And so maybe they can kind of advise you what that looks like. And if there's a timeline for doing that, then that'll help you make a decision because sometimes if you make decisions and and do certain things in advance of codes change, then you're grandfathered in. And so you may want to figure out what that is and then you can make a decision based on that. I'll do that immediately. Yeah.

Any other public comments? um the terminology variances versus deviation. We're going to get a we're all accustomed to this lingo and going to be a question of legal is if you can't remember what the former language was, right?

So is is there I don't know how you would put in paragraphs. Maybe the former variance has now come a deviation. Well, well, in this case, I I'm I'm planning to keep the variance terminology in there because as long as it goes through the same process that it did before, keep keeping the terminology the same,

you know, because I think the idea of it being a deviation is is lighter than a variance at least in process and that's where the public not eliminating the public notice came in and that's why the terminology changed because it made it more of an over- thecounter rubber stampy type process and so um so anyway I plan to keep the term variance in there at least in the recommendation that would go to the council in a couple weeks or on March 4th. That's good. Single single single house. I think

Yeah, we'll get used to it. Just takes time. Well, I just figure Kendra and I are going to still use the old language for a number of years until finally it we it catches on. You know, when you've been using that for your when you've been using that for ever, it's hard to change. As long as there's place where it's written down, this is this point to that. Yeah. Somebody will call us out on it when it's not a family anymore. They'll remind us.

Okay. So then next on the agenda there invite committee discussion committee session. Are we all discussed or I have nor I um except for what the suggested motion look like, but I guess we'll get to that. Well, you could you could use the suggested motion that's there, but I would say as amended with the if you're comfortable with the assumption that we're going to keep the administrative variance with public notice intact. So that uh that'll be the amended

unless there's something else that we went over that you want to see changed as well that we'll make sure we get that too. But that's the only change that uh I noted. Okay. So I will close public hearing and entertain. I move that the finding of fact and conclusion set forth in the draft decision order be amended and the proposed land development code amendments be forwarded to the city council for approval. I second it. All in favor? I I I Okay. All righty.

Uh number six is additional commission discussion which I guess is on other topics. CA. He's on the CAF. Is there more on the CAF? He's doing Oh, this is if you want. This is before the vote if you wanted to have more if you wanted to have more discussion. Good. Okay. So, we're we're done with that. Yeah. Just so you know that that's a placeholder in case if somebody wanted to make a motion and you guys weren't in agreement then you want to talk about the motion.

You know, then it gives you an opportunity to amend the motion or or not business. None. planner or comments?

I don't have anything at the moment, but uh at least not for the commission anyway. So, at this point, you may have next month off, so we will let you know. Anyway, Friday's the deadline for applications. I am working on the final plat for uh the second phase of the true subdivision off of 16th Street. And so, that may go to the city council in uh on March 4th. And so anyway, just in case if you're interested. Okay. And then commission comments. All right. Guess we can close the meeting. All right. Thank you. That official? Yep.