Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Is it working? Okay. It is working. Take the camera off. Take the camera off. Hi, there we go. Okay. All of you out there?

I have no idea how to do that.

Okay.

Well, it's picking us up. I don't know if there's anybody else out there watching or if this will just be a warning.

John and Chris.

John and Chris are going remote? Are they? Are John and Chris here? John? John is here. Oh, hey, John. Hi, John. Hello. John is remote. OK. And what about Chris Griffith?

In the city council meeting, he was not. The appointment wasn't. It wasn't confirmed. Okay.

It may still be pending, but it sounds like we will have a... Welcome, John. Glad to hear you anyway. Thank you so much. Okay. I will call the meeting to order. And as a first up on the agenda, if all would rise for the mic salute.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

OK. For tonight, we will have Amanda, who will take a roll call.

Yep. Commissioner Chair Herb?

Here.

Commissioner vice chair building. Here. Commissioner Mayola.

Present.

Commissioner Rogers.

Here.

Commissioner Adamson.

Here.

Commissioner Koznicki. Here. Commissioner Griffith. Not here.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay. Now, I guess first off, any citizen input on non-agenda items this evening? Since we have a few people sitting in the audience, do you have anything that's non-agenda? More than welcome to speak up, up to the podium. Otherwise, did we get any receipts?

There is a name on the list, yeah. Okay. Okay.

Well, we need to pull that list, and you need to

Well, if they have any items, they could. Okay. Approval of the meeting minutes for January the 15th. Did everybody get a chance to read through them? Any comments, concerns, questions, additions?

I didn't find anything. so I don't think I should be there for eight minutes.

Okay, fair enough. The logical reason for that exception.

I move that we approve the meeting minutes as drafted for 3rd of January 15th, 2026.

Okay. Roll call vote, please, Amanda.

Commissioner Chair Kerr. Aye. Vice Chair Belding. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Miola?

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers? Aye. Commissioner Adamson?

Aye.

Commissioner Kosmicki?

Aye. Okay.

And it's approved.

Okay. Next on the agenda is we are having an open public hearing with regard to a subdivision tentative plan application Sub 202601, Findlay Creek Court. Because this is a public hearing, there are some procedural language that we have to read into the record. So, first up. Good evening. My name is Ron Kerr. I am the Planning Commission Chair and I will be presiding over this hearing. The public hearing is now open. This is the time and place set for the public hearing in the matter of case number sub 2026-01, a six lot subdivision at 1467 North Ridge Street. Oregon law, land use law, requires several items to be read into the record at the beginning of each public hearing. The city planner will read the material, Your patience is greatly appreciated as the statements are read. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair Kerr. The applicable criteria on which this case will be decided are found in the Lafayette Zoning and Development Ordinance Section 208 for Land Divisions, Section 2102 for the R1 District, and section 3, 1, 0, 7, 4 subdivisions. The specific criteria are addressed in the staff report and will be summarized during the hearing. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed toward the criteria or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe to apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by status or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the decision makers to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. For parties, if you have any documents, maps, or letters that you wish to have considered by this body, they must be formally placed in the record of this proceeding. To do that, either before or after you speak, please leave the material with the recorder, Amanda, who will make sure your evidence is identified and placed in the record. The hearing will proceed with the staff report followed by the applicant and those in support of the application. Then the opponents will be allowed to testify. Then those who are neither in favor or against the application. The commissioners or staff may ask the applicant and the parties who testify, excuse me, may ask questions of the applicant and parties who testify. The applicant will be given an opportunity to rebut the testimony or evidence. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence or testimony regarding the application. If such a request is made, it will be up to this body to determine if the hearing will be continued to a date and time certain or if the record will be kept open for submission of written evidence or testimony. If the record is kept open, it will be for a minimum of seven days with a short rebuttal period thereafter afforded the parties and a short rebuttal period thereafter afforded to the applicant.

Thank you, Jim. I need to ask the audience Are there any objections to the notice that was sent in this case?

Let the record note that there were no objections.

If you have an objection to the notice that was sent out, please come to the podium, state your name, and address for the record. I've got a notice.

My name is Trev Garzolami. I just moved here a year ago, and I bought a home in Lafayette because I liked it. It was a small town. I'm originally from Portland, Oregon. I grew up here. Lafayette has always been wonderful, so I decided I was coming here. So I bought my home, and I'm right below. Here's this division that you want to put in. I'm on the next street and I'm this way down here. I already have a problem with flooding in my backyard with, you know, the land was not cleared yet or anything, but I still had flooding. I would like to know about whether a sump pump is going, what they are planning to do as far as how to prevent me, because again, the way the property is and the way the land does, That upper one goes this way. Mine goes that way. Water comes to me.

Let me make a suggestion to you. Objections to the notice. What you're getting into is some of the details that we'll cover in tonight's meeting. And your question that you have, your concern that you have, I think there's going to be a better place for that during the course of this hearing. Okay. But we do have it now, but because you have spoken, we now have it on record that you have a concern with regard to drainage off the property. So when we get to that, when we touch into that detail part, you can perk your ears up a little bit to see, because there are going to be a number of factors that are covered in this. Okay, because there's big... Beautiful trees.

Yes. Beautiful. So if they are to cut those, that would even cause a bigger problem.

And that will be things that will come up. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Trev. Yeah. Okay. Are there, okay, moving on. Are there objections to the jurisdiction of this commission to hear and decide on this case? Let the record note, no objections. Okay. With commissioners, are there any declarations of ex parte contact, bias, or conflict of interest by any members of the commission? Myself, no.

No. No. No. John? No. Okay.

So, okay. Jim, we're now ready to start with the staff report and we'll work our way and we'll come up with an appropriate pace.

So I'm not going to go through it page by page because I don't know that we need to do it in that much detail. You have the staff report for a week. And for those, I guess everyone except Stan, this was a 2024 application. that was approved by the Planning Commission. And as the sub-divider went on to do his work and everything, ran into some situations and has been working on the engineered plans, showing how the sewer, the water, storm drain and streets and the private street that would be built on the property to provide access to the six proposed lots, how all of that would be built and would be built to comply with the Lafayette Public Works design standards. So there's been no construction on the site. There has been a burn to learn where the old smaller house and garage were burned and some of the foundation concrete and so forth is still there. And then there's a couple of small accessory structures up in the northwest corner that are still there. And from your reading, you notice that pages two, three, and four go into some detail about those new small structures. So basically, it's what we call an infill because to the north, west, south, and east across Bridge Street, the land is all built and developed. Although immediately to the south, there is a open space tract that was part of a subdivision to the west. So even though it's not developed, it's open space per the plat of that subdivision. So the property is a little over an acre. It's in the R1 zone, the residential low density minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Each of the proposed lots is greater than 7,500 square feet. The existing development, and I'm down to the bottom of page one, and we always have an existing development section just so the facts of what's there are entered into the record. So, as I mentioned just a minute ago, the house and the garage were a burn to learn. I'm not sure if it was this year or last year or whenever, but the house and garage are no longer there. And so on page two, it goes into a little bit of what was said in the 2024 application, because this issue of the existing development is the only change. Everything else is the same. The number of lots and where they're gonna be and their size and how they're gonna be serviced with public sewer and water and storm drain pipes and the street that goes into the property. So this difference is on pages two, three and four. And two years ago, the application said that all the buildings were going to be demolished and that there was a house and a garage and another building in back. The staff report referred to it as a shop, but didn't really worry about if that was an accurate term to describe it because everything was going to be demolished. So the difference is this one says the house and the garage are gone. And the accessory structure in the back, and it was referred to as a storage shed, is going to be retained. Well, now that there's been some brush and shrubs and everything else removed, it turns out there's two accessory structures in the back northwest corner. And they're described. I'm not going to go into exactly everything about them. But there's one that's bigger, a little over 200 square feet. And it's up in the corner. It's about three feet from the north property line. And on the west property line, back into that building, it's over the property line, roughly a foot and a half. And that was not an issue two years ago because the building was going to be demolished. But now it's going to be retained. So we need to address the situation and particularly that it's hanging over the property line encroaching into the property to the west about a foot and a half. But then we need to go back to 2006 when that property to the west was the subject of a subdivision and at that time the subdivider based on their boundary survey that a developer always does just to make sure they know where the corners are and where the property lines are. Their boundary survey showed that, oh, that old 200 square foot accessory structure that kind of looks like a real tiny house is about a foot and a half onto my property. But that didn't bother that subdivider. As part of his plat, the plat granted a two foot easement along the back property line of the property that has the building extending over the property line, encroaching into that property, a foot, foot and a half, something like that. So at that time, the subdivider of the property to the west probably talked to the people that were living there and they said, oh, we don't want to tear it down and gee, we can't move it. So the subdivider said, well, I could work with you. We'll grant you an easement for your building to be on somebody else's property a little bit. So the subdivision to the west was recorded. Lots that are there with houses. Houses were built. And the owner of the property that has the house encroaching onto their property, it's shaped in this sheet in your packet of materials all the whatever lots of paper that ron brought tonight uh there's a lot at the northwest corner and it has about a 20-foot rear property line that's uh you know it matches up with the west property line of the subject property we're talking about tonight and so that lot That is along its 20-foot rear property line. It's like two foot east. The whole 20 feet. The whole rear property line. And so that is still there. And in the city engineer's comments, there was comments and discussion when staff was talking about this, that the, and it's in the staff report, The city cannot, for example, as a condition of approval for this subdivision, require that building to be demolished. First, if the city wanted it demolished, there would need to be an inspection by a building inspector, and that inspector would need to find bad things going on that would allow the city to use its authority to condemn the building. Once it's condemned, then the city could require it to be demolished. So there is that option, but also there is the option of leaving that building as it is, if that's what the current subdivider wants to do, or the current subdivider could potentially move that building farther over east onto what would be lot three and do whatever with it. And... Whatever is done with it would need to comply with the zone code, building code.

So, Jim, if I get it right, the whole discussion about these two structures is they simply want to put on the table keeping those structures and making an appropriate decision with them within the bigger picture subject to review that. Right.

The reason I'm taking some time with this is because if the commission's going to decide what to do with it, and we'll hear from the applicant also, then you need to be aware of what the facts are. And so, for example, if you walked up into the northwest corner, there's your typical surveyor's lap with some pink tape on it, and it's at a location where a five-eighths-inch iron rod or steel rod was located, and that's the northwest corner of the property. So if you're standing there and going to look south along the west property line, you wouldn't be able to see that west property line because the building is in the way. It's over that West property line, about a foot and a half.

Jim, isn't it subject to the setback at rare property lines? They have a setback requirement. Right. Structures.

Yeah, but because the house, the garage, and maybe even both of these, I haven't gotten to the second accessory structure yet, but at least this first slightly over 200 square foot accessory structure were built It appears in the 1950s or maybe the early 60s, but the point is it was built before the city had zones and zoning regulations. So it is where it is. It's non-conforming because it doesn't meet the current setbacks, which are 10 feet from the north property line. It's about three feet. And then the west property line, the setback, side yard setback is five feet. But, of course, the building is holding the property line onto the abutting property. So there's zero setback.

Does it really have any utilities in it, like plumbing or electrical?

Well, that was covered in the staff report. The door was locked. I was not able to walk in because it was locked. So I don't know what's inside, but the applicant is here tonight and could fill us in. It does talk about what is visible from outside. And one of the things... on the south side of this kind of mini home, if you will, is a cast iron clean out. You can see it sticking up and it's in effect coming up out of the ground and the concrete is kind of right on top of it. So to me, that would indicate potentially at some point there might've been a bathroom. And if it wasn't a full bathroom, then it might've been a clean out for a sewer line that took gray water out of a kitchen or a washroom or something like that. So we can find out more when the applicant is testifying. So anyway, the first building is nonconforming because it doesn't meet the north 10 foot rear yard setback and it does not meet the five foot west side yard setback. And the building code issue, there's something else, You know, there's moss and other kinds of plants growing on the bluff, and the windows are broken out and basically boarded up. I don't know if it was because the windows were broken out, the boards were put up, or if the boards were put up to prevent the windows from being broken out. But anyway, so the second building is a real tiny one. It's like 50 square feet or something, or I forget what the number is, but it's in the staff report. Maybe it's 6x8 or something like that. And it has no interior improvements. It has a board floor with some of those boards broken. It has no door. It has a doorway, but no door to close the door. And it has a shelf on the back, which made me think immediately of it was a little structure for somebody who was into plants. Because it was right at the right height where you'd put potted plants and transplant this and that and just walk out the doorway and go to your garden and take care of things. So the developer wants to save these buildings? That's the most recent information. Two years ago, I think before all the vegetation had been taken away and showed what was really there, the assumption was Two years ago, there was one building back there, and it probably was a storage shed of some sort. So anyway, we'll find out more when the applicant comes. I want to come in here. So anyway, the little building is meeting the north setback because it's farther away than the bigger building. It's not meeting the west side yard setback. I don't know that it's over the property line, but if it isn't, it's like within a few inches of it. So it does not have a five foot side yard setback. There's a little extra complication that's not necessarily a big deal, but as for this sort of mini structure that's there, the house on the front wall, which faces east toward Bridge Street, there's a electrical outlet, you know, a little tube plug-in outlet on the front wall. About 15 feet farther out front of that, there's a steel pipe that comes up out of the ground about four feet. And on it, there's a two-prong or a two-plug-in electrical.

Well, it was a charger for an electric car.

Could have been. So anyway, it appears that maybe that structure was powered by extension cords or whatever. We can find out. Find out. Could be. So anyway, all of that on page 2, 3, and into 4, on the top of page 4, it comments that given the location of accessory structures, A, the bigger one, and B, the smaller one, does not comply with the r1 district standard for setbacks. And they're and maintain condition and not meeting building code standards to conditions of approval numbers 23 and 24 are recommended by staff that going to read those right now because you already read the last week when you got the staff report are familiar with what they say. So Moving on real quickly, the adjacent zoning and land uses. It's all R1 with single-family dwellings on all the lots except the lot flooding to the south. And from your preliminary flat sheet number, whatever it is, GP1, it's a kind of a long, thin lot that when you're on Bridge Street, And you're going to turn and go west on 14th. You may remember that there's a nice landscaped area there. I say landscaping because it's all brush and shrubs and trees. It's that mother nature at her best. And so that is open space per the plat of the property provided through the west border. Okay, then getting into the findings and the individual criteria, as we already mentioned, the lot size is that all lots are met. There's a private street that's going to run from 15th West into the property. And you'll see from what you've been looking at in the last week, there's three lots to the north, three lots to the south, so that all six of those lots have frontage and access onto the private street. There's a condition of approval recommended that the two lots here, one and four, have no driveway or access onto the Bridge Street right-of-way. There's no reason for that because their access will be onto the private street. And the private street will be built to public street standards. And it'll have curved gutter, A sidewalk on one side to get people from the six lots out to Bridge Street. A condition of approval requires on Bridge Street that four feet of the eastern part of the subject property be dedicated to the public for right-of-way purposes. That way, the width of Bridge Street will match the width of the land to the north, which was already subdivided years ago and had to dedicate some land And the property to the south, which was already subdivided and had to dedicate a few feet so that we'll have the proper amount of public right-of-way on Bridge Street. And it'll be a sidewalk up. Yes. Dye the new properties together on the east. Right. Bridge Street, the frontage, roughly around 300 feet of frontage. We'll have a new public sidewalk, curb gutter. And because the pavement isn't as wide as it needs to be. There will be a few feet of pavement from the current edge of pavement to the new curb and gutter. So with that, I'm thinking that those are kind of the highlights. And yes, there's about two dozen pages of findings about all the specific requirements. But some of the engineering work has been done, engineered plans have been turned in and different agencies and the city engineer as well as applicable state agencies like DEQ and so forth have reviewed some of the plans and said, yep, they're okay. So other than the applicant not filing for an extension of the 2024 approval, We're having to kind of take a pause with all that engineering work and developing the engineered plans showing how this the street, the private street, the sewer, water, storm drain, all that would actually be built. We're taking a pause on that and if the Planning Commission approves this same subdivision again tonight, then It will either be with the same conditions of approval or depending on testimony from the applicant. And anyone else who's here that's going to be coming up again, the commission could determine that an additional condition of approval is needed. So OK. Let's go. There's a total of 24 conditions of approval, and some of them are just kind of general, like all the public infrastructure has to comply with the city's public works design standards that say how you build public infrastructure. Some of them are detailed, and once we've heard from the applicant The last two conditions are the ones that relate to the two buildings and the situation back there. So if we need to change those or through those potentially one of the spectrum, the applicant may say they've reconsidered and they're going to demolish those two buildings and then we wouldn't be conditions 23 and 24 at all. So with that, If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer those. Okay.

Let's see. Put an organization. Let's go with comments for those that are. We need the applicant after the staff report.

Yes.

Well then, any comments, concerns, questions on the staff were cleared.

Not at this time.

Not at this time. OK. So then are we ready to dive into proponents and opponents and neither for nor against? Right. The next party would be the applicant. Let's go with the applicant, because I know it sounds like several questions have come up for the applicant that they can address. It sounds like, before we done this, this approval, most of it was done in 2024, but it also sounds like these two accessory structures that are still there, for whatever reason, they're deciding, hey, we want to consider keeping them rather than getting rid of them. So we'll have questions that come up on that. Okay, is the, yeah. Yeah, please, please, that makes it a little easier. We'll give you the floor. Excellent. And we'll grill you as well.

So the two structures that are back there, structure B is intended to be demolished.

Say your name and address.

Jack Sheppard, Black Sheep Construction. I'm living in Oregon. We didn't have property at 1467 North Bridge Street, like we were talking about. Okay. Okay. Those two structures, structure B is intended to be removed. It is essentially falling apart, as you were alluding to. The floor is falling out and whatnot. There's no value in that building. The other buildings seem to still be useful as a storage shed. We put a lock on it so that we could use it as storage during construction. And we boarded up the windows as well because most of them were broken out. And so we brought over some plywood and screwed them up. I did not notice any signs of plumbing inside, any sort of toilet or wash station or anything else like that. I don't know what that cast iron in the concrete might go to. I will say that we have already destroyed the concrete or destroyed the cathet iron that was coming out of the foundation and the plan as identified on the drawing is to chase that back and all of that will go to lot one. So there won't be any sewer connection that would actually be making it across three lots to that back building.

Exactly, any piping that's there to plant or the...

Yes. The electrical, like you said, it might have been run off an extension cord. When we burned the house down, we didn't raise where all the electrical went underground. So there's no plan to put the electrical back up. There are, in fact, bulbs out there. So whether it was run off an extension cord or it was done legally, I have no idea. But my intention would be to strip all of that out and that it would just be a shed. The reason for leaving it is so that we can stay within the, I don't know, what is it? The DQ... equal 100 C permit that we do not need if we do not disturb over 1 acre of territory. This property is 1.1 acres. So we have defined a boundary that was roughly 20 feet in and basically protects all those trees, protects the edges of the property. There's a bunch of ground to the south that's already well sloped that we couldn't be able to do anything with. So it basically says that our disturbance area is under one acre, and so we can stay within one level of the EQ guideline rather than stepping up to the next level and whatnot.

A side note, that sounds like the trees that do exist in and around that lot, the intent at this point is... HAB-Masyn Moyer- The larger ones would be call it preserved there may be other things on the lot it looks like for the plan that they either have been removed or needed.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- So yes, I hear your trees around the outside there's basically a perimeter on the outside, I think it's on yes yes see one. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Which is the. HAB-Masyn Moyer- erosion control plan it shows where that fence goes around the property. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And. And so my understanding is those trees could get limbed up on that sort of thing, but that we couldn't be doing groundwork anywhere around those trees. I would need to defer to Dan, who might be with us remotely, to actually answer questions about whether or not my understanding of that is correct. But my understanding is we can do things like repaint that shed, but we can't go in there and tear up the ground without changing our boundaries.

I see what you're saying.

So that's why we were thinking of leaving that shed because we thought that we could restore that shed to be a useful storage shed. We could clean it up. We could re-roof it. That's not ground disturbance. So that doesn't affect DDQ. That can happen under this project. But then if we wanted to demolish it, have to take different measures and we might be able to find a path to sort of include that into our border and get rid of that building i wasn't really aware there was over a foot and a half over the line i hadn't zoomed in that closely on the survey i haven't looked at it right i pull screened um so yeah that property that building may in fact might be behind that line um but we might be able to extend that region there if the site plan the house site plans means that we don't need to disturb you know an extra six feet to the south property line or whatnot and stay within that one acre. But that was our goal was to stay within that one acre just to keep compliance easy for everyone and not go through more steps than we needed to since we were so close to that boundary naturally anyway.

Ultimately, when you're finished with everything, who owns that building?

The owners of lot three will own that building. And so my understanding of the... Conditions of approval 23 and 24 is that the easement that currently exists for that building would get transferred to Lot 3. And so that would get recorded with title when Lot 3 was formalized. And so that easement could run with that land and they would have the right to have that building, whatever it is, the foot and a half over the line. And that two-foot easement there.

And then, yeah, like I said, the owners also have the option to tear that building out.

Yes. So at that point, it would no longer be our construction project. And so they would be able to do what they wanted and start a new project. My understanding with DEQ regulations is that we put those flags up before we start major earthworks. And then we keep them up through building all six of those houses. And then as we sell off each house, we can redirect those flags around that property line. but that we're just constantly shrinking that area and never enlarging that area as long as we're in control of the project. And that's what's considered one project by DEQ guidelines. Again, I'm not an expert on that, but that's my understanding that's been explained to me by my engineer.

I've got a question now. Ask. You may or may not be the person to answer it or maybe be able to give a partial answer. And this has to do... And I'm going to tie into... Before the hearing started, the concern raised. And that's what I wanted to bring it at this point. And that is there's reference here for surface drainage and storm sewer systems runoff waters. Obviously, anytime something like this is done, the whole purpose behind that is to make sure that no. excess water is created and then that water gets diverted so that it doesn't, you know, as the saying goes, flood out the neighbor behind you. Can you comment on the question of, okay, obviously there's drainage now there, and at least it has been brought to attention that existing drainage the way the lot currently is, there's a neighbor that has a concern over that. How might your change this? Obviously, the purpose behind the engineering is it won't make it worse, but if I throw the thought out there, make it so that it is better for people around. How does that thought tie into this?

Obviously, we're creating a lot of impervious surface. We're putting that road in there. That water is all... guided by Dan's engineering plans to divert that water out onto the pipe, the storm sewer pipe that already runs down Bridge Street. And so it will reduce the overall water that is being generated on that site and percolating Uh, yeah, percolating into the ground nearby.

So most of the service water, it'll be directed generally Eastford as opposed to towards the private street is directed.

There's a whole curve and gutter system. The Dan is engineered that will bring that water into a catch basin right at the corner of the new private street and grid street. And then from there into the city storms through pipes. In addition, as each house gets built, obviously those have a roof structure that we hope is an impervious surface. And all of those will be collected and delivered to that curb and gutter drain system.

You're changing the flow of that lot by a foot.

across the road itself. We're changing the elevation so that that's where the road will still be.

The divot that the lady has The cold water collects and flows into her backyard. You're not going to allow that water to flow that direction.

On the land that we are improving, we are making sure that it is sloping towards Bridge Street. So we're not regrading the entire lot. Correct. We're developing that street section. And so that is shown on several plans. And then when we build various houses, that foundation, that area of water will also be transported to the street and from there to Bridge Street. We're going to use a roof collection into the street. That's standard building code with building rain drains is that they must be collected somewhere. The curb and gutter is the way to do that. It's been a sized based off of our guess at what size house we will be building on that lot.

I asked the question because Water runoff is a concern. A concern was brought up.

You're right here. I don't have the square footage of it exactly. We've got 43,000 square feet or so in the one acre of disturbance that we're doing and subtract all of the 2,000 square foot house and garage area times six plus the road surface, reducing the amount of water that could possibly be flowing. over the ground significantly. And directing that into the storm drain system. Yes, all that water is being directed into the storm drain system of the city.

At the same time, with that obvious caveat that there will be grounds and places around there that you don't disturb, that won't affect the drainage that currently exists there. So, you know, what could happen with that is, yes, there's still going to be some runoff from the water. There's still conditions. It sounds like it's going to be anticipated to be less than it is. One can only do so much.

The existing masonry wall runs nearly the full length of that back lot. There's a wall down some of the properties. It separates the elevation that your property's at and where her house is. And I'm not sure which side of the lot line that wall is on. I understand that. It's right on the line. Lower level is her property line. The lower level of that wall would be her property line. The upper level of that wall would be what I have seen.

I didn't see where the marker is. There's so many little property lines. I'm sorry.

I overstepped.

I want to try semi-coordinated. We'll get there. Other questions of developer?

Yes, Jim. In terms of the DEQ and their one acre? Yes. If you disturb more than one acre, so what? Is it a big application process for something?

I don't have the details with that. In talking with Dan, he was telling me that we wanted to avoid that if we could. So it's another application process. another series of withdrawals from my bank account to go to something that I don't quite know the scope of it because he found a path that wasn't necessary. So I don't know what it would take for us to expand that out to be the whole property of disturbance.

You mentioned a number of DEQ. 1,200. So that's an erosion control program. Right. And I know enough about if you have apparently If you're disturbing more than one acre and the subject property is roughly 1.12 acres, according to the material that was submitted, then if you were to disturb the whole thing, you'd have to put up an erosion control fence and have an erosion control plan. And that is what you would not have to do if the building in the back is left, And they strip along the, I guess it's the west and north property lines is left undisturbed.

Jim, he's got that.

We still have an erosion control plan. They have that on C1. Yeah, so I think it's a different level of erosion control plan that might be necessary if we disturb anybody.

Actually, I think it's anything smaller than one acre, less than one acre, then it's one to five acres. And then it's five to 20 acres from the behind and above.

And so we wanted, since we were so close to that line, we wanted to stay under the one that seemed to apply for properties of this size.

I didn't do much in the less than one acre site, but I know that between one and five acres and between five and 10 acres is a lot of paperwork.

I mean, it's an important issue because if we knew what would be the result of disturbing more than one acre, then that might lead the commission to addressing the accessory structure A one way. If it's less than one acre, then apparently there's nothing that the applicant has to do, not even prepare a plan. And then that would lead to a different kind of condition of approval.

My only version of that is it Even though there's an easement there, it exceeds what we have established as setbacks from our property lines. And it's grandfather did not understand that. But it steps over our property line into an easement that was created, what, 50 years ago, seven years ago? I'm just, to leave something like that and not clear it up is just a bad thing.

My follow up question then is, Accessory structure A is to be retained and then whoever buys lot three would buy that building. Would that building be in the same condition when the lot three is on the market or would it be entirely rehabbed, remodeled or whatever to be a storage building?

I would try and clean it up when selling it. I would try and do an exterior repaint and put a proper roof on it or a new roof on it. And so that's...

If you find the sewer line, it may be in the wrong place for your house.

One way or the other, we're going to be removing that sewer line because that sewer line is getting chased all the way back to lot one. The proposal is that the existing sewer line service is lot one. And so right now it runs across lot two and most of lot three to even get to that building. So we're going to be digging all that up to stop that at lot one. So there won't be sewer back there, there won't be water back there, there won't be power back there. We would try and clean it up and maybe redo the siding, redo the roof, and leave it as a shed building of a storage building, which is what we do that is during construction. the original discussions like I said I wasn't aware that it was over the property line and that was my oversight and I can certainly understand why the inclination is to address that at this time I don't because I wasn't aware of that we didn't look into it in terms of what it would take to get rid of that there might be a way that we can yeah we might be able to remove it but leave the slab and so we're not really disturbing the ground we're not using heavy equipment to do it I don't actually know what the guidelines are, and I would need to refer it to Dan. It's disturbing the ground. If you take the structure away. But if there's still a slab there. The slab, if the slab is existing, we wouldn't be disturbing the ground. You would not be removing the slab at that point. Right. And if we remove the structure but not the slab, does that count as disturbance of the ground?

But it still doesn't overcome the issue of you being able to put an amp over the property line. That is true.

Unless you want to saw cut that off. We could talk about that and donate that amount of concrete to the neighbor. I'm just kidding.

Okay.

That's interesting.

Has there been any discussion with the neighbor about that easement and if they want that? part of their property back? I do not believe there has been any discussion. I believe there is a fence in that corner. And that fence, since they bought the property, that fence said to them is represented the end of their backyard.

Wouldn't it be proper to inform them of the discrepancy?

I mean, I assume when they purchased it, they reviewed their title report that he's been putting up on their title report. The survey that we did was recorded as surveys are, and so that information is all publicly available. It's not anything that we are hiding from anyone.

That property owner would have received the notification of this hearing. So they would have, they should have multiple things. The only other step one could do is literally go out and knock on their door and say, oh, by the way, well, if they're, if If that easement is going to be transferred to lot three, that may require their signature to that. At that point, they would have, I guess that would be a touch point for them that they say, oh, wait a minute, no, I don't want that. They could say, no, I'm not going to grant or continue that easement. And at that point, you would have to make a decision about that particular, and that may turn to that point of saying, okay, we're not going to get the easement, we have to take it out.

I am not an expert on title law. My understanding is that the easement exists. It's a matter of who the beneficiary of that is. And so if that transfers away from this one lot, this one tax lot, the 1467, and becomes six separate lots, that easement has to fall to someone. And so the conditions of approval that I was looking at is that that easement should actually fall to lot three, not fall to lot five on the opposite side of the property.

And lot three, but that easement, it falls to lot three. But OK, so it's granted by- But the easement already exists. It already exists in this grant, so whoever's subsequent, OK, yeah.

Yeah, and so it's been in perpetuity.

It likely wouldn't be. a matter where the owner of the property where the building is crouching onto would have to grant an easement or restate the easement. Because it's already there and that's the thing. A matter at the courthouse of having some clerk or something in the recorder's office or somebody somewhere making sure that that two-foot easement along the 20-foot rear property line of lot 43 in that subdivision would end up showing on the new lot three of this subdivision as a paperwork exercise so that if somebody's going to buy lot three, then there's going to be something somewhere, oh, by the way, you have the right to have this building on the back two feet of the property to the west. I don't know. But I think it's not a matter of that property owner having to say, oh, yeah, OK, I'll grant you a continuation of the easement. The easement already exists, and it may last forever. Just cleaning through the record to reflect the new property size and owner.

They should know so. OK.

OK. Any more questions for the developer? Any more comments from proponents? Can I ask a question?

No? When he sits down. Yeah. OK. Well, we thank you.

If other questions come up, then I have always a chance to have them. OK. Let's go for next up, opponents of this proposal. So do we have anybody that has comments that they are against this?

I'm against it.

OK. I think they might be to the point where they'd either speak now or they would speak under Yeah, that's right. Or even for or against just what our storm was.

I'm thinking for or against, but I'll leave it up to them, whether they want to consider themselves against it or whether they're both for and against it, which would be neither. So I'm against it.

Okay, then let's have you, Linda, come on up then. And because I'm sitting where, if I understand this correctly, the way this is, I would be on lot four about, right?

Your address. Your address, yes.

1512 Washington Street. So 1512 Washington Street. I'm right there. There's three of us. I tried to get my neighbors to come, but I know that the neighborhood makes it over.

This is Ridge and 14th, and then come along here, and you're... Right in there. Yeah, one of those three.

One of those three lots of that. It backs up to my lot. I had... The lot was surveyed. When he mentioned that, well, was anything mentioned to any of us, you know, when I bought the house? No. Nothing was ever mentioned to me about this could possibly happen to me. There has been no signs. Until one morning I wake up, my bedroom sits right there. So if you're building a house up, well, I'll get a nice surprise in the morning. I'll put my shade up. Right, yeah. And know that more it's uh three and four i'm kind of right there and well you're kind of you're kind of you're three and four straddle you see you're literally right there in the middle i have a i had a fence foot in so that's why i know the property line you know and i didn't build it right food the property line but it's still you know your back property line is the elevated

wood, or is it on top of that?

No. Yes. The stake is above her. Yes, it's above me.

So the masonry hall is in your property? Yeah.

And I'm not against progress, don't get me wrong. But to see six houses on that small lot is incredible to me. I mean, you're talking like this. are they going to go up?

Are they going to go out? That is something that the developer would decide, and that is not something that a planning condition, say, anybody like that has a say. All we can do to potential conclusion, all we can do is, if this is approved, all that means is that They can go in there as it sets. If it were to be approved, it sets. They would be able to, we grant you six, you know, they're granted six lots, that's a request, that's approved, meets all land criteria. But what they put on the lot, that's of their choosing. Now, they have to fit when setbacks, as far as building, they have to meet building code. They have to fit setbacks as far as side yard, rear yard, front yard.

I understand all that.

But other than that, it doesn't matter whether it's one story.

How do you find that? I mean, how can I personally, what, I go to the developer? Or I, like I said, I don't really want somebody looking in my bedroom if they go up, if they went lower, you know. Because it's a single family dwelling. But the flooding part has really got me concerned. The way it's going to be where, because like I said, the way the land is set up, the water comes to me.

Well, right. And that's why I was asking some of the questions. Think of it this way. You've got a particular lot there. All the water that falls on it, across it. I can't say anything about that if it crosses it, because whatever crosses, it's going to hit there and it's going to be directed back towards Bridge Street, right? So that's a way. So certain elements of that lot will end up flowing towards Bridge Street. That's the, call it the impervious, all the roofing that goes up, that's going to flow towards it. And it sounds like all of those portions of the lots that are disturbed where things are going to be built on, will also have a generally easterly flow. Now, anything that they don't touch, whatever perimeter they don't touch, whatever direction the rainwater would naturally flow now, that's going to continue to flow the way it is. Now, the question that I can't answer, that they can't answer, the big question mark is, will that amount of water that's being redirected If it's redirected, it's going to be a benefit to you. But how much? Will it be enough that you don't have any flooding? Or will it simply be under some circumstances, you're fine. Under other circumstances, heavy rainfall, what have you. Will you still get something? I would have to guess that you probably might still get something.

Yes, Chip. To put some factual statements into this discussion rather than Yes. The law in Oregon is when you have a property and it's this property, the subject property, is in its presumably natural state. It had an old house and an old garage and they're gone. And what happened in 06, the property to the west was subdivided and apparently there was a little dip that may be where your house is. And As part of that subdivision, they did something to whatever the topography was, and apparently, do you have a retaining wall on your back property line? No, there's nothing.

Do you have a masonry?

No, there's nothing. It's all dirt. There's no retaining wall. No, nothing. So what I put up, that's why I put a fence up, too. So it's like, you're here, and there's dirt.

It's nothing but, yeah, the whole thing. Whatever naturally occurred can continue to naturally occur, and whatever's been going on since 2012, 20 years worth of rain and runoff, this one acre subject property has not changed. What changed was the subdivision lots to the west. And so when this property, the six lot property is developed, whatever amount of rain or runoff has been going to your property, that amount can continue to go because that was the natural condition. But the development cannot cause additional runoff to go to your property. And it sounds like particularly with the street having a slope to the east toward Bridge Street and storm drain pipes. And then when the houses are built, their downspouts will be running out to the curb and that water from the roof area will be going east to Bridge Street. And so hopefully there will be less water running off your direction because it will be going easterly. But even if there isn't a decrease in the amount of runoff, the same amount of runoff that has been going toward your property could continue to go to your property. It just can't increase it. And the developers both said there's a slight downslope on the new public street or private street that he's going to put in so the water will flow to the east and then the downspouts from the house the roof all that water will go out to the street and flow to the east but so the development is still going to be it appears some amount of runoff that will go your way because that's the way the land is sloping it's sloping towards

So if I were to summarize it, Jim, anytime a new subdivision goes in, wherever, any runoff cannot be increased to the surrounding area. It can be equal, but it can't be increased. But depending upon what happens with that subdivision, how it's built, it is entirely okay. If that runoff going outside the perimeter, if some of that runoff is directed in a way that it reduces to the surrounding area, that's legal. You can't make it worse. You can make it better. You are not necessarily required to make it better. But if it turns out that way, it's a bonus for everybody that's around.

Basically, the law, as I understand it, you're better at this than I would be. But if you're making impervious surfaces, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, houses, roofs, streets, all of that water has to be collected and drained into a storm drainage system. It cannot run, collect, and then run into other people's property. So that's basically what they're doing. They've got their plans developed. That's true. of the streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks. All of that water that is now flowing backwards towards you is going to be collected and flowing out to the storm rail system. It may not be all of it.

I'm not asking for anything. The way it floods now without any disturbing of the property.

That's because the water is running down that property. Right there.

And so when I put the fence up, You know, I didn't know that. I bought it in August. So I don't know any. Yeah. Yeah. I should know Oregon. You're already like. It just seems I can just see in some ways I'm real nervous about the disturbing of the property going towards me. You know, when they start building and, you know, you're going to have that. I understand that.

But it sure makes me nervous. There are there are things. could do. You sit elevated above 15th Street. Your home sits elevated above, and I'm assuming your backyard is also elevated above 16th, above 15th Street. You could put an area drain back in where the water collects, use a flexible hose and bring the

I would have to do this. She wouldn't have to be at her expense.

Even if this property, even if the six lot area wasn't proposed for a subdivision, if you've got water running from that property onto your property, then that's the natural flow and that's by law nothing that you can have the one acre owner do to slow or stop that. That's Mother Nature doing it. But what Scott is saying is you may want to consider collecting whatever water ends up in your backyard and piping it out to Washington Street. Because that's your problem. It's not the problem of the property to the east. It's a problem that unfortunately you're brought into.

Not knowing that that was going to be developed. You know, I didn't even worry.

No, what I was saying is that it's already already that issue without the development.

See a bigger issue coming. It's what I'm afraid of.

That's why I think I think the gentleman said that, you know, with with and everybody here is talking is that the building everything. is going to be directed, the impervious services are going to be directed out to bridge, not towards you, but directed out to bridge. And that's going to be the design and engineering. And some of that is a requirement, but it's not directed.

Well, at least I got to say so.

Oh, no, we appreciate it. I would point out that in our mailing list, there's a party at 15 Washington Street that was mailed a notice. if she did not receive, and that would have been, what, three, four weeks ago?

Oh, she got it. That's why she's here. Okay. Yeah. It was just the wrong part of the meeting.

Okay.

Yeah.

We're good. Okay. So we've got, that was O'Connor. So now we have comments from anyone that falls in the category of neither for nor against. Okay, so we have that piece of it satisfied since I hear no comments for or against. Okay.

Any chance for rebuttal?

Any, any, any... I was going to say, I believe the applicant gets to... Applicant, you have a chance to provide any kind of rebuttal.

After all the testimony, the applicant always gets rebuttal.

I think most of you covered what my understanding is, is that the Oregon follows the modified civil rule, and that is the existing drainage is the existing natural drainage, and a lower property owner has a legal servitude to accept that natural drainage from the upper property in the natural state. I know that as a property owner throughout development, I'm not able to change the location of discharge points or redirect water from one drainage area to another, or collect water that we normally infiltrate and then discharge it differently, or substantially accelerate or concentrate that flow. But as we've heard, it sounds like the slope is already on our property. And so that is the natural drainage that is there. And the key point is the existing drainage is the baseline. Correct. And yes, certainly during construction, we do what we can. That's what the erosion control is in place for, to minimize where water might flow during construction, because that's always a concern. That's when you get sediment-filled water. But that is why we want to push through this to be able to do that work during the summer and not deal with the rain and be done before the rain's return in terms of the hard-scale development. And so at that point, we are... grassing over surfaces that were otherwise turned into mud and whatnot, or otherwise turned to dirt, I should say, before they have a chance to turn to mud. And the sediment fence as part of our erosion control is to prevent any sediment that is in the water that is flowing that direction would be arrested at the edge of the property, or actually 10, 15 feet back from the edge of the property, I believe. And so that all that would be would be clean water, which is what is currently Yeah, I don't know that I have anything more to say about that.

There weren't necessarily other concerns I was addressing. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. At this point, do we want to close the hearing?

Let me comment with this being quite a judicial process. Once you close the hearing, what do we want? We would be deliberating based on all the information that's in the record. You wouldn't be able to ask a question and get an answer if it's new information. If you have questions or wonderings, now is the time to ask. I will close the hearing minute at this point.

Do we have any questions that you need to have asked, addressed, commented on?

I mean, it's not a concrete wall. Close the hearing, and during deliberation, you find out that, oh, yeah, we really want to know more about this. Then you can pass a motion, reopen the hearing, and ask the question, get the answer, and then close the hearing and go back into deliberation. Do we need to make a motion to close the hearing? No. Chair, typically, would you say any other questions? OK. Hearing none, I, the Chair, close the hearing just as he did to open the hearing.

OK. OK. So any questions? No more questions. No more questions. OK. John?

None here. John? No questions from John.

No question from John, no question from Sean. Okay, then at this point, I will close the hearing. And then it's up to us to deliberate and contemplate this.

I think any decisions regarding that Building A kind of move is it's existing. The easement's created, it's grandfathered in for existence, as long as they're not making any improvements to it, to make it a dwelling unit, there's nothing I think we have to say about it.

Yes, as long as it stays within the conditions of approval that are already outlined.

I don't think we have much that we can say. Sean? Any comments?

Stan. Stan. Scott.

Stan.

Stan. Trying to read a name tag for this. Stan. Stan. Scott. Stan. Scott. Steve. Steve. Where did the S's come from? Okay. So no comments, no concerns. Okay. Everything has been answered. David. Same. John, anything out there in your world that you have questions, comments, concerns about?

um no no it's all been answered to my to my ears okay so no no further deliberation okay what what do we want to do with this then gentlemen i moved planning commission approved the application in the findings and conditions contained in the staff report and direct staff chair of Planning Commission Board of Groups for the Planning Commission chairperson's signatures based on the decision of the Planning Commission. I second.

Okay. Amanda, roll call vote.

Commissioner Chair Kerr?

Aye.

Commissioner of the Vice Chair Building?

Aye.

Commissioner Maiola?

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers?

Aye.

Commissioner Adamson?

Aye.

Commissioner Kosmicki?

Aye.

Motion passed. OK. That concludes that piece of business. I would like to thank everyone for participating. And I would appreciate your comments and feedback. Thank you very much for coming. And yes, I would definitely want to try to take into account concerns as much as Possible. OK.

I don't know. It may turn out a lot better for them to realize. Commissioner, at this point, hearing is over, closed. We'll get that.

We'll have the paperwork for me when it's ready. It's ready. Okay.

And because we had testimony tonight, actually, we had a the mechanics of getting a planning commission order to the chair to sign. We had that tonight. If there had been no one here to testify, And no changes. Then we could have given the planning commission order to Ron to sign. Tomorrow, the city administrator could do the testing and that the decision would be done. Tomorrow, we'd be able to send out the notice of the decision to the applicant. But we won't be able to have the order signed tonight. in an expeditious manner because people testified. So the staff reporter, pardon me, the planning commission order will need to say the party testified, who they were, where they lived, and what their concerns were. And then there will need to be the response by the planning commission to those concerns. And basically it was, The applicant is testified tonight and the plans show things are generally going to overall water runoff will be going to the east. And yes, there may still be water going into her backyard, but that's the natural condition. Hopefully with the roof runoff and the street runoff and all that going to the east, there will be just simply less water to flow into her backyard. And that is how you deal with testimony, and the Planning Commission has to say, okay, we've heard it, we understand it, what are we going to do about it? Okay, that's what you did. And so that will be a new finding in the section of the order about the Planning Commission held a hearing.

Okay, so you just, you have to make some additions to the order, so take a day or two or three and you'll have it done.

And then we'll go out to the applicant and then also from the justified.

Yeah, okay. So, you know, I guess hopefully tomorrow, Ron, we'll have the revised planning commission order available for you to sign if you're able to come in. Yeah, I can come in and say late in the afternoon. Again, because they established standing, the word standing means they were here and they said what was on their mind, and they will get a copy of the notice of the decision. It's just a three-page summary, a little bit of information on the front about what the case is and where and who, and then that And then what happened? Well, what happened is the Planning Commission approved the subdivision subject to conditions, and all the 24 conditions will be listed. And at the very end, there's a section about appeal process. And if we can get this out tomorrow, the 15-day appeal period would end on Saturday, June 6. But because that's a day the City Hall is not open, It carries over to the next day when the City Hall is open, and that would be Monday, June 8. And if they're going to appeal and have the council call the hearing and review, then they would need to get their appeal in later than 4 p.m. on Monday, June 8.

So does that mean then that the applicant has to hold off on any work until that appeal process is through.

Well, they don't have to. They can at their own risk have their engineer do some more engineered plans or whatever. But it's one of those things where I've mentioned before the term due process in the Constitution. Well, that's what we're doing is affording a party the opportunity to participate in a process. And if that process results in a decision they don't like, they get the opportunity to appeal because they established standing. And they could appeal to the council. And if the council, say, upholds the planning commission decision, i.e. makes no change, then they could appeal the council decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. And that's why in the oral statement, It talks about if you've got a problem, you've got to mention it tonight, get it in the record, because you can't appeal based on something that you never talked about. If you've got to burn your bottom, let us know. And that way, the commission can decide to agree or not agree. But similarly, in these next 15 days, if the applicant ends up with a problem with who knows, one of the conditions of approval, they could appeal to the council.

The applicant can also take his own efforts and go to the person who testified and make whatever agreement they may make to satisfy that person.

Yes. Yeah, it's the size of the sector. They can do whatever side agreements they want.

It was already, she'd already commented that, you know, found out over the wintertime that water was an issue just the way things are.

So, okay, Mother Nature, whoops. That's what happened.

Yeah. I would venture to say that her property slopes down to the back.

That whole piece of property comes from where the Building A is. It's actually... Just beyond that, there's a retaining wall for a couple of houses. Yeah. And then it does slope from that block into the single-wise that were built along 15th Street there.

OK. Commissioner, a comment? The salinity is dealing with something that happened 20 years ago. And so. Maybe much longer than that. Well, whoever the prior owner is probably got tired of having the backyard flooded in the wintertime. I think that's something we should have done in the 1990s.

Guys, we're starting off this. I'm trying to move on to the commissioner comments. I know Jim has something he wants to tell us in a minute.

Oh, yeah. One thing, though. Stan?

A couple thousand are going to be two-story.

Well, thanks.

I would like to once again bring up, we did the mobile units. I forgot. And that was approved through city council and it's now law. But I think the first calls we've gotten On a mobile food units and they're talking about this remedy wanting to talk about pods.

Yes, we have had people ask about having What what we would consider a pod.

Oh, so it's gone. They're not just I'm interested in food car. They are, but they weren't out. We're interested in putting X number of those girls. So first call for now for

People aren't even wanting to.

Well, and I think as word gets out, maybe more people will be open to one, but everyone who was kind of waiting for there to be rules was thinking about actually developing.

They're thinking about more. Okay, so that gives us a flavor. So as you would.

Is it, is it, is it, it takes eight to 10 months for some process of developing rules, rights, and the five days is longer than that because of the restaurant aspects of the, for development. Jim, is this the time? Should we or could we now start going after developing the rules and regs and zoning laws regarding who can pot and adopt that?

Well, potentially. I guess I don't get to make the call on who get the city you know, gets involved and spends time on what kind of applications and things, but it might be because we're people here at the city are dealing with the housing capacity analysis, the little land inventory work that the Winterbrook consultant firm is doing, and also we've got the transportation system planned. I'm not sure what's going on with that. Is that still at dlcd having them review the contract or something that's the last i heard or maybe they got the contract but we haven't heard the scope i haven't been in on the tsp i'm only yeah i haven't heard anything about what's going on with tsp but anyway that's being worked on so at some point the actual work will start but uh

Where did this guy want to put these food carts at anyway?

I was only out here for one meeting before. You guys got to know.

There have been a couple. The planner answer is all those red squares up there are C1 zone. Anybody that can work with a property owner, any of those red squares can have a food cart on their property. provided the food card standards are met.

And that's what we spent most of last year developing. What are they going to use? Well, there are actually rules. Is everyone going to be calling and go pick it up and leave? No, no, no. There's actually rules requiring we have to provide some practice.

So my advice to them has been, how about you start with up to three?

Exactly. See how it goes.

See if it's worth the investment. That's what I mean.

It was time to go through the process and develop the rules regarding a pod. Have you been to a pod in McMinnville? That's $34,000. I don't know. The pod is there.

Yeah, I know. My feeling is that Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's see if this is successful because we developed these for the rules for a pod. And then this isn't successful. We've wasted a lot of time. So I just want to see what we've gone through.

But just bringing it, just keeping it. Just keeping it in the back of our mind is a good thing.

So we've got other things.

What's the natural progression?

Let the progression go. But I also understand where Scott's going. Let the progression go. But instead of waiting until you absolutely need to move, be at that point and watch for that trigger point that says, ah, no, we need to jump on it as opposed to waiting another six months. something like that. So we'll just, I guess, as the saying goes, keep the finger on the pulse of what's happening on the inquiries.

Are you doing my typical thing? I know.

You are doing your thing. You're Scott Commissioner. Okay. David, anything? John, me all day.

No, I'm all good. Thank you.

So, okay. So nothing from your end. Okay. And then Jim, what's your big news?

Well, the big news is we're having a bit of a handle for the table, I guess, here. I am going to be continuing working with the city, but it'll be on long-range planning things, such as the housing capacity analysis and buildable land inventory work. And when we finally get to doing the work on the transportation system plan, I'll be involved with that. but for the day-to-day so-called things, the applications that come in for development, whether it's a site development review for a 60, 70 unit apartment project or 50 or 60 townhouses or a subdivision or partition, any of that stuff. Another planner at the COG, Holly Byram, is going to be the, I guess you could say the regular planner for the city. And she and Amanda will be doing the, with whatever applications come in and whenever there's issues related to the enforcement officer finding whatever and it's a zoning thing then Amanda and Holly will be advising the enforcement officers to what the zone code regulations are and any other kind of just regular questions that pop up or people come in and say I want to do X can I do it Amanda will be handling those more and more as she gets used to what the Lafayette zoning and development ordinance says and how it says it. So anyway, that's my big news and I'll be back, but I'm not sure just when, I guess for the housing capacity analysis and buildable land inventory, that work has to be done. At the local level though done done you know adopted by the end of March next year so preceding the end of March, then I don't know when exactly. March excuse me January or February there'd be a planning Commission hearing, it would be legislative because it's not about a development, a specific property it's about housing for the whole city. And then the next step would be a city council hearing. And then they pass an ordinance. So depending on how the process works out, who knows? Maybe we'll be ready to have a planning commission hearing in probably not November, but possibly December. But then certainly in January, so the council can have a hearing in February. And that'll leave an extra month. If the Planning Commission wants to continue your hearing before you pass a motion recommending the City Council approve or deny or whatever, or it would give the Council the opportunity to continue their hearing and still get it all done by the end of March.

Actually, there was one meeting this week Wednesday, and we missed it. There's two more meetings, one in August. and the final of December.

Yeah, there's a committee. Well, just the city staff and myself and the Winterbrook consulting firm people. We're having meetings soon. And then today, oh, yesterday was the first planning advisory committee meeting, which has Scott on it and a couple of people from the community. And well, thank you, Steve. I'm not sure who else. Is there a city councilor on the committee? I don't think so. Anyway. I haven't met the people on the committee that weren't there. It's kind of a policy committee to help guide the process and to provide some comments and direction on what's going on and what needs to go on as the process goes down month by month. So we'll see how it all plays out. And as Scott just mentioned, there's two more meetings of the PAC, the Policy Advisory Committee. And I guess you said the third one is scheduled in December? SCOTT BARRETT JR.: December. I think the second week of December. OK. So that then might lead to the Planning Commission hearing in January.

SCOTT BARRETT JR.: OK. OK.

I have a question. Yes. What's the next meeting for us?

Next meeting, June 18th. You're sure? At least according to this. Now, that depends. If nothing comes up, then there won't be a meeting. I anticipate.

We're on the email list. So you're anticipating. So we're going to send you an email. Do you have a city email? Do I what?

Have a city email. Oh, he does, but he's had some trouble accessing it. So we will be working on that. Okay. Where can I get that set up on his phone?

I can go back and look at mine too.

But I am anticipating an application. Okay. But so as of now, I would say, yeah, it has one June 18th. And then obviously we'll let you know if that doesn't come in in time and we're not ready to present.

Okay. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn. I second.

Amanda, roll vote.

Commissioner Chair Kerr. Aye. Vice Chair Building. Aye. Commissioner Mayola.

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers. Aye. Commissioner Adamson. Aye. Commissioner Kosmicki.

Meeting adjourned. Gentlemen, thank you. Thanks, John.

Thanks, everybody. Take care. Okay, so. Okay, so. Okay, so.