Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh, he would Yeah, it's Let's call the meeting of the 11 planning commission to order and be standing for a flag salute. Please allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And Kelly, would you call the role, please? Yes. Uh, Commissioner Thompson. Commissioner Malloy. Technology is my friend today. Commissioner Baxter. Commissioner Miller here. Uh, Commissioner Fountain here, Commissioners Angel Ford and Bashers are absent, vice chair Garrett Kunarowski here, and Chair Robertson here. So, I think everybody or I hope everybody's had a chance to review the

minutes from February 19th. Uh, any corrections, additions, subtractions, anything we need to change? Sir hearing none then the minutes as presented will stand approved. And with that ready. In a moment we'll talk about the procedures. You want me to not? We have two public hearings tonight. way too fast through the minutes and stuff. I didn't want Quit looking at me like that. I apologize to everybody, but my iPad is not hooking up. read them off the wall if I can see them. Probably do from memory. Uh, pretty close, but there's enough people here where

I would Bear with me everyone. I am very close. I promise. All right. Thank you for your patience. Tonight's hearing will be pursuant to the quaset judicial hearing procedure set out in 1977. At the start of the hearing, council members will be asked to disclose any exart communications, conflict of interest or bias. B applicable uh sub substantive criteria for this hearing will be addressed in the staff report. Testimony being may be in oral or written form but must be directed towards the criteria outlined in the staff report, the uh comprehensive plan or the city's land use regulations. Any issue raised must be accompanied by statements and evidence sufficient to allow the this commission and party me and party members an opportunity to respond. Please note the fail to raise an issue including constitutional issues by the close of the hearing will prevent any appeal to the Landis Board of Appeals. It was worth the wait. Okay. Thank you. So with that then we will open public hearing AR-25-02 along with variance-25-2. Ask the planning commission if there's any expert contact conflict of interest or bias that needs to be disclosed. mention that I do this agenda on the on one of the agenda items this evening

is that to this public hearing for the administrative review and the variance well yes on the for the AR-25-02 okay all right we good question I would have asked you All right, then we'll turn it over to staff for staff report. Okay. Uh so, good evening. Before you tonight is a proposed administrative review application and a variance application. Um the administrative review application is to allow for a three-unit multifamily development on the property at 10008 Hyatt Street and the variance applications are to allow for that development to occur within what are the existing structures that are on the site basically. Um so the property is zoned residential high density. Um, if you all remember a couple of months ago, um, this property along with the the block came before the city count, uh, the screen didn't work. Um, came before the planning commission and city council with the request to upzone this block to residential high density as well. Um surrounding the properties to the north and the east are zones of are the lowdensity residential zone with um single unit dwellings and to the south and the west are a mix of residential dwelling types with fourunit dwellings uh duplexes and single unit dwellings as well. Um and there are public uh facilities uh in Oak Street and Hyatt Street that already service the property. Um so for the proposal itself um basic easy the development already exists um it is a single family home um that's

existing um with a accessory building um that consists of two single unit garages and above the single unit garages uh exists an accessory dwelling unit currently And then above the other garage is an open storage area. Um and so what is being proposed is to convert that open storage unit um into a a studio apartment. Um and so it's basically an infill development um to convert that uh storage area to that in that uh studio apartment. Um, so that building was built as an accessory structure. Um, it met all of the standards for an accessory structure at the time that it was built. Um, and now it is being proposed to be converted to the equivalent of primary dwelling units as part of a a multi-unit development. Um, and so that's why it doesn't meet the the traditional standards for setbacks. um and the and the traditional development of of as if it were built um as as just a scraped piece of land basically. So um they're they're trying to maximize the use of the property with the existing structures that are there. Um and so to be able to make that work um the proposal is for three variances. um the the property just barely doesn't meet the the size criteria for the three the three units. Um and and so they're proposing for a variance of the minimum lot area. Um it doesn't meet the setback requirement for the rear lot. Um and so you have um Hyatt Street being the um

front setback with um the alleyway on the west side of the property being the rear setback. Um and as I said that that previously met the setback requirements for an accessory dwelling unit and accessory structure. Um traditional setbacks for a um multi-unit development is 20 ft. Um it is currently 10 feet but to create the access um for a dwelling unit it'll have to be reduced down to seven or six feet. Um so that is another variance request. Um and then um right now it meets the vehicle maneuvering standard requirements for a single family home or an accessory structure that allows you to back up onto a public street. But once you exceed that that unit count of two, um you have the requirement of it having vehicular circulation to where you don't back up onto a street. Um but it's been developed that way. Um and so they're asking for that that exemption um from the code for that standard. Um we have provided as part of the um staff report uh the applicant ha has written um a requests for the findings for the variances um and uh the outside of the variances the application meets the the standards for the administrative review. Um and so I um conclude my staff report with that information. Um it meets all the other standards um for open space and for parking uh to to meet the requirements for a multi-unit three unit uh development. So I'll conclude there answer any questions you might

have. hearing none. You ready to move on? Okay. Then we will open the public testimony portion of our hearing. Uh invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to come forward. Sign in. State your name, please. Good evening. My name is Laura Lorac with Pathfinder Land Use Consulting and I'm here representing the applicants, Christa and Harry Wallace. Um, so as staff mentioned, you have two applications before you. The first one is an administrative review to add a third dwelling unit to a lot that already has two dwelling units on it. Uh, included in that is some variance requested. As Kelly mentioned, the structure is already existing. Um, as soon as you build a third unit opposed to an accessory dwelling unit, the setback increases from what was required when the building was constructed, which was 10 ft to a minimum of 20. Um, this setback reduction is being requested because the building is already there. Um, the hardship or kind of the unique situation for this property is that the setback reduction, the side or along the property where the building is constructed is an alleyway. The alleyway is unapproved. Um does not serve any access. There's no driveway. It just looks like grass. So although the setback would be reduced, it's not bordering an abuing property. Um in this instance, um the lot itself is just a couple hundred square feet less than what the minimum average um required for. No lot line adjustments or anything are proposed with this application. Uh the third standard comes into reducing backward movements from a a traditional multifamily development. Um so on this

one it's in a residential neighborhood that's primarily single family. All of the driveways that serve the homes um in the neighborhood back into this local low volume road. Um as with um with this site um usually that non-backing movement restriction comes into a multifamily that's you know a higher number of units that will have more trips out to a street and and create a kind of a higher safety concern. Um but this one would not generate the trips of those larger scale multif family developments. Um and then the unit itself there's a single family home estimated about 1,300 square f feet. the existing accessory dwelling um that's next to the units proposed about 500 square feet or 480 and the unit um that would be the interior finish for this third unit is also 480 ft. So although there's three units they're quite small in size. Um and if you were to drive by it you probably wouldn't tell there's three. You would see an existing single family home. You'd see a garage with a second story um that has some living space up there. So, it's a good infill development and that missing middle that Lebanon has talked a lot about lately. With that, I'll conclude my presentation and answer any questions that you might have. Any questions for Laura? Okay. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Do we have anybody with us that wishes to speak in opposition of the application? Okay, seeing no movement, then we will close the public testimony and all further discussion will be amongst staff and planning

commissioners. So, Kelly, I guess a theoretical Under the proposed new code changes, would these applications even be necessary? And I'm not suggesting they do or any changes divisions or Yes, because our new code changes don't impact um multifamily um triplexes, uh apartments, which this falls under. But the lot's big enough that actually could be divided under the new changes and that would take the multifamily element out. So I guess what I'm getting at is if this came up under a little bit different circumstances, it wouldn't even be in front of us. So yeah, in theory, yes. So there there's lots of different ways that we we we tried to look at the lot rights. Um you you could divide it right now and and make you know the the concept or the thought process of doing like the the zero lot line single family home with an accessory dwelling unit attached sort of thing, right? Um, but it's the the the setbacks that of the accessory dwelling unit itself that no matter how you parse it out or how you orient it, just can't meet those those standards basically. So you're you're still going to get stuck doing variances, but that's kind of why you have the variances is for these kinds of situations, right? where you have existing structures that they're they're trying to to maximize the use of existing structures, which is fantastic. Um, but they don't quite fit within the traditional caliber of a

zoning standards that are intended for if somebody was just building new basically. Um and but theoretically like our new zoning standards provides lots of different um flexibilities that that in theory something could have worked differently. Okay. Right. Any other questions? Just out of curiosity. Nothing. And and that was actually one of the things that we did talk to the the applicants about. But um it it would require the applicant to get the property owners to on either side of the property to agree to to give up use of the alley, right? Um the city doesn't have any use of the alley. It's not an improved alley. There's no utilities there. We we actually went through the process of looking to identify whether or not there was any laterals or or any use there. Um, but it would require all of the property owners to agree to to give up that alley and then parse it off to the different property owners. Um, but even with giving up that alley, like for example, you would still have to apply for a class two variance, not a class three variance for the property size. Um, because it still is not quite there. Um but you know it it's it would still be that option if they wanted to pursue that in the future. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments, questions. Do you feel that the criteria has been met? And is anybody prepared to make a motion?

I move that the planning commission approve the proposed administrative review and variance AR-25-02 and variance uh sorry V-25-02 adopting the written findings contained in the staff report with the development conditions and direct staff to draft an order of decision incorporating the findings and conditions of approval. Second. Okay, it's been motioned and seconded. Any further discussion? Then all those in favor of the motion please say I. I. And opposed. Same sign or nay. Uh then in that case it passes unanimously and thank you. All right with that then uh to move on to our second public hearing. Uh that is planning file A-25-01. Uh same different isn't it? No. Same procedures set out in 1977 797. Okay. Um testimony may be in oral or written form but must be directed towards that criteria outlined in a staff report comprehensive plan of the city's land use regulations. Any issue must be raised must be accompanied by statements and evidence sufficient to allow this commission and and the parties an opportunity to respond. Please note that failure to raise an issue including a constitutional issue by the close of the hearing will prevent any appeal to the land use board of appeals. You may ask if there is any conflict of interest or bias exarty communications or bias. Okay. Is there any expert conflict of interest or bias? Again, we're talking about an annexation request. Okay? Seeing none, we'll turn it over to staff then. Okay. Uh so before you today is a proposal from the city of Lebanon to annex five different uh sorry six different street

segments um within the urban growth boundary into the city limits. Um so the street segments include a portion of Crowoot Road, a portion of Keys Street, portion of Wom Street and three different segments of Stoultz Hill Road. Um I want to be very clear that these are only right-of-way segments. Um this is not anybody's private property. Um the city is not um forcing annexation of anybody's private property. There is no requirement of anybody upon this action to annex into the city if they do not want to. Um, this action is simply a a cleaning up of boundary lines of city limits um and allowing us to to have right-of-way jurisdiction um for um police actions um and enforcement of the police departments and for us to be able to um work with our engineering department on projects if we so need to do so. Um so it is a a simple um cleaning up of boundary lines of of right of way only. Um that is literally the scope of the action tonight. Um and it's for for the five segments um that you can see on the um the screen. Sorry for the people who can't really see it in the the audience. Um but it's also in our packet. Um and so we have uh provided uh the findings in the staff report for the justification for the variance. Um we did receive two written comments um for um the application um which I provided before the planning commission and then I also provided for the public if they wanted to review them

over there. Um one of them asks a whole lot of wonderful questions. Mhm. Um, and it's a lot of questions related to if their property were to annex, then what's the process and and costs of utilities and all that kind of stuff. Um, and so it it's a bit outside of the scope of of this process and procedure. So, um, the person who has submitted this public comment is in the audience tonight. So, I did have a chance to um have a quick discussion with them before the meeting and and we'll have a follow-up conversation with them um and discuss the process and potential of if if they wanted to annex into the city in the future, what that would look like and and development procedures. But um there is a question about will a speed limit change after annexation. An annexation process does not change speed limits. There is no correlation between those two. Um, after annexation, will the person be required to annex into the city? Absolutely not. Our process of annexation of these streets has no bearing on their responsibility to annex or it has no bearing on them to do any annexation of their property whatsoever. Um, trying to see if there's any other things. Um eventually if somebody if there are utilities in the street or improved in the streets in the future and the properties want to connect to the city's uh utilities um they would then be eligible to annex uh because the street is then part of the city limits. So they would then be able to annex into the city. [Music] Um, and then there there's questions about whether or not there's uh improvements associated with the street itself associated with these annexations. Um, the annexations don't directly correlate with improvements to the street segments or anything like

that. So, um, all other types of questions um are are kind of directly related to um if they wanted to do improvements to their property and that kind of thing. So, I I would suggest we have additional questions. um directed offline. Um the second uh comment is um and I strongly strongly oppose the the annexation. Um as the they do not want to be annexed into the city um and I think I' I've addressed that that this action has no bearing on private property being annexed into the city whatsoever. So um with that I will conclude my report and myself and Ron are available to answer any questions. Okay. So, pretty much I think anybody within the closest proximity is going to respond um to to an emergency. Um and and then they're they're they will figure out the the jurisdiction and and take care of it from there. Yes. But like if there's a parking issue, um the city will then be able to address a parking issue where right now we may not be able to because it would be under county jurisdiction. So there's a difference between emergency enforcement versus nuisance enforcement. Virginia. I'm still a little confused about the engineering jurisdiction and the road.

So when I read this and in discussing I understood it was primarily for um police services etc. But when you're talking what I heard was um engineering also. So my question is, does this increase the area of maintenance for our um city public works? And if so, have they bought into that? They're able to take that into the system. Yes, I do. So yes, the answer to your question is yes, it does. It will impact um we will have more maintenance to do. I think if you look at those streets now, if you look at how they're built out now, there's been multiple developments on like I'll take Keys and Wasam Street for example where we're doing little half streets at a time. And so you get this annex property that's that's in the city. So the city reviews it. It's a county road, the county reviews it. So we're we're doing multiple reviews and it gets really confusing. multiple permits and these are all roadways within our UGB and are building out in city standard. So, one of the ways to fasttrack development or if somebody wants to develop is to have it go through one permitting agency. So, that's why we do that. It's intended for it to become city limits. So, the extra maintenance, I mean, that's that's a fact of life. I mean, that's that's just the way that's going to go. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Well, and I assume you as city engineering also still are in agreement with this that I don't want to accidentally put a huge burden on another city department because this looks like a good idea to me. But we we actually the ones that proposed it. It came out of our office. Okay. Yeah. In that case, they're forcing me to do this.

Thanks. All right. Any other questions? Ron, there are no planned improvements on those roads access. Okay. Okay. Then with that, we will open the public testimony portion of our hearing. And anybody with us this evening that wishes to speak in favor of the application, please come forward, sign in, state your name, please. Seeing no movement, then we will open it up to those in opposition of the application. Come forward, sign in, state your name, please. My name is Pure Boss. I live at Key Street and as I'm listening to the different things what are being said uh I I like to clear something up when we purchased the place we wanted to be outside the city limits our own well our own septic what I'm hearing is like we're kind of being set up so that ultimately we will be forced to become a part of the city limits and Am I hearing it right? No, sir. So, at no point in time will the city force you to annex your property. The your property is within the urban growth boundary. Um so there will be development occurring around you. Um but at no point in time will the city come and tell you you shall annex your property. So ultimately it won't tax change our tax status. No. So so

really the only time that that we would do I don't even call it a forest annexation when we extend utilities. Let's say you had a septic system that failed and you needed to have city utilities at that time. You would be required to annex into the city if you had to have services from the city. But beyond that, no. So what I'm hearing is when my septic or my well would have a problem, I will be forced to get the city stuff. If if you need our services, we wouldn't need or suppose I can just fix my septic or my well. If you can do that, then you don't have to annex. Yeah, that's that's that's not it's it's only when you need our services then then I would like I just want to make sure we're staying 100% 100% independent from the city and Ron if I'm not if I'm not mistaken that's a state law not just a Lebanon law right so so Lynn County and and the department of environmental quality so if you're within 300 feet of a sewer a sewer main typically they would require you to extend that main and connect to it they won't issue do any new renewal permits or repair permits, but that's something you have to work through with Lind County. The only time that you would be forced to annex with us is if you wanted to extend utilities because you needed those utilities or if you wanted to redevelop those that would be the only time that we'd say, "Hey, guess what? Annex now because you're using our utilities." Okay. Well, that's short of that. No, that's what I wanted to know. Thank you. And the urban growth boundary delineates the extent of the city of where it can grow at this point. It doesn't mean that it has to grow there or it doesn't mean that we're going to force anybody to annex to there, but it's the limit of where the city can grow to at this point. Well, I am not an American, so I I need to read between the lines as many of you guys are saying stuff between the

lines, too. And I just want to make sure I'm not missing it. No, I don't like surprises. So, I don't ever see the lines, so I don't know. So, for what it's worth, I've been sitting here for 25 years or actually more than 25 years. We have never forced an annexation ever. We've had situations like Trey was just talking about where the septic failed and they were within 300 ft of the sewer line. Uh, and but even then, uh, it was their choice. If they could come up with some other fix, they could, but we didn't force it. So the annexing these streets would have zero impact uh to your property. In fact, in the long term, it could be a benefit. I I just want to clear it up. We, my wife and I, we went to Salem uh to one of their meetings as they are trying to do something with water wells and septics. And when we went there, we were pretty much railroaded by the people who were there. The mind their minds were already made up what they were going to do. They were there was a total disrespect for the people who were there. We they were not heard. They were not allowed to fulfill their statements. And I just want to make sure that not the same thing is going to happen right here. And I'm saying that for myself, for ourselves, as for other people in our neighborhood. So, right. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. Is there anybody else wishing to speak in opposition of the application? Come forward. State your name, please. Manda Pinter, and I live on Crowoot. And I basically just had like a lot of questions. I was the one that submitted all the questions that were out of the

scope. But um my question is like what is the benefit for the city of Lebanon to annex in you know I don't know about other roads but that section of Krofut what is a benefit to Lebanon to annex that into the city other than when the development gets built or whatever if that's approved which it is I think um is it for city services for police and fire. When utilities do come down, obviously that's going to put an extra strain on the city. So what is our benefit on why we want to annex in the right of way is my question. So so the annexation that you're talking about on Crowoot there is is basically due to the development that's happening, right? So we worked out a deal. So, we'll do a road transfer agreement with Lynn County and we will take jurisdiction of that section of Crowoot Road because it's going to be the front of it, the the one side of it is going to be built out into city standard street. So, curb gutter, sidewalk, and those things. So, again, same concept. Let's say you want to develop on your side, then you're only dealing with the city. But if I don't have jurisdiction of the roadway, but your property is annexed, right? then you're you're dealing not only with the city on that, you're also dealing with Lane County. So these roads as as as they begin to develop and and developments happen, they're intended to be city standard. So we look at it as okay, this is this is developing here. We need to clean this up. What we're getting into and why we're trying to do this, we've got sections where this is 100 foot in the county. We got 200 foot in the city and then we might have 200 foot over

here again in the county. Makes it really hard, not necessarily for emergency because emergency they're going to respond. What it makes it hard for is for maintenance. So, uh, Lynn County and the city of Lebanon will argue, well, no, that's yours. That's yours. And and this way it just kind of cleans that up a little bit so that we all know who's who's got jurisdiction of what. So, that's the real reason that we're doing that. Yeah. Um, and I can understand that part, but my other question was, would there be, like you said, a full street improvement, sidewalk, curb, and gutter just on one side of that section, or would that come all the way from where we stopped the utilities on Hill View down to that new development? It it's it's just going to be in front of the development. They will they're required to build everything across their frontage. So they will build the curb gutter sidewalk across their frontage and then if you wanted to build or somebody on the north side of Crowoot wanted to build then they would be required to do the same thing. Right. So it truly is just uh our city responsibility just the 2,00 not the utilities in between which is the other roads. So I guess the maintenance on the utilities between Hillview and that section in front of the development is that on the de developer to put in. Yes. Okay. Okay. And then we're just on the hook for just that short section due to road. Okay. That Yeah, that's what my question is like. I know we got to connect, but yeah, they're required to put all the utilities in and we actually have jurisdiction from it does it cleans this up. It just instead of these pockets where you've got uh two agencies with jurisdiction,

it just it cleans it up. It's inside our UGB and it's fully intended to become city standard street. Yeah. Because um to answer somebody had the question like when you call 911 who comes I live right there and um it's whoever is closest and I had a phone call and like five showed up and I was like I really appreciate that. And I told her I was like it's not like no one's bleeding, no one's hurt. I just need someone to come check out, you know, a thing. And it there was plenty of response from county and city. So I think um that's all I had. And um and I think she uh answered my question and it might not pertain to this meeting when they were going to start the extension of the utilities down to the part that where you want to annex. I think she said a year to a year and a half. So So they're starting soon on the utilities. Yeah, that's what I want to know because um at the last meeting where it stopped at Hillview um I believe it wasn't in the budget to extend it further past that, right? Um I was wondering, you know, the budget looking forward on when it was going to, you know, get down to that front of that development. So they're they're they're required to extend those. So from where we left off where you're talking about there at Hillview, they're required to extend those utilities. So it could be as soon as they want to. Yes. So it'll be done within a year or so. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. Yeah. I was

just um you know because like the bigger picture I'm interested in uh city utilities and it's like you know should I plan for that right now or like next summer is basically what my question was just so I can plan a good conversation to have if you want to come in and we can sit down and talk through that uh for sure and we can we can walk you through that on for sure. Okay, I think that I appreciate it though. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing no movement, then we will close the public testimony portion and all further discussion will be amongst planning commissioners and staff. So, any concerns, any questions, any thoughts? Do you feel the criteria has been met? Okay. Anybody prepared for a motion? I move that the planning commission approve the administrative review and variance for AR-25-0. Oh, wrong one. Oh, I'm sorry. Flip it over. Approval. Well, I move that the planning commission recommend the approval of the annexation for A-25-01 to the city council based on the written findings in the staff report with the modified. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay, it's been motioned and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say I. I. And those opposed, please say nay. Motion carries unanimously. All right. I want to thank you all for being here tonight. I'm glad you had questions and I'm glad we got it cleared up. All right, moving on to other business. Uh, is there anybody

with us tonight that wishes to address the planning commission on an item that is not on the agenda? Seeing none, then we will move on to commission business and comments. We will move on to chair and vice chair nominee. Oh yeah, that part too. Uh okay. So as per our um municipal code that thing um every April meeting we are supposed to nominate and reaffirm a chair and vice chair. Um so I have given you guys the order of operations of what we're supposed to do. Um and so I take the lead on the first part. I will open up the nominations for chair. Um and uh anybody can nominate whoever they would like. Uh we can accept multiple nominations and then if there are multiple nominations, well you guys can have whatever speeches you want. Um and uh we can go from there. Um, per the municipal code, we can have the chair and vice chair serve in their position um for a total of four consecutive years. Um, I did look at it. Don and Lori have been serving in their positions for three years. So, uh, if you all wanted to, they can maintain in their positions as they are, um, for for uh, one more year um, without making any changes if that was an option you wanted to pursue. or y'all can switch it up, whatever you want to do. So, um I will open up the nomination for chair. Once you guys vote on chair, I will turn it over to the new chair or the old chair or whoever the chair is going to be. Um and they will vote uh do the nominations for the vice chair. So, with that, I open up the nominations for the chair of the planning commission. No, I would

nominate Don to continue for one more year if he is [Laughter] Are there any gonna be Are there any other nominations for chair? Seeing none. Yeah, Don. It's a good thing we're on a railroad. [Laughter] Seeing none, Don, you're the chair now. You can do vice chair. All right, nominations are open for vice chair. Like to nominate Lorie. You do such an amazing job. Second. Any further nominations? That was the easiest thing ever. Your nominations are closed. Wait until next year. You didn't hear that? They double they doubled his pay for. Okay. Well, that was easy. Thanks, guys. Uh we're going to maintain everything as is for the next year. Um thank you guys. You're welcome. You're welcome. With that, uh, we don't, no, that is not true. Um, we do have a planning commission meeting next month. Uh, we have the packet for the code amendments associated with the housing production strategy. Um, that'll be coming before the planning commission as well as an annexation request for my understanding. Um, so we will have a meeting. Um, you have anything you want to I got nothing. Okay. Um I think I have announced that um Marcellis has identified that he is um not going to renew his position. So we will have one vacant seat. Um so if

anybody has any um buddy that knows of an interest uh to fill the one vacant seat then uh do encourage them to apply. Um and uh other than that to be in city uh no this one has to be in city limits. I was going to say as soon as that woman annexes her property she should apply because she had really good questions. I was thinking the same thing. Yeah. For the Yeah. Anybody have anything for me? Yes. Always. This is a simple one. It's never update planning commission on the for last month's planning commission hearing and where it's going from here. here the appeal. Oh, um, no, the appeal. Yeah, there's it's getting it it potentially is getting resolved and and uh wouldn't do any benefit to say a whole lot about it at this point. It is not it is not on the city council's agenda at this point. Uh, is is it actually on for but we don't expect it to go next month. Yeah. What are the code interpretation? Okay. The code interpretation. We'll give you an update next month. Okay. Parties are working diligently to have an amicable amicable resolution. Let's put it that way. Speaking of update, in the minutes it said that we would provide an update in April on Senate Bill 1537. Do you want to reconsider? She might want to see

Uh, somebody my my boss over here kept me really busy planning a trip to Washington DC to do other things. So, I got a little busy. So, we'll do that in a month or two. Yeah. After all that, the only thing I heard about was an Irish bar. So, uh, there I will do an update for that. I will say that that bill has been an activated bill since January 1 of this year and we have not had a single developer come in and ask for use of that variant bill. Um so it's not that big of a deal for us here. Remind us what it in it is the mandatory adjustments bill that was passed by the state that says that developers that provide a certain type of housing which is housing of certain affordability has the right to ask for up to 10 mandatory adjustments to their development um for certain criteria. Um, so tech is that wasn't a place. Yeah, since I mean technically I mean this type of project that we just did uh I mean the studio apartment probably fits within that criteria itself. Um, but the adjustments that they asked for exceeded what would have been allowed with the mandatory adjustments anyway. So, they would have still had to go through this process. So, yeah. Anything else? We are