Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, moving on. I assume you've had an opportunity to look at the minutes from the April meeting. Any additions, [Music] corrections? Seeing none, then the minutes will stand approved as presented. Um, Trey, I think, is on Zoom, so we're going to open our public hearings and have him do some legal stuff. All right. Thank you for allowing me to appear by Zoom here. Uh, tonight's first hearing will be pursuant to the quasi judicial hearing procedure set out in 1979. At the start of the hearing, commission members shall be asked to disclose any exarty communications, conflict of interest, or bias. The applicable substantive criteria for this hearing will be addressed in the staff report. Testimony may be in oral or written form, but must be directed towards the criteria outlined in the staff report, the comprehensive plan, or the city's land use regulations. Any issue raised must be accompanied by statements and evidence sufficient to allow the commission and parties to an opportunity to respond. Please note that failure to raise an issue, including constitutional issues, by the close of the hearing will prevent an appeal to the land use board of appeals. With that, you may proceed. All right. Any questions about the procedures? All right. Then we will open planning file A-25-02 and ask the planning commissioners if there's any exparte contact conflict of interest or bias that needs to be disclosed. Sir, I know the in will that affect your decision making? Okay. All right. Then need to add anything else to that.

I'm sorry. I I heard the I I didn't hear all of the statement that was disclosed. I said I know the the property that rents the home that's been there for a while, but that's it. It's not going to affect my decision in any way. You you know the people that rent it or I'm sorry. All right. Yep. Just the renters. And do you feel And you feel you can properly and adequately uh separate that from uh uh your duty as a commissioner. Yes. Okay. Right. Then we will turn it over to staff for a staff report. Okay. Before I do the staff report, uh I have been asked to do a really quick reminder of when we do do comments of planning commissioners, please speak really close to the mic and make sure that the mic is on. We're having a little bit of difficult time doing some of the planning commission minutes um because it's not capturing all of the audio um because not all of the mics are on all the time. So, we can just be diligent about that. That would be amazing. I'm also at fault of that on a regular basis. So, I've been yelled at myself. So, with that, um before you tonight is a proposed annexation. Um it is for a property that is on uh Southwest Fifth Street. It's 311666 Southwest 5th. Um the property is currently within the county within our urban growth boundary. It has a comprehensive plan designation of residential mixed density. Uh upon annexation, the uh only assigned uh available uh zoning would be residential mixed density and the applicants have identified accepting of that zoning. So there is no proposed uh comprehensive plan map or zoning map amendment. Um and because they're accepting of the zoning, there's no additional studies required for facilities um for utility purposes or anything like that. Uh the property

is contiguous to city boundaries uh on the east and west side of the property. Um and it is bounded by uh properties that are within the same zoning or comprehensive plan designation. Uh, and the general area is somewhat developed with a subdivision to the east and large lot residential development um, surrounding the rest of the property. Um, and so based off of the fact that it is in a serviceable area with utilities already in South Fifth Street to be able to connect to, it's in a a general urbanized area that can uh, continue urbanization and it's contiguous to city boundaries. It's eligible for annexation. All of the findings uh in great detail are provided in the agenda packet for review. And with that, I'll conclude my report. Okay. Any questions for staff? I've got a couple questions on the applicants narrative. There is a comment about uh continuation of special districts. Does that apply to this property? Uh the only district that I know of in this property would be like the fire district. Um so there's a continuation of that district, but other than that, okay, so they're requesting to dissolve any special districts. Uh I am not aware of any special districts, but as part of the annexation, they would be annexing into it. So that is standardized language within the OS. Um and is so as part of the process of annexation. Um if there is a special district that is subject to county jurisdiction but not city jurisdiction

through the annexation process, it will be resolved at that process. And then the next line uh says that it's currently being served by city services. I don't know that they're city services are right out front. I don't I can't answer the question whether they've got service to date. Um the only thing they would have would be water because sewer just came through there a couple years ago. So if they don't have water, it's on a well. But city services are out in Fifth Street. sewer. Yeah. It just surprised me because I would be surprised if it's served. So, it's served by city roads and it is able to be served by sewer and water by the roads. Yeah. Yeah. So, it could just be the Yeah. The city has jurisdiction of the roadway up to the bridge. So, okay. Any other questions? But either one of those really doesn't affect our decision. Correct. No. Okay. I even if they do have services currently, that would have been one of those things that would have gone in front of the city council to allow them to connect as like an emergency and then require an annexation after the fact. So even if they are connected, the annexation is the remedy to connection. Okay. Okay. Uh any other questions? Okay. With that then we'll open public testimony. I invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to come forward. Sign in and state your names, please. You don't have to if you don't want to. It's just you guys. Be together. Um, I'm Jennifer Cable. This is my husband, Joe Cable. Yeah, we are the property to the south, right on the the property. I can answer your

question about utilities. They have none. So, we're all well and and septic. Um, the only thing we have is power. So, we're actually um we want to know I don't know if you can explain this now, but we want to know why they're wanting an annex. Is do we have any idea of that? So, so can I interrupt for just a second? I'm I assumed you were the applicant. Nope. Okay. So, and neighbor. Okay. So, then go through a quick procedure really quickly. Um, so since the applicant isn't here, we don't have a We'll just jump over those parts. Are you testifying in favor of or in opposition of the application? We're not in We're not here to oppose anything. We just want to express our concern regarding if if if they want to annex into the city because they plan on developing for any reason. Um, our concern is is uh the water issue. Uh, we got a tremendous amount of water that runs through the ravines on the back side of our property, comes from the property to the south of us, runs through the property at 31666 and we don't want to have any kind of a a flood issue. Okay. Uh and if somebody more flooding if if somebody a developer was to come in and say fill that ravine in or build up the property of of an issue on our property and all the other property street the guy across the street everything. So just a matter of process what we have before us tonight is simply the annexation. We have no clue if there's going to be development. That's for we don't oppose it being annexed in the city. I think it'd be great for someone to have city services. But our biggest thing is if they are going to do some sort of um development, is there going to be another one where you come again? Yes. Okay. That's so so generally speaking, annexation is the step that anybody can apply for and you do not have to have a development plan. You can just want to do it because you

want to connect to city services. Um or you can do it because you want to do a development or sell it to a developer. We do not ask people's personal intents. So what will happen is if the annexation moves forward and somebody does choose to propose a subdivision or a development in the future, there will be an additional public notice that goes to you regarding that proposal specifically so that you can see what they're proposing. Generally speaking though, per Oregon drainage law, any development, it it cannot affect how the current natural drainage flows basically. And we're aware of that, but uh as you stated before, that area has been somewhat developed. And across the street from our home, there's a sidewalk where there used to be a free flowing ditch. And uh that because of that, they put a culvert in the road which is putting a lot of that water. That's where a lot of that water that's in the ravines is coming from. And there's a gentleman there. I'm sure the city public works department is probably aware of him pretty well. He his his place takes on a couple of feet of water. Um we just don't want to see that happen. Well, like like I said, we we don't know what their plan is. They haven't disclosed it to me personally. Um and I would be the the planner that would be reviewing it. But anything that does come forward of of a property of this size, unless it's somebody that's just building like a duplex or something really small, will receive another public notice, you will be informed of what's going on and you will be able to ask a bunch of questions about what the development is doing and how they're going to address those concerns at that time. So, if this does get annexed into the city, we're not going to be ones that they're knocking on our door saying, "Hey, you need to annex." Because now the 60 acres behind us is now annexed. has been annexed in the in the city a long time ago. Just sold that and they're going to leave it as is the

people that bought the property behind us. You get to stay exactly how you want. Now it's really checkered. So that's what we were wondering. The the city does not force annexation of private property unless there is some sort of a a dire situation where you can't service your property because because of your septic or something like that. Um we won't be coming in annexing property or forcing it. Okay. Then we appreciate you guys. Okay. Thank you. We didn't want to miss the opportunity just in case. No problem. Okay. Seeing no other testimony, then we will close the public hearing. All further discussion will be amongst planning commissioners and staff. So any concerns about this annexation? Seems to meet all the criteria. So I don't have any concerns. Straight forward. All right. Uh any further questions for staff or clarifications? All right. Do you feel the criteria has been met? Yes. Okay. Then is anybody prepared to make a motion? I'll move I move the planning commission recommend approval for annexation A-25-02 to the city council based on the written findings in the staff report and direct stra staff to draft an order of recommendation incorporating the findings and conditions of approval. I'll second. All right. It's been motioned and seconded. Any further discussion? All those then in favor of the motion, please say I. I. And those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. All right, moving on to our second hearing. Uh, DCA-25-01. Um, Trey, do you need to uh introduce this? I do not. It's not a uh it's not a quasa judicial hearing.

Okay. So then we'll turn over to staff. Uh so this is a development code amendment for items to implement our housing production strategy. Uh this should not be new to any of you all at this point. Um we have been working on this for over a year with our consultants that are on with us tonight. Um and this is the final steps um to to move forward with the adoption of the code at this point. Um so we have put together a staff report that tried to summarize as simple as we can kind of what we're doing. There's a lot that we have gone through over the last year plus. Um and we are going to have our our consultants one last time in front of you all to do a presentation that sort of summarizes everything. um and and finalizes where we're at um and then go through the formal public hearing process uh to get planning commission's recommendation on uh the process. Uh as was identified in the staff report uh we did not draft this in a bubble. This was done with lots of input from the city council, lots of input from the planning commission along the way as well as a project advisory committee. Um, and all of the recommendations in front of you are recommendations that were put forth by the project advisory committee at the end. So, uh, with that, I am going to turn it over to Brandon and Darcy, and they are going to do the talking on what's all in this thing and summarize it up for us pretty nicely. So, take it away, guys. Thank you, Kelly. Hi, everybody again. Um, for those of you who don't know who I am at this point, Crawford, I'm a planner with MIG. Um, and appreciate the introduction, Kelly. Um, so don't need

to repeat that. And yeah, Darcy is here with me as well. Uh, and just a heads up before I get too far. Um, my internet has been a little spotty the last couple days. Um, and it's been particularly uh a little unreliable for video meetings. So, in case I freeze up or uh things get laggy, I might have to turn my camera off or maybe um tap Darcy or Kelly in to to kind of keep things moving along in case things get a little choppy, but so far uh things are going smooth. So, um just let me know in case I freeze up. Um so, I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. so far. Can people hear and see me? All right. Yes. Yeah. Yep. All right. And can you see my screen? Yep. Yep. All right. So, as Kelly mentioned, um this will be a pretty quick overview of the project overall and and our uh recommendations. Um so, just kind things up. So, this should all look pretty familiar to folks by now. Um, so quick agenda. We'll just go over the overall project background and recap uh some of the major decisions along the way. Um, and then we'll summarize the overall um code updates and how those code updates um implement the housing production strategy or some of the housing production strategy actions. Um and then we'll briefly talk about um statewide uh planning goal compliance and and how these uh recommendations are um consistent with with the planning goals. So quick overview um in

background as you know um the housing production strategy was just adopted a couple years ago 2023 and this project is primarily intended to uh implement the code uh related items from the HPS. Um this project is specifically funded through a department of land conservation development technical assistance grant. Um as I mentioned the overall purpose to update the code Lebanon development code to implement the HPS but al um to facilitate overall housing production, affordability and choice. And that includes uh a handful of other code uh related items that the city had previously identified. um as well as uh just some state statute compliance items. Um so those are just a couple other things that weren't uh necessarily a part of the HPS. project outcomes. Um, of course to support new housing options and opportunities. Um, to simplify the city's uh housing regulations and to ensure um that the code is consistent with uh state statute as it is um concerned with uh housing rules. So just a quick recap on the overall project schedule timeline and where we are. Um this project has been going on for a little over a year. Kicked off uh March 2024 and we you can see here we are now all the way at pretty much at the finish line. Um and as you know this is the planning commission hearing. The final step as we

will mention is the city council hearing which will be in June. So there will be about one more month left on this timeline that isn't shown here but as you can see where the end is in sight. Um so to quickly go over the recap in a little more detail um first phase of the project was the code review and audit and that's where we identified um the areas of the code that should be updated uh based on the the HPS and other um project goals and that was reviewed by the project advisory committee um and the planning commission and city council um at work session last summer. Then the second phase was drafting the actual code updates based on the findings from the code review and audit. And that first draft uh was really just focused on the high priority uh HPS items. Um and that one was uh reviewed again by the uh PAC at the second PAC again. Um discussed and reviewed with the planning commission city council at another work session. Um I believe that one was last fall or winter. Then we went through one more round of draft uh updates and review. Um, this time focusing on the medium and low priority HPS actions as well as some state statute consistency items. Um, this was all reviewed at the third advisory committee meeting. Um, and then they were also carried over to the the uh the third planning commission

city council work session. um along with um some code cleanup and consistency amendments. Um and that was all bundled up and again reviewed at that third work session and also reviewed at the uh the fourth advisory committee meeting um which that all just took place a couple months ago. So it's quick recap there. So just to quickly go over the high priority HPS um act address part of this project. First one being single unit homes that implemented HPS action 1.1. Uh the second was the cottage cluster standards. Um it was act HPS action 1.2 two had quite a bit of discussion over that one. Um, however, I think we've arrived at a at a place that um, everyone is satisfied with. Um, third one was to remove the city's current infill standards. Um, that was a pretty simple one and didn't stir up much uh, conversation or or push back from anyone. Um, fairly straightforward. um and to update the manufactured dwelling park standards um for consistency with state statute. And that was mainly focused around uh updates for clear and objective standards, but there were also a couple others um to uh comply with um recent legislation in the last few years um pertaining to uh manufactured dwelling parks. So, some of

the um kind of secondary or lower priority um HPS items and uh project goals um included um allowing tiny homes specifically in uh cottage clusters and manufactured dwelling parks and as uh ADUs that implemented HPS action 1.6. Um we recommended some um code updates for uh affordable housing bonuses and that was HPS action 2.4 and some of those um affordable housing bonus updates uh kind of overlap with state statute consistency. So things the city had to do anyway but handful of them were um uh not required by the state but still addressed in the HPS. Um, and then we also addressed a few other state statute consistency things such as um updating certain terms just to be consistent with um how the state refers to the different housing types um and making sure that the definitions are consistent with state definitions just to avoid any confusion and potential conflicts down the road. Um, and then finally, those kind of code cleanup items, uh, that I mentioned earlier. Um, that was just kind of a list of things the city had addressed, um, uh, in prior years that that should have, uh, should be included as part of this, uh, adoption package. So, quick overview on statewide planning goal compliance. So the three main um planning goals that uh we kind of ensure that these code

updates are consistent with um our goal one citizen involvement citizen involvement, goal two land use planning and goal 10 housing of course. So few things that um helps this project and this adoption package meet goal one. Uh was uh bringing you all along with through these uh planning commission and city council hearings and the work sessions that were open to the public and open for public comment. Um there was also public notice that was published to interested parties and in the local newspaper to uh you know inform the the the community about this these updates. Then of course there was the project advisory committee which uh really helped guide the recommendations and and uh that advisory committee um was broadly representative of of the community and and stakeholder interests. Um so then there was also goal two land. Um we sure that this these updates um are consistent with goal two by just following the general procedures and legislative land use use process consistent with OS. Um we coordinated with uh I when I say we mainly mean Kelly and the planning department coordinated with other city departments and ensured that uh these updates are consistent with um existing local plans and policies and DLCD and other state rules um and that it's supported by uh the comprehensive plan policies applicable comp plan policies.

Finally, for goal 10, um these updates meet goal 10 by uh overall expanding housing choices across zones such as cottage clusters and and uh and ADUs and manufactured dwellings. Um removing regulatory barriers for infill housing. um just by removing the overall special standards for infill housing that um actually improves uh chances for for infill development. Um and then just general alignment with city's housing needs and strategic planning. And the amendments also align with uh uh city's housing policy and planning framework similar to the comp plan uh consistency. So that's fairly broad overview of the uh planning goal compliance. Um so next steps um is to reach a planning commission recommendation for city council and then the city council adoption hearing is scheduled for uh June 11th so in about a few weeks. Um, and I'll also note that uh we received one um written public comment um for this hearing. Um, and there's fairly detailed uh suggestions relating to changing some some language in the proposed code modifications. and we appreciate appreciate some of those those uh comments. Um and they were again mostly focused on

kind of clarifying language and there weren't very many substantive um suggested changes. Uh that being said, we recommend not incorporating those uh changes that were addressed in the public comment. Um mainly because what the what you all have in front of you as a part of the packet is what was really reviewed and approved by the project advisory committee whereas um all these changes that were part part of the public comment weren't to be reviewed by the advisory committee. So, it's something these are changes that the city could potentially revisit at another time, but we would just generally not recommend um incorporating kind of at this late stage in in the adoption process. So, with that, I will open it up for questions unless uh Kelly or Darcy have any other comments to miss. Okay, any questions? Uh I guess I did not receive the uh letter. It's actually in the packet as an attachment. It's the very back of the packet. My last page is planning comm or the uh but back a little bit more. No, I went clear through and I don't have it. Yeah, what page there's 13 of them. Oh, yeah. I've got that. Yeah. So if you go back to the beginning, it has more of

so I didn't recognize it as a letter. She she provided a 13 page. I don't have it. Maybe a little bit more than that. Oh no. Okay. It should be It should be after that. Yeah. So, I don't There's nothing there. It's all this stuff again. Done. It's all this. Oh, I thought that was Yeah. So, she starts off with Okay. I thought that was part of the staff report. No. So, here's her starting letter. Okay. Yeah. All right. There you go. My apologies. I assume that was part of the uh staff report. All right. Any any questions or concerns? Sure. Iologize but here they are on page 30 12 and I was not what the intent of that housing.

So section 1619120 the affordable housing on nonprofit on non-residential public lands. This is the section as you can see it relates to Senate Bill 8. So section A is the applicability associated with the implementation of Senate Bill 8. Those are the very specific groups or organizations that are eligible for implementation of Senate Bill 8, which is now being incorporated in our code. And so if those groups or organizations fall under the applicability of of this section, then they shall follow the standards in section B. If there's organizations that don't fall under that ownership or that applicability, then they are not eligible to develop housing on non-residential lands or public lands. They have to do it in the appropriate zoning and then they would fall under the traditional zoning standards. Correct. Nope. Yes, you can. section 14. So all of that is largely carryover from

our old code into our new code. And I'm assuming that the the flammable storage is is talking about sometimes it's it's heated with uh propane or something like that. And in that situation, then those types of things have to be further removed from the property. We're not going to go in and police what people have stored in their garage units, but it's, you know, when you have a set of housing that is close-knit to each other. Um, and you know, the the history of how those uh housing units have often when a fire starts, it spreads quickly. You have those additional standards to say if you have something hazardous, keep it further away. So, I saw that they so family was removed because again of a state law change and household is basically those individuals that are living within the house um that are operating as a a unit. Um, so it could be people that are renting individual rooms. Um, and that is defined also within state law if it's not covered in explicitly within our our development code. Okay. The setback

Where are you reading that? And and excuse me, I'm not sure if the mic's on. I'm having a real tough time hearing the question. Okay. me. Oh, sorry about that. Red light comes on. Red light means on. I I should ask for the technology tutoring before I start it. Oh, much much better. Thank you. Okay. I I did not understand the 10 foot setback for parking exactly what that meant in the cottage cluster and I was just trying to envision what that actually meant. Was that the driveway space to a garage or was it something else? If I remember correctly, I think it's the setback from the proper line. Um, trying to navigate. So, are you talking about on page six of 35? I I don't know where it was. I did not keep that note. So, I can keep that note and ask later again. It was just something that was confusing to me the a 10-ft setback on what I had seen parking. So there's a a requirement that says cottage clusters for all front, rear and street side setbacks may be reduced to 10 feet. Um which is a reduction of like the rear setback which was originally 20 ft is now can be 10. Street side setback had to be a requirement of 15 now it's 10.

Um, I I'll go I'll find it and just send you an email. I just it was confusing to me. Um, and and I have a brief weigh in on the red lines. Um, those seem to be between the word shall and must, a lot of them. Oh, I I got you. So, there's a section here that says off- streetet parking shall uh not be located within 10 feet of any other property line except alley property lines. Um, and driveways shall be uh shall have aisles uh permitted 10 ft from other property lines. 15 of 35 Where are you seeing that, Kelly? It's at the very bottom of page 15 of 35 of our proposed code updates. So, does the property line include the rightway line or is it that distinguished by private property lines? It's distinguished by private property line. Okay. So, what you're telling me is your driveway can't be within 10 ft of your neighbor's property on either side. So, the parking spaces shall not be located within 10 ft of a property line basically. Okay, I I got it now. I was not catching the context that the rideway line was something distinct and so I was having trouble visualizing that. Gotcha. I'm going to jump to the red lines. Um, a lot of it seemed to be a shell versus must language thing. Um, so I considered well which is better and I think shell is better for technical stuff but must is more clear and more

plain to the public. My opinion is that the public should be able to pick up the zoning code, read it. So I say stick with the most direct language including the word must. So, generally speaking, I appreciate your your commentary. Um, it goes back and forth with what she chooses to use of shall versus must in in how she she writes it back and forth in here. Um, shall is a legal term. Um that that is sometimes appropriate to be used of you um when it is absolutely a a you you shall do this because it is a legal requirement either through the state through the federal requirement or um the city is explicitly saying this this is an absolute um must is of the same caliber, right? They are generally interchangeable. Um and in in reading through um the commentary uh that that was provided by by Mrs. Lorac um completely appreciate the effort that was put into it. Uh a lot of the commentary um is style. Um and and when you're looking at style, the city does have um the difference to be able to adopt the code the way that uh that the city feels is most appropriate. Um which is where that the project advisory committee has reviewed the language and had the opportunity to to comment and make those modifications. Um generally speaking, shall and must have the same level of weight. Um, and so, um, there's going to be those points of interchangeability, um, just like should or may is is going to be interchangeable in circumstances as well. So, and Kelly, if I could if I

could add, I mean, shall is more of a legal concept. Must is more of a moral concept. So, in most uh in most uh ordinances or statutes, you're going to see uh you're going to see the term uh uh uh shall being used more than must. Well, personally for me, you know, as much as I appreciate the the comments and as much sense as they make in a lot of cases, I wouldn't be comfortable approving it unless it went through the committee first. That's just my opinion. Yeah, Kelly, on page six of the real staff report. Yeah. Uh, policy policy 42 and 43 are identical. Is that intended? Maybe. probably not that, you know, I I liked the policy so much I listed it twice and gave it a number. Is not perfect. Thanks. uh cut and paste grade. I I'd have to go back and look at the differential between policy 42 and 43, but uh even if you cut out one, I'm just saying the same thing twice. So, I'm not perfect. Glad to know that. All right. Any other questions, comments,

concerns? Yeah. All right. Is anybody prepared to make a motion? based on findings. Do I have to start that over? Yes, because I even reminded you all. I'm going to punish you for it. I just realized. I'm so sorry. Um, start again. I move that the planning commission recommend approval of development code amendment DCA-25-01 to the city council based on the written findings in the staff report and direct staff to draft an order of recommendation incorporating the findings and conditions of approval. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. It's been motioned and seconded. Any further discussion? All right. All those then in favor of the motion, please say I. I. I I and those opposed. Motion carries unanimously. So then with that um we are done with this portion of our upgrade update I mean uh but I would like to thank our consultants our staff uh Tina and Lori was both part of the uh task force. So appreciate your time and effort in that. So with that we are done with that part. Thank you Brandon and Darcy. We'll see you in one month. Thank you all and appreciate all your your input along the way. So, have a good evening. All right. So, we can skip citizens comments. We're a little short of citizens here tonight. Uh commission

business. Uh currently we have no items in June. Um, so happy start of the summer. Um, and another bit of uh fun news. This is your last meeting in this room. Oh, good. So, we uh are officially moving uh if all of the move goes well, I guess I should knock on wood and not jinx anybody about that. Um, we're officially moving over to the libraries um community room. Um we have built a lovely disas for you all. Um have new chairs. Uh so it will be a brand new experience over there. New audio. Um same visuals. We're stealing it from here. Um but it'll be a a general better room and environment for the public we think and and I think overall audio purposes for the planning commission as well. So um we are making that move after this meeting pretty much. So, I'm literally hanging up signs once we're done here. Um, and other than that, say goodbye to Ron. You guys aren't going to miss him, so it's not going to be that big of a deal. He's not going to be far away. So much. Well, good. I'll come and just monitor. Bring some popcorn. Uh, I I have nothing else unless you guys have anything for me. So, I have got and probably you guys have too a lot of inquiry. What's going on out by Walgreens? Yeah. So, tractor supply is going to Walgreens. I think that we talked about it the last time. I'm gonna throw something at you. Construction.

um tractor supplies going over by just on the north side of the Walgreens which is closing as we all know or has already closed. Um and then we have also had inquiries about uh sort of relocating where the car wash that was previously approved by the planning commission northish of the tractor supply uh to where the Dairy Queen site previously was approved. So you go. So is the car war still on? Uh I think it's a different user or a different owner at this point and they are still looking at at the alternative location next to where the Dairy Queen previously was. But Oh, you're going to have to help me out with that. Bodies. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. A church purchased that for a community youth center or something like that. Well, the other question I'm getting almost daily is what's going to happen with the Sher's building. Uh nothing is definitive or provided to the city officially yet. So I I can't direct. That's kind of what I tell them to. Yeah. Um and then one thing I guess to note um is that the Head Start uh in Lebanon is is closing from our understanding. So um that that is another bit of change of businesses. So funding at the federal level is is leaving. So, yes.

Yes. So, is that the one on South Main? Yeah. There's a lot of funding out there. So, if anybody, you know, wants a hobby to take care of a whole bunch of kids, um, go for it. We We are officially a child care desert in Inland County. So, all right. Anything else to come before the planning commission? See none, we are adjourned.