Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, let's call the Wednesday, December 3rd, 2025 meeting of the Foster City Planning Commission to order. Um, Mr. Trainer, can you call the role, please? Yep. Mr. Pinsky, here. Mr. Duncan, here. Mr. Kraner here, Chair KMAN here, Mr. Stevens here, Miss Frezelander here, and Mr. Kinsky here. Thank you. We have Gordon. All right. Thank you. Um, and do we have a motion to adopt the agenda? Any changes that anybody would recommend? Madam Chair, I move to adopt the meeting agent printed. Second. Second by Mr. Stevens. All in favor? I. I.

Okay. So, that takes us to our speaker series. None tonight. Uh so we have receipt of petitions. Mr. Trainer, do we have any um written correspondents? No, chair. Didn't receive any. Okay. And are do we have any inerson petitions? Uh I don't have any speaker slips either. Uh is anybody there here to speak tonight to the commission? Okay. All right. Great. Okay. So I think that brings us to our action items. Um item 6A, the tree canopy code amendments public hearing. Uh that was deferred.

Yes. Uh this item was advertised for a public hearing tonight. So we do have to technically hold one. Um but uh consideration on it will has been deferred uh and likely will come back in January. So should I open the public hearing? Okay. So we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on the tree canopy code amendments. Is anybody here to speak on that item? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. And when is this coming back to us again? I think we're still um getting clarity on the schedule, but likely in January.

January. Okay. All right. So, that brings us to our next action item, which is 6B, the zoning cleanups public hearing.

Right. Okay. Uh I can take this one, too. Uh so these are the three uh zoning cleanup items that the planning commission had a work session on um earlier in November of this year. Uh as a reminder these items uh contain um the halfstory definition uh the antenna ordinance and uh an obsolete code section which is um recommended for deletion. Um the only changes to the staff report um tonight are is a summary of some of the conversation that was had uh during the commission's November 5th meeting. There were kind of two main questions. Uh one about clarity that all uh antennas in the city require special use permit uh to operate and that uh is confirmed um with you know some additional information that um most of the kind of antenna uh activity um in in the city uh tends to be about um adjustments and and not so much new antenna activity. So when you're adjusting an an existing antenna or infrastructure uh that does not require special use permit but um installing uh a new antenna would require special use permit. So um little clarification there. Um and then also there was some discussion about the definition of of the antenna and would uh that unintentionally uh capture some more kind of routine common uh household items like a Bluetooth speaker uh or a microwave. Uh and the answer to that is um the intent section and regulation of the antenna ordinance is um pretty clear about I think capturing the aesthetic uh in and in integrity and safety of the community. And so when taking the larger antenna uh chapter as written um these

kind of things wouldn't rise to uh the same level of scrutiny that a commercial grade antenna would that the definition and and the antenna uh regulations are are meant to control. Um so those are the the only updates uh here. Uh as a reminder this is a a public hearing for these uh zone and cleanup items. um and is scheduled to go before council for uh council's final consideration uh during the January 26th meeting. Great. Thank you. Um should I open the public hearing now before we have our discussion? Sure.

Okay. So, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on the zoning cleanups item. Is there anybody here to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Uh, any commissioner discussion? I think Mr. Krosner, you asked those two questions that were the sort of like new information. So, any follow-ups from you

on the antenna stuff? Um, well, yeah, I had a couple questions actually. Um, well, one, I think I also had asked, has the BCA seen any special permits like in the last, you know, decade for antennas? I mean, are we aware if they're seeing those? Because the way it's written now, right, they're they're supposed to be seeing them, right? I mean, do we So, do we know if they are? I mean because I feel like there are a number of you know cell antennas other that's probably the most common kind I've seen you know on top of you know some of the taller buildings in town. So you know do we know if they've seen it?

Sorry. Yeah that that didn't get in the report but yeah the in the BCA does see uh antenna special use permanent application. Sorry I don't have the number of the uh uh the mo you know the number of applications that's gone to the BC in the last decade or so. Um, if I could get that to you as a follow-up item if you'd like.

Okay. And so, yeah, and I I appreciate that, you know, you indicate that, you know, it's more common to see people asking to maybe move existing antennas. I guess the question is, you know, with some of the newer buildings coming online, you know, in the next few years at West Falls, I mean, it's, you know, it's and which is sort of a higher spot, you know, it's conceivable that, you know, there could be some antennas and that's fine if we want to, you know, there's going to go to the BCA, but I think we just need to be aware that any, you know, because that would be included, right? All the cell antennas that are, you know, could potentially be located there. Um, so that I guess was our concern that somehow now we'd like flood the BCA with, you know, a whole host of new applications. And maybe we won't. I mean, if most of what you're you're saying most of what we see are just revisions or modifications to existing um but if someone adds like so let's say you have an existing like an existing installation on a rooftop and then someone wants to add you know more additional antennas, would that would that trigger a special use permit?

Yeah. Um I don't think a uh I I believe there's a one antenna uh per lot um regulation. Uh so I I I don't think a lot can have more than one antenna. That might be uh limited to just residential lots actually. But yeah, any any new antenna uh would require its own special use permit. And so, you know, infrastructure related to an existing wouldn't trigger would not trigger a new special use permit, but any, you know, new dish uh or something that meets the, you know, the definition of of an antenna

uh and then again as as interpreted through the uh ordinance would require special use permit.

And these require a building permit or electrical permit of some kind. Is that how we how would we capture that? I mean, people might not know a lot, you know, that it needs a special permit and just go ahead and do it. So, is it do these typically require I would think they require some type of permit at least for like the I don't know electrical electrical permit or something to install it like do we know I mean if if you know like the folks who are reviewing permits like to flag that um like I don't know if Aikita and her folks you know are are looking for something like that. Um, so that's yeah, that's why cuz again when I was on the BZA I don't ever recall that was only for four years, but I don't ever recall antennas like ever coming up,

you know, in any capacity. Um, and I don't, you know, so but I I don't know. Um, and I haven't heard that the BJ has been doing that. So I just but but at the same time, I see many antennas around town. So I I wonder if like we've been allowing them without the permit. And so we're going to now tighten it up. um there should be something in place to make sure we you know capture that so that people who are filing whatever they you need to do to install it know that you know okay this triggers the need for a special permit um you know so I would say just I don't know internally it just is more of a suggestion that you know the building permit folks and others who are taking a look at these things electrical permits you know that they know that that does require the BZA special you know hearing to in order to install

right I think that would fall you under you know the as far as zoning's you know concerned right they would they would enforce that provision I think part of the motivation for this specific cleanup is to capture all those uh antennas because before it was really prescriptive about the specific kinds of antennas and it's possible that that may have you know I don't know the situation exactly but I do know that you know part of the um thinking behind this cleanup was to make sure that the city is capturing all antennas because we were really specific about the kinds of antennas that the ordinance applied to which which is outdated. Uh and so now all um you know communication antennas will be

yeah no I yeah I recall

yeah maybe that's what it was the fact that like our current ordinance was talks about like you know it seems to almost exclude like cell towers you know but that you know the way it's written and but you know that's probably the more common type we see. Well, in any event, I guess it'll be interesting to see if the BCA does get inundated now with a bunch of special permits at West Falls, you know, for for antenna installations. Um, you know, so, but the only way we would know is if people are looking out for that in city hall, um, to know that, yeah, that that triggers the need for a for the SU. Um, so I guess it' be interesting to, you know, hear if that comes to pass or not or um, so, but anyhow. All right. Well, I'll I'll shut up. But I think, you know, you answered the question as best as you can, and we'll see. I guess it's more of a you know, we don't know if this is going to create any unintended consequences, but on its face, it's relatively straightforward, and um it is somewhat in line with other jurisdictions. I mean, I would say that we're small and we don't have big mountains where I think people are going to be like really tempted to put other things. But in other jurisdictions, like if it ever became a thing, you know, like if people were, you know, we could we could relook at if people were colllocating on an existing installation or if it was completely hidden behind parapet walls or, you know, screened or or, you know, match the facade, you know, maybe those could be by right because we don't think we would care if a bunch of panel cell antennas, you know, were located behind a parapit wall on top of a building at at West Falls, you know. Um, I don't think we want them to get to go through a special permit for that, but I guess we, you know, we can react to that if it comes to pass that we see a lot. We may not. And so I don't want to make more of it this change than than is necessary. But that was kind of the main theme of my concern about it was that, you know, if it's really an innocuous thing, like this might introduce an extra hurdle that we don't intend um to do. So, but I guess we'll So, maybe report back, you know, after this gets approved. It'd be interesting to report back in a year or so and see if we hear if we see any, you know,

uptick in these things as a result of the change. Great. That was really it. Yeah, that's it for me. Thank you, Mr. Ker. Any other questions, comments? Okay. If not, is there um would somebody like to make the motion? I think staff has drafted a motion. I guess I can do it since I'm talking to them. Okay. Blabbering on about it. Maybe I can complain to you. I could Yeah, I can I can do that. That's fine. I I know a few folks on the BCA at least for now. So, they know where I live. Um

I know they complain a lot about sign cases. That's that's like something they've been agitating for fixes to the sign part of the ordinance because they see a lot of things there that maybe they don't need to. I know and others know about that and so that's on our list.

Yeah, that's not a minor editorial change that takes a lot more work, but yeah. So, I know they don't like that. So hopefully we don't introduce another thing for them, but that's okay. Um, all right. So again, this is just I'll read the the name of the item here. This is um TO25-21 ordinance to amend the city code of the city of Falls Church in chapter 48 zoning article one in general amending the halfstory definition and article five supplementary regulations division six height lot and yard regulations. um deleting section 48-1104 conditional uses permitted by special use permit as an obsolete section and amending division 9 antennas clarifying regulations applying to all antenna types. So whereas on November 24th, 2025, the city council referred ordinance to 2521 amending the zoning ordinance to the planning commission for comment. And whereas the city charter section 17.13 mandates that zoning text amendments be referred to the planning commission by the city council for review and recommendation. And whereas the planning commission held required meetings with proper noticing during its November 5th, 2025 and December 3rd, 2025 meetings. Now, therefore, I move that the planning commission recommends that the council revise the ordinance, zoning ordinance, addressing the cleanup items described in the legislation title in order to clarify meaning or ambiguity has been identified in the course of administering the zoning code, remove obsolete language, and increase clarity. Um, and I guess that's my motion.

Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. Uh, Mr. Kinsky on the second. Uh, any discussion of the motion? If not, um, Mr. Trainer, can you do a roll call vote, please? Mr. Pinsky, yes. Mr. Duncan, yes. Mr. Kresner, yes. Mr. Stevens, yes. Miss Freellander, yes. Mr. Kinsky, yes. And Chair Kant, yes. Thank you. The motion passes.

Great. Thank you very much. Okay. So, that brings us to item 6 C, the uh planning commission minutes from our November 19th meeting. Any edits? Okay. If not, is there a motion to approve the minutes? Madam Chair, I move to approve the minutes as presented. I'll second. Okay. All in favor? I I Okay. All right. Thank you. So that brings us to our work session items. Um item 7A is the fellow's property site plan. Welcome Mr. Zang and Mr. Garris.

Thank you uh madam chair and members of the planning commission. Uh good evening. Uh my name is Henry Zang. Along with me today is my c-orker Cameron Gar. Uh I will start with a little bit um notes here on the procedure. Uh if you remember this will be our first site plan in front of you. Actually uh we listed two items under the work session. First one is the site plan and then second one is the final plan. Uh for the site plan this is the uh planning commission's advisory review tonight and then after tonight it will not be coming back. uh this case will be moving to the uh designated agent currently is the planning director and uh I think after tonight's discussion uh Mr. trainer will help uh with a summary of a memo, a brief memo uh will be like listing all the issues discussed or any recommendation discussed and then uh addressed to the designated agent. Uh for the final plat uh we will be coming back after tonight's meeting for a public hearing. Uh so that's a little bit the procedure difference. Uh remember in the past we always have one report with two uh action items on it but tonight we only have a a letter for the site plan which we uh provided as attachment uh to the to the case. So uh those two cases listed separately because the approval authority are different now. uh but there are two companion case that's means they cannot separate they had to go together so I will started with the presentation on

the site plan uh Jack would you please go to the uh fellow's park second one attachment yeah uh if you um will be able to find the letter we uh attach to the to the case basically. Um, no, I'm sorry. Go to the, um, site plan, please.

Uh, letter is fine. I just read it. Just go to the site plan. Uh, this one uh, review by the planning commission back in June. It's a preliminary plan of subdivision and cons consolidation. If you look at the graphic uh on the screen, that's the seven parcels uh will be consolidated into one lot, one big parcel for the park. It's total 1.95 acre and it's zoned R1A is lower density residential zone. Yeah. Go to the site plan, please. Keep going. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. We can use this one. Excuse me. Uh this is the side plan you see here. It's basically um concentrated in the middle of the property. Uh the disturbance will be 0.81 uh acre. It's about 41% of the whole side will be disturbed. In the center, you notice that there are two pavement type. One is the dark one and then the other is the light one. Uh in the middle of that octopus shaped thing, there is a central stage which basically a kind of a patio type of things. uh maybe uh they're still in the middle of design the structure and uh those octopus uh you know branches you see here each has a statue of the animal which will be seen in the city so statue of the animal uh around the I mean in the middle of the

circle of each branch and then uh there is a shelter that's the only structure uh will be uh built basically you see at the upper upper uh uh portion of the of the sideline uh two access will be provided one from the fellow's uh court and then the other is from the uh what's the lower street no it's the oak yeah from the from the south oak street will be will be provided to access uh the the site Can you just zoom zoom out a little bit you so we can see the whole picture? Yeah. Keep going. Yeah. Yeah. One more. One more. Yeah. Okay. Let's stay here. So, basically that's all the major improvement. Oh, sorry. I forgot one. And then there is a sidewalk along the parks avenue. That's the new sidewalk. And then with four yeah with four shade tree will be provided that sidewalk will be extended all the way uh to link the uh uh existing street sidewalk on timber lane. So those are the major improvement. Uh there are several urban agriculture elements has been proposed here. If you look at the very top of the of the site uh under the lot one and two basically that's the uh habitat basically they're going to preserve for the uh fireflies the upper one lot lot one two yeah so those will be the habitat uh preservation and then uh you see lower

part um there is a a shack bark hickory tree forest uh which will be uh planted over there or preserved over there for the for the u um for the fruit uh from the tree and then there is a pawpaw tree grove also proposed up on the right hand side of the shelter if you can if you can see it I'm sorry u and then there is also a a blueberry patch which will be on the uh upper right hand corner uh close to that shade tree the new shade tree yeah that's the part that's the blueberry patch uh those are the major uh improve I mean preservation or urban agriculture elements uh will be prop proposed over the sideline and uh the rest of them rest of the side will not be disturbed basically preserved. So, uh that's pretty much we have on the site plan. Uh I need to mention that parks uh the city's recreation and parks advisory board work very extensively with the adjacent residents over a long time. Uh I I was not part of that. I think L was part of the the outreach efforts previously uh when there changed the uh park master plan. So with that um I I my presentation will be it. Uh if you have any question just yeah I'd be available to answer them. Thank you.

Great. Thank you Mr. Zang. Um I know Mr. Stoa is online. Um Mr. Stroger, did you did you want to add anything before we we get to discussion or questions?

Uh, no. I think uh Henry covered everything uh pretty well. I just wanted to add two uh items uh that that uh rubberized uh path is uh in per is a porous uh um it's a porous uh material. And in addition to that, we have a rain garden that is going in there. uh for uh to add to the water quality, not necessarily water quality and quantity. Not that this park needs it, but it's uh something that we can take credit for uh for the city in its uh um in in its uh uh reports at the end of the year.

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, any um questions, discussion, Mr. Stevens, do you want to go first? Just one question. Uh, do you know, Henry, um, I mean, there's not a lot of infrastructure here, but do you know if any sort of estimates of maintenance down the road have were made, and would this be something that would fall to parks and wreck as far as responsibility for maintaining?

Yes, sir. It's basically totally owned by the city. So the park will be responsible for any maintenance and anything happen on this site. Uh the the the arburist will be responsible for cutting the trees or planting the trees you know those kind of things. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh can I respond also?

Yes please. Mr. Stroga. Go ahead. Um sir uh this park was designed with uh DPW's input and uh so maintenance was a big issue. Uh they were the ones who uh recommended that we use the porous material for the sidewall uh for the walkway area so that they they could uh it could be easy to maintain. Uh as well as um the uh Mr. Charles uh Prince was a a big designer of this uh park and uh he was the one who uh recommended that we do the urban forestry uh with trees as opposed to having gardens because that would be a lot easier to maintain. So uh the answer to your question is DPW uh who will probably who will provide the most of the maintenance uh was deeply involved with this.

Okay, thank you for that. Um, any Mr. Plinsky? Uh, I had a question about the entrance being located in the circle at the top of the all the way down Fellows. Is that a Is that the only expected entrance to the park? No, that's not the entrance. The entrance is down to here. Go down. Yeah, that's the entrance. But it's on Fellow's Court. But it's on Fellow's Court as opposed to being on Oak Street. Well, there is another one on the Oak Street. You Yeah, it's over there. You see there? Two two entrance basically.

Uh yeah, two entrance uh provided to the to the side, but one one is sort of ADA accessible, right? The one from Fellows. And I think that was because of the grade. Yeah. Because Yeah. If you notice that the from the the Oak Street, South Oak Street, there is a great difference. The huge grade. Yeah, but there's like a I don't know like a uh what's the material for that walkway? That's as it is. Well, currently, but it will it that will that be will that remain the will be the house for the the octopus. That's the uh flex that's the new material, right?

Yeah, that's the um what they call it? They called it like a flex trail material. that's kind of, you know, uh will protect the falling if the if the kids fall down.

Uh two, I hate to interrupt, but uh uh yes, the main entrance is at the corner of Fellows and Oak. Uh Fellow's Courtney and Oak uh that is the main entrance and that is due to AD ADA accessibility to get into the middle of the park. It's that's where the flat area is the corner of Oak and um uh and Parker. Uh that entrance is it's an it's a access point, but it's mostly uh just for the uh for the maintenance cars to come in. And it's uh all we're doing is is re we're actually removing all the asphalt there up to where there's about uh enough for a uh pickup truck to park in there to do maintenance. And a a third uh kind of entrance is up at the corner off of Fellow's Court. And again, that's just a maintenance access point for the uh uh folks to come in and do the mowing and uh um maintenance of the trees.

So, it's not really an entrance then. Um no, the the there's really only one true entrance and that is at the corner of Fellows at Court and uh Oak Street. Just seems odd that like it's right across from the elementary school on Oak and we don't have an entrance there.

That was the thing. Even if you can't do ADA, you have you have the ADA on the other side. Why not? And you already have existing asphalt there. Why not just, right? It's important condition now. Obviously, what's there is the old driveway. Wh why was there no thought given to upgrading that to, you know, redoing the asphalt? You still have the ADA accessible, but you could even have a little signage that says ADA on fellows, but it would seem that it's kind of closed off. You know, it's almost like presents itself as like more of a little private park for the people on fellows because the entrance is sort of hidden down that culde-sac even though the site has three frontages on each and prominent streets.

Yeah. The other piece of that being that the kids are going to come running over across the street regardless of where we put the entrance and putting the entrance on the corner might indicate that they need cross might encourage them to cross at the crosswalk as opposed to crossing just wherever they want to. I think there is a crosswalk. Is there a crosswalk at Fellow's Court? It's in the middle of the street. Provide one. Sorry, Mr. Provide one. You're providing a crosswalk. That's the new at Parker though, right? Yeah. But there's no crosswalk crossing crossing Oak. Shouldn't there be a crosswalk across Oak to Fellows? At Fellows? Yeah. Closer to the entrance to the park.

So, right now there's no crosswalk going from Fellows to Oak going straight across. Can I Can I step in again, Mr. Stoga? I I I I feel like I'm intruding, but I apologize. Uh the reason uh we have uh the entrance again up at top is is for the ADA and uh the entrance uh down at um at Oak and Parker. There was no way of bring uh making that ADA. But couldn't you have two entrances? Well, I hear you. We you've said that already, but couldn't you have two entrances, one ADA and one nonAD? Uh,

you would meet the ADA law if you had one. As long as you have one ADA accessible route, it doesn't have to be the only the only route. That's not how the ADA works. Well, that that's true. It's just that what we had in mind was is uh the idea is is to make this place more of a uh um it it was from the community. It was very clear that this should be a very natural setting. Well, the community on fellows or the wider community. I mean, the community is the whole city, right? Not just the people that live on fellow court.

It's it's pretty much the whole city we're talking about. This is what the master plan came through from. And that's what they sort of delineated. So that entrance from Oak at the corner of Oak and Parker uh was uh it it has a lot of trees and it has a lot of uh uh shrubbery that did we did not want to disturb. So at at this point we just wanted to limit the uh the disturbance of all the vegetation that's out there because that's heavily vegetated with a lot of nice shrubberies and some champion trees. So, we were limiting the amount of uh uh surface uh to put in this park to areas that were already con uh uh constructed. Uh

well, wasn't there a driveway there? Isn't there already a disturbance cuz it's an asphalt driveway that goes up? Uh yes, but it's kind of already torn up by the roots and things like that, right? You could do a wood chip path. Couldn't you do a wood chip path

through there? A more informal way to get up. I guess I'm just saying it seems odd that for a site that abuts three frontages that it only has one entrance. Um, you know, as I said, you can have multiple entrances. That'd be like if city hall only had one entrance, even though it abuts Great Falls and Park and Little Falls, but we said, "Well, we're only going to put in one entrance." Um, it just seems kind of counterintuitive to making it a more accessible place. It almost seems like I I don't know. I was not part of the master planning process. I don't know who participated in that if how wide a cross-section of city residents it was or if it was mostly folks who live on Fellow's Court um you know who and obviously they live near there so I get it they probably feel more invested in you know what's going to happen but it almost seems like there was like an intent to not do much to keep it people from wanting to go there keep it kind of hidden so that maybe people wouldn't be so inclined to go so that you know they could just stay as the quiet undeveloped lot that is today. I don't know. Maybe I'm getting, you know, think overthinking it, but it almost seems that I don't know, we're missing an opportunity to make it a little bit more accessible um and more obvious that we have a new park. It's not every day we get a new park in the city.

Yeah, I think the the obvious piece is sort of what I was hitting on there is my if I were a Bennett man, uh they're going to come in that entrance regardless of whether or not we make it an entrance. um because they're going to come running across the street and the kids from Oak Street are to come running across the street and I think there's an opportunity to make that a more like Mr. Mr. K are saying a more welcoming place even if it's uh so as not to have them just destroy all the shrubs as they come barreling through uh that area.

And uh I uh I would say to you also that the whole park is really accessible from any one of the streets, Fellow's Court, uh Oak Street, uh Parker, you can literally just walk into the park. It's a it's a pretty open area. So there really isn't an, in my opinion, a need to designate entrances. That park is going to be accessible to anyone just going through it. You and that's why we designated the upper corners uh as a n natural preserve to keep that from being as you're saying just walked upon uh Nilly Willie. uh if in the future we uh and this is something that Danny uh has uh the director of parks has always said is is that in the future if we find that people are creating a path

that's the time to put the uh path where the people have created it. Uh at this point we are cons concentrating on what is the main entrance to the park and to have the main entrance it has to be ADA and that's why the hard surface there. All right. How about the crosswalk going across South Oak? Um that was a that that was an issue because on the other side AC uh of uh Oak Street is the school and they do not have an ADA receiving ramp. But you could build one and sell.

Well, you could uh but uh the one thing is is that this project has a very specific and tight budget. And so any uh street work associated with uh this area outside of the park. Uh we it was designated that it would be taken up by uh an a project later on in the in the streetscape, but right now we're just providing uh the amenities for the park.

Okay, that's not a great answer to be frank with you. I know you may not be the one who makes that decision. You know, I get it. But I mean it just seems like another missed opportunity. I don't know how council feels about it. Um but you know I guess they're not looking at site plans either but um again it seems like a missed opportunity to provide that. I mean if they're going to be out there working you know um I don't know. I mean you kind of it's kind of if you listen to what you just said you said well the school's across the street and so therefore we're not going to provide a ramp. It's like you have the biggest generator of like the population that might want to go over there and you're saying well the city thinks that where we don't have the budget to provide a safe crosswalk for our youngest elementary or almost youngest elementary school students to walk across South Oak Street. So instead we'll put a crosswalk across Fellows. Um which is fine but um I don't know maybe I'm the only one who that just kind of just kind of rings sort of wrong to me. Um, I don't know what the budget is. I haven't looked at it. Um, but and I don't know what it would cost to build a receiving curb ramp on the other side. It's a clear shot. There's no pole in the way. Um, it's right around the property boundary of that neighbor and the school property. Doesn't seem not across anyone's driveway or anything. I I don't know. Um, I mean, again, this is we're making an advisory recommendation, so I guess it's not going to, you know, you don't have to get the planning commission's uh buy in here, but hopefully the designated agent is listening and those who will have to make a call and we'll look at, you know, not missing opportunities. It's not every day we have a project where we can maybe find, you know, a way in the budget to include the money for the ramp as opposed to saying for a one-off project later. So anyhow, just seems like again there's some certain aspects of this that are are I don't know

seems like minimum we could certainly raise you know a concern about not having an entrance right across from the school where we would anticipate a lot of the traffic to be coming

at least at least a safe way to cross right like if like I I get what what he was saying in regards to it's a fairly porous environment kids can come running across and we can we can pave as we see Right. Like I understand that's a a fairly uh tested way of determining where where to put uh long-term paving or wood chips or or pathways or something some form of formal entrance. But I think having a crosswalk a mand a mandatory cars have to stop crosswalk especially in that type of area for kids to cross would be

it it feels like a a natural extension of this uh to be inclusive. I was just curious that crosswalk that is there at at uh Parker and South Oak, how close to that is the is it to the school entrance? So, it's relatively close to the the I don't know the number one entrance. I don't know which one it's I'm looking at it on Google Maps. It's quite close. It goes right almost directly into the main, but it's the second there's a second entrance from uh Oak Street, second entrance to the building up closer to Fellows, which is where a lot of students also come out. Uh if you go up one block, you'll see a second entrance that the fourth and fifth graders tend to be clustered around.

Ironically though, but that's the entrance that they're saying they don't want to really be the main entrance. It's just going to have a pickup truck parked there for maintenance. Um so it's just ironic. I don't know, something about the plan just I mean these are little things. I mean it's overall this is a good thing that we're getting new a new park. Um but I don't know it seems that there's some opportunities that are being missed here to make it you know to truly do it right. Um, so I'm I'm hearing some agreement for a recommendation for a crosswalk um at Fellows across Oak Street and I think it's going to be up to city council to find the funding for that, but I think we as the planning commission can make that recommendation to council. Um,

I think I heard Mr. Stoga trying to get in. Mr. Stoga, did you have another comment?

Yes. Um, it's it has to do with the the budget. Um this project has come up several times uh to your committee uh I believe two times uh m uh or if maybe three and uh we took all all the recommendations from previous uh um committee meetings and put them into uh into this project and then this project did go to the county council with a budget of $1.9 million to do all the things that were being asked of us. But the county council came back and said, "Look, you get 1.5 million and that's it. No more. Not not don't come back again. You got to make it happen with that." And that's what we got here. Uh we have a limited budget of 1.5 and no more.

That's helpful. So I guess I don't know. I mean my question would be then like are there elements of things that we're doing in the park that we you know like we feel like the benefit of having that crosswalk would actually outweigh whatever that element is in the park. I don't know what the specific cost for the individual like what that structure that you're designing cost for example and if that's comparable to what it would cost to like put in a landing like a receiving uh ramp on the other side so we could have that crosswalk there. Um, so I guess you know we would just need to weigh like what what what room do we have? And I I don't want to blow up the plan obviously, but if there are small changes that you could make to the plan that would enable us to budget and fun to fund that crosswalk, I think you would have a lot of happy commissioners from the discussion that I'm hearing.

Well, and happy children. It won't have to and happy children. Yeah. Won't have to dodge cars. I mean, just it's so obvious. I mean, I don't know what the budget is as far as how you've parsed it out and I don't know, you know, we're not privy to that. we haven't been provided to look at that. Um, you know, but I don't know. I I also I like that you're approaching this as like an iterative plan, right? Like this is a plan that we can build on. So sort of like what's the like minimum viable product that we need and I think what you're hearing from us is that like we think a a crosswalk is is like an essential element to making this park work.

Yeah. kind of andor a better entrance where there is a crosswalk, you know, as opposed to saying, "Well, that entrance we're not really going to use and we're taking out the driveway and it's just going to be kind of a so wood chips wood chips there

or even that." Yeah. I mean, for there is a crosswalk there. Um I don't know. It just seems like, you know, hundreds of children across the street if they see there's a new park coming in. Um how do you want them to go to get there? either they got to run across the street um or they use the crosswalk and I guess they kind of filter through the woods and up the broken driveway. I I don't know. Um are you replacing that the little bit of asphalt that you're showing keeping? Are you at least repaving that because that's in rough shape right now? It seems like it's outside the LOD. Are you are you doing anything to the existing asphalt pad that's at that corner of South Oaken Parker?

Uh just we're going to leave just the pickups uh length worth and that's it. What are you going to repave it? I mean, cuz right now it's like in deteriorated and crumbling and it's outside the LOD. So, that would tell me you're not touching. I'm not going to repave it. That That's what I'm saying is is that entrance is more of a just strictly a maintenance entrance. But aesthetically, we don't want to add any more pavement to the area than we have to. But you would acknowledge that area right now, that asphalt pad is crumbling and in poor condition. Would you agree? Yeah. Yes. and it's probably going to be overgrown rather quickly.

Right. So again, I'm kind of hearing different things like you're saying, well, kids can come in anywhere, but we're not going to maintain that and we're not even going to repave the little pad that we're leaving, which looks I mean, it doesn't look very nice. It's sort of an eyesore to leave it like that. I don't know. Again, these are not big ticket items either. That's not a big ticket item to repave that that area of asphalt. Um, you know, extend I I don't know. It just seems also like a no-brainer um to improve that. So, it just looks better. Right now, it looks pretty pretty bad. And I I it's kind of shocking that we wouldn't fix that. Isn't it a liability? Someone trips on that. It's on city property now. If someone trips on the broken up asphalt, wouldn't that be a liability issue potentially?

Yes. Uh yes. Uh again, well, paving that would probably be simple enough. At this point, we are just looking at ma uh keeping uh the one entrance because we don't want to gain a lot of entrances to the park that are official quote official entrances because of the issue of upkeep and maintenance. The more entrances you have, the more uh maintenance you're going to have to keep up.

I don't know. Well, I don't want to beat it up more than I already have. I'm hearing a lot of very strange responses to like what should be simple questions um for a good purpose is a good thing but it's just odd. I mean I think the LOD should be extended down at a minimum LOD should be extended. you should repave that pad so that it actually is shown as a maintenance parking spot as opposed to now where it you know it's kind of like a um you know and so that's to me is also unbelievable that the city would leave that it's a hazard as it is today and you know although ideally you'd make it you actually would make it another entrance it could be a a crush crush or a wood chip path or something that gets people up there that way the kids could cross at the crosswalk that's existing there and enter that way um in a more obvious way to be invited in that way to the park as opposed to then having to run across the other way. Um kids like to take a straight line. They're not going to do like a 90°, you know. So anyhow, that would be my recommendation.

The better alternative be, you know, to somehow encourage the students to walk along the where the sidewalk that exists on the school side. I'm saying kids don't take they don't like they like straight lines. I mean, right. But then once what we need is a crosswalk once they get up to the corner. That's what I was saying. I think it's a both a both end. Maybe in my opinion,

just some of it's low hanging fruit. I mean, I don't know how down to the bone in the budget you are, the cost to repave that asphalt pad. I don't that blows the budget and I don't know what we're spending it on. Um, so otherwise, but I don't know. Um, again, hopefully the designated agent is taking lots of notes. I mean again taking an advisory you know these are advisory comments but um I would hope that you know some of it finds its way into the plan because it's just it would be a missed opportunity if some of these things are not done and people will wonder why did we do 90% of a good job instead of 100%. And the excuse that the budget was tight yeah that sometimes you know is why we can't have a carousel in the middle of the park but that's not why we can't have safe crosswalks and safe you know and and repaved asphalt. That's not a hazard.

So I just so I understand here um one I the the designated agent shouldn't be taking good notes. We he we're going to publish a we're going to put out a a recommendation figuratively a letter. I don't I don't know that we're a drafting what what is the I think we're listening to the discussion and we can like I don't know if we need to vote on like making recommendations or you're just sort of intuiting. I was told he's a great listener. a letter to city c the letter to the to the designated agent or city council. I think we're just making comments that the designated can use or not. So madame chair if I may.

Is that correct? Yes. Mr. You're saying the process we you know the we are in the middle of uh changing uh which uh the board I mean the commission saw it previously

and then we'll be in front of the city council on Monday to the final action and then um that process established advisory role of the planning commission and the plan it the issue I heard discussed two issues here it are basically under the purview of the planning commission. Uh my recommendation will be for example we had to tonight before we leave this place we had to have a planning commission's recommendation. Mhm.

Uh I think now what I heard up to now is only on two issues. Why is the crosswalk uh from the uh the elementary school site at the corner of fellow's court? I think the um our project manager indicated that will be derailed the budget for the whole park. I got that and then I think we can the planning commission definitely can express the concern about that

and then uh maybe I'll leave to the uh designated agent to wait that whether you know financially feasible at this time or not because giving the council already gave us the fixed budget I I think we can treat that issue in that way and then maybe in future uh within the city's CIP P we can push for that connection. Uh this is the issue number one. Issue number two actually from the design perspective I agree and actually in our letter we believe there two entrance. So the entrance the existing entrance from the corner of South Oak and Parker Avenue that's a very reasonable one. And then uh I don't think we're going to have a uh lot of money to spend just to repair that small stretch of the connection. And then I believe it's also the cities as commissioner Krishnner indicated it's the city's liability if we have a pathway which you know provide a risk or hazard for people to trip and then we should repair that. I don't think that will derate the budget. So if this will be the two recommendation, I think we can uh you know nicely word it in that way and uh I believe you know uh designated agent will will consider those.

That's helpful. Senator Mr. Zang, thank you. Can I ask a question? I think that accurately captures what we've discussed so far. When you say the planning commission recommends, in what way does the planning commission recommend? Is it the notes that you have distilled get passed along? Do we need to make a formal?

Yeah, actually it's formal than that. Actually, uh end of this meeting uh with the help of Mr. Trainer who is the clerk of the planning commission should have a memo addressed to the designated agent uh basically stated what has been discussed was the planning commission's recommendation. Uh that's basically the procedure and establishing the amendment to the city's code. Uh because u next planning commission will have another site plan coming. So we had to follow the procedure established. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. So are we um are we doing some sort of live drafting of a memo at the end of this discussion or is there like an actual document that we need to produce or actually Mr. will provide a document maybe circulated but the the issue for example the two issue I discussed and then to what extent we had the drafting that's had to be discussed and then basically follow that um Mr. trainer will put it together before send it to the designated agent. We need to circulate that on Monday. Uh okay. So, Mr. That doesn't have to happen tonight. I think the letter can be circulated after the meeting. Yeah. U Well,

it's a summary because happened tonight. So, we're all in agreement with what we're recommending. Um it unless we have a very clear verbal of the recommendations and I think you you provided a fairly clear recommend verbal of the recommendations but I don't think there should be any gray area. I mean what I see is the recommendation is that uh the crosswalk there at at Parker and uh South Oak needs to be ADA compliant. Uh two that one already it is

on both sides. Yeah, we have this this side and that side. Okay. The proposed that's already okay. Then the asphalt driveway should be pathway. Yeah. Pathway should be uh repaired. Repaired. Yeah. So that it's passable and not a liability to the city. And finally, there should be a crosswalk at Fellows and Oak uh that is ADA compliant. Is that is that are those two things? Those are the two things. Correct. Those are the two things we've discussed so far.

Yeah. Those are the two things that Mr. Zang just listed. Is everybody in agreement on those things? Does anybody object to either of those things? I had more, but yes, of those two things, a couple other questions, but um of those two things, I'm in alignment with what you said. All right. So, no objections. Uh Mr. Plinsky, had a sorry, Mr. Stoga had his hand up in the team. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Go ahead. I I just want to clarify the uh issue. Uh I get the idea for the crosswalk across uh Oak from Fellow's Court.

Not a problem. The uh entrance at uh at Oak right now it's uh do you want it just the entrance uh repaved where the pickup truck is going to go in or are you looking for an entire path? I think it was I would I would I would vote for you know pave the parking pad if you need to use it as a parking pad in that location and then do like a wood chip path up into the park. I mean if you want to m if you want to remove that I don't know what your plan is for that asphalt in the area that's being disturbed. Are you removing that the driveway? Yes.

Then I would yeah then I would just put the like a wood chip path there and um pay repave that small portion of the parking pad. You don't need to like repave the whole thing. We already have the ADA entrance. I don't know. Does everybody else agree? Right. Just I mean the area that they're proposing to keep I mean the plan shows they're maintaining keeping that section. So like maybe you repave it maybe maybe have to reconfigure it to be a little bit wider for a pickup truck. I don't know. I guess that that truck needs to park in that location. That's a sort of a DPW requirement. Yes. Uh DPW requested uh that to be kept just the parking pad trucks, but that was it. Just the parking pad, not the full driveway.

Correct. Just the parking pad just to get the truck out of the street. Yeah. I mean, I think that that would be our recommendation right And I think in our recommendation letter, we should express the fact the why, which is because that we feel that there's going to be a significant amount of traffic from school children coming out of that main entrance on Oak Street School. Uh Mr. Plinsky, did you have another Mr. Did you have anything else? Sorry. It's unrelated to what we're talking about. So if we want to keep on this, we can. No. No, ma'am. Okay. All right. Uh, go ahead, Mr. Pollinsky.

I had a question about the proposed platform. Uh, the one in the middle, the 30x 46 one. Um, is that a covered platform or not a covered platform? No, it's like a patio. It's a pad. It's not like a like a like a stage of some sort. It's a central stage like the patio. Basically, it's about 18 or 20 uh 4 in above the ground. So people can sit on that and then if they have some performance they can also do that. So that was my other question. Do you know if there's going to be power run to that for any sort of amplification for in the future? Uh as far as I know you can jump in. This is a passive recreational facility.

Okay. The whole park will be closed after dark. There's no light, nothing. Yeah. I don't think that's the intention. Yeah. It's only during the daytime people. Yeah, maybe acoustic guitar. I was thinking like Saturday morning somebody wanted an amp for a children's concert or something like that to be loud. I don't think that's the I don't think that's the vision that's being discussed.

Well, excuse me, Henry. Uh the there um the the platform which is kind of being discussed depending on the budget uh is uh was uh was kind of requested by the school for uh outdoor classes so that as Henry mentioned that the kids could sit around or sit on it and the recck department could have some uh classes there. Uh but uh that uh depending on the how we worked with the budget that may just become uh a flat area and in relationship to what you just uh asked about the electricity. Uh there is a well there and we are going to use the well for um irrigating of the of the trees as well as we are going to put a decorative fountain there. And to do so, we do or we are bringing electricity. And if we are going to bring electricity to the well, we will have outlets for amplification if needed.

And those outlets would be next to whatever that pad or flat space is or next to the well. It well the well is really close to the the pad. So there will be outlets all by the uh platform. And the is the shelter similar in that it's a like a is it a raised like similar concept like it's a place where a classroom a class of kids could sit? Yes, the shelter is going to be very similar to the shelter at uh big chimneys. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions? I have a few but um no. Okay. Um Mr. I just I was wondering uh the porest material that we're using, have we used that in other locations in the city? Uh uh no, we have not. Ma'am, do you we uh Go ahead. I I was just Yeah, I was just wondering what our experience with it was. Our expectation is that it's going to be low maintenance. Is that based on like experiences other jurisdictions have had?

Uh yes. uh our old director um uh at DPW had used it in his previous uh uh work in uh I'm not sure whether I think he was in Cincinnati and he had used the material and he's the one who recommended this material and um this material was uh picked for two purposes one is for its porocity so that the water will filter through but also for its pliability ility to allow the trees to the tree roots to grow and instead of having to dig up brick or anything like that. This one can just sort of be shaved until you run out of material.

Okay. Yeah, I'm think I'm familiar with the material. So, I was just curious about whether we've we have experience with it, but it would be good to I'd love to I don't know how long it will take us to decide whether or not we like it, but maybe five years from now, whoever's on planning commission can hear about it. Um uh I also on a m on another maintenance is there going to be trash or recycling in the park? Um there will be two uh there will be a trash receptacle with recycling at the entrance at uh Oak and uh Fellows. Uh our uh pickup uh is has to be near the street.

That makes sense. Okay. Okay. Um, I also wondered about C, Mr. Zen, can you um remind me what what what's happening with the sidewalk exactly? Is it is it widening? What's happening with the poles? I think I remember from our pre It's been a while since we've looked at this, but from our previous discussion that those terrible poles are are not something that we can deal with at this point with this budget that we have, right? They will not touch those poles, but on the right hand side uh along the Parker Avenue, they're going to building the sidewalk. There is no sidewalk right now. Okay. So, new sidewalk.

New sidewalk will be all the way extended to the timber timber lane. I see. Okay. To link them together. And then they have four four shade tree proposed on the on the side of sidewalk. Yeah, those are the four trees. Okay. The new sidewalk on Parker is terrific. What's the width of that sidewalk? Is it the typical like five foot? It's a five foot typical one. And we aren't touching the sidewalk on Oak Street that's what like 3 ft wide it feels like with poles. That's not being touched at all. Not on this side of Oak Street. I think on that side uh they were not touched either.

So I big picture like that that sidewalk is terri terrible through there in front right in front of the park is awful. Um, so it's it's disappointing that I I don't you know again it's like prioritization. So sorry actually it's a proposed the sidewalk improvement. I think it's old new sidewalk. So it's new sidewalk but the poles are remaining uh l can you uh shed some light on it?

Yes. Uh we uh we can't touch the sidewalk itself, but along the poles uh there is a little retaining wall that you may know. We are widening the sidewalk on uh wherever those poles are so that there is a uh 4ft clearance uh around those poles. I see. So that's the 4 foot. Yeah. Okay. I mean, it's I guess it's better than nothing. That sidewalk is also just quite narrow through there. I don't I don't know what the width is. I walk my dog through there all the time, so I'm quite familiar with this sidewalk. Um, and its shortcomings. So,

yeah. Again, I hate to I hate to say this, but uh the issue came up about uh Oak Street sidewalk and uh the discussion was that if uh that sidewalk will be uh re uh done at some point uh it'll be done through a uh separate project uh from DPW. Okay. Mr. Zang, did you have a another comment? Yeah, I just wanted to answer your question. That's a 5ft sidewalk. It's a 5 foot. Yeah. And then the sidewalk will be uh right against the curb.

Okay. Um uh one other I I love I just want to you may be feeling like we have only negative feedback. I just want to say I do love the design for this park and the vision for the park. And I I'm um really excited to see how it all comes together and feels because I think it's it's a really great um idea. The the the whole vision that that you have. Um I was curious about the little animal statues. Are those going to be the same carved ones that we have in the other parks uh like in Big Chimneys Park or do do you know who the artist is for those statues? Uh actually it's a little different. The uh there is going to be an entrance uh tree at uh at the corner of Oak and um and uh Fellow's Court that is going to it's a tree that is looks like an arch that to it sort of matches the archway at uh at Henry uh Howard E. Herman Park because these are kind of connected and but this is uh it's a tree and in the tree there's going to be these uh uh medals of a treasure hunt and the treasure hunt is of these animals and these animals are going to be put out along uh where those uh as Henry called it those octopus arms so that the kids can go and find these animals and they are all native to the false church area such as deer, beaver, uh foxes, uh and and and such. So that uh but these animals and the tree are made of uh play equipment uh quality so that if the kids want to climb on it and stuff, it it it'll they do take the abuse. So uh that

it's uh it's a playground u material that uh they're going to use. Okay. Thank you. Um I think that's it from me. Any other questions, comments? Yep. I just have a real real quick onehead. Um thank you.

Um I am I'm really excited to kind of see these drawings get started. Um I know that we've been looking at it for some time, so it's nice to to see it come to fruition or um getting closer. I am a little bit concerned about that telephone pole at the corner of Parker and South Oak. It's It looks like the Ballards are drawn larger than what is being shown as the existing light pole to remain, which is an actual pretty pretty, you know, it's a standard telephone pole. I think I think it would be good to show that in here because it doesn't actually look like we're going to get the 4T around the diameter of that pole. Like I don't maybe it's it's grayed out because it's existing to rem existing to remain. But I'm I'm I wonder if maybe it makes sense to move that crosswalk instead of where we're putting it at that corner. And I understand why we need something at that corner for that transition, but actually realign that crosswalk so that it aligns with that driveway and the entrance to uh Oak Street Elementary and just bring that up the hill a little bit to align with that existing driveway just to avoid that telephone pole because you're coming across that street and literally right into that pole.

Mhm. Then you have to navigate around it to access the park. Yeah, you've got to make a quick left turn to get around it. Um, it just seems really awkward.

I would agree. Um, uh, Mr. Stoga, do you have any comment or reply on on that suggestion? Uh all I can tell you is is with uh uh I'll ask the engineers to look at them at it again. Uh I know that when we did the uh the drawing of it and the measure we did it out in the field also that there was plenty of clearance especially with that bulb out that uh that's at the corner of uh Parker and uh Oak. Um yeah, Parker and Oak. So, um I we can look at it again uh and see if uh if it does not meet the requirements uh the ADA requirements.

Yeah, it just looks like a a maybe it's a trick of the graphics on on the plan with the darkness of the new work um against the existing, but it it just doesn't look right. So, I'm curious if there is an option to pull that crosswalk more south on the street so that it's to the left on this plan that we're looking at. Okay. So, Mr. Stogo, you'll you'll chat with the engineers and with that about that suggestion.

Yes. Uh we'll definitely look into it and make sure that it u like I say it meets all requirements and that uh poll is not a a danger or u obstacle in in that corner right there. Okay. Right. Thank you. Sure. Any other questions or comments? Uh Mr. Kinsky, just a just a question. So, not to rehash this too much, but um since this is new process, what's going to city council on Monday? Uh the basically it's the resolution of amend approved amendment of to the site plan and the subdivision a site plan code mainly

and will city council get planning commission's recommendations as part of that or I think Henry's describing a very different Yeah it's a different thing yeah unrelated to this site plan you're talking about the general subdivision oh okay yeah that's the amendment ment to the site plan process, right? Oh, okay. Not not not this side. I was I was briefly confused. So, time this will be in front of a commission or council. This No, this is the this is the only time in front of planning commission. Okay. Right. Yeah. Got it.

That's the that's the Monday's decision will be basically um adopted I mean adopted as a part of the zoning amendment. Got it. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Okay. Well, I think you have our recommendations. Mr. Trainer will uh summarize them and then share them with Mr. Matusk and staff and the planning commission. That's next steps. Yeah, we'll distribute that. All right. Well, thank you all. Um, thank you Mr. Zang, Mr. Stoga, Mr. Garris for coming out tonight. I'm excited about this new park.

Okay. Thank you. All right, that brings us to Did we We need to discuss the subdivision plot. Are you Are you the lead on that? Okay. All right. We're We kind of slowed up a bit. So, item B,

I'll be extremely brief because you're all very familiar with this at this point. Um, if you could open up uh attachment 7B. Okay. So yeah, just to make the distinction that was the site plan which um the comments site while you were talking I I wrote down the comments to capture them and sent them to Jack and then we'll look over them again before we officially uh cement them. Um this is in reference only to the plat. Um and this will be coming back to you um in January 21st for public hearing. Um as you as you've seen the application on June 18th of this year for the pre preliminary plat which was approved um for your review um as Henry has stated this is a plan to take seven R1A lowdensity residential parcels purchased by the city in 2019 for 4.6 million and to consolidate consolidate them into the proposed public park. Um, the idea for the park has been around for a while, first appearing in the comp plan, chapter 6, parks for people, adopted in 2016, as well as the future land use map. Um, and as it previously stated, this will be coming back for public hearing January 21st.

Great. Thank you. Uh, any questions or discussion?

Oh, Mr. Kraner. um we you know since we don't get to talk about the site plan we can talk about the subdivision. Um, actually this is a kind of a minor thing, but every time I get an opportunity since I've been doing it for like 10 years and it never changes. On page four of the land use of your report, you have the future land use map adopted June of last year 2024 future for uh parks and open space in the comp plan and it shows this is not related to fellows but um it shows at the corner of Lincoln and Pine Street Future Park. I think the three or four people that live on houses that were built on that over, you know, over 15 years ago would probably not, you know, understand what that means. I think the horse is way out of the barn on the idea that we would ever have a park at that corner. I think it was vacant land up until 2008 or nine. And so the city maybe had to dream about getting that as parkland, which didn't happen because it got sold to developers and houses were built. And so every time I see it, and I've been saying this for like the decade since I've been on the planning commission, we should update the land use map of the comp plan to show the corner of Lincoln and Pine as just, you know, the d medium density residential since that's what's built and that's probably what it will always be. Um, so just at just every time I get the opportunity when this map comes back, I've told I told Mr. Stoddard about it like at least a half a dozen times. So anyhow, I'm not calling anyone out specifically. I can call it Mr. side because he doesn't work here anymore. But um yeah, if we could fix that so that folks who ever look at the map and say, "Wait a second, why does it show my house as future parkland?" Um if you can pull it up, Mr. Trainer, you can see what I'm talking about. I know you guys know. I think

the land use map is the next chapter be reopened potentially. Um so I'll get that to the person who Yeah, it's just the map. It's the map. I don't think the text recommends it, but it's just on the map. The the land use plan map for future, you know, shows uh shows it. Yeah. Not on this map. This map does not have it. But if you go to the on the staff report, it's on the staff report page four.

So if you zoom in there, it's in my little corner of the world. See, it shows Future Park. There's one, two, three, maybe four houses there that were all of which were built around 2010, 2011, 2009, that time frame. So anyhow, probably should. It's a minor thing, but if it's before us every time, I'll I'll I'll say it. So, but I have no comments on the on the uh block consolidation. I think that's the easy part of the fellows thing. Thank you. Anybody else?

All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Garris. So, we'll look to see you again in January the 21st. Thank you. Okay. All right. Uh, that brings us to information items. Any commissioner reports? Mr. Duncan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh there was a communication that I received just before the meeting from Sally Cole on Southwest Street about the neighbors meeting concerning the parking and other issues that some of the neighbors have. It's a sort of a follow on longer follow on to the letter that we received at our last meeting from one of the citizens who lives on Southwest. I just wanted to for the record say that I'll be passing that letter on to staff so they can circulate it if they wish to the next uh to our next meeting in mid January. I guess it'll be, but just so folks are aware, there's some constructive suggestions that are made in the communication that I got this afternoon and there's some some other suggestions that would be much more involved, I think. But, uh, just to let all the other commissioners know, it's still, uh, percolating over on Southwest. My other report is that I, speaking of good planning, uh, attended the Winter Wonderland event at the Founders Row. Um, and while it was great to have Santa and the train and all that, I go with a eye on does this plaza work the way that we had hoped that it would when we approved the design. And I think I'm happy happy to say yes, it does. the traffic, you know, found their way in to the free parking even though one of the entrances is closed for the event. Seemed to be enough parking. There were a substantial crowd of folks there. And the space is large enough to uh accommodate a pretty goodized crowd, but not so large that you feel like, you know, you're lost in some big space. It's a it's a nice atmosphere for a celebration like the Winter Wonderland

event. Thanks to Mil Creek for being uh sponsors and uh facilitating the celebration uh this time every year. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. It's lovely. Uh Mr. Stevens.

Yeah. And um um Mr. Duncan may want to add to this as well, but we were both at the EDA meeting last evening and uh one of the major things they talked about there, Mr. Shields was uh gave an update on the Virginia Village and um as I'm sure most folks here know, the uh EDA has been heavily involved in um the purchase of uh some of the quads or as many quads as they can get access to. Um and this the staff have been very busy at work coming up with an a plan uh going forward on what to do uh you know where the city should be going with that with that project. Uh and that includes um updates to the future land use map and uh changes to the plan such as the small area plan because there's a lot of possibilities. I mean that that that site could remain as just affordable housing or it could could work with a partner to come up with uh some type of a blend uh that could involve uh both affordable housing as well as market rate housing and maybe some commercial uh you know content as well. Uh but the it did raise a question with me. We really haven't haven't seen any of that activity here at the planning commission as far as the future of that site. I was just wondering whether there was any thought to have a discussion amongst the planning commission members on the future use of that property.

Yeah, it could be a good topic for the advance in January. And that was the other thing that I wanted wanted to mention. As we know, council is going to have their meeting, I believe, on January 31st to discuss uh the priorities, you know, with the new council. And so, at our advance, it may be a good opportunity for us to uh gather some thoughts on on input to council on what we think priorities should be.

And we actually have the mayor with us tonight if she would like to speak on uh council's priorities. I don't believe Mr. Miss Underh Hill's with us this evening. Good evening. This is a little weird being on the other side here. I'm not your council leison, but I actually came because I know Justine's not here tonight. And so our retreat is January 31st. And a new thing that we are trying this year is we are going to send out a survey to all of our boards and commissions hopefully within the next week or so uh as an opportunity for you all to give us your input. Um, so it could be over the survey, it could be from after your advance, but ideally there's some discussion time in your January meeting or when your next meeting is. And so before January 31st, we'll have all the input distilled. Um, and you guys are still welcome to join a retreat, but we hope that'll be a more efficient way of collecting input from all of our boards and commissions.

Are we filling the survey out as individual members or as a committee? It's a good question. I think everyone gets it, but I think ideally you all have a chance to discuss and then can synthesize and send in a collective planning commission response. Okay. So, that could be another topic for apparently it's a very quick two question survey I'm told. Okay. So, but thank you in advance for your input because obviously the planning commission plays a big role in what our priorities should be for the coming two years. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Anybody else on uh commissioner reports? Okay. If I think that takes us to the director's report and I know as part of the director's report, we wanted to discuss topics for the um annual advance. Mr. Matisk, do you want to speak on anything else?

So, there's two primary elements that we were hoping to have a conversation about. One involves the schedule, which is probably the easier part, and we can kind of handle that up front. Uh the other one I think is um any initial guidance, feedback, suggestions you all may have tonight uh that could help staff and myself plan better uh for a productive session in uh early January. Before we get to that, as maybe some of the wheels start turning, um there may be a uh helpful adjustment in the in the schedule. What we're doing is at the same time uh as involving the 40-day review period for site plans, we have another one coming in uh and we're trying to make sure that the January timeline uh in the upcoming planning commission meeting can successfully fit within that 40-day window

uh and allow us to make some action approval or rejection um without I I think delaying some of the applications. Long story short, what that means is that the January 7th meeting that we have been holding for the advance may actually be better suited for those applications and some of additional administrative items. And the question for you all tonight is is there any interest and does it create any conflicts if we shift the advance by one week to January 14th? So we have three meetings in January, the 7th, the 14th and the 21st.

Not necessarily. the two items that I think would be or were planned for the 21st may be able to move up to the January 7th meeting if we're able to make the swap. So, we would be essentially shifting things around and still having two meetings but earlier in the month. So, the 14th that's pretty close to MLK day. Let me just uh just calendar-wise um the 16th is a um no school teacher work day. the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th. Um, so you're recommending sorry the the 7th and the 14th as the meeting dates assuming we have availability quantum. Yeah, you're saying the seventh for the meet the regular

seventh for a regular meeting business, right? And then the 14th and then 14th for the advance. Yeah. Uh I have no conflicts. Anybody else? We are we're leaving early for a trip on Thursday the 16th. So, as long as uh I'm not going to get Friday the 16th. Sorry. Thursday the 15th. Thursday the 15th. Yeah. So, as long as I'm not going to get in too much trouble at home, uh staying out late the night before a trip, I can probably work that out. Okay. Everybody else good? Okay.

Okay. So, that really helps us and I appreciate the flexibility um planning for that meeting and I think incorporating any surveys the council may have. Um we're trying our best to have a productive conversation. uh revisit some earlier preferences. I I think March of this year, you guys were able to uh kind of express what those were based on discussions last winter. Um and as we hear from our partners and other departments, it would really be helpful for us to have a productive uh discussion, maybe some exercises and and dialogue on really prioritizing the very many different products we may be initiating, completing uh and contemplating next year. And there's a lot of trade-offs involved. There's so many things we could address. Um, some are more critical than others, but understanding where you all sit on that. How many of them are related? How many of them might have significant community engagement components? Um, how many of them have legal implications involving uh much more thorough review by the, you know, city attorney and and other folks, other departments like, you know, HHS. Um, considering all of that and also going back maybe 2 or 3 years, are there things we just continue to push back but not really address but maybe now is the time? All that feedback I think would be helpful for us to figure out how we prioritize and kind of have additional conversations with the council at the end of the year at the end of January. So tonight, we're simply asking if there's anything initially on your mind or if you can recall ear previous advances that were productive and that maybe we could repeat. Uh so kind of good lessons learned, if you will.

Great. Thank you. Um that's helpful. And it sounds like we'll get another bite of the apple potentially at the January 7th meeting. Yep. Okay. So that that's helpful. So we could have an initial discussion now and then maybe we can all sleep on it for a month and come back to that January 7th meeting and if staff in the meantime has ideas that they would want to propose. Um I do think that sort of like tabletop exercise that um we did with Mr. Shatter gosh I think that was like two years ago now was very engaging for the commission. Do you remember that? Yeah. Um so I think the homemade p the pieces and the map thing of the

Yeah. It's just kind of a big Oh, I think and appropriate considering um I believe we're still on track to take a look at the land use chapter next year. So, that might be a good um option to consider. I don't think Mr. Kinsky or Mr. Pollinsky were with us for that or Mr. Duncan, but the I was not You weren't um I was not at that one. Oh, it was fun. Well, the three of us had a great time. So that's kind of where our thoughts on where we thought development should go and you could actually manage that by putting buildings little little you were creating like a little Lego town that look and I think part of what

maybe we're struggling with is really kind of understanding the tradeoffs and there's literally like 30 different elements that could be considered different planning initiatives and projects and kind of looking at what is maybe most crucial for 2026.

What do we think is interesting and beneficial but maybe could wait till 2027. So it's kind of that prioritization exercise something along those lines that I think expresses if there are competing interests, competing priorities that we could then kind of have a more effective conversation about how do we prioritize things based on need, based on all the experience we have in the room. um and then helping us figure out how to make sense of that. And then that ties directly into resources, right? And who's available um and I think we're being very mindful of initially being aggressive in the absence of a lot of site plan applications, particularly major SC's uh until they get filed again and we don't know when that's going to happen. Uh I think we have an opportunity to really uh you know do some good work, good planning work. Uh so in that light what would we like to focus on as you know come February and March a lot of the spillover effect from this year will conclude uh the complnt element uh for chapter 5 the facilities chapter is going to wrap up uh the tree canopy and some of the other ongoing things uh will conclude. So, what do we want to start preparing, scoping, and and getting ready for you all to have a initial crack at these things?

Mr. Dunn, could I ask um that would be uh useful, I think, if you've got 30 things on your list u to give us a chance to give some advanced thought. I mean, I have a list of 10 or 12 items that I have an interest in or that I've heard others express interest in. Certainly, the housing issue that Mr. Stevens brought up a minute ago would be a very important one, but there are 29 others that I'm sure you have. Do you think you would be able to circulate in advance that list just so we could begin to prioritize in our own minds and make the meeting itself more efficient? I think we can. I think that would be good.

Mr. Kinsky,

uh, thanks. So, I do have some initial thoughts. I know we'll revisit this on the 7th. Um, but here's some I'll throw out as advanced agendas. One, I think it would be a good idea to review our recommendations and priorities from last year and see how we did. I know we talked about that a little bit. I know last year we talked about ebike regulations and strengthening green building standards, things like that. uh we may not actually want to review those until the end of the advance just in case we get discouraged that we didn't accomplish as much as we wanted to. Um but it would be a good I think it's a good somewhere in that process to do a report card on what we said we wanted to do and what we did um and see if those are still our priorities. I know we just talked about the land use chapter. Um I think it would be great to get an update from the staff on where we are in that process. Um and myself I'm particularly interested in uh the scope and the way ahead. We talked about a preceding study. Uh so it would be good to get an update on you know the scope and the way ahead with the preceding studies. We were going to look at land use policies of other jurisdictions and whether they were successful or not and whether they were applicable to Falls Church, but uh there was some discussion at the last advance about maybe having a nonprofit do it or doing it in house or having UVA do it or something like that, but it would be good to just understand where we stand on that study in advance of the uh chapter 4 update. Uh so

I I will say on the topic of the land use chapter um I suspect that's probably going to occupy a good portion of the advance because one thing we are already interested in plan to incorporate into a discussion or exercise is kind of an experiment to see what everybody's expectations are for what should be involved in that process. meaning when we keep talking about this huge chapter, this magnificent lift uh of a planning effort, what does everybody actually envision it achieving? What is it solving? Why is it so important? And I think we're going to get a lot of different answers once that question's posed. Um, and posing that question in the context of all the other small area plans that already exist, our zoning ordinance, um, all the guidance that we have available and strategically asking the question of this very important chapter that used to mean something very different 15, 20 years ago. Um, what does it mean today? and knowing that answer or at least beginning to agree on what that answer is, how do we update it given perhaps its new placement and all the different guidance that we have available? So, that's a great point and that was also one of my recommendations. Um, and this might partially get to that. Um, I know a number of folks on the commission are big fans of the nonprofit Strong Towns. So, Strong Town's website has what they call a um recommended uh six policies that make city housing cities housing ready. Um and it might not be a bad idea to pull out 20 minutes of our advance to go through those policies and

say how do they work with false church? Are they things? So, these are their recommendations. They're not necessarily things that are going to work for false church, but they might. And it would be a great way to discuss the left and right limits of the Latin use uh you know, chapter. You know, there it's things like, you know, permit backyard cottages. Well, we did that last year with accessory dwellings. Check that one. We're we're we're in compliance with the that recommendation. streamline the approval process. You know, uh harder, it's easier said than done, but we're all in agreement with that. And then there's some things that are maybe more controversial, you know, like allow single family home conversions to duplexes or triplexes by right. That's that's a recommendation out of the Strong Towns. I think it would be a good exercise to spend 20 minutes to saying are those things that we want to consider as part of the land use chapter as part of the way a you know the the future vision for Falls Church and get some you know you know creative juices going towards those types of questions. Um I I think it would be a good way to help scope similar to your Lego drill to help scope you know what what is it we want in terms of what is our vision in terms of land use. So I think we can find a reasonable approach to incorporate some of those concepts and questions. I think the filter will probably add to the exercise is if we there's enough

consensus where through that effort we believe some component that another jurisdiction, city, country has applied that maybe does or could work in this city. How do we proceed in that direction without automatically creating inconsistencies with all the other policies that we have in place? And I think part of that gets into the specific level of detail that the land use chapter needs to be in now that we have small area plans that some very recently I think express the vision for a lot lot significant portions of the city. Um, and if those are still relevant and we spend a significant amount of time with engagement and and thoughtful compromises, how do we make sure this land chapter does not create new conflicts with those area plans? So, there's a middle ground. I think we can get to a compromise, but constantly reminding ourselves of that we don't want to necessarily create more work where if we get to a good outcome, now we have to change a lot of area plans because now now they're out of date and we just finished them two years ago. Um, so kind of looking at what that what does that look like? Um, and particularly if there are applicants that perhaps would want want to file and take advantage of this new idea, but perhaps the zoning is not in line with that or the small area plan is in conflict with it. And I think we're struggling to reconcile a lot of those different guiding documents to make sure that if folks do come in and want to take advantage of some of those options, all these documents speak the same language and are kind of in agreement. Well, I and I'll defer to staff in terms of how to structure that discussion, particularly with regard to the small area plans and how we can have that discussion in that context of already approved the plans. Um, but I do think it's worth spending some time with a a somewhat

freewheeling discussion about what should be what are our left and right limits in terms of land use. Um and and again I I I found the strong towns six policy recommendations pretty helpful to think through you know it one was about you know eliminating parking regulations. Uh is that's is that one of the things that we want to even touch you know some of them are maybe third rails. Um, and the last one that I would recommend, uh, I wouldn't mind getting an update on the, uh, cable franchise agreements, uh, that we had addressed last time, uh, midyear, uh, this year. Uh, I'm not quite sure where we stand. It was supposed to be come to us.

Cindy was Cindy was advocating on that. If I Cindy, wasn't um, Cindy Master advocating on Yeah. Yeah. So, Si Cindy Mester briefed us. I think it was supposed to come to the planning commission to review the franchise agreements, but we had suggested as part of that there was some things we wanted to make sure happened like elimination of double poles, like potentially advocating with Richmond for uh concurrent undergrounding. Uh this was all before you got here. Um but it would be helpful to get an update on where we stand just in terms of when those franchise agreements are going to get resigned um you know and what they're going to say things like that. So those are those would be my recommendations.

Thank you. Would it be helpful for me to um remind everybody of our the priorities that we recommended last year? I have like a a quick rundown. Okay. So, last year um our our the recommendations that I delivered to city council in the um annual report in I think April. So, these are pretty ambitious considering we came up with them in May. Um was to introdu update uh two comprehensive plan chapters, the introduction and vision chapter chapter 1 and the land use chapter chapter 4 with a preceding scoping study. And then in the area of transportation planning, we wanted to review um ebike, scooter, and low-speed electric vehicle regulations. In the area of environmental sustainability, we wanted to strengthen our green building standards. In the area of zoning ordinance review and cleanup, we wanted to update our B2 commercial uses, including um daycare and recreational commercial uses. We also wanted to take another look at the cottage housing ordinance. We did send C city council a letter requesting um that we we revisit that um that ordinance. Um and then we also recommended some projects for the next council work plan um which were count for calendar years 26 27 which are now upon us and that was um to update additional comprehensive plan chapters and small area plans um the community character appearance and design comprehensive plan chapter chapter 3 and the west end small area plan and I think we also have a lot of additional information on Gordon Road Triangle now um and recommendations there. And then in the area of zoning ordinance review and cleanup, we wanted to um address the city signed ordinance and the BCA's uh letter to council and putting commission stating that the sign ordinance is outdated and overly limiting. So I guess my question is like these things are all not equal, right? In terms of level of effort of staff, level like um possibility is it is something that

can happen um you know in like a short time frame. So I guess maybe my goal would be like can we pick like a short list of like easy wins, things that we know we can do in the year and then maybe bigger things that we can get started on or medium things that we could think we can make significant progress on. So and I I I looked to staff for guidance on on that level of effort and staff resources to accomplish all these things. That's a long list that I that I just read. Yeah, we already have some drafts that I think we're going to continue to refine through January. Um, I think part of what our approach might look like is considering the themes and topics that I think are leading to those things being listed. Something triggered that idea, right? There's there was an issue, there's an outdated standard or

there's build examples that we don't want to repeat, whatever that might be. Revisiting those origins and looking at how we solve them might in its own process begin to highlight to do that effectively. This guidance might need to be replaced. This one has to go away. These two have to be combined. Like you could start to see some of those solutions as we get into January uh become a framework for what then has to get started. how long would it take?

It's some something we can do in house or for that to really be effective, we have to get some consultant work uh and support. So we're kind of approaching it that way. Um so rather than starting with we have to change the land use chapter, I think one of the things we have to do is reconcile our vision. Uh what does that mean? What does that encumber and include? So from that approach, I think we have a better sense of how long it takes, what's impacted, and therefore how much can we actually take on at once. So hopefully that'll start to make sense as we kind of lay it out and we'll try to have a more graphic presentation of that and some additional things to kind of plug and play with. Um, but that's kind of the the goal right now. And do we want to have that kind of envisioning conversation in these different areas that we we you know sort of um I I mean strategic like you know the areas of like transportation planning or environmental sustainability um or like do you want it to be more specific around like the comprehensive plan chapter and and updates that we need there or like small area plans or the zoning ordinance? Like I guess I I'm trying to figure out like is it is it like revisioning on on all of these different like aspects of what creates our community or is it the actual documents and processes?

So some of it I think is more intuitive. So the list of permitted uses in some of the zoning districts. I I think most of us have a pretty pretty good understanding of what the pain points might be. I could see that being perhaps a six-month process where like a quick win, right? We we kind of know what the answer is. Um, there's other ones where I think we can take a stab at what we think the scope might be. Generally, we're solving for X, Y, and Z, which might involve these two documents, these three documents. Do we all agree on that or are we heading in the wrong direction or we miss something? So, verification of the scope um and and I think then prioritizing uh kind of the level of importance and just managing resources.

Yeah. Yeah. I don't want to monopolize Mr. Duncan. I hear you. Uh you you want to go?

Just enjoying the discussion. It's interest I'm I'm trying to put my head around what you're all suggesting. What I hear is what I hear is we we'd like to have a discussion about what do we want? And that list of things that we want as Matt just said includes some that might not be should not be so hard. zoning for daycare and so forth. Uh some might be a little more challenging, but anyway, there's a bin of what do we want? We want u this that and the other. And then where does it go? Where do these things that we want best fit into the new false church and um doing that without getting too encumbered by documents from the past while still being guided by them. You know, a lot has changed here since we started the small area plan process some more than a decade ago. And um you know, we should we should be aware of that. We're all aware of it. Uh we should, you know, buy into it if we do. If we don't, we should say we don't. And we should try to think about where our uh locations for affordable housing and other you know micromobility and all the all the cool things that we want um before we get too mired into well we have to update this particular chapter with you know a months many months long process. There's value in that, but there's also value in trying to pick pick some specific things we want and try to figure out where we would where we as a group would like to plan to locate them. It's reminding me of our our LEGO exercise again. Uh any other questions or discussion

ideas? Just one other thought while

Oh, sure. Go ahead, Mr. Duncan. I'm sorry. Uh briefly going to the council's budget uh council school board budget guidance meeting Monday night. Uh there was not much maybe a little discussion of the school CIP needs. The calendar that they work on as I understand it has them cooking up whatever it is they think is needed in the way of CIP projects. uh you know now uh December, January before by the by the time we as a planning commission see it in February, it seemed like they'd be pretty far down the road of expressing what they want. I would love to have a window into their discussions and deliberations and needs a little bit earlier so that we can inform so it would inform some of the discussions that we might have in our retreat. Um, with enrollment being essentially flat for the last, uh, several years, um, the CIP needs today look a little different than we might have thought they would have 10 years ago. And that that would factor into how we allocate resources, uh, how we discuss that when we do our own, uh, advance discussions.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Craftsman, did you Yeah, I was just going to say I mean, you know, since now I've been through a number of advances, um, you know, I feel like our most effective ones have been where we do kind of target, you know, we have, you know, where it's more structured.

Um, obviously we, you know, we could obviously all sit around and sort of talk about big picture, you know, sort of planning ideas and things that we like or don't like. I think to be more effective as far as like, you know, remembering what our what the planning commission's role is, you know, statutoily and what our authority is and what we can actually affect and understanding that, you know, aligning with council um you know, is is the best way to to to make sure that some things that we are interested actually can happen. without support and champions on the council for what the ideas we come up with. Um, you know, we're not going to be able to look back at the end of the year and say, "Yeah, we made a lot of progress." We could come up with a whole list of things, but if it's completely off what council's priorities are, you know, they they'll, you know, they can they'll they'll nod their head and say, "Thank you, Planning Commission, for sharing your your thoughts with us. We'll see you again next year." Um so you know that's just my experience over eight years you know is that we have to be strategic understanding what our role is within the political system within the city. Um and the way we can be most effective is by you know advocating for things that we believe in but you know making sure that we you know there's you know knowing that council you know their priorities overlap um on some of those you know and those would be the ones to really focus on. Um and so if if the advance can tease some of those ideas out and get a sense of you know where we realize there there you know there's already an emerging consensus in the city for these things but how can we actually you know get moving progress. I mean that's I think where you know we we've had you know more success if you will. I mean again a lot of what we do is you know unfortunately or fortunately we don't entirely just control our agenda. We don't just get to say for the year okay we're going to do these things and staff go do them.

Mhm. I mean, as we know, staff is, you know, essentially being pulled in other directions. You know, they're getting they're getting marching orders from council. They're getting marching orders, you know, to do certain things and and when it comes down to it, if if council directs them to do something, that's going to take priority if it's not aligned with what we, you know, over what something we want to do. Um, that's completely different. And I think, you know, um, Mr. Matusk is kind of hinting at that a little bit and that there's a reality here. So we should certainly use an advance to think big by all means that's the point of it to step out of our daily week to week kind of grind and and think big but you know we always have to remember going back down to earth you know where we fit in the process and where we can be most effective you know and I think that's so when we've had advances in the past that have been more targeted I think those have been better than just having kind of a freewheeling you know planning phil philosophical discussion um you know about things we all think we like, you know, I mean, that's we can do that and that's fun, but you know, it's not going to be, I think, as effective to see results. So, that that's what I would just that's my overall kind of comment is that um, you know, we can come up with ideas that, you know, we can advocate to council and staff could be like, you know, okay, I'm hearing this from council and from the planning commission. There's a lot of consensus and so, yeah, I mean, this is something that clearly that's what the community, you know, wants, that's the direction they want to move in.

Yeah. And there's also the reality of staff capacity for all these. there's only so much they can do and and if they already have things teed up because council's giving them, you know, this next year you're going to be doing this, you know, whatever that is. Um, you know, then we may have great ideas, but they'll they just can't handle that this year and then we're in the same boat a year from now. Um, so yeah, understanding, you know, like the reality of that is important because that's just that's just, you know, the world we live in. So, um, you know, we'll have more success and we'll be able, you know, if we do that in my opinion. Yeah, I agree. Any other thoughts? Sleep on it for a month. Maybe come back. Miss Mr. Matus is going to give his his list of 29 things that we could work on. Is that what I heard? 30.

30 things. I I won't confirm how many we have to add to that list, though. Okay. Yeah. Any um any early thoughts from staff? And uh I can't remember what Miss Hardy said about the timing for sort of the feedback for that survey. when are we when do we expect to know kind of what early look at council priorities to Mr. Krosner's point.

So, I believe the survey um might reach you this month, later this month. Uh, I think Jack and I are going to work on the annual report so that you have have a slight sense of what we're dealing with, but then figure out a way to preview any materials or lists in advance of the advance. um such that we're being effective with our time and prior to the January 31st council retreat, you all have a chance to express reactions and based on the exercises and discussions we had, what your recommendations are. So, our goal is to make sure that you still have a couple of weeks to digest, synthesize, and share recommendations with the council that informs their retreat at the end of the month in January. So, so reforming those recommendations in the advance um as a group and then communicating with them like I'm drafting a letter, but how does that work procedurally like that we're making those recommendations to council?

They'll be included in the annual report. In the annual report

like normal. Yeah. I think by way of the the schedule, we'll have maybe uh um we'll bring a draft of the annual report to y'all uh at your next meeting and that will, you know, exclude the recommendations obviously because that hasn't been made yet. And then we'll insert the recommendations made at the advance into the annual report and we can have that action item the same night as the annual report. So we'll you know just in the same night the planning commission will come to its consensus on its recommendations and in the same meeting um we'll put them in the annual report. We'll do that all together and then then the vote will be had to approve them and the annual report and then um those can be delivered to council before their retreat

before the January 31st. Yeah. Okay. I know slightly truncated timeline. Sometimes the chair does the actual like in person annual report but we can deliver them in advance of whatever that date might be. Yeah. So I think that'll still happen. Uh we want to right the the commission has to approve the annual report. Yeah. Before uh the retreat so that those recommendations can be given to council. You know traditionally that's done I think at at a meeting. It's either the chair or the vice chair goes to council and does that. But because the document will be approved that can als that will also be a public document and can be you know shared with council with the council ahead of time too.

Okay. So we'll be reviewing in the draft of the annual report at our January 7th meeting and then having the advance discussion and making those recommendations that will be added to the annual report and that will be approved at the advance and then shared with council. Okay. Correct. Mr. Mr. Stevens, did you have another um I saw your No, I I'm just trying to sort this through mentally. Uh the survey that we're going to get from council that presumably is to inform their priorities, their new priorities list that the new council will put together. That'll be I I'm envisioning, maybe I'm wrong, I'm envisioning that's kind of high level. Two questions.

Yeah, two questions. kind of you know what are the big issues that the city should be looking at the council should be leading the city in looking at over the next two years and then after that uh once we get their priorities then I think Mr. Kran's point kind of kicks in then you can kind of embed specific things that we have an interest in in that priority list that they have so that it has you know more of a chance to succeed. Yeah. Yeah. And I guess that's just a very general kind of thought.

I guess my question is like when will we have that council priority list? If it's not till they've had their retreat or advance or whatever whatever they're calling it, then I wonder about the timing of ours. Like are we using our advance to kind of come up with those recommendations to make to council or are we using our advance to kind of figure out how we're implementing council's priorities? No, I think we're using it as it in part to inform their discussion. Okay. If we think that's the best they are looking to us to say from the planning responsibility, what do you recommend to us?

I think they will very much appreciate our input. Sammy, I think there's parallel tracks and we can get back to you with any further guidance about when we all, particularly this group, will have chance to preview and weigh in on the council's priorities. No matter what they are, I think a lot of the work that the planning division does with our partners w with enough skill, I think, can conveniently fall into many different versions of the priorities, which I can't imagine going to be that different they've been the last two years. So, I'm not I'm less worried about how some of our work fits into their priorities. I think it's more of a prioritization of staff resources. And if there's 10 things we'd love to do, but we can only do five at once.

What are those five? Yeah. Okay. Well, we can all vote for our five in January. Anything else on this? Any other questions? Okay. Um, did we have anything else on the agenda? Correspondence, Mr. Trainer? Okay, then I think we are journed. 9:32 only two minutes late. I move