Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. To the planning commission meeting for 11/24/2025. We welcome everybody. We are gonna get right into it. We're wait waiting for at least one of our commissioners.

He will be here shortly, but, we're just gonna go into it, with our flag salute. So if you all stand with me, we will do that now. Pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. We have got a fairly concise agenda for tonight.

We're going to go right into our work session script. We've got final draft and final findings. So, the purpose of tonight's work session is to give the planning commission the opportunity to discuss the draft and final findings of CUP 2501 and VAR 2501 Camby Christian parking lot expansion. To make most of the short time we are given for these meetings, public comment will not be taken. This is this is appropriate under Oregon public law public meetings law.

Instead, we invite the public to comment at all of the Planning Commission regular meetings under either of the two opportunities dedicated on each agenda for the public meetings Comment. In addition, we invite a public invite the public to contracts contact city staff with comments or concerns. Although this is a public meeting, the Planning Commission cannot take any formal discussion excuse me, cannot make any formal decision in a work session. The next step actions are often determined for deliberation and discussion to properly notice the Planning Commission meeting. So we are going to be having the consent items tonight that we have or the final draft and final findings of CUP twenty five zero one and variance twenty five zero one, the Camby Christian parking lot expansion.

You have the meetings, the notes that were given to us in the packet. Do we have any discussion changes that you would like to make To those, any discussion, comments? Hello, Judy.

No. Thank you.

You're good? Okay. Yes. If not, the chair would entertain a motion.

Mister chair, I move that we approve CUP 25 dash o one slash VAR 25 dash o one, the Camby Christian parking lot extension.

Been moved by commissioner Llewellyn to approve as submitted.

I second. We

have a second by miss Joyash. Discussion? Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. All those opposed? It passes. That would be three one, two, three, four, five, six 1234560. You'll have to forgive me. I'm getting over some jet lag here. I just got just got off a plane last night. 60.

50. There we go. 50. Thank you.

Alright. 50. That passes, and they can continue on with that project. Next, we have citizen input on non agenda items. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on non agenda items. We have nobody in the audience live here this evening. Do we have anybody on the Zoom? We have nobody on the Zoom, so we will go right to old business. I'm showing that we have no old business. I'm showing that we have no new business, and, we don't have any more public hearings for this evening.

So we will go to a preliminary discussion of development code audit, and that is going to be presented by mister Ryan Potter. Ryan?

Good evening, commissioner Ebert and members of the commission. I have a very, very brief PowerPoint. This is meant to be mostly just a discussion amongst the Planning Commission if you're ready to do that. So I'll go ahead and do this first. So and what we're talking about tonight is the upcoming code audit which will lead into a code update.

So, an outline of tonight, introducing the topic, what is a code audit? We'll talk about the current organization of our code, the main issues and topics as we see them, which is not a complete list, it's just kind of a sampling of some bigger items that we know need to be changed and then we'll ask for your input. So, what is a code audit? It's really the first step towards doing a comprehensive code update. So, this is such a massive task.

We're not just doing targeted little changes to our code. It's a full update and so we want to do a really thorough job upfront of auditing our current code, identifying what works, what doesn't, what meets the current legal standard. Obviously, the legal and regulatory context has changed since a lot of our code was adopted, but also we need We're all aware of things that are outdated, things that are overly restrictive. There's items that are confusing or contradictory. Another big item is, as you know, we've been working on all these huge long range planning efforts with the comp plan, the TSP, the housing plans including the housing needs assessment and the HPS, and then our economic opportunities analysis and all that stuff we wanna grab what's relevant in those efforts and bring them into the code, so it's all works together.

The code audit will also have a community engagement component that will include this body, it'll include a pack that will form when it gets closer to us kicking off the project, and then also, obviously, public input will all be part of that. And all of that is not fully scoped yet, so when we get to that point, we'll update you. But if there will be a vibrant, like, robust community and stakeholder engagement component. And, ultimately, this is all meant to identify a strategy for updating the code. And that will be a combination of a consultant team and a lot of staff time, so it'll be a group effort.

So, how is our current code organized now? And a lot of this, you know, this is just sort of like a summary, but chapter 16 is where our development code is. Right now, there's 58 chapters within that chapter 16. Only nine are base zones, that's a very low number. We have very few zoning districts.

Seven are overlay zones. Most of those we don't see very often. The two that we see all the time are the Pioneer Industrial Park overlay and the Downtown overlay. 18 secondtions in chapter 16 deal with land use applications, that's everything from subdivisions to CUPs to modifications, partitions, lot line adjustments, everything else. And then 24 is other, there's a lot of related chapters covering everything from signage to fencing and then just general procedures for the Planning Commission and other aspects of what we do every day.

And often with code updates, you're condensing. So, wouldn't even if we add zones, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the things shown here are added or condensed together because the point is to make it easier to use and, you know, easier to use often means condensed. So, right now, what zoning districts do we have? I I think we all mostly know this, but right now, we only have three residential districts, that's not very many. I think we've seen over time and we've seen with our housing planning that these three zones haven't really served us very well.

They're pretty narrowly defined. The medium density zone is a good one to focus on. It's based on lot size of 5,000 to 6,500 square feet. Obviously, there's many, many, many kinds of residential development and a lot of those aren't really based on traditional rectangular lots. So, these zones, you know, were adopted way before housing variety was really a focus of our city and others.

So, none of this is preordained, like there's much, much process to go before we know how different this is gonna look, but one of the things we're contemplating is additional residential zones. And that doesn't necessarily mean at the top, like, we're adding higher density. It might there might be some that are a blend of these that are add some flexibility. For nonresidential zones, we have six. These are pretty much commercial and industrial, pretty straightforward, but they don't really capture every type of development.

So, I think especially planning staff wise, we've always thought these were pretty narrow, and don't really contemplate the different types of development that any city has now. So, notable things that and a lot of this is me editorializing. So, this is a list of what I kind of perceive as missing. This isn't necessarily all things that we're gonna add, but these are just ideas. We don't really have a true mixed use zone.

Most cities do. We don't have an office professional zone. I this topics really come up with the idea of our expanding our UGB in the industrial park area. You know, those two main industrial zones that are out there now, are those the best for and the an expansion of the of the industrial park, especially when you're building industrial uses near residential areas? It doesn't make sense to have a more business park kind of zone that's not so oriented to big buildings and bigger institutions?

I think that's something we'll probably delve into. And a lot of cities do have an office or professional zone. We also don't have a public facility zone. If you look at our map, everything from the fairgrounds to the high school to parks, they're all in R1, which some cities do it that way, but I think we should explore whether it's appropriate to have a public facilities zone because then you can have development standards that are more suited towards institutional uses rather than kind of trying to shoehorn a public facility into a zone where the standards don't really address it. I talked about medium density residential.

Open space zone, we don't have, and then what else? There's lots of things, so we're definitely open to hearing what the planning commission has to say about that. And this is not to say might not even land on dramatically changing our mix of available uses, but these are all things that we should talk about. We're doing a comprehensive code update, so it's appropriate to start thinking about these things. So the next two slides are kind of a laundry list of what I think of and we've all talked about these together as a team.

Some of the big issues, obviously, there's many, many little nitpicky issues with the code now that make it hard to implement, but these are some high level ones. So, is nesting of zoning chapters. I'm sure you've all noticed applicant's trying to build something in C2, it doesn't have necessarily its own If use lists and development standards. A lot of times it's like, well, you can do what C1 allows with these exceptions or then you go to c one and it says, well, you can do what's allowed in r two, but adding this and subtracting that. So that nesting really complicates things, and I think one of the things that we're gonna be thinking about is whether each zone is better just having its own discrete list of uses and list of development standards.

So applicants aren't having to rifle through four or five different zones to find out what's allowed in a particular zone. There's incomplete and outdated list of permitted land uses. I think the downtown one is is one of the funniest ones. I think that's the one that taxidermy is a, explicitly allowed use, but then it's completely silent on, like, doctor's offices and and and dentists. So, the code just has these funky random things, but then it ignores whole ranges of very normal uses that should be identified in some of these zones.

Again, residential zones that are too few and too narrowly defined, provisions for non conforming uses that are unclear and difficult to apply. On a day to day basis, staff really struggles with non conforming uses. It's the whole chapter is just really poorly written and just needs a complete overhaul. Another thing that we've noticed is the downtown overlay is really hard to implement. It's very, very biased towards full turnover of, properties.

So, example of that is we we get a lot of people that have an older house that's in c two, so our downtown zone, and they wanna add a business, but they don't wanna totally get rid of the house or the residential use. And it's really hard to do that with how that the zone and the overlay are currently set up. And so there's a lot of people that they're like, well, I'm just gonna keep it a house then. Even though technically keeping the house and having a business in like an outbuilding or something is is technically closer to the intent which is commercial. And so some of us on staff have always felt that it it it's a little punitive towards mixed uses and so that's something that should be explored.

Hard to find development standards, that's been discussed a lot, I think up here on the dais. I mean, just the fact that fencing is in not in a fence or an urban design chapter, but in the whatever that chapter is called general provisions or whatever. It's just no one's ever gonna know to look there and so it's not the right spot for it. Our design matrices have a lot of points awarded for things that are really unattainable like underground parking garages. I mean, are there are there any underground parking garages in Canby?

I don't I don't think there are. So when applicants come through, they really, really struggle to get the right number of points and I'm thinking a lot about the industrial park. And that doesn't mean we need to necessarily make it easier so they could just sail through without doing anything, but if we're get awarding points in a design matrix, why not give points towards things that are actually attainable? So, I think that's another thing that we wanna think about. A big one is, provisions really need to reflect current state law and DLCD guidance.

So, a lot of the content that's coming out of our housing needs analysis and the HPS, the housing production strategy, we've done we've taken such great pains to address both what the state requires and what locally we need in our in our needs analysis reflects, but now now is the next step where we take we take what we can from that and bring it into the code. You guys have definitely seen the parking standards in Industrial Park have always been an issue. Every single project that comes through the door wants an exception. Obviously, to me that means, are these parking standards too generous? And maybe they are for some uses and aren't from for others, but that's definitely something that we'll want to take a look at.

If if you're allowing an exception every for every project, then that means your code's not working. And so, we'll definitely be looking at parking and that will involve some expert analysis, not necessarily just what staff thinks or what planning commission or what the public thinks. We want some hard analysis to go into that. I'm almost done. I know there's a long list.

Ambiguous categories of modifications, that's another one staff really struggles with. There's minor, intermediate, and major. Those are defined very, very loosely, so it's really commonplace for applicants to try to pick a lesser modification than maybe what we would think at at the front end of the project and if those were more well defined, then it would just be obvious what kind of modification they need to apply for. We don't have any change of use procedures, which is very uncommon and this comes up all the time and we even get businesses that want to do a change of use and we don't really have a process for it. And then provisions that aren't clear and objective, and this is a big one and one that every city in Oregon is, kind of rushing to comply with.

There are new there's new state law that provisions for housing have to be clear and objective, and that's what this next slide is. So, ORS197A. 400 requires the local government to adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures to the development of housing. And so, this is not unique to us, everyone is doing this. And that really means you can't have ambiguity.

You can't be requiring things of housing projects that have gray area for interpretation and things like encourage or compatibility. You know, this project is required to be compatible with its surrounding. That's not clear and objective. And so, you can have clear and objective standards that kind of get at that same aim, but they have to be clear and objective. And so, this text, think I borrowed this from Multnomah County, but in other words, any two people applying the same standard to a development would get the same result and there's no need or ability for the reviewer to use their discretion in applying the standard.

And so, the idea behind that, like I said before, is not to water down, it's to make it clear. It's it's meant to be clear and fair, so any applicant that comes in the door, that regulation is gonna be applied to them the same as every other applicant. Now, the route that a lot of cities are taking and we've discussed this internally is having two tracks. And so, as the state requires, you have to have a clear and objective track and that is what the code requires. You have to do a, b, c, d and e and you have to comply with that.

And what a lot of cities in Oregon do are doing now and Portland, and Eugene, and Salem, and even a lot of smaller cities are doing this, is having two tracks where the applicant can choose a more discretionary track which is an alternative path with more flexibility, but then they would come to a hearing. And so, it is more discretionary and so, in those cases, law of time they would come before the Planning Commission. And this track is good for projects that have a lot of uniqueness to them, that they don't really fit in the clear and objective path And there is some risk to the applicants when they choose the discretionary path, but it allows more flexibility so the local decision making body can recognize that there's uniqueness to that project and there's other ways they can meet the intent of what the code is trying to do. And, obviously, we're at the very front end of this discussion. So we don't know how this is gonna look for us as we get into it, but this is one of the things that we're we're contemplating.

And this is a slide I just added this afternoon, and Don and I were kinda talking about, you know, this is such a big effort. It it it's gonna take a long time. It's gonna be complicated. There's a lot of players involved, a lot of stakeholder involvement, but we do have to define it somehow. So there's some things the code update won't do, and there's probably more, but these are the two big ones that I was thinking of.

And the first is we're not changing the zoning map. So even if we do add zones, say we add a couple more residential zones, this particular effort doesn't involve rezoning anybody's property. So the map will stay the same. And then if we add zones, then there will be the opportunity for applicants or property owners to to rezone into those new zones. But we're not we're not looking at the map for this effort.

And then the other thing is sections outside chapter 16. So, obviously, not everything that's planning related, most of it happens in chapter 16, but there are some ancillary things. The biggest one is our nuisance code. So if you want chickens in your yard or as we've seen recently, the noise code lives separately. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't revisit those things, but in this particular effort, we're really gonna focus on the zoning code.

But there will definitely be areas of the the zoning code where there are where they do touch on some of those nuisance code things. Don and I were talking about, like, the expansion of the industrial park. There are compatibility issues out there and so the code will definitely have performance standards for certain things that kind of touch on, like things that make a lot of noise or are too tall or the scale of things, but we won't be touching the nuisance code itself. And so that's really the end of what I had. I ended up talking a lot more than I thought I was going to, but we really wanna hear, your guys' input.

It's okay if you don't have anything now because this is just the very beginning of the process, but we just wanna express that we're excited about this and we're excited that, that you guys are gonna be working on it with us. It's it's a major major undertaking. Like I said, we're not doing targeted fixes where it's a complete overhaul, but there's a lot of opportunity in that because there's just a lot of stuff that we can make better better for us, better for our decision makers, and better for applicants. I I think this decision making body, you guys have definitely noticed that our applicants struggle a lot with the code. They struggle with their submissions that they bring to us.

They struggle with their own analysis of their projects and how the criteria apply to their project. And the hope is the new code will make it easier for them too because it'll be clearer and more fair and more obvious what they need to do to get their project approved. So with that, Don, I don't know if you want to add anything.

Brian, thank you. Just a couple items maybe just to add in. I think on the zoning pieces of this and the individual zoning districts, A lot of other jurisdictions have use categories, and that would be another way. We have this list, and Brian was kind of joking about taxidermy being an identified use. And so there's this very specific list of items.

And then they're at the end of it or at the discretion of the planning commissioner or the planning director. Other uses can be allowed. So use categories are an important element as well. And that would get into the consolidation piece. It would also get into what is allowed in a commercial zone, the specific commercial zone versus downtown commercial versus highway commercial, for example.

Those are different. They have different characteristics to them. That would be an ad that we were intending to add as well. I think it would help clarify for the applicant, for the Planning Commission as well those items. And I think on the part of the options for the clear and objective path and the optional path, we feel that we don't know where that exactly will be defined, but we feel like that is a path that we would like to somewhat incentivize to really kind of focus on, well, what can an alternative path look like that someone goes through and does more like planning or developments, which is those are discretionary and they have a different process to them.

But how can we make those enticing to a degree versus basically what we have to comply with by the state standards? I think knowing that the state standards are there and knowing that's a reality and then trying to provide another option that does talk about materials and those kinds of things that you technically can't really talk about, except in the downtown area and many of the residential development standards. So those are, again, exploratory on that part of it. Just a bit on timeline, which Ryan didn't talk as much about. Timeline wise, we are going to be anticipating some DLCD grant money that's going to be matched with money we've set aside through our budgeting process.

We're hoping to start this like in March '6. It will run probably for a full year to do the entire code audit, and then there'll be a code update following that. And this is a similar path to Calacamas County and other jurisdictions. There are a ton of jurisdictions. Their codes are not great, and ours is one of those.

I'm on a planning director call about every six weeks with Clackamas County planning directors and many other jurisdictions are updating their codes as well. But I think the audit hopefully will give us information on what we can do to change everything and the options around those. If you all are interested in being on the advisory committee, we'd be looking for volunteer members as well for the advisory committee as that goes forward on the code audit. And then that would continue into the code update process as well. So lots to digest here.

In spite of all the deficiencies of the code on a day to day basis, we make it work. But it would be a lot nicer not to spend as much time on like, you know, because sometimes it's like, what do we do with this? I mean, that's, you know, we have to, we have many moments like that. Like, how do we even, how are we even supposed to deal with this? Because there's no template. And so we have to do a lot of intensive thinking and discussion. It'd be a lot nicer just to have very clear, definition around how do we treat certain situations, which would save everyone time. So with that, love your comments if you have any.

And I was going to add one last thing is we're also looking to bolster the legal defensibility of it, which is always important with any code. And that's separate related but separate from the whole additional housing laws and other mandates come from from the state. Even that aside, codes always need to be refreshed to be more legally defensible and that's one of the lenses that we're gonna be looking at this is, you know, if something went south with a project, is the city on solid ground on the way the way the project was processed and the ultimate decision that came through for that project. So that's another lens that we'll be looking at every aspect of it through.

Okay, guys. Thank you, Ryan, Don. Appreciate that. Obviously, you know, 50,000 foot level here, so any of the commissioners have anything they'd like to chime in with at this time?

I just have one quick thing. Don, on the industrial area, so it has its own industrial master plan. We spent a lot of time on the overlay zone on there that was eventually thrown out, but it kept things like the apartments out of there and the storage units out of there. I mean, your industrial park is trying to number one, bring jobs in, number two, offset the tax base, neither one of those do that. Is there a way to address this without an overlay zone and address the industrial park on some of these when you're looking at the light industrial, heavy industrial, and so forth? Do we need an overlay zone or can we address it outside of that?

I'm gonna let Brian speak to this too. I think the Pioneer Industrial overlay, I think, served a really good purpose. And part of that, maybe the differentiation on that in specific, is what parts of that, or does that stay whole in terms of its or does it just get tweaked a bit? And some of that's going to be part of this discussion on the process. I think it has served its purpose.

I think it served well in terms of, like you're mentioning, we don't have erosive factors coming in. And I've been in the industry long enough that you see these waves of things. And sometimes there's a wave of residential, and it's the best thing in the world. And everybody's convinced it's the best thing in the world. And then you convert your employment lands, and that's not a good thing long term for the city.

That clearly was defined out there to prevent that, and I think that's important. Also, character of that industrial area, and you can be discretionary with commercial and industrial projects. It's one of the few things the state, like, let us continue to have, And that has material standards as well. So the industrial buildings look a certain way in the Pioneer Industrial Area. I think there's value to that as well.

I think that we're not really looking to do away at all, you know, at all with that Pioneer Industrial overlay. I think part of it is one of those things about diving deeper into that would be, like, this this would probably be an item that will get some input during the comprehensive plan process from from our city council, which is how many how many, employees per acre are we striving to really produce out there? I know there's been a bit of a shift from when it started out there. Probably was a bit excessive and then it shifted lower and now it's like really low. So like what should that be?

I think things like that'll be important, unemployment per acre. And then Ryan talked about, you know, we have a current boundary there, you know, current urban growth boundary established and then the future urban growth boundary when that does get expanded and we start getting closer to areas that are more residential in their character. I think performance standards clearly need to be looked at, the M 1 zone in particular. A lot of that front end of that first page on the M 1 is not relevant right now because DEQ doesn't really do anything. They have no standards.

They don't enforce anything. So that's all in the city to do that. So I think those performance standards, I think, are gonna be really important. And I think binding we want those to be binding in a way that doesn't prevent development, but also doesn't cause consternation when it's adjacent to residential areas as well. So I think there's going to be a bit more of that expectation. We're believing around those interfaces there, not to prohibit industry, but just to have a clear understanding of what that is. So those are my thoughts.

Yeah. I agree. I've always thought the industrial overlay was a positive because it lays out a vision for what that area is. And I think if you start thinking about the inverse, if you only had the zoning districts trying to achieve the same aim, there's areas outside of that geography that are that have have the same underlying zoning. So if you added more to those districts, then that would apply elsewhere.

So we have a big concentration over by Potters down by the police station. There's a lot of industrial there, and then there's a few other pockets. So we would have to look at I mean, if we if we went away with the overlay, which I'm not saying we should, but we would have to look how that would bolstering those underlying zones, how it would affect the other geographies in town. But I I I I think it's I think specific area planning is good because it lays out a vision for what you want that area to be like.

And that employee per acre is a big deal

because Yeah.

The one the one drawback to

that was it became way too low. It was a

lot of lot of politics at that point in time, but that that needs to be addressed big time and that's a big deal.

Yeah. For sure.

I'm looking forward to seeing some new zones. I'd like to I like the idea of keeping the green space separate from the parks, and I like to see the parks come out, and I like to see the parks be separate from the golf course. And I like to see that come out of R 1 so that when we look at, you know, what we have at R 1 as a quick glance that everyone can kinda understand what it is. I'm familiar with, with, with residential commercial. The house I lived in in Portland before I came to Canby actually was zoned for both because it was just right on the borderline.

But I think it's a one way trip as far as the city of Portland is concerned. It's like when you shove once you shove it to commercial, it shall stay forever thus. And so, I mean, kinda like, you know, I was a little unprepared for looking out my backyard at an ADU right up against the fence. I think we gotta be careful about how we keep industrial traffic and commercial traffic out of, you know, some of the denser r one places. Just I mean, the whole point of that zoning was invented in the first place was to keep industrial traffic out of residential spaces. And so, you know, while I really wanna accommodate home businesses, I really think that we need to pay close attention to the traffic.

Thank you. Anybody else?

Judy?

No. I don't have any specific questions. A lot of food for thought. Thank you, Ryan, for a great job as usual. Wonderful. I've already set up a note section on my phone. So as I think of things, I'll jot them down on my phone. But thank you.

Okay. Alright. Good. Well, we look forward to moving forward with it and seeing what you guys have got. It'll it'll definitely be an interesting an interesting walk. It will. I'm sure.

Alright. Yeah.

Very good. Thank you. I guess have you got anything else for us, Don?

No.

We'll just

go right into it. We'll go into the planning director's update if you wanna go into that next.

Sure. That'd be great.

And I'm gonna keep this relatively brief. We do have a upcoming planning commission work session on the transportation system plan on December 8. There will be some materials sent out, this week, a short week here, sent out on Wednesday. There's a technical memo that is not super thick, but I think it's important as a baseline for information that will be shared on the PowerPoint and as the list of projects that we have for our draft transportation system plan. It is a pretty long list.

And it's important to look at the information in that. And we'll give you some context when I send the staff report out on those which ones are essentially targeted for in the next twenty years and those that are not essentially targeted in the next twenty years. We have both on the list. DKS will be leading us through the discussion on December 8 through that work session. This kinda leads us towards the adoption process, which we're gonna do a city council work session on the transportation system plan after the planning commission does theirs.

Then in the new year, we're this is like March, April ish that we're anticipating that we'll be going to hearings through the planning commission and then through the council. So there's a that that's gonna be a robust discussion on the transportation system plan, a lot to kinda digest there, but that's coming up on the eighth. We are not planning on having a planning commission meeting on December 22. So our next planning commission meeting will not will be on January 12 as December 22 meeting will not will not be having that. A few other updates.

The city council has added two work sessions. We did have work sessions on the work session on the comprehensive plan update and the policies, goals, and strategies. We had one a week ago, and they would like to have two more before the end of the year. And so we're gonna be going through chapters one to eight on December 10. And there's a special city council work session for that item, and then also on December 17, which will be chapters nine through 14.

So just a little bit bit of information for you all. They're they're wanting us to go through and and dive into some of the depth of that on some of the policies and goals and strategies. The comp plan, again, is gonna parallel the transportation system plan and similar timeframe anticipated March, April next year for adoption is what we're targeting at this point for that. And those are our major items. We will be picking back up the urban growth boundary expansion process next year.

That's gonna also be moving forward at the same time the comp plan and transportation system plan are being finished. So those are gonna be moving forward. We're gonna be starting as part of the urban growth boundary expansion concept planning, what's called urban growth boundary concept planning with through a grant from the Department of Transportation, State Department of Transportation, that will be to evaluate land and infrastructure and designations of properties, pre designations of properties. So that's another piece that's going forward. We'll also be looking for advisory members for that as well.

So just we'll keep you posted on that. I don't have an exact schedule on that yet, but that's gonna run the concept concept planning is going to run about a year and a half. So that's ongoing. A lot of stuff going on overlapping with each other, which I think is helpful. It's a bit overwhelming sometimes, but it's helpful to see the whole thing all at once as we we see these steps, as Ryan was pointing out, in terms of some of the items that are beneficial to look be looked at at the same time. And that's really all I had. If there's questions, do you all have?

Commissioners, anything for planning staff? Judy's shaking her head. No. Okay. Anybody else? Anything? Looks like we're good. Well, anything else? Nope. Thank you. Alright. We'll entertain a motion or dismissal. I move we close. I have a motion to dismiss.

I second it.

Been moved and seconded. All in favor.

Aye. Have

a happy Thanksgiving. Thank you very much for being here, everybody. Bye bye.