Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, yes. [laughter] Yes, you are. For what it's worth, you can keep that. I mean, it's a downgrade, but I mean, definitely not a downgrade. [laughter] Absolutely not. Don't tell Jennifer. Yeah, exactly. Thank you. No worries.

All right, we should be all set to go. All right, welcome everybody to the December 10th uh 2025 planning commission. Um I have on the agenda a number of business items. Um we uh have a quorum today and we're going to start with a legislative prayer or thought by Commissioner Woodward.

Thanks. Um, so I've been reading um books about uh the kings of England and I just finished reading a book about Henry V who is one of the I guess known to be um probably the best king of that era. And I just thought as I was reading it, I kind of thought um I mean he was a great king. Everybody thought he was a great king. But um that method of government is quite a bit different than what we enjoy in this country. And I just thought about they expected um a lot of things, but he expected you know a lot of taxes, a lot of he needed money to go to war. He needed to fight the French. He needed to take over the Anyway, all those things. But we I just really as I was reading that appreciated um the opportunities we have here that we can um have a say in what happens in our government that we can have a a voice and that it's not just about what the king wants and what the king thinks but that we have an opportunity in this country and in this community to participate in the government of of what and what happens. So, I just felt like that was a a good a good lesson for us to to remember that even though things don't always go the way we want them to go, we our voice isn't always heard the way we think it ought to be heard, but at least we have that opportunity to to present our opinion and to and to let everybody know um who we are and what we want and what we're about. And that doesn't happen in a lot of other governments. So, I appreciate that. Okay, I'll offer a prayer. Our heavenly father, we're grateful to be here tonight. We're grateful for um the opportunity to participate in um the things that are

happening in Centerville City. We're grateful for the the chance that we have to have a voice and to represent um our neighbors and friends that live around us. We pray that thy spirit will be with us here. That the things that we say and do will be um helpful and beneficial to the city and of Centerville and to those that live here. And we pray for thy blessing to be with us now and say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

If you'll all please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. All right, everybody. I really appreciate the dieards that are here again. [laughter]

No, I I truly do. We are going to move into what is called a public meeting, not a public hearing for the general planned amendments uh on the comprehensive general plan update. This is a legislative decision. Um staff, do you want to start with any uh summary or uh kind of procedural history up to now or

just a couple of quick things to note um so that there's um this is a a continuation of the discussion we've held at the last two meetings. Um as directed at the last meeting, the the public commentary was provided and allowed to be provided up until December 4th per discussion with the chair. We did have one comment come in after the fourth and the direction was to not include it discussion previously and and honestly I felt like um we had said what we said and we were going to do what we said and so if it comes in after I didn't think that it came in under the wire sort of like Indiana Jones. Now that that's not to say that I mean it's not a lost cause by any stretch but for this forum for our decision-m it didn't meet the criteria.

Okay. And I directed you to do that. So um and then I do That's a fair question. So, uh uh for the record, question from the audience as to whether or not we can close the door because we prefer to leave the door open because it's a public meeting. But but what we can do is if if we could ask somebody to go outside and ask them to use their their 12-in whisperer. Are the mics on? Yeah. How are the mics? Do you guys want to come forward? Because the the the acoustics in her are such that it's always been really hard to hear. You can hear it better coming down. Fair enough. Good.

Fair enough. And I I could talk better into the mic. Yeah. As a continuation, does that help a little bit as well?

Okay. As a continuation, um I have provided we well backing up, we did receive a version two draft per the consultant. Um I did provide the comments that were provided by the planning commission at our last hearing as far as um edits, changes and and uh I guess noted issues. Those were provided and updated. So that second draft is what is included in the packet as well [clears throat] as provided to you after I receive that. Um so that is another update. Um and then um I am also currently going through my own personal detailed draft of the second draft document and will provide that commentary to our consultant. The things I still see as well as I have received comments from from members of the public identifying some inconsistencies with numbers and have also shared that information with the consultant who has done an update. So I guess I do have another version I just got yesterday that I haven't provided but it's version 2.1. it has some population um numbers that needed to be updated to be consistent. So, I will note that.

What else besides the the numbering um that you can think of? I had a conversation today for some comments that I received relative to the numbering in the table of contents as far as the chapters. Sure. There's a chapter issue in the table of contents. I have talked to the the consultant about that today. Uh in the table of contents, there's a logo where chapter one should be and then the numbering is just off. So, that will need to be fixed as well. Um, and then it does align with the the um statements at the bottom of each page as far as which chapter they're in, but that is has been caught. So, I want to make sure that I'm understanding the the um edits that you're you're examining and could potentially propose don't have to do with substance or content. It's more about

formatting and scriveners, accuracy. There's few scriers errors. I'm still finding like a duh that shouldn't be there. There's like a hash mark in the wrong place. There's a lot of that kind of Yeah, there's nothing that I would not address anything of substance. Yeah. I just want to and it's fair question. You understand why I'm asking? It's because whatever motion we make should make sure that we're delegating minor Yeah. And corrections. I mean, I've made it to page I've read up to page like 78. Yeah.

Of the document, but I have again it's it's mechanical errors. Um, let me see if there's anything else. Yeah, mechanical errors. There is there is one note I guess of substance relative to the active transportation plan. The city has not formally adopted the active transportation plan and it does not indicate that in the document. So that is something I guess substantially that I would indicate to our consultant.

Anything else? um resolution of a map. You also mentioned that the map was on a different page now because there's Yeah, it there's a reference to the page to the left when really it's on a different page now. So those again some of those kind of of mechanical issues have been identified. Yeah. Okay. But as as for substance that you've identified so far, um because we don't have an adopted transportation plan, the general plan as a state as it currently is situated probably needs some I think a statement adjustment identifying that that has not been formally adopted and accepted by the city needs to be included in the general. Right.

Fair enough. From my own opinion. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Egget? Uh not so far in my review. That that's what I have. Okay. So, um I'll take it back to the commission. Um Oh, and I will note, sorry, chairman, I will note, uh that the commentary that we have received is following um the general plan document in your packet. So, the the public has had access to that.

Right. Right. We saw that. So, um we are now at this stage um and we've talked about this before, commissioners, but just as a reminder, as a refresher, under the statute, we're only required to have one public hearing. We have had multiples. Now we're at a public meeting where we're meeting in public but not hearing the public more than we have already just um taken all of the commentary uh up until December 4th. And now it's just our time to deliberate. So um I'm just going to open the floor and ask you guys what you think and we can talk it through. Who wants to go first? Okay, I'll jump in. All right, vice chair. Okay, you know, I read every word of all the comments that came in.

Just once. actually only one time. I know I know you know me. So, um I I really appreciate public comment. I really do. It was very thoughtful. They spent a lot of time on it. Um they're passionate about it and I love that. I think that's super important. Like I'm just saying for example um NY's words and how she redlined and blacklined and all the things that she did were important. I think so I think it was all important. I agreed with all of it except for her bottom paragraph um at the bottom of page 20. I I didn't agree with that but the rest of it I agreed with. I would think there would be some maybe just little changes like possible word or grammar punctuation or something but in her notes. So I'm not sure what this will say on

20 20 of of uh bird document 20 of chapter 20. Let's see. You mean chapter 20 or chapter is it chapter in her notes? in her notes, it's a red paragraph talking about the housing on the other side of the freeway. So, that's the only thing that I actually disagreed with, but I I think that all of that information needs to be

looked at again and more thoroughly. I think that this is a good basis. I think it's a great starting point, but I would agree that it needs a lot of help and adjustment. I think fine-tuning would be the better thing to say, right? Um, one other thing that she said that

um I think that we talked about before, but I don't know if any decisions were ever made or maybe I'm just a little confused, but on the west side that there's a west north and a west south. and she was talking about defining that as far as what's going to happen with housing and land use. I thought that that was a great idea. I don't know if that's something that's already in place. I don't know. Anyway, I just thought and appreciated the time and effort that every single individual who went through it and took the time to actually read it um sent in their notes. I found it to be really, really helpful. So, I guess all of that being said, it just goes back to I think that this is a good basis, but it really needs to be fine-tuned for our city and for our citizens. I don't agree with some things that are in here as currently written.

What are you going to say, Gary?

The I I was going to agree with you. I feel like the the participation of the citizens, all the comments that were made are valuable and need to be considered. And what my hope is is that we can forward the plan to the to the city council with all the comments and say you need to look at this and see which of the one which of things you want to incorporate because obviously every comment that was made doesn't need to be incorporated. There were a lot of good comments. There were a lot of things that needed to be considered and a lot of things that needed that could be added or changed in the in the general plan. And I think that's the job of the city council is to decide which of those things should be included, which changes need to be made in in conjunction with the thing the comments that we've received.

Right. Because we're recommending for it, right?

Yeah. And and I will also jump in there like we don't want to forward something that's halfbaked. We want to make sure that we're well past a threshold that we feel is ready for consideration for that legislative body. And I I see today's question honestly I see today's question is are we at a spot where we're at a tipping point where ought to go to the legislative body for consideration or has um is there enough uh here in front of us that we ought to be um shouldering the uh you know the pickaxe and starting to to chip away more. And I I don't think that that we're at that spot. I think we're at a spot where where I I actually kind of share Gary's thought that there's enough of a difference of opinion branching off into different directions from here that if we were to start to um winnow I would worry that we would winnow out things that may be disagreed with at the upper level. That's why I think that it should be forwarded but not with the recommendation to adopt asis.

Oh no. Yeah. simply with a recommendation to say here are all the comments that were brought in. Uh here are some areas that need uh some of your review and deliberation. Um and then with I will I will also say that I think we should forward it with a recommendation that staff be delegated with some mechanical um remedying powers. But anyways, those are my thoughts. Sorry, I I did I step on the end of your thought. Period. No, my head's always going. You're fine. Um, no, I agree with what you said. I also agree with what I said. [laughter]

Good.

Imagine that. No, but I I think that at this point the city council needs to make the decision because we're just a recommending board, but we've hashed and rehashed, but I don't know that it's actually at the point um that it should be sent to them. They're going to be in the same boat that we are. I mean, it's kind of a who's who's going to do that? Mhm. We could try if that I mean let let's talk let's talk the spectrum of theoretical possibilities. Um we could have a work session uh done in the public eye but not where we're taking public comment where we as a group start to vote page by page for things that we think should be incorporated and we come up with an absolute recommended this is the language that we think that you ought to adopt. Dear city council, we could come up with here's options A, B, and C. um we could um forward it as and so that's on one end of the spectrum on the other end of the spectrum and and I would say that there is

we could say listen we have a bulk document as a framework for you we have had multiple meetings lots of different comments um and there's a diversity of opinion about different things that should happen including um a number of really detailed red lines that you could consider and so that's the other end of the spectrum as I see it just talking theoretics and so if I'm hearing you correctly what you're saying is that we're on the on that side of we need to dig in more and start to refine the language rather than forward the multiple options as it stands

I'm comfort yeah I'm more comfortable with that because I think that there are a lot of changes um I don't know how much time city council will put into it I have no idea. I don't know how they do that process. Since we're the recommending board, we usually send things over to them and they can tweak it a little bit. Well, I mean, I'll defer to to council, but it's my understanding, Lisa, that they they have 100% of everything that we could do, they could do. Oh, yes. and they have the the ultimate decision and they'll have a public hearing as well, multiple public hearings.

So, can we ask an opinion of you? What can we ask your opinion? Can you give us an opinion? You can tell me if you're going to say no or not, but So, is this something that as a commission that we should delve into more or is this something at this point that the city council is responsible for? So, Lisa, I can I I feel like as chair I may want to handle that, but I'll let you chime in if you'd like to. Okay, sounds good. Thank you.

Yeah. So, I would say that it's our ultimate responsibility and that we can't ask staff for the recommendation. No, I I would say that it's ultimately we are responsible for that decision. I think that we can ask staff for what are our legal contours, what are our obligations, how are we stay within the lines of our ordinances, how do we make sure we do this so that we're protecting it for due process. But the judgment call as I see it of whether or not it's banked, that's for us. It's definitely not baked, but I was just wondering. Yeah, but I say it is. [laughter]

It's okay. No, but I guess I guess what I'm saying is I don't want to put Lisa in the awkward position unless I've misunderstood the question. It sounded like you were wondering whether or not she would recommend it move forward. Am I misunderstanding the question?

Well, is it wondering if it's our responsibility to continue doing this or if it's the city council's I mean for where we're at. I do agree with the chair that ultimately it's within the planning commission's discretion to answer that question. I've seen it done both ways. You know, like like we've said, the planning commission worked for months and months on a parking study and the council didn't adopt it, you know. So, it it goes both ways, but and I think that there's a difference of opinion obviously on the planning commission. And so that's why yes, I would be hesitant to weigh in on, you know, advising you what to do in this situation. I think you can do either way.

Fair. So in terms of what I'm hearing, Lisa, is that we have within the realm of our possibilities all of those and then it's just for us to make that decision one way or another as a group. That fair? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

Um I I'm terrible at like speaking if I don't have a script in front of me. So, I've written a little thing. Um, I'll probably go off and be on a tangent and be weird, but I just kind of want to make it like really clear to everyone like so a general plan, it's a highlevel policy guide. It's not a zoning map. It's not, it doesn't have any binding commitment to the city. Nothing in here is anything the city has to do. Um, there's no like specific development that has to happen. It just gives the city a direction. Um, but it does not predetermine every decision that we're going to make over the next 20 years. Um, we've had more than a year of surveys. We've talked about this. We've had workshops, public outreach, and professional drafting. Um, I, like you have all said, truly appreciate all the feedback that has come in. Um I think that I personally believe that a lot that a lot of the suggestions have gone a little bit too far and we have started to see a lot of work that's been done by professionals by our staff by the company we hired that it's being undermined and um and changes to like policy language based on misunderstandings about what the general plan does um or does not require further prevents us from doing our job. Um so similarly I am of the opinion that we do need to move this forward. Um just because I think that going through it as like as a with more refined tooth comb and all those things is just unnecessary because it's not what this document is for if that makes sense. Like just because it's in here doesn't mean we have to do it. It's just a guide. It's it's basically general plans are basically just so and I was kind of talking about this earlier

so that the state can see that we have an idea of where we might head so that we are all on the same page essentially. So that's my opinion. I don't know. Thank you. Well done. Yeah. I'm nervous. [laughter] I don't like speaking.

No, that was great. I I just have one comment to go along with that and I think that um a lot of the comments had did mention that it felt like the the general plan was um sort of predetermining some things that should happen and that it would it would maybe lead to that this means that we should reszone this area because we're going to do this or we feel like this can happen here. And so I felt like some of the language was needed to be changed, tweaked a little bit to say that, you know, this doesn't necessarily assume that we're going to change the zoning in this area. That would still have to come before the, you know, the city council make a zoning change, but or the planning commission and the city council. So I feel like maybe some of that language needs to be refined in places, but again, it's like you said, it's just a general guiding document. We don't need to assume that just because we say this could happen here that that means oh it's going to happen right and that means that the zoning is going to be changed because of that.

Yeah that's I have no problem with the grammatical edits and stuff like that you're absolutely correct however whether we make the edits or not

it it's not going to make a difference as to what how the city's next 20 years happens. So that's why it just feels very unnecessary at this point. Well, I would disagree a little bit with that because I feels like there's some strong language in there that people are concerned about. Like we, for example, one example, we will or this will, you know, happen. And if you're not on the planning commission or the city council or you're working for the city as as a just a general member of society, you wouldn't know that that doesn't mean an absolute. So, I mean to me and a lot and some of those changes were made already in the second,

right? In the second draft, they did soften a lot of that language. Yes. Yes. Yeah. And that was better. Yeah. Yeah. And I And again, I I make it clear like I'm totally cool with making those changes. I'm just saying like to continue to just comb through all of that type of stuff is just seems unnecessary at this point. So, I know it would be a lot. Yeah,

it would. Sean, I know you have thoughts. I do I along the lines of what Lane is thinking in regards to I I feel like there's been a lot of time and money spent on this particular plan and a lot of and there's been revisions and and I really appreciate the the the feedback and there's been some really good things and I've I've gone through and kind of noted some things that I think we ought to do and but at the same time it's we I don't want to undermine SUS and all the work that they've done and all of the feedback that the the city has given in regards to the the goals that we produced were based off of um off of the uh the what was it the general feedback of the the city and kind of going through that I I I feel like forwarding forwarding it on to the city council is kind of where I lay right now. And I'll jump in and I'll say that I'm sort of in the same realm in terms of conclusion with you guys, but I'm actually uh more in your position when it comes to the importance of the general plan. Um I mean there are times where the general plan can be used to deny um proposals to specific uh actions that are being proposed by a developer, right? We a developer comes in and says, "Hey, I want to put a road through here." And we look at the general plan and we say, "We never planned for that. Sorry.

So, it's it's it's more important than, oh, it's just a general plan, but it's less binding than it's a general plan, right? So, um I don't mean to be too sarcastic, but it's it's it's it needs to be flexible enough and also detailed enough to cover those bases. And um the trouble as I see it is that there are a couple of issues at this point where I don't think that we're going to necessarily reach consensus here and we're probably not going to mirror the consensus that will be reached there, right?

Um you guys know my tone and tenor about things. I don't have the same view on on real estate development that I would say that uh others do and perhaps at the city council level, but that's not my ultimate decision. My ultimate decision is as a um a a a commissioner who's been here for a good par of years with also some experience in a career that sort of helps and informs the constitutional rights that are associated with land use, the legal contours, the the the legal process that people need to go through, the way that attorneys creatively both use the general plan for and against uh development. Um, I look at this and I say this is a pretty darn good document, even if it were in the second draft only. Now, the red lines that have come in have the benefit of what I would say is recency. Um, so there's primacy and recency bias, right? So, um, you can be taught that um, like when you're talking to a jury, you want to either say things first or you want to say things last for the primacy or the recency bias. We've done a lot of work and we've received a lot of feedback and it went into in terms of primacy the creation of that document. Now we have comments and that's recent. So they have a recency bias. Um, we could start to dig in and as the five of us decide, you know what, I like these recent comments, taking into account the fact that there may be some recency bias or that in fact it is the right position to come to colored by our own experiences and understanding of things. I I look at this, however, having done a process like this a number of times over the last how long have I been here? seven years,

seven, something like that that just get completely unraveled at the city council level. And the there are other ones where we wrangle and wrangle and wrangle and wrangle and it just sails through. I would like to send this now as it is. The reason being is that I think that their color, their opinion, their um understanding of things is not going to map one to one. Even if we were to work through these positions and either come to a consensus or forward it with a lack of consensus, I would rather preserve the options and allow the city council to dig in. Although arguing it on the other side, we shouldn't send them forward something that is so unassembled that it's like an IKEA box, right? Yeah.

With these really vague instructions. And I love their hieroglyphics. [laughter] Yeah, I um using a bad analogy and making it worse. I think that we've assembled the IKEA box and maybe it's we're just talking about some of the final steps decorating it.

Decorating, but even even just like assembling the drawers or determining, you know how some IKEA things you can determine like which side things go on or even like a um a fridge you can take off the door and decide which way it swings. I feel like that's where we're at. But uh you know I mean I Lar you and I have we're on different spots on the spectrum and so I will be the first to admit readily admit that you might be right that more work needs to be done here. I just don't land where you are you're at right now I guess is what my point is. So fair. Well the nice thing is you don't have to. I know it's nice. [laughter] Yeah. You don't have to.

No. But I arguing for you like there's a lot of work that's been done and maybe maybe a great use of our time and um avoiding the avoiding sending it to the city council just to kind of punt. Maybe it would be great to have work sessions. Maybe it would to punt this good for us to to set this out to January. That is a rational and reasoned position. Anyways, what else guys? Yeah.

Well, I'm I'm willing to put in the time and effort to do that and maybe some people are tired of it, but I'm willing to do it. I feel like there are things in here, some comments, and I think that there are some tweaks that need to happen or should happen before punting it off. not trying to rewrite the whole thing. I don't want to do that. It's not our job. I think we've got a really good basis, but it just needs to be fine-tuned a little bit more. And not like every word, every detail, but there are some very valid points in there.

How about this? What if we were to say, can um and maybe this is an unfair question on the spot. Do you have specific sections or areas that if if for some reason we wanted to say, "Listen, dear city council, we want to narrow your focus on areas that need a lot of work or we want to say that listen, we think these areas are fine, but these ones are the ones that um I I don't know. I guess is there a middle ground where we could say, "Yeah, forward it." But um not just forward it, take a look and tell us what you think. Here, forward it, but here are some very specific areas or or categories or conditions or edits that we think you really ought to be considering.

Yes, but without having notes to that, I mean, I would say yes. Main Street, Parish, West Side, Westside, North, Westside, South. Um the also the numerical order of importance in regards to questions that were asked and how they were answered and and and how is it sus is this how you say it how they put it in different orders than it actually was. So off the top of my head, not trying to miss anything, not being completely inclusive, that's what I would say off the top of my head.

Right. No. And that and again, I I recognize that that might that's a hard answer. That's a hard question to answer like right away. Right. Yeah. No, you're that's fair.

And just a thought. I mean, I'm totally willing to to consider the document and try to incorporate some changes into it. I'm just wondering how um how far we would go. I mean, what are we trying to come up with? I agree that there are definitely some changes that need to be made. Um and again, I'm like you. I don't know exactly what those are. I've read all the all the document all the all the comments and and agreed with some and not with all obviously but uh what I guess my question is if we did a work session what point would we like to get to and and where would that take us? Would they would it still be a document that was um I mean I guess we don't know the answer to that that the that the city council would just say well we've got to you know it's it still needs a lot of work and it probably would I mean I don't know that's probably not even a good question. So, you're just wondering how far we would take it if we would do nitty-gritty or if we would just do basic bullet points,

right? Would we would we just say these are some areas that we need to cons that you should consider and or would we try to fine-tune the document ourselves? I think that's a good question. I I think since we're not the the voting board, you know, we're not the the board that gets to decide the deciding board that I would probably send in the bullet points of I think this should be changed to this or consider this to this, right? Right. Not every word, right? But things that

so so send the document similar to the way it is, but just with suggestions about specific areas that need to be reconsidered or re-evaluated. probably that's what I'm going to give you on that one. Yeah. Well, and I I mean that's the way I'm feeling, but I wasn't sure if that's the way you were feeling. You know, I think I think that that's a valid um position. I think that's a a good way to approach it. But if we did that, then we probably would need a work meeting to consider what those things what those items were. remembering of course that at work meetings we're not taking decisions.

So then we'd have to do a work meeting and then we'd have to put it on the agenda again to pass through what Yeah. That's right. That's right. And we would have to make sure that we're voting. Let me let me say it this way. Let's say that we go through in a work meeting page by page by page by page and we have differences of opinion. uh we would just simply be noting that and then we would make a decision in a public uh meeting and take votes there.

Did I cut you off? Did you No, no, I'm Yeah. No, I was done with her was going but I'm happy to end the discussion and call for a vote. Um, but I don't want you to feel like I'm truncating the conversation. Let's sit in silence if we need to. And anybody who wants to talk can or you guys can tell me it's time to take a vote. What would you like? [laughter] Well, what are we taking a vote on?

No, I'm I'm saying I'm going to call for a vote. I'm going to call for a motion. Whoever wants to make a motion, we'll call for a second. We'll debate it and then we'll call for a vote. that what I'm saying is that if we've if we're at a phase now where we've sort of everybody's talked out and raised their major concerns, is it now time to move to that phase or do you guys want to sit here and maybe chat more? I want the allow I want to allow motion. Okay.

Well, Sean's looking to make a motion, but I I'm also [laughter] thinking about motion. Okay, that's fair. You can we can have competing motions for sure. Um I am going to call for a motion in my legal speak. I'll go. [laughter] I'll go.

Okay. Well, I would like to make a motion that that we have a work meeting where we can fine-tune this and incorporate some of the very valid and important points of um change and consideration. Is that all I have to say? Am I done or do I have to say more? [laughter] Like I don't know, but I have I'm not gonna tell you like tell you when you're done. No, but do I have to add more legally? I don't know.

No, I think that's fair. So, if I understand the motion that's on the table where um uh Vice Chair Laorray Patterson is saying uh you move that rather than forward this with a recommendation that we table this uh or continue this to a date certain and that in the interim we schedule a public work meeting to fine-tune and incorporate the valid and important uh comments that have been raised to basically generate a third version. Yes. Okay. I have that motion on the table. Do I have a second? I'm not going to guilt anybody. I may look at you, but I'm not going to guilt anybody. [clears throat] No, that's okay. These these are always the fun parts, right? Yeah.

So, I'll give it a a couple more seconds. So, I have a first, but no second. The motion fails on the table. I made it. It's okay. I stand by it and as you should, just like I I did on my adverse vote last time. [laughter] Uh I it's now we're still at the phase for motions. I'll make a motion. Make a motion to uh approve the forward with

forward with a recommendation to the city council regarding the proposed general plan amendments. um specifically for the proposed central city comprehensive general plan update documentation with advice given from us as a planning commission and other legal use that needs to be in there. [laughter] Okay. So let's let's can we workshop that? Yes, let's do um what do you guys think should be added to that motion?

And I know this is a little unorthodox, but there's a lot that's happening here. First of all, I would probably say that the motion should say the version as as a as a baseline, the version that was most recently returned by the consultant and then as potentially mechanically modified by city staff. I agree with that. Okay. What else? Well, what do you think? It kind of goes against my thing, but Yeah. No, but with solid recommendations that we have of like bullet points of concern, but is that something we're going to agree on tonight?

Not necessarily. But but here's what I'm going to say. Let's let's develop a motion. Let's find out if there's a second and then let's look for either friendly or adverse amendments and that could be a friendly or an adverse amendment. Okay. Sound good? Okay. Okay. So I have a motion on the table that we forward with a positive recommendation the general plan amendments as returned to us from most recently from the consultant. Um delegating that in the interim staff can make mechanical adjustments as discussed earlier in the meeting. Do I have a second? I will second that. Okay. I have a first and a second. Uh discussion on the motion me.

Yes. [laughter] that if that's what's going to happen, because I'm obviously going to be outvoted, that we [laughter] numbers read the room, but um that we send it with these recommendations of of concern that they really look at these things. So, let's get into the record. And this is why I asked you this earlier because I think this is a really wise decision. Let's try to walk through some of those and put them into the motion and make them specific. And I know you did it earlier. Now I'm putting you on the spot again. Well, for example, yeah,

Main Street, Parish Lane, uh, the west side, west, north, west, south. I said something else. Did you talk about the economic hubs? the town centers or am I just imagining? Oh, no. But yes, that's one. The town centers.

And by Main Street, I mean like what can happen on Main Street, right? So, all of that encompassing building, not building, heights, keeping it historic, not allowing big buildings, big big box stores, etc. Um, if I could go back and look at all the notes, I could give you all of the fine points right now, but off again off the top of my head. That's fair. That Gary, did you have any other Oh, and the numbers. Yeah. Well, so the mechanical adjustments, the numbers that need No, no, no, not the numbers like that, but like how the citizens actually voted. Oh,

those did not come across accurately. Those are inaccurate. So, for example, if out of the 413 votes or whatever it was, um, the number one thing that came across should be the number one thing addressed by the citizens. I see what you're saying. I still find those to be mechanical is what I would say. Those are those are you consider that mechanical. Well, yeah. It doesn't change the content. It just needs to be reflect fact. Okay. Right. So, like for example, if if a table is on the wrong side, that's mechanical. If the number that is being reported in this document was inaccurate, it will be corrected to be accurate. Or the importance the same thing the importance of the citizens if this is their number one point that needs to be listed as number one point. I would yeah I would consider mechanical

you're talking about let's let's actually discuss that a little bit can we? Um you're talking about on page the appendix right page 173 of 288. Is that what we're talking about? Are you in the actual general plan or is that the I'm on in the the the um planning commission packet page 173 of 288. Okay. Is this what you're talking about? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Yes, that is exactly what

then let's just do it this way. Let's say that page 173 of 288 in the commission packet which has to do with chart B uh be evaluated appropriately and if scriveners errors or mechanical errors need to be create uh performed then staff can do it but if it has to do more with substance that the city council take a jaundist eye or maybe a weathered eye whatever eye they want to take. Okay. Never heard of that phrase before. A jaundest eye. Jaist. I have not either. [laughter] Nerd. Um, say nerd. Yeah, I did.

Um, that's what my kids said. Dad, you're such a nerd. Yes. Um, okay. So, incorporating uh chart B in that recommendation for a closer look. Is there any way? So, I'm just going to ask, can we go kind of at the beginning since this is the point where we're at and have you scroll pretty rapidly through here? Do you do you want to just use my laptop so that you can do it on your own? Yeah. And and that's not to say that that we can't do it together, but

it might be. So, let's just let you drive. So, here's what's happening for the record. I have the packet up and I'm I've handed it over to Laray and she's going to go through the amendments to the general plan to hopefully generate her let's call it friendly amendment. I don't know what we're going to call it proposed amendment to the motion that's on the table with her job to die. With her job with their job to die [laughter] the other thing I would say is maybe housing reconsider some things about housing and density and those recommendations. Yeah, I didn't love that in here.

Yeah, because I agreed with a lot of the comments by the public about that it was kind of steering it toward higher density when that may or may not have been the intent, but it seemed like it was. I agree. The verbiage in there, yeah,

tends to drive you to that. So, while you're coming up with the categories, I'm going to um maybe if I could uh Vice Chair Patterson join you in crafting this proposed amendment to the motion. Sound good? So, let's let's set aside the categories that we're talking about. As I understand it, what you're asking us to do is that in the motion that is being forwarded with a positive recommendation to the city council that we say to them, listen, there are specific categories where the comments that came in, both written comments in the most recent trunch, but also verbal comments that were provided over the last couple of meetings raised specific issues that need to have your legislative eye consider broad policy considerations because those comments raised a spectrum of possibilities.

Yes. That we as a planning commission want you to weigh in on. And they are specifically Main Street, Parish, West Side, West, North South, Town Centers, Chart B, affordable housing, and then anything else we add. Is that a fair summary of what you're intending? Yes. And do I have to do this right now before the vote is happened or are you I mean um I'm I I want to make sure that we're reflecting your will and your voice. So if we need to take the time, let's take the time. Turn on some music, Jeopardy music. Or will that be too much pressure? Christmas. Totally be too much [laughter] pressure. Gary, I want you to weigh in as well.

Yeah. And if and I would I would urge the other commissioners if you feel that this is something that you feel uh you wanna want to join in on. While you're doing that, Laorray, I'm going to say this. Personally, I think that um we don't necessarily need to identify these things. And indeed, many of the proposed amendments um that came in from the public, I am on the the side of the spectrum that they are either unnecessary or actually would create a problematic general plan. Um so while I will probably vice vice chair agree with you that these should be re-evaluated um just [snorts] from my perspective the way that it lands the spot that it lands in the language that is particularly used probably doesn't need to be amended in the ways that were proposed by a number of the comments. So, let me let me say it this way. A number of the comments were more about style.

Not all of them. Not all of them. No. But some of them were. And it was it it was it was sort of um like hey we want you the planning commission to rephrase this in order to create what we believe is a a different vision from what is currently in this which is why I mentioned the primacy versus the recency. No matter what my I I think that my experience on planning commission is that we have a diverse range of opinions not only here but in our populace and I don't mean to to delay you. I just I guess I'm filling you're buying your time. Yeah, I'm buying. Keep talking.

Um decision by committee rarely achieves consensus and the consensus that we will reach here is [snorts] going to be probably distinct from the town council. So that as we're forwarding these categories to the town council, I think that it's actually kind of a wise choice rather than um to tell them what we think the final language ought to be because now they've got in front of them a uh consultant who does these things. They've got uh our commentary about it. They've got multiple commentaries on multiple areas that have style edits, content edits, uh, factual edits, and I think that between all of that, I hope that they can arrive at their own consensus that then reflects quote unquote the will of the people because as planning commissioners, maybe I um am being too blunt in this regard, but we don't reflect the will of the people in the same way the city council does. No, we do. Right. And that's

I'm glad you say that. I'm I'm not question I'm questioning because I'm wanting to understand. We're not elected officials. They're elected officials. Yeah, we're appointed officials. We don't reflect [clears throat] the will of the people. How do you think that they do? They're elected. So, the people chose them. The people didn't choose us. They're stuck with us. They're stuck with us. Sorry, guys. Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. They're stuck with us. But they don't always vote the will of the people.

No, they don't. And that's why it's really important that they Let me say it this way. They don't have to be beholden to the will of the people. The will of the people are there to check them if they go so far that during an election they then vote them out of power. That doesn't happen with us. The way that it happens is that they vote the board or the um the town council out of power or have a change of mayor and the mayor says, "You know what? You have either hit your term or we're going to reconsider your position." And there are rules and procedures for that to follow. The reason, this is the way I see it, right? Keep going. I'm sorry to to divert you and we're we're ranging a bit a field so I'm going to cabin us. Oh, keep going.

But but it it's all relevant to what I see as the general plan. Sometimes the general plan has to lead out in areas that are not necessarily popular and that's why we have two levels. We have a planning commission that doesn't necessarily have to reflect the popular vote and then you've got a town council that does. Okay. So, I get what you're saying better. Thank you. Commission, can I ask just real quick? Yes, m you're adding a list. Um, do I have then Well, I guess are we including with this commentary the the conversation about the substantive change to the active transportation plan that it has.

I was going to get there. That's a great question. So, I wanted I wanted to get vice chair to a spot. Okay. I apologize that. No, no, no. Don't apologize. Um it's good as a reminder. So I want vice chair to get to a motion where she feel like she can make the motion and then have the content appropriate and then we'll find out if there's a second. Okay. In that um it is my intention that if that doesn't pass that maybe we do another amendment where we say listen there is a specific area with the transportation element that probably needs to be modified.

Okay, that sounds great. Thank you. [snorts] Do you want the mouse? I didn't give you the mouse. Oh, I'm good. Thank you. This is fine. Not a problem. So, chair, are you saying that the prior motion or motions have been withdrawn? No, I'm saying new motion.

No, the the first motion from vice chair failed on on the table. The second motion from Commissioner Hoth is on the table with a second. We're now considering what I would call uh a potential amendment. Okay, good. Yeah. And that she is developing her motion and I'm giving plenty of space to do so to amend. Correct. And then I will um when she's ready call for whether or not there's a second. Is that fair? Thank you.

And so yeah, we're still in a public meeting. Um but is it okay not to break quorum but um actually can we can we pause the public meeting and then just wait for this? What would you pref What would you say is the better route? Just keep the public meeting going. Yeah. Rather than go into recess. No, I don't. She can make a motion to to table or to continue or Right. You know. Well, I want to give her the space to fill out these categories. I'm just wondering if um I've sort of already answered my question. Thank you. We're going to [snorts] just keep going. So, I would like to add Yeah. So far um hillside definition and open space.

Okay. That was another one I thought of. And um going back to housing just that really needs to be looked at. You felt that that needed significant work. Yes. based on the commentary whether it's westside or otherwise. Yes. When you say housing, you're talking about affordable housing or not just affordable h both. Okay.

Both. So um for clarity on Main Street, I feel like based on comments and also what I felt from the very beginning so personal opinion and public comment um that it's always been driven to change Main Street. I feel like that's really being pushed or has been pushed the whole time and um so that needs to be talked about the pushing that way. So, as part of your motion, you're saying that um that in your opinion, the general plan has

too much of a focus on modifying Main Street as opposed to a plan that perhaps preserves more features of Main Main Street. Exactly what you just said. Okay, got it. You're developing quite the motion, Laorray. Yeah, I love I can't wait for somebody to write down [laughter] Is it going to be you or is it going to be Jennifer? Most likely, it's going to be a mix between Mike and Jennifer. I cannot or AI. Yes. How about this? Once we get to a spot, I'll try to articulate it for you.

You will. You always do. I have a question uh for the commission. So, one of the things I told you I disagreed with um NY's comment on the bottom of page 20 I believe of her notes and she had mentioned um not having housing over there on the west side. That's not something that we agreed upon. Is that for personal? That's personal. Okay. I do not I just want to make sure I wasn't overlooking something here.

I will say you you blasted through this. You're in the appendix, dude. Nice work.

I'm a mom. [laughter] I got I've got six kids. I can go through stuff. Plus, I already read it before, so I'm just sort of perusing. I am sure that I'm missing some things but in my head um the things that I've already addressed are the things that I recall um those are the things that came back to me.

Let me try to articulate where we're at and then I'll try to articulate your your motion to amend. Um there's a current motion on the table with a second to forward with a positive recommendation the amendments um as it came to us in the second round from the uh uh consultant along with a delegation between now and when it appears for uh the uh city council that mechanical changes can be made by staff. And those are things that we've discussed earlier, but they're pretty much things like formatting, scriveners errors, factual remedying that is clear on its face, um, logos, stuff like that. Um, now we have an emotion. So that was first and seconded. Um, whatever. There is a motion currently being crafted on the table where the recommendation be modified such that there are specific categories being called out and that these categories be emphasized such that the city council needs to take a more uh fine tooth comb rather than weathered eye. How's that sound? [laughter]

Yes. And those categories include, for example, that on Main Street, it appears that the general plan, as currently drafted, appears to encourage modifying Main Street instead of preserving uh its features. That the Parish Lane area um that the current phrasing in the general plan with with regards to Parish Lane needs to be re-evaluated, especially in light of recent verbal and written comments. Yes. that the west side, north and south also be re-evaluated because the general plan may not necessarily conform to what? No, let me say it this way. That the west side be re-evaluated in light of the recent comments verbal and written.

Yes. Okay. That the town centers be re-evaluated in light of that commentary. Yes. That chart B makes sure that it's conforming to fact and organizational structures that are true. Yes. All right. That the housing both in density and affordable housing be re-evaluated in light of the commentary. Yes. And that the hillside definition and open space areas of the general plan be re-evaluated with a more fine tooth comb. Yes. Okay. What else is there? You're hired, ma'am. [laughter] Is there anything else that I can add to that? Not that stuck out to me. Fair enough. So, I have No, that included everything. I have a motion to amend on the table. Do I have a second to support it?

I'll second it. I have a motion and a second to amend. So, the vote that's going to now be called for is whether or not we agree not with the overall amendment, but whether or not we agree to amend the current motion that Commissioner Hoth has on the table. Does that make sense? Okay. So, or or before that. Yes. Do you want to just add the active transportation or was that a different issue?

You know, I was thinking of another motion, but I'm I'm That's a great point. it it definitely could be added here. So, as I Okay, so as I understand it, in addition to that motion, um staff has identified a a problem where the general plan appears to state that we have a valid and adopted transportation plan, which is not true. And so therefore the substance of the plan needs to be modified so that it reflects reality that um the transportation component of the general plan is basically being applied in a way that as soon as we develop that transportation plan and it's adopted perhaps it can conform to the general plan and or vice versa. That's a lot.

Yeah. Yeah, the doc. So the history you know more than I do, but the ATP has been completed just never was accepted or adopted by center, right? And neighbor communities have adopted it, right? So therefore, the city council needs to re-evaluate the transportation portion of this plan to make sure that it conforms to reality. Yeah. Okay. So that is now what's on the table and we're going to vote on whether or not we want to amend the current motion and then we would then mo vote on the motion itself. Sound good? Including the amendment. Including the amendment. Okay. Does that make sense? Yes. I'm going to start down here. So this is just on the amendment whether or not you agree to allow the amendment to the motion. I I may. I know.

Mason. I know. Right. I Okay. So that motion carries. Now, what is on the table is pretty much everything I just said. Yeah. The whole thing. And again, reading the room. I'm gonna call a vote. We know where this is going to go. Read the [laughter] room, man. How about I start down here for the the motion that this is for the motion to forward. Yes. To forward with a positive recommendation. With the amendment. So, we're basically saying to the city council, if I'm rephrasing it, hey, city council, this has a positive recommendation, but you know what? You need to dig in on these on these categories.

Okay. And before we take the the motion, I'm probably going to vote against it for the reasons I've noted, but just for clarity, what I think is that I don't necessarily agree with the comments. I think that the comments go too far. And so I'm going to vote against this probably, but it's because not because I'm I I'm saying that no, it doesn't need to have be happen. It just needs to happen less than what I think that people will read into that that vote I feel like is saying that it needs to be redone. I don't I think that the framework that we've been given by the professional consultant does a really good job. It's like 98% for me and for some it's like 60%. Maybe right. Yeah.

And so when we're forwarding this with a recommendation I'm just going to say no because I think that this imputes or implies that there's a significant amount of work when I would disagree with that. That's why. So So you want me to give five minutes on my opinion now? Yes, please. No, you should like get let's get it in your record because it's important for the city council to understand sort of what we're recommending.

No, I I appreciate what you're saying. You're really smart. I appreciate what you're saying, but I hold more weight with citizens. Like that's really important to me. Opinions are really important to me. I think the document is good. Yes, we paid somebody. Is it great? No, I don't love it. I I want to be able to love it. I want to love it. And I think with the amendments and them taking some time, I think they need to take some time on this puppy um looking at it, then I think it can be something that we love. Not just me, but that the citizens can love and feel comfortable with. That's the glory of our organization. I know. Okay. So, do you want to start down here?

Sure. That's like I'm I'm going to ask your your permission to vote. [laughter] We're going to start down here on the motion with the amendment. for the amendment. I I nay I I That was a big sigh. [laughter] All right. So, the motion carries. This is being forwarded to the city council on those terms. Um we'll review the minutes [laughter] for the motion as written. Um great job, guys. And and thank you so much everybody. Thanks, Lorie. Great job. Great job. Now, please don't leave. stick around because we're going to talk about landscapes. It'd still be more fun

and and it's going to be changed in a way where you know two two months from now people are like I never heard about these changes. Yes. [laughter] Anyways, I say that glibly, but let's go ahead and move on to business item number two. Yes. Just a clarification for the record. Whose amendment motion was that? Who made the motion to amend? Vice Chair Laray as voiced by Chair Care. Sec. Seconded by Gary. Yes. By my interpreter by Councilman Woodward. [laughter] That's exactly right. That's how it went. Fair. Yes.

Now, if I could have voted in favor of the transportation component, I would, but it was all as a package deal. Joke. All right, let's move on. [laughter] Business item number two. I accept your nay. It's fine. Business item number two. Okay.

So, let me pull that up. So this one is a continuation well backing up this is a public hearing item just to note that we have advertise this for public hearing. It's a continuation of the the discussion we had on October 22nd um wherein we had a representative from we basin water to answer questions and discuss water conservation practices and guidance from the state uh with the planning commission relative to landscaping water conservation element. Um at the conclusion of that discussion with the um planning commission and back and forth with Mr. Perry during that meeting uh the planning commission gave direction to staff to work on updates to better address and reflect commentary with Mr. Perry as well as set a public hearing. Um that revision has been provided in your packet and the advertisement for public hearing established. I will note um as a side note that's not in the packet but it seems to be evidenced if you look at the recommendation that the language in your packet is still not refined to a level where it feels ready to proceed any further.

Um so if you look at I I've added a statement with the recommendation says only after the planning commission agrees that the proposed amend language is ready to be directed for city council consideration. So, I think it's it's going the direction that seems to match our discussion, but I don't feel like I have all the answers with some of the language. I have provided this to our city attorney, Lisa Romney, as well, and I know she intends to look at it closer. Um, there's some other areas within it that she may want to uh further discuss and and address that have been consistent challenges with the landscaping ordinance over the years, even before my time working for the city. So, I think there's going to be definitely more to it. The question that that we've had internally that I'll share with the planning commission is how far how deep do we want to scrape at the other things

that aren't the water conservation discussion things. I think that's kind of an interesting thing to think about and and discuss.

Do we focus solely on water conservation for now or do we were we're considering looking at opening up the landscape or scratch at other elements of it. So, that's something to think about even though initially obviously it started out as a water conservation discussion. Um, I'm not sure well I guess the only other thing I'll say is after uh the planning commission moves forward the uh public hearing. I'm not sure how you want to go about discussing the updates and and things that that staff has uh provided and its edits and changes. my mind that that seems like it might make sense, but it might be a little laborious to go through each and every one, but but if you indulge me, I would be uh okay with doing that. So,

well, I'll indulge you. I I'm happy to, but do you have specific ones that you want to focus on, or do you want us to open up our questions and then go from there? What would you uh say would be more efficient? Well, I mean, if if you if you're okay with me just getting it up front now before we go into public hearing, I can do that. It probably take me Let's do it. Seven. Well, I mean, we're in a public hearing, so Yeah. Well, the but you haven't had the actual public hearing itself, right? Oh, I see what you're saying. That's what I'm saying. Do you want me to do that now or do you want to have the public hearing and then you go and do it? No, I want I want to hear. Okay. All right. As part of your staff.

So then so then look at uh the document. Yep. That she has pulled up. So what quickly came came to a head is as even we discussed internally as we we heard what Mr. Perry said is in our code we don't have a definition for hardscape. We talk about all these variations in organics and rockscapes and this and that, but we don't have a definition for hardscape. And there's even other elements within the code um that that and and I guess backing up, there's other elements I talk about like hard surfaces. That's not to be confused with hardscape as it relates to landscaping. So, let's make that real clear first. And if we need to go further and define that this is solely for the purposes of landscaping were this to be established with that definition, we could do that. But what I what I brought into it was a definition that that we had used in in Riverdale when I was there. It seemed to work. Um but clearly we can modify it accordingly. So that that's my first one. Next one is redevelopment. Um redevelopment is one where now this could have broader implications than just landscaping. Uh obviously for the purposes of of say like a uh building improvement site plan amendment type deal. Um I'm not sure that even 2,000 square feet would be the right number. Again, it's for the sake of commentary, but it would address we're starting to go down that rabbit hole of what is redevelopment or new development versus already established pre-existing conditions. Right? So, that's my intent at least there to go down that that um discussion. Um moving on then,

can we before too far 2,000 square feet is the area of the outdoor the outdoor area that's being changed or what? It's it'd be like the size of the the building alteration building specifically. Yes, that's correct. Yeah. Okay. Specifically. Yeah. Yeah. So, that's what I wanted to make sure was clear is whether or not like if you're if you're modifying making significant modifications and you um add a wing or something and it's over 2,000 square feet, then then you're considered in redevelopment. But if you if you knock down a deck and then change your front strip, you're not

unless unless it changes the building to a point where it's more than 2,000 square feet of the building. Correct. Exterior alterations to the the the residence. We're not talking about because yard space or or commercial or industrial structure. Fair enough. Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that it's clear enough that this is not um like the grass area, right? Yeah. Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, it's structural that that's the intent

and that's how it's applied in again in in Riverdale where I took this from and then I've added or I note um that there can be uh adjustments to the square footage. There can be we could even clarify redevelopment and solely categorize it for commercial um industrial you know type of uses as well multif family etc. So so there is some discussion to be had there. Sid can you make this bigger please? a little bit. Thank you.

Oh yeah. Um the next one that's that's on the following page that has not changed. Um that one that was pre and same with the next page. Um I did meddle with this page here. Go down to the next one. Going this one. Yep. You can see there's some meddling there. This I had a a little bit of a a challenge trying to identify what does new development mean. We talked about it. We understand what it means. But when you're talking about a definitional application, what does that mean? Do we use a date? I mean, that's why I propose after year 2025 because I'm not quite sure what the best way to to identify new development. But if we just broadly say new development, what is that?

And do we have a benchmark of when that starts? Right? So that's what I'm trying to determine. And I'm not even sure if that's the right way to approach it, but I I was trying to grapple with, okay, how would we even explain that? Well, why would we need a year? Why can't we just say at the time of application? Well, I mean, I guess as long as Yeah. Go ahead. The time of application. So meaning that let's say that an applicant applied already for housing to go in but had not gotten their application approved by different staff. Do we want to say approved by staff like application approved or application applied by?

And that's another differentiating thing too. Wouldn't vesting issues just deal with that? Yeah, I see what you're saying. If the code's in place, then any development that comes after the code's established would be bound by it. you don't or no what are your thoughts? Well, this was my initial question. I do think it's complicated. Um because if you leave it as is any new residential development after 2025, it makes it clear that yeah, anything after that has to comply with this. But again, it's taking it out of the realm of what we typically see as a non-conforming use or vested rights. So does it mean that hey if I built my house in 2020

then I redevelop it I'm never subject to this or is anyway I I think it is complicated and but the way that at least Weaver Basins seem to interpret it is what Mike has put here which is oh no we just mean anything new you know but yeah well then honestly that's almost um chaff like having it in here or not having it in here has the same effect. Well, true. I I guess but if it if it achieves um clarity for the purposes that we've talking about with Weaver, then fine.

Yeah. I mean, typically I like to rely on standard non-conforming use or nonconformity law and vested rights law because there's already case law dealing with that. We understand it's in our code. Um, so I I I think what we were trying to say is that this statute does not apply retroactively, which it wouldn't, right?

It has to be a safety issue or something that would apply retroactively. So by adopting this with or without these changes, we would not be going back and saying everybody has to now meet these these numbers. Um, but I think another thing the planning commission was struggling with is well what how much is development like the deck or the pool or the you know and again the intent is no you're still not bringing it up to to this standard and that's why I tried to do a definition of redevelopment.

Yeah. So um can I throw um a wrench into the gears? So don't we want some other of the not necessarily this code I I would worry that um quote unquote redevelopment as deployed in other sections of the code which we do want to be triggered upon certain acts um not necessarily be triggered here and yet we're using very similar language across those chapters that's a problem right and and for example like um can I use that example from visa maybe four years ago where the the um landowner tore down a deck and then came in for a deck permit, but because they had so much hard surface area, they had to re what was it? A hillside zone amendment. It's a lot lock coverage standard

because that was considered a redevelopment in that sense in that chapter. Well, it wasn't a redevelopment, but by well, yeah, doing what they wanted to do now. Yeah. Because the deck was gone, right? Then it was a new application that didn't meet the code in place at the time of the application. Correct. So, but we can this is one of those sections that I sort of want to spend more time on and you know maybe we can take the public hearing and between this meeting and the next one you know. Yeah,

even the even the term redevelopment. I mean we could define redevelopment as a definitional section within just the landscaping ordinance. But I still think there may need to be a definitional push more broadly within the zoning code for redevelopment. Maybe I'm scratching it too broad of addition. you are really just bringing a whole bunch [laughter] in. Maybe I am, but I think there's there's a need for clarity because it's hard sometimes for staff to know how to apply what redevelopment needs. And you'll get developers that will come in and they'll and I'm thinking more from a commercial industrial perspective now. Well, I'm not redeveloping my building. I just want to add a wing to it. Well, you are. You're going to improve your site plan. It's going to change your storm water. It's going to do impacts to the site. Okay. Well, how big is redevelopment?

Right. And it's different depending on what we're Yeah. context. Yeah. But I would like the the terms used in here to be just specific to like we maybe we could just say substantial redevelopment and substantial redevelopment only applies to this section because I don't want this term of redevelopment to apply to the entire code because we have very different standards of redevelopment for storm water, for site plan, for anything else. So, this is really just a carve out to help people feel comfortable with this and and not impose it. But again, I don't think the law would impose it retroactively anyway. Right.

I do have one thing to say that a lot of the code in zoning refers to substantial alterations which is a little bit different which it does call out by definition. I like that. So, that is something that I I highlighted that on the screen. So that might that might kind of resolve what you were um addressing with the substantial or what was it the re substantial redevelopment. Yeah, I like that. That's alterations work. There is a difference. I want to um I guess I I mean yes I just want I just want to make that just a just a note.

The reason I put it in 1212 there is no definition section in landscaping. And maybe that's why I said earlier maybe no and maybe we need to create one, right? Cuz I thought about that too. Well, do I create a new definitions section for landscape have like four terms? Wait. Well, we do have it in 125103 030 where we just refer back to 12. But I think you could say there for purposes of this. Yeah, that's what I was saying. Certain words and phrases in this chapter are defined in 1212. Yeah, thanks. And I guess that's what I'm getting at. Like, so I was like, "Oh, well, if we're going to use a method where we go back to 1212, then I have to put the definition in 122." Well, I suppose we could just say in addition to the words and phrases, um, they're hereby further modified as indicated.

Well, and this definition only applies to this chapter. Again, I don't want people going to this carve out, right, for the rest of the code. It becomes problematic. Yeah. So, there's obviously something to think about and digest as we keep moving forward with this discussion. Um but then uh let's see here. Zoom down. Sorry.

Um the bottom of that I have a note. Should we add strong language or different language to communicate that we still want plannings in the lawn non-law and non-turf areas? Please let me know if you have suggestions, ideas, etc. on wording for this expectation. So that's that statement says other plannings preferably drought tolerant plings are still allowed and expected to be planned within the non-turf and non-law areas of the property. What I was trying to get at is there was a commentary made by the planning commission where we said we don't just want it to be concreted in or hardcape and rocks. We do not. Right. And so I'm trying to that I'm trying to address specifically that comment with that statement. I'm not sure that's the right way to say it, but that's what I'm trying to get at. And also I remember last time we were talking about drought tolerant plantings, but about height.

Oh, to not block line of sight. Well, to not block line of sight, but can they have um I mean just in places where I walk, people have taken out the grass and then put very random things um of varying heights like tall like trees, shrubs that grow clear out in the street. Do you do you know tall 11.02? Does it have height? Are there any regulations for that? Yeah, I think it um it's limited to 2 feet except for the mailbox which is allowed to be like 42 in except I called the tree people remember in that new development I asked you about. Do you remember? And they said, "Oh, they could have trees."

Oh, we allowed trees. It's just like boulders and things like that or any other structures for visibility, but trees go up and so they're not, you know, other than in the sight triangle. But what I Okay, right. And I get that. But some of these trees that have been planted not at the new development but around the corner from it are like massive shrubs that some people call trees. They should not be in that. Right. So I that's why I was wondering do we have more specific? We didn't want to get into all the specifics of what you can and cannot plant, but I think that there should be a little bit more information.

That that's why I'm wondering with 11.0 too because that that is your your standards and your um in your park strips and those sort of um areas. So, we would have to look deeper into that one to make sure that that it doesn't capture what you're looking for, but I can certainly bring it back cuz there are clear connections to 11.02 within this code. It sounds like an enforcement issue and it could be an enforcement issue. But people see people doing it and it just keeps going going going. So, and we're complaint based. So, I guess Yeah, I was going to say I guess you'd have to file a complaint, Laorray, on the ones you're seeing to get the word out that there's they're going to know it was you. Guys, that is not going to be me. I know, but that's always going to be

We don't have enforcement, right? No. Well, I we do. It's just internally with community development. It's complaint based. Oh, it's not a full And then if it's street if it's a streets issue though, our streets department will look at it initially and then give direction to community development how to proceed or they might themselves just address it depending. They sometimes will do door hangers for like visibility andor accessibility issues and just take it on themselves. But some trees have been taken out of the sight triangles or if they're dangerous. Oh yeah. And that would be the streets department that has addressed that program.

Well, let's maybe see what staff comes up with. I think you've raised a valid point. We may want to micromanage, and I'm using that term deliberately, the kinds of standards that we want in these partnerships, or we may want to rely on the existing ones, hoping that we can then use that as the enforcement mechanism, uh, as opposed to having it here and hoping people are actually acting on their honor, etc., etc. I I hear that's what you're kind of saying is that if it's here and it's more clear, people will act appropriately because sometimes people may come look, right? Yeah. Right. And is there a a thing about um drought tolerant? Is that part of Weber waters? It says

because it just says preferably drought tolerant plantings. Does that does it need to be more specific? Is that okay with weaver water as far as preferably? I mean I think that they they said they don't really care if it's it's hardscape or plants, but if the city would rather see plants than then that's what we try to state. We tried to. So, in other words, we're saying you should plant drought tolerant plants, but if you don't want to, that's still okay. I guess it depends. As long as it's watered the way that we were watering. It depends on how far we want to go with it. Right. I mean, I don't know that you I don't know if I can go so far to say you have to plant plants in the park strip if they want to just do a bunch of Right.

So, that's why that that word preferably used there. starts to indicate to a potential homeowner or business developer like, "Look, Centerville would rather you put plants in there, but we're not going to say you have to." Yeah. We can't mandate it. Right. Yeah. I might be remembering wrong, but I thought he said they have to have plants or they do not qualify for that. You never have a per percentage coverage of plants. I remember him saying like, "We don't want people to just put rocks down because it actually makes it worse." Yeah. They they actually in the park strip want there to be no plants. They that remember that was one of the areas where they said that they don't even want sod or turf or anything and they said they would prefer it to be low watered or no watered at all

from a drought tolerant position. Well then what would it be? That's why it would be drought tolerant plants or they would rather you don't that you that are native that don't bubblers or Yeah. don't even need water because they get they get enough out of the air to climate. Well, then I'm just going to say as a planning commissioner, I'd really like to see us not adopt that loose of a standard that we maybe start considering a a change to the ordinance that does require does require more than just simple hardscape. And I think that we're we're getting there.

I think we're working on that. I thought I had I had heard weaver as what I'm now articulating which is what you said that is required. Yeah. You can't just have straight up minerals cementer gravel or whatever. Yeah. In the park strip they actually would prefer there not be plantings and if they are they be drought tolerant because they don't want any waste of water to go into those those park strips where they dry up and plants don't survive very well.

Totally. I guess what I'm thinking of is when I applied for the Flip the Strip program, they were pretty clear that you had to have something more than just gravel. When I was reading through the brochures, now this is like five years ago, and maybe they've modified it since then, but it specifically said you've got to have this percentage coverage of D drought tolerant plants. You can't just put in 2 in gravel and say it's done and say it's done. Yeah. And that's more what I'm envisioning our ordinance ought to be. we and I can investigate it further with them and and get back to you to see if if there's a misunderstanding even on that part being wrong. [laughter]

Well, it's not necessarily right or wrong. It's what do we want as a vision? I think we've all really been pretty consistent on this point. I guess the question the reason that it was in as preferably is because do you want to take that hard line of a stance with residents of the community and will the council support that hard line of stance to say oh two good questions to [laughter] say you have to put some kind of not my decision yeah you have to put some kind of plans in the park strip because if you take out preferably then you're making it mandatory yep yep so that becomes a different topic right you were going to So anyway,

so just what she's got pulled up right here, that very first bullet point, replacing lawn with concrete or other imperial whatever uh surfaces are not eligible for payment. Um is that like are you saying the park strip is different than the lawn? No. What I Yeah. What Well, what I'm what that's saying is you can't just go concrete in the park strip, but that doesn't say they can't put in gravels. Gravels are permeable. Oh, okay. They can actually permeate water. They want the water to get back down into the soil to get down to the aquifer. Concrete doesn't allow that. Nor will brick pavers really because they're too they're too thick unless they're porous pavers.

So, I think that might be some of the confusion is I think he said no concrete or impermeable surfaces, but if it's permeable, smaller rocks and gravel would be allowed. But obviously, it sounds like we prefer there be plings. Yeah. So then that becomes the way I envision it is something along the lines of listen if you're going to do this then um you're going to put in drought tolerance something or others to a coverage of you know x amount that makes sense and now I'm no expert so I can't give you those standards but I I do I I and maybe it's a fever dream when I when I read through flip the strip I didn't actually follow through on it but there were they were it seemed like they were so clear on that point with percentages

and it could have been with the flip the strip but they don't use program anymore. Oh, I know. I know. But this is this is what I'm articulating as my my sort of vision. Yeah. Of what would make sense if I'm Yeah. Anyways, and and you could I don't want to spend adnauseium time going through this discussion, but you could even say what we have here applies to residential, but you will put in Yeah. plants if you're commercial, industrial, right? Multifamily, etc. Right. So you can even have that kind of discretion. Good. So you're saying that they don't do the flip the strip program and then this first bullet point it's talking about are not eligible for payment payment.

Yeah, they do. They have a a a landscape rebate program for like your yard and your lawn that they still do and they get state funding for but they no longer do flip your strip. So that So this is a this is a a landscape rebate program. Okay. This is for like the rest of your like your yard. Yeah. your yard itself which can include the strip. Yeah, I think they want it to include includes the flip the strip was limited to the strip. Yeah, it was only the strip. Yes. And this is expanded. Expanded. Okay. And this one's Yeah. Flip the yard. But in order to get qualify for the funds, you have to do your whole yard space, not just your your park strip. Okay.

So, it's an expansion larger format and then they get federal or state funds to do it. Yeah. So, um, going back then, uh, what page were we on? Page six. Um, make it bigger again, please. Sid, it went down.

I just added a comment again. Add more language to this. Include the terminology redevelopment. I add the statement says this applies to all new development and or redevelopment of a property use. Again, if we use a term like that, we need to determine what is new development, what is redevelopment. And that's what continually I kept coming across as I was going through it. Um, let's see. The list of low water use plants. We talked about the last one. We really, to my knowledge, I don't have one.

Um, so I don't know if we need that statement in there. If I don't even know what that list is, but if I need, I could explore with the public works department. Um, then there's the reference that we talked about with the park. But see, there is a reference even though I put a a potential strike through CMC 11.02.0. 030 regarding permitted hardscaping in the park strip. So like I said, there is there is commentary and there is code that I could bring forward at our next discussion of this to better illuminate how that crosses with the landscaping ordinance. And again, yeah, I didn't say Sydney could even pull it up right now if we wanted to really look it over in more detail. Um, but that's that's what it's referencing there. And I think I noted, yeah, the reference was wrong though in the code. It would if if we do want to keep it in, it should be CMC1.02.022 to which she has provided,

right? Okay. Let's see. Um, going down. Unless you're if you're done. If you're not, we can keep on this for a minute. Just stay here for a second. Yep. You want me to zoom in? Uh, whatever. Sure. I just needed a little bit more time. Y Just kidding because I can't scroll over. So, I think it's right. I think it's just sizing the wording. Oh, it is? Yeah. Oh, excellent. Okay. It's just sizing the wording to fit. So, it's sh changing the nature of the paragraph.

Okay. Did you find something? Yeah, he's right. It looks like basically eligible conversions grass to water-wise plants, trees and materials, eg rock, mulch. So yeah, it just needs to be porous. And again, back to the mulch thing because our previous conversation had said no bark, right? Is mulch considered bark? It could be. And so we would have to define anytime there's a term mulch, we would have to put not including bark mulch or bark products if we want to go down that. So my understanding is that that's a sewer problem, right? That

bark. Yeah. Storm drainage because it gets flushed into our system and then and it blows everywhere and it gets everywhere and then and then when you're there's quite a bit of wind, right? It gets in there and Yeah, deteriorates. It gets all dusty and

it's nasty. So, scrolling down to the next page. So, last time I had a question about 50%. I think I've identified and so I just made it even more clear rather than having a heading that says it 50% of the overall property perimeter length and 50% of the overall landscaping area. And then the next one, 50% of the property boundaries per perimeter length between residential non-residential zone properties. and and maybe it's redundant and maybe we just take out where it says buffer a landscape between residential and residential development and we just say 50% and make the statement so it's more clear what it's saying how the 50% applies in each case but I wanted to make it clear that that that's what it seems to be saying as far as I can see

um that next one seems to be from the last time other than again adding the other planning preferably drought tolerance in there which one are you talking about under new four. Yeah. Okay.

Four. Let's see. Nothing has changed elsewhere on that page. Um again, okay, let let's uh actually let me see here. I did have so Mr. Rice made a comment when he was reviewing. He's with the Weaver Basin Water. And again, as we we may remember last time we talked about this when Lisa explained it to us, this landscape plan was more uh predominantly utilized for nonresidential scenarios, but we're trying to now adjust it to better uh afford opportunities for the water conservation program. So, this is a carryover of that. So this one here, as I looked at what he's saying, three, four, and even five, we might need us to characterize it as saying for um commercial, multifamily, industrial, unless we feel like single family, residential should be held subject to this standard, which I don't ever think was the intent. So that is something that I kept his comment there because obviously I still need to identify how to do that if if the planning commission agrees with that position.

So for clarification for me so multif family you mean duplexes apartments not duplex because state code allows duplex to be in a single family category but anything higher than that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So, um, homes. Well, now I take that back. Yeah, duplex would apply. So, yeah, just single family homes. Sorry, I'm getting I'm getting mixed up with moderate income stuff. Yeah, got a lot going on up here. No, you're right. It would not It would just be Yeah. Anything not single family. Not single family.

Yeah, but not not ADU. We're not talking ADU, which is a whole different category. Yeah, let's not ever talk AD to you. So, um, moving on. See, you might already be Oh, no, you're not. Okay. I don't have any substantial changes other than continually reidentifying um CMC.230 to 022 until we get to page 11 of and yeah, I don't know what it is in the packet. Shoot. Does it say plant size?

No. Keep go down to go. Uh, no. It's under public street and park strip landscaping is where the next one is that I'm at. Substantial artificial

and that's under landscape requirements. Keep going up. Just barely. Keep going a little more. Stop. Yeah, that's it. Water efficient. Yeah, that's it. So again, um adding the the after 2025, but this applies specifically to do new development of single family residential dwellings and how they apply. Now, as we look at this one, um, go down to the next page. I I'll identify. Let's see here.

I did try to to further branch out single family and better identify it and the new developments underwater efficient design methods and practices. Are you on C?

Re and C. again reiterating that from a water deficient design method and practice be applied. But but I do recognize that there could be some some redundancies here and there might be opportunities to simplify. And so that's where again I I think having Lisa look at a little closer would have be helpful. Um there's one area where I looked at it earlier today and I read it over. I'm just going to have to to renumber it. But there's an area where I felt like it needed to be sub A subB after this version, but I have so much in my head with everything else going on that I don't readily see it right now. So, it was a mechanical thing. It would make more sense from from a new development of commercial, industrial, multifamily to have sub A, subb because the categories weren't clear. Something to do with the intensities of of grasses and plantings, but I'm not seeing it right now. So, oh, it's coming up.

That's what I thought. [laughter] Yeah, it's coming up. So, under Yeah. 125180 where it has plant size, uh there's some that needs to be addressed where it's specific to to that um to commercial non multifamily industrial there. Again, we wouldn't tell a homeowner unless we would specifically what kind of types of plants and sizes we want. Sizes, right? Yeah. By state law, aren't we not allowed to regulate what was generated? That's true. We can't really We're not even allowed to regulate landscaping standards. Residential. I didn't hear that last part, Mike. We couldn't We can't What?

You can't You can't regulate specific landscaping standards on residential single family residential dwellings like this one does about the size of the trees, the two calipers. We can't do that. So, this is for that. Yeah. Industrial. Yeah. the the commercial industrial multif family and does it say that specifically above this? No, that's why I said I would need to I need to add that in. Okay. In response to fix that comments. Artificial landscaping is its own animal. My popler trees and that that's that's it. So it's as you can see not the easiest uh

Yeah. No, but let me So, thank you for the staff report and also the questions u between staff and the council. Let's move forward to the public hearing phase. Yeah. So, this is a public hearing where we hear from the public. Um I'm going to open up the floor to anybody that wants to come to the podium. State your name um and your comment and let's go from there. Seeing nobody rushing, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing portion. Uh, and I'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. I'll lead out. This is a good example of not baked. And so, um, I say it needs to we need to put in the work,

but even before we put in the work, I think staff has already identified things they want to make changes on. We've given you sort of our generalized feedback. Yeah. And let's just try again when you're ready. It's not like you haven't been busy with all the other stuff we've been doing. What other stuff? [laughter] What other going? So, with apologies, Mike. Um, bring it back to us when you think it's more baked.

Yeah, I I'm going to, like I said, I I really want Lisa to look at it. She has a much better institutional feel of a lot of the issues that are Yeah. internal with this document. I'll work on my own things that I even saw today when I did a re-review with Fresh Eyes on it. Um, and keep working with her. I uh I don't know. I'd like to to try to bring it back maybe in in it probably be your second meeting in January would be my thought process. And then again, uh the planning commission can always hold more public hearings on the matter if we feel like it needs one. Right. And it would be my intent to unless uh unless you my co-commissioners feel any different. I doubt so.

But here's here's what I'll do. I'm going to bring it back to the commission for a vote. I'm going to lead out with a motion. I move that we table this without date certain and we direct staff to bake it more and then when there when it's was more baked, let's say 80% come back to us and we'll have a public hearing. That's my motion. Before you were going to make a motion, I was going to ask a question. Yeah. Is it okay if I ask Mike or tell Mike some things that some points of concern? Sure. In that or some points of interest? In fact, I would even say that um you know, we as planning commissioners can talk to staff like if you want to talk to them and and do it offline, that's super helpful. Or do you want to do it right now? No. Okay, do it.

So, what we talked about the mulch and the bark, um the height of plants and the percentage. Um then just the other things you brought up hardcape redevelopment defining and um basically the water tolerant plants and strip. That's it. So then my motion is um we table without date certain till um with the direction to staff to bring it back to us. I don't know January, February. Sure. um when you believe it's closer to what reflects the you know commentary we've directed you with. Sound good? That works for Do I have a second?

Second the motion. Nope. You can. Doesn't matter. Who wants to take it? Commissioner H. I will second the motion. I've got a second on the table. Any discussion? I will start down here. I I I I I Perfect. So it's tabled without date certain. just come back to us when it's more ready. Sounds good. So, thanks for all your work on it. A little doughy right now. Oh, man. More baked. This thing is Yeah. Got to keep needing this thing. Something. Okay. But I mean, the the the point being we we I would like to get us to a spot where we can get uh and qualify for Weaver Basin's incentives. Be nice. All right. Community development director's report. Uh we got one more action item. Actually, we do. Am I?

Yes. consideration of planning commission meeting schedule for the year 2026. Thank you. Perfect. Yeah. Um so you guys all saw it in your report. Um usually what we do here is we just say are there any conflicts or any problems with what you see there? This is page 282 of 288. Um sometimes we've noticed things up on like at least not in this jurisdiction, but I've seen it in other jurisdictions like on voting day we have to make modifications. Oh yeah. Um, anybody see any issues with this? Uh, if you'll look at the report or my brief background, there is a conflict on November 11th. It is Yep. Right.

So, that's the only thing I would add is staff. Yep. Noticed that. So, we would be here. So, you we're looking for direction if you'd want to go with the 10th or the 25th. I think staff would would encourage the 10th if staff has any say, but we're the discourage, [laughter] I guess. I don't know, guys. 25th. Stop. [laughter] The day before Thanksgiving. Yeah, I think my wife would murder me. And as far as the That's all the shopping. There's all the shopping to do. Okay, that's all I wonder. I would vote for the 10th. Yeah, that sounds good.

So, um I'll take a motion. Do we have to make a motion on this or is this just directed? It's required. Okay, I'll take a motion. I make a motion that we approve the schedule as outlined with the change of no adding November 10th to make up for Veterans Day. Confirming November 10th. Yeah, confirming November 25th. Right. Exactly. I have a motion. I'll second. I have a motion in a second. I'll start down here. I I I I I That's unanimous. All right. So now the community development director's report. Honestly, I just I don't really have anything specifically. I'm kind of drained. So I just wish you all a merry Christmas and hope you have a festive safe holiday. Yeah. Awesome.

Yeah. We won't see you again. So thank you for all the work you guys do. Yeah. Thank you. We'll see you next year. Yeah. All right. We've got minutes to consider from the November 12th meeting. Do I have uh any comments, red lines, questions, issues from anybody?

Hearing nothing, I'll take a motion. I will make a motion to accept the meeting minutes as currently written drafted. Okay. I have a motion. I have a second. I have a second. Uh, all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? None hearing? It's unanimous. I will take a motion to close. I will make a motion to close. I have a motion. I'll second it. Commissioner Woodward or Yeah. Commissioner as well as Councilman. Hey, I just gave you an upgrade. Thank you. Thank you.

Downgrade. [laughter] It's a lot more responsibility. Um, all those in favor say I. I. I. All right, we are journed. Thanks everybody. Thanks for coming. Merry Christmas.