Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're going to go ahead and get started. I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY JUST AT THE BEGINNING BECAUSE I HAVE A COUPLE COMMENT CARDS HERE FOR THE VAN BUEREN PROJECT. SO THAT PROJECT, THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS CLOSED AND THEN TABLED AND SO ON THE AGENDA IT SAYS THAT WE AREN'T HAVING ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT SO WE WON'T BE OPENING THAT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT THAT HASN'T BEEN SUBMITTED YET, YOU CAN SUBMIT IT ON A CARD AND THAT WILL GET ADDED TO THE RECORD OR THE ACTUAL DECISION THAT WILL BE MADE ABOUT THIS IS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. And so we encourage you to go and, sorry,

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL MOVE TO THE REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO REPORT IS THAT WE HAVE A NEW PLANNING, NOW THAT I GOT IT WRONG, I'M IN MY HEAD, PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER JOINING US, BENJAMIN RASKIN FOR DISTRICT 7. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WELCOME. THANK YOU. I HAVE NOTHING.

No. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We will. Next we'll have our open forum. So this is a 10-minute section for commissioners to bring up any issues or thoughts they have that aren't directly tied to an item on the agenda. Is there anything that anyone has this week? All right. Then we will move on to the consent agenda. OUR CONSENT AGENDA HAS TWO ITEMS ON IT, THE APPROVAL FOR THE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2026, AND THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR SILO PARK AT APPROXIMATELY 522 SOUTH, 400 WEST. SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW, IF ANYONE IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT. SEEING NON

I'd make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. We'll go ahead and vote.

Yes. And I would also like to note that I appreciated the report that Planner Seeley wrote. It was very good. I appreciate it a lot. And also, particularly the note that she put on the comments from the transportation department where she said, these have been discussed. They've been resolved. I really appreciate that. So I didn't have to ask that question. Thank you. Yes. Commissioner Barrett.

Great. Next, we will move on to our regular agenda. So item three, the zoning map amendment at approximately 1379 and 1395 West Van Buren and 1384 West Harris. And just again, like it's called out on the agenda and I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, but I've gotten a couple more cards. There isn't a public hearing for this. Thanks.

Yeah, it's disconnected. Sorry for the technical difficulties, guys. Give us a sec.

Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding the difference, but I can't understand why this route, if they're going to have to go through plan development likely anyway. The difference is, if you look at the table on page 12 of the staff report, The differences are so subtle, like the only difference here really is 28 versus 30 feet. Why this route?

ANYONE ELSE HAVE CLARIFYING ANYONE ELSE HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? APPLICANT?

I WONDER IF YOU COULD DETAIL I WONDER IF YOU COULD DETAIL THE DIFFERENCES TO THE CONDITIONS THE DIFFERENCES TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE PRO

All right, then I will bring it back to the commission for discussion.

IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS SPOT ZONING IN A PLACE THAT SPOT ZONING IN A PLACE THAT SPOT ZONING IN A PLACE THAT REALLY DOESN'T MATCH WHAT THE REALLY DOESN'T MATCH WHAT THE REALLY DOESN'T MATCH WHAT THE CITY'S PLANS ARE. CITY'S PLANS ARE. CITY'S PLANS ARE. THE WEST SIDE MASTER PLAN TALKS THE WEST SIDE MASTER PLAN TALKS THE WEST SIDE MASTER PLAN TALKS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PLACING THE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PLACING THE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PLACING THE TRANSITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY TRANSITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY TRANSITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN ALONG BUSIER STREETS HOUSING IN ALONG BUSIER STREETS HOUSING IN ALONG

So right before this meeting, I took the opportunity to actually visit the site. It's a really remarkably large site in a really gorgeous neighborhood. I disagree, kind of, that it's as far as you can get. There are places that are much deeper into neighborhoods. This is a couple of turns away from 17 South and the new Glendale Regional Park, certainly within walking distance. I also have a sort of temperamental concern about spot zoning. And at the same time, I think the project proposed here makes a lot of sense. And the goal for contiguous green space, I think, is highly beneficial in this

I WASN'T HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION IN JULY, BUT I WATCHED IT AND I THOUGHT I WAS REALLY IMPRESSED WITH THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR RESOURCEFULNESS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY COLLECTED SIGNATURES AND THEY HAD A CHANGE.ORG AND THEY CAME TO MEETINGS AND THEY HAD T-SHIRTS. I WAS REALLY IMPRESSED WITH WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS PROJECT. I also was really impressed with the discussion of the commissioners that were here. It was like one of the most thoughtful discussions I've heard on a project. So I really thought that some good points

I just wanted to clarify one thing with the node comment is, yeah, you're right. It probably is closer. I was looking at the map where it kind of pulls them out into little bubbles. And I kind of stand by my point. But there are farther places away from nodes, so point taken. But I do have a question. How is compliance done on something that has this restriction forever?

THE TENANT RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS ARE NEW TO THIS TENANT RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS ARE NEW TO THIS TENANT RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS ARE NEW TO THIS CONVERSATION OR THEY WERE THERE CONVERSATION OR THEY WERE THERE CONVERSATION OR THEY WERE THERE BEFORE? BEFORE? BEFORE? BECAUSE THAT BUILDING IS GONE. BECAUSE THAT BUILDING IS GONE. BECAUSE THAT BUILDING IS GONE. THAT TENANT LIVES SOMEWHERE THAT TENANT LIVES SOMEWHERE THAT TENANT LIVES SOMEWHERE ELSE NOW. ELSE NOW. ELSE NOW.

TO FIND THAT SPECIFIC FAMILY THAT LIVED THERE BEFORE THE HOUSE WAS TORN DOWN.

OKAY. YEAH, THE TWO THINGS THAT STOOD OUT TO ME, ONE WAS THE In matching the purpose of the zoning district, it says that RMF 30 is to transition between a residential and a higher density. And so spot zoning in this does seem like that doesn't quite meet that, though it meets a lot of the other rest of it. The other thing... is that this does kind of feel halfway between a rezone and a planned development because some of the stuff that we're looking at and talking about like circulation and park strips around the outside and things like that. And I do worry sometimes about having a developmen

um as we're having this conversation i'm sort of recalling my comments in the previous meeting and so i'll i'll go over a couple of those again so i do think that you know we've got newer city plans focused on housing and other things general plans that are newer than the west side master plan but the west side master plan is still the plan that the neighborhood AND THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT, AND IT'S THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT, AND IT'S MOST OF THEM, AS FAR AS WE CAN MOST OF THEM, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT, TELL FROM THE PUBLIC COMMEN

JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-ON TO THAT. I APPRECIATE THE POINT THAT YOU I APPRECIATE THE POINT THAT YOU COULD IMAGINE LARGER LOTS WITH COULD IMAGINE LARGER LOTS WITH LARGER HOMES, FEWER LARGER HOMES, FEWER LARGER HOMES, FEWER LARGER HOMES THAT WOULD FEEL LESS LARGER HOMES THAT WOULD FEEL LESS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS GENERALLY A PRETTY WHICH IS GENERALLY A PRETTY SMALL HOME AND SMALL FOOTPRINT SMALL HOME AND SMALL FOOTPRINT HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK IN SOME WAYS THIS WOULD I THINK IN SOME WAYS THIS WOULD FEEL MORE that that i want t

I'll make a motion unless anyone else wants to speak. Based on the information presented in this discussion, I move that the commission recommend that the city council adopt this petition with the conditions listed in the staff report.

Second. All right. We've got a motion and a second.

No, and I'll say I just think it makes more sense to go through a plan development route, but no. Commissioner Scott?

WHAT DO WE DO IF I VOTE NO? WE'LL HAVE THREE TO THREE. HOW DOES THAT WORK? HOW DOES THAT WORK?

I'LL VOTE YES. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION PASSES. THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND THEN WE'LL

SORRY, EXCUSE ME, THOSE FLAG LOT MODIFICATIONS ARE IN R1, R2, SR1 AND SR1A? OR FOR THE WHOLE CITY IN EVERY ZONE?

not just those four every all like the foothills residential zone all the every residential zone would allow flag lots i think that's correct yeah they currently do as well yeah oh they currently do what oh you're just changing the barriers to flag lots in every residential zone yes yes thank you

No, I'll wait until the end of your presentation. Thank you. Thank you.

Great. So we'll do some, if anyone has quick clarifying questions, Ben, do you want to go?

Yeah, thank you. First day of school, still trying to figure out where the bathrooms are and when you're supposed to raise your hand. So first, I just, in regards to the small lot dwellings at the beginning of presentation, you said houses, I'm sorry, with those particular new units, anything lower than 17 feet is permitted to have a basement?

all right thank you and a second question for this it's sort of in the same regards and sort of figuring this out with um unlike an adu this thing can be split up so if a homeowner has a small dwelling on their property they could sell that particular piece of property to an individual correct thank you anyone else

Yeah. Has any thought been given, I guess, to the maximum number of units on a large site? The only thing, I guess, that kind of troubles me a little bit is a really large lot could fit a lot of these. And that is also the type of lot that would change the neighborhood the most. So I was just wondering if that was under consideration at all.

OKAY. I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT IN THE LAST MEETING, SO THAT IN THE LAST MEETING, SO THAT IN THE LAST MEETING, SO SORRY. YOU'RE FINE. YOU'RE FINE. YOU'RE FINE. I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION. I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION. I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION. 157 SURVEY RESPONSES SEEMS LIKE 157 SURVEY RESPONSES SEEMS LIKE 157 SURVEY RESPONSES SEEMS LIKE A REALLY LOW NUMBER. A REALLY LOW NUMBER. A REALLY LOW NUMBER. HOW, LIKE, WAS THAT HOW, LIKE, WAS THAT HOW, LIKE, WAS THAT SURPRISING, I GUESS?

WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR THE WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR THE PUBLIC NOTICING THAT WAS MISSED? PUBLIC NOTICING THAT WAS MISSED? CAN WE REASONABLY EXPECT THIS TO CAN WE REASONABLY EXPECT THIS TO SHOW UP AT THE NEXT MEETING OR SHOW UP AT THE NEXT MEETING OR WILL IT TAKE A LITTLE LONGER?

All right, then I will go ahead and open up for public comment. So we've got a number of people. So in the spirit of trying to get through these, what I will do is I will read both the name of the person who is up to speak as well as the name of the person after them and the person after them. And if you're one of those two people who is soon to speak, please just come and stand right behind the podium. A, so we can get through them quickly, and then also because there are people in the overflow room, and that gives them a second to get over here. And then we went over the kind of decorum stuf

Also, so you'll have two minutes. If you are the representative of a registered organization, then you will have five. If you are that, please just state so at the beginning when you step up to the mic. And yeah. All good? Sweet. Recognized? Registered? I think they're both. So first we will hear from Lynn Schwartz. And then we will hear from Ben Enger. And then we will hear from Jackson Murphy. So Lynn, if you would like to step up. And those next two, please just get in line behind her.

Thank you. Next we will hear from Ben Enger and then Jackson Murphy and then Thomas Christensen.

Next up we will have Jackson Murphy and then Thomas Christensen and then Brandon Dayton. One thing I forgot is when you step up, please just state your name for the record as you begin. It's Jackson Murphy. NO. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. NEXT WE'LL HAVE THOMAS NEXT WE'LL HAVE THOMAS CHRISTIANSEN AND THEN BRANDON CHRISTIANSEN AND THEN BRANDON DAYTON AND THEN MATT SADAKUS. DAYTON AND THEN MATT SADAKUS.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Thomas Christensen, and then Brandon Dayton, and then Matt. Oh, wait, sorry. That was Thomas Christensen. So next, Brandon Dayton, then Matt Sudeikis, then Zoe Newman.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M SURE I GOT THAT WRONG. I'M SURE I GOT THAT WRONG. AND THEN ZOE NEWMAN AND THEN AND THEN ZOE NEWMAN AND THEN MELISSA KLEIN.

Thank you. Next, Zoe Newman, then Melissa Klein, then Matthew Klufeldt.

THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM MELISSA NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM MELISSA KLEIN AND THEN MATTHEW KLEWITT KLEIN AND THEN MATTHEW KLEWITT AND THEN EMILY SLOAN PACE. CHAIR FOR A SECOND. I NEED TO BE EXCUSED He's just stepping out for a moment.

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Matthew Kluet and then Emily Sloan-Pace and then Jen Ungvichian.

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Emily Sloan-Pace, and then Jen Ingvichian, and then Willie Littig.

Okay. Is that... Cool. Sorry, there's a list. I don't know. They know. I don't know.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Jane Vichian, then Willie Littig, then David Gibson.

THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM WILLIE LITTIG AND THEN DAVID GIBSON AND THEN JENNIFER MADRIGAL.

So and if you're one of the people that call out, please just stack up in a line. And then Peter Wetzel will be after that.

THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM JENNIFER

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Peter Wetzel, then Michael Nibley, then Austin Whitehead.

EHO. Thank you. Thank you. Michael Nibley, and then Austin Whitehead, and then Kathy Chambliss. Yeah.

Oh, sorry. Michael Nibley. No. Okay. Austin Whitehead.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Kathy Chambliss. Chambliss.

Thank you. Thank you. We've still got a number of people to hear from tonight, so we're going to go ahead and take a short break, and we will get going again at 740. Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Callan Glasser, then Mike Christensen, then Mohith Ripale.

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Mike Christensen and then Mohith Rappal and then Christina Robb.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we'll hear from Christina Robb, and then Joan Sharp, and then Turner Bitton. Christina Robb? Going once. All right. Joan Sharp, and then Turner Bitton, and then Marcus Jessup.

Next we'll hear from Turner Bitton and then Marcus Jessup and then Thomas King.

THAT'S TIME. THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM MARCUS

THIS PROPOSAL WILL NOT SOLVE THIS PROPOSAL WILL NOT SOLVE AFFORDABILITY ALONE, BUT

THANK YOU. NEXT WE ARE FROM MICHAEL LANE AND THEN JIM JENLIN AND THEN JANET HEMMING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM JIM NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM JIM NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM JIM GENLIN AND THEN JANET GENLIN AND THEN JANET GENLIN AND THEN JANET HEMMING AND THEN FRANZ HEMMING AND THEN FRANZ HEMMING AND THEN FRANZ OMISON.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Janet Hemming, and then Franz Amason, and then B. Losi? Loos?

Next we'll hear from Franz Amazon and then be loss and then Brian Burnett Good evening.

Next we'll hear from B. Loss, and then Brian Burnett, and then Judy Short.

Next we'll hear from Brian Burnett and then Judy Short.

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Judy Short. And then I had some cards that didn't have anything on the subject, so I'm not positive if they were for the item we didn't have public discussion for. But if you are Troy Rawlings, Michael Puck, Dan Carvajal, or Matthew Morris, if you are interested in this, you can go ahead and line up there.

Thank you very much for your time. One last time for Troy Rawlings or Matthew Morris. Okay, I've got a couple comments to read in. This is from John Becker. Blanket zoning is bad zoning. And from Jackson Murphy, Salt Lake City can be a leader on the biggest issue facing Utahns with this reasonable incremental proposal. Young families are priced out. Is there anyone else who didn't submit a card who would like to speak on this?

All right. Then we will bring it back to the committee and to the staff to talk about anything that they want to address. I'll just run through kind of some of the stuff I heard highlighted over and over again. So concerns about the EHO competing with the affordable housing initiatives and pushing those out. I'm concerned about not being family oriented enough in neighborhoods, not making space for children and young families. Needing incentives to preserve existing housing so that it doesn't get knocked down in lieu of lots of smaller homes being built. Whether or not the capacity is there fo

Great. I'll bring it back to us then. But thank you. And I want to say, I think that in hearing these comments, they are saying, it's a list of sticking points that people have, right? But it's sticking points that have been, looked at and we're trying to figure out the best kind of balance here and there. I think that your presentation earlier was a pretty good representation of then what we heard in comments. So I appreciate that. And I think you guys did a great job with that. But I'll bring it back to the committee.

We can go ahead and discuss. This might have been with a different project, but I seem to recall that there was a display of a three-bedroom house in the envelope that is proposed under EHI, VHO.

OK, but it is certainly possible to have a three bedroom home, which would support a family of two parents and two kids.

Excellent. I wonder if it would be possible to show us a map where, or just explain that if you're doing an EHO option, if you can also do an AHI option, or if those two THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE IN EVERY THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE IN EVERY GEOGRAPHY TOGETHER OR LIKE IF GEOGRAPHY TOGETHER OR LIKE IF GEOGRAPHY TOGETHER OR LIKE IF THEY COULD BOTH HAPPEN IF THEY THEY COULD BOTH HAPPEN IF THEY THEY COULD BOTH HAPPEN IF THEY COULD STACK ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.

And if there's a way, there was some request for if you could show the economics. What does this mean? What could you, on an average lot, what could you build? And how would that, does it seem like it would just be an investor that buys it and tears everything down and builds a new something? Even though I know economics change. Right this minute, it's better to be a renter than to be an owner maybe in Salt Lake City. But I know those things change too. So that's not set in stone either. But I wonder if there's a way to give the information that people are asking about. Like, I'm super worried

COMMISSIONER BURROWS, I FEEL LIKE A LOT OF THAT IS IN THE PACKET.

Of course it is, but still like the public is still saying the same stuff that's in the packet, but the public is still like, I still have a problem with this. You know what I mean? So it needs to be like a way that's digestible for people. Because you're still planning on doing more outreach, right? Like the outreach is not done unless it is. If it's done, then everyone just needs to read it and get their answers answered.

I mean, I'm not sure digestibility is actually the core problem, to be honest. I think that like we saw a big age difference, right? There were some pretty obvious demographic trends, and I think that there is. I mean, I have a long discussion that I'm hoping to give because I won't be able to be here in a couple weeks, but I guess to give a sort of preview, I think that there's some real differences in raw interests, like material interests, who benefits from this and who doesn't benefit from this or is potentially harmed by it. and that's not going to be addressed by like telling the staff t

I agree with that The only sorry The only kind of specific things that stood out to me is I think I misread in the packet when I was going through because it says abutting residents on, or no, adjoining residents on the whatever. So is the idea that it's whichever house is on your right or left, like that's the... the setting so i think that um it might make sense to for that just to be like a face a house on the block so that it's not necessarily i don't know i think that might might allow for a better um well i guess but i mean that would pull things forward potentially more yeah But anyways

OK. OK. So you could do a shed roof, but it would max out at 24? I wasn't sure if the way it was written where the definition of pitched roof became... I get the idea of we don't want butterfly roofs because that then does exactly what you're saying. I don't want to exclude shed roofs as an option, but I think that... I get the idea of we also want to limit that exposure in some way. So, OK.

Thank you. You might have answered this before, but if we are talking about an R1 5K lot, and it's exactly 5,000 square feet, the lot, and it has a conforming single family home on it, Is it possible to build any EHO buildings on that through subdivision, or because it's perfectly matched, you can't actually do anything?

It gives much more flexibility. Did anyone else have?

Yeah, I was going to ask, I appreciate these maps. Thank you. Both the affected parcels one and... The other one that I can't think of the name of right now. I was wondering if it would be possible to know kind of the median lot size in each of the neighborhoods, because that changes a lot as to how many units could be added. And I wonder, differing neighborhoods, if that what kind of difference that would make. And then last time in July, I think there were only three of us that are currently here here. And we did a number of straw polls. And I'm wondering if we could do those same polls agai

I'd rather, I mean, when we did them before, there were seven of us here, or six, because they were saying it was five versus one or three.

I was thinking it was a really small group. It must have been an different meeting.

I want to pivot to the flag lot standards and at the beginning of your presentation this evening you talked about with the if this were to be approved that it would eliminate having people to come for this commit a commission to seek you know relief from that and so get rid of that what are the pros and the cons of including this in there specifically what are the cons of this when we are including uh small lot dwellings you know which would go on i was presumably in the back you know that would be available for somebody to sell off to another homeowner and as opposed to what would currently h

So I have a couple of comments. I'm broadly supportive of the EHO proposal. And I think my comments will reflect that. You know, first off, I guess a question before I get into my comments, which is, do you guys feel that the decision to keep the small lot dwelling or to attach the small lot dwelling to the other changes that you've made to the zones around setbacks and other things, do you think that that was the right decision? Because I feel like, you know, in terms of sort of I'M GOING TO JUMP IN HERE TOO. THAT DECISION WAS MADE FOR US BY THAT DECISION WAS MADE FOR US BY THE CITY COUNCIL W

HAD SORT OF A MOMENT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN I WAS HAD SORT OF A MOMENT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN I WAS ANTICIPATING TONIGHT WHERE I HAD ANTICIPATING TONIGHT WHERE I HAD SORT OF A CONCERN ABOUT TARED SORT OF A CONCERN ABOUT TARED DOWN RISK AND HOW THIS COULD DOWN RISK AND HOW THIS COULD AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOODS GENERALLY AND AND I WENT BACK TO THE STAFF REPORT AND SPENT SOME TIME I WENT BACK TO THE STAFF REPORT AND SPENT SOME TIME THINKING ABOUT IT. THINKING ABOUT IT. I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF COMFORT THERE. COMFORT

Well, given the circumstances surrounding the Expanding House and Auctions vote and given that I will be unable to make our subsequent meeting, I'd like to give my thoughts on some of the questions that face the Commission as we evaluate this matter. We've, over the course of several months, gone over the fine policy details. And I very much appreciate the work that staff has done on those details. But for a moment, I'd like to zoom out and talk a little bit about the context. I want to talk about political economy. Bear with me. The downzoning that this proposal seeks to partially undo was pa

ENTERTAIN A MOTION? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TABLE THIS ITEM TO A COMMISSION TABLE THIS ITEM TO A COMMISSION TABLE THIS ITEM TO A LATER DATE, THE NEXT MEETING, I LATER DATE, THE NEXT MEETING, I LATER DATE, THE NEXT MEETING, I GUESS.

Great. Thank you very much. And thank you guys for your work. Thanks. See you in two weeks. We're not quite done. We got to do our vote on that. But you guys can hang around if you want. But we're just voting in chairs now. Is there a particular process for that? Or just someone make the point?

I move that we retain both the chair and the co-chair.

Sorry. We're a package. I move that we retain the chair.

All right. Let's vote. I will stand for it.

I'll make a motion to retain Barrett as vice chair.

All right. We've got a motion and a second.

Sweet. Thank you, everyone. Next meeting is plus 14. 23. 23. Yep. Let me be clear.