Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

but the red circle is up so it looks like we're good. Alright, well we will open the Planning Commission meeting on June 3rd, 2026. We'll start with a roll call. We have Commissioner Fitzgibbons that is joining us online.

Present.

Yeah, we have Commissioner Matlock coming in. Commissioner Kulan, Commissioner Pereira, Commissioner Bovers, and Commissioner Matlock, and I am Commissioner Teal. So we will move on to the approval of minutes from March 18th of 2026. I noticed there's just a typo of my name.

Oh, thank you.

I saw that too.

Yeah. And then is there anything else?

Oh, For the minutes, yeah, I'm not mentioned in attending, but I think I should be. Oh, again, it's awkward because I think I actually put forward a motion.

OK. And Anna, where was your name misspelled?

It was under item number four, OK?

I yeah, OK.

Yeah, is there a spot? Yeah, because it says motion so that you are in there. So I think that's correct, right? You're just talking about the very beginning.

Yeah, I just said my name's not.

Is there anything else from commissioners?

If not, then we're just looking for a motion and a second.

Motion to approve isn't ended. Seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

And then a post time.

Yeah, sorry.

I saw you nod. All right, we will move on to item number two, which is, oh, first we will do the opportunity for public comment on non agenda items. And there's no one here in person. Is there anyone online will open this at 632. And if there's anyone online that would like to speak on a non agenda item. No, OK, so we will close the public comment time at 632 and move on to item number two, which is the staff report for unit lot subdivision regulations, law splitting regulations and associated municipal code amendments. All right.

So both of these come out of the state, various state legislation recently approved by the legislature with the intent of trying to make housing easier to develop. So there's two totally different processes here, but they're both a form of land division. So the first one, unit lot subdivisions, is intended to allow flexible lot standards when you're applying development in the context of a short plat. So this is ideal for cottages or accessory dwelling units, townhouses. And what it's essentially doing is saying that you have a parent lot that the overall property has to comply with the setbacks that would otherwise apply to that zone. So your rear setback is still gonna remain what the rear setback is, front setback, et cetera. But within that area, there's more flexibility to provide unit lots, which are smaller lots that can be individually owned. And the parent lot then takes care of any remaining land in tracks for access and open space and so forth. So it's a more flexible provision for subdivisions. The lot splitting, Caitlin can go over a little bit more in detail after this part of it, but wanted to start off with the unit lots of division regulations. We've got a draft here that's fairly basic, but also fairly open. We've left this as flexible as possible. And so there's some questions back to the commission about what you'd like to do with that. So the first question is whether or not you would like to allow this for single family homes. The way that it's written now, it's for any type of housing. So you could do this for, again, cottages, townhomes, but you could also do it for single family homes. So it doesn't mean that you can increase the density that would otherwise be allowed in the underlying zone, but you could essentially cluster those single family homes in a smaller area. So that works really well when you've got things like, you know, a grove of trees that you're trying to preserve or they're critical areas or other factors like that that make site location difficult. So that's the first primary question to you guys. The other one is about the scale of this. So the way the state set this up is unit loss subdivisions are specific to short plats and in North Bend we allow a short plat for up to nine units. So when you're nine units or less, we have to allow this for a short plat process. The state also allows you to do this through four subdivisions through the subdivision process. So that's not limited in terms of number of lots. You would still have to provide conformance to the overall parent lot. So you couldn't increase density. Your setbacks have to remain at the perimeter of the site consistent with what they otherwise would. But it could allow much more flexible subdivision development by clustering lots again within the subdivision area. So I guess some people may see that too much circumventing the intent of the city's low density residential zone. So it does allow more flexibility to have very small lots as long as you're providing equivalent open space to meet the minimum and maximum density requirements. So How do we want to do this? Do you want to just stick with the unit lot subdivisions first and run through questions on that and then go over to lot splitting?

I think that makes sense and then we can kind of focus in on each.

Sure, and then there's associated amendments that you see in here in our zoning or not our zoning, but our subdivision definitions chapter 1704 of our municipal code. We've added specific definitions addressing these circumstances. Those are shown in yellow highlight in your packet, but because what we've done is we've repealed and replaced the subdivision definition section, because the way that it's formatted currently, each particular definition had its own code section, and that gets really cumbersome if you're trying to make amendments. So we reformatted it to just have a Section A, Section B, Section C, etc., which reads a lot easier and makes it a lot easier also to amend. So that's why you're not seeing this in red line format, but that's why we also showed the yellow highlight for new definitions. The other thing we're doing is associated amendments to chapter 2001.004, which is essentially our table of types of development permits, which shows what processes those permits have to go under. If they're a type one administrative review or a type two review before a hearing exam. So, consistent with that table and with the state law here, a unit lot subdivision that's processed for nine units or less would be under the short clap process, which is administrative. If we allow it for more than nine lots, it would be processed subject to the subdivision regulations, which goes before a hearing exam. So that's it. Let's maybe start off with questions about the unit lot subdivision and get to those two primary questions that I have for you guys. And then we'll go on to the lot splitting.

commissioners did you have questions just regarding the ordinance as proposed and we can talk about the questions as well but let's start with questions that you had as you were reading it what's the delineation between what the state is now requires as a response to state changes i'm just curious from what they've changed and now require is there anything on top of that that you're asking about and maybe this is to your questions as well as like There's very specific what they want, and we're changing a lot by that stuff we're doing on top, the above and beyond what they require.

Yeah, so the above and beyond are the two questions that I've got. So do we allow this for subdivisions more than nine lots? And then also, do we allow this for single family homes specifically? So when it's not in the context of a zone that allows multifamily, like our downtown commercial zone, do you want to allow this in zones that would otherwise be exclusively single family. So it's really a question of, do you support clustering of single family?

So can you, I'm sorry, I had a question. Does this have any effect upon how we do ADUs as well? Because it sounds really similar.

Yeah, it specifically allows ADUs to sit on their own blots.

On their own lot. That's one exception.

Yeah, that's one exception. If you don't want to allow this in a single family zone, that's one circumstance where we wouldn't allow it in the single family zone because ADU is not counting against your overall density and unit count.

So Mike, Caitlin, I remember when the ADU conversation came up, it was like you can have two. And then after a certain amount of years, you could potentially, like if you have a lot size, you could potentially like re-bid for a permit process to do an additional two more. So this is like kind of condensing that.

Only if you can meet the density requirements. So you can't exceed, for example, the low density residential loan allows four units per acre. So you can keep adding additional units later on as long as you're not exceeding four units per acre.

Okay. And it's up to nine units. So you'd have to have essentially like three acres or four acres.

Yeah. Okay. Presumably, if you don't allow it in single family home, you're limiting really realistically how much this can get used. Single family homes opens up a lot more available land.

But it wouldn't be much different than opening it up to ADUs, right? The difference is who owns the property under the house or the unit.

Yeah, I feel like because the ADU conversation back in the day, as long as you condominiumize your ADUs and you sell that lot, you could essentially do the whole process over again. So this is just making it more available up front, in my opinion.

Well, I don't know that you could... Because you have with any ADU, it's still accessory. So it would have to be accessory to a primary use. I don't know, that's a dilemma that the state has created.

Yeah, but the condominium, I don't even know if this is the word, condominiumization. If you do that, then they have their own sewer, they have all their own utilities, and then you sell that, and that's a new tenants or like a new like owner's property. So this is allowing this to be more flexible.

It is, yeah. So either under that condominium process or under this unit lot subdivision process, there's still essentially a parent lot. So condominium, it's going to be the HOA owned, you know, tract that contains your parking and open space and so forth. It's going to be the same thing under this unit lot subdivision process.

Okay, sorry, I'll ask two more questions and I'll meet myself so everyone else can ask some questions. But so is HOA a requirement? Yes. Okay. And then I saw the common space, but I didn't see a definition of common space as being required. Is that going to be required?

No, it's not necessarily required. It could be just some tracks for access and otherwise placing everything on their own lot. Those lots don't necessarily have to be smaller. It's just a different form of division, so. I'm not sure all the permutations of how it might form, but.

OK, yeah, I'll meet myself and let everyone else ask some questions.

Yeah, if there's something else right and just let us know.

And other thoughts, some more questions too, so I wasn't clear about the parking requirements. When I was talking about our from could be the either on site or in an alternate site does that mean that we are saying that these sites do not requires on street parking or or that we, we will allow that, but we want to make sure we have on site parking for the vehicles that are attached to those new homes.

So on street parking is an is addressed fire. street standards, and that's just whether or not there's a parking lane required for that particular street section. The code doesn't require necessarily on-street parking. It requires off-street parking, and then with this unit lot subdivision process, that could either be on the unit lot or it could be a part of a parent lot somewhere else.

Right, okay, that clears that for me. I do have some auxiliary questions about that, but maybe it's not the right time during this part of the meeting, but I do want to get them covered later. So I'll just put a pin in that and talk about it later. Is that for a unit lot or for something else? For this whole process itself, some questions, but they're broader. Okay.

Mike, the two questions you have, are they in writing? They're not. I'm sorry. Do you mind sending that in an email? I would love to dig a little more into it when I'm not. Yeah, me too.

I know. I was writing myself notes on it too, so we can circle back to that too. But are there more questions about the ordinance? I was wondering if you could just explain a little bit more on 1718 of 20 B. A unit lots of division made use in any development with two or more dwelling units meeting the standards of this chapter in which no dwelling units are stacked on another dwelling unit or another use. Can you just explain in what circumstances that would be applicable?

So that's consistent with the state law for these. You can't stack units like you could otherwise with a condo.

Okay, so meaning like stack like height-wise? Okay, for like literally stacked. Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood.

That makes a lot of sense because really the benefits of a unit lot subdivision are in terms of the use of the land overall. So you're not getting the same benefits if you're stacking units as opposed to placing them side by side or

know five feet apart from one another yeah that makes sense especially when you're thinking about low density that makes sense okay so the images um that were included in the department of commerce uh fact sheet so those are they're i mean they're they're three stories high at least one of them is so that's just like one unit let me go to that But not necessarily three different units.

It looks like it.

I followed that and see one that was high.

Yeah, I'll place this on the screen here. Thank you.

Oh, I think. Are you looking at the example on page three? That looks like that one.

That's like that's like a vertical unit.

Yeah, that's like a townhouse.

OK. So that's yeah, that wouldn't be stacked, but it's be a single unit that's three stories tall.

So you can still you can still reach the 30 to 35 depending on this, but it has to be one unit, OK?

Yeah, this doesn't affect the height limit. Still be subject to whatever the height limit for the parent zone is great.

Thank you and then my other question was 171860 the recording. Just a I was just wondering about the period of five years, is there a reason for that number.

that's consistent with the state's subdivision and short flat regulations that you can't further divide within five years.

i'm just trying to think of scenarios that I mean there is a pretty like broad exception so. So if you haven't met your nine, you can still go in. And I think that's what flagged it for me, where I was like, okay, if you're not at nine anyways, you have an exception to go ahead within the five-year period. So it was just an interesting thought. But if it's just meaning the same thing.

Yeah, the intent of that is so that you're not subverting the process that would otherwise apply for a subdivision. So you couldn't do like nine lots and then, oh, I'm going to do another six lots. Because you would have otherwise had to go through a hearing examiner process for a subdivision. Let's see.

I don't think that I had any other questions. Did anybody else?

Yeah, I think I'm similar. Maybe it's later on. I have some grammar. Okay. Later.

So from my perspective, as far as the single family homes being allowed, I don't really see a problem with single family homes being allowed in the process if they're meeting the density requirement. And I guess to reiterate, when it's the parent lot, so all of the units would need to have the setback from the parent lot lines, right? Okay. So I don't know how the rest of the commission feels, but that doesn't bother me.

I mean, personally, I'd like to dig a little bit more. I'm not opposed. I just don't feel like I'm very educated on it. This would have been.

Well, it seems reasonable that you wouldn't want to exceed the current setback, keeping it within boundaries kind of to the original size.

Like the impact to the neighborhood wouldn't really change. So. things fine too, but we can have more information for everybody to get.

Yeah, I didn't get those questions out to you guys earlier. I thought of those after the packet went out, so. That's fine.

And I understand those things happen. It's just it's hard for me to process like in the moment. I like to, I'm more of a reader and I dive in.

As far as scale, the short plat up to nine units versus the subdivision plat. So you're wondering if We want to keep it with the short plat and have an administrative review or to have a bigger review and my question, right?

So it would the review process would be the same for under 9 lots. It would be a short plat. If it's more than 9 lots, it would be a subdivision which has to go to before hearing examiner and the question is just do you want to allow it for more than 9 lots? We don't have to.

The State Department is 9. And is there was the argument for flexibility?

The argument against I assume would just be there's some people might feel like I'd like to see I'd live in the low density residential zone, I would like to see houses with yards and setbacks to fulfill what I'm used to.

And it seems like there's more opportunity as a community member, not that property owner to have Input or more awareness of the process when it's a subdivision versus short.

It is, yeah. So Mike, I I just want to. Clarify this so if someone was to do this as a short plat, they can get nine five years later. They need nine more. And then if someone wanted to do 18 at the beginning, so that'd be a subdivision. Like. What are the pros and cons for? a resident who wants to do this? What are the pros and cons of using this process? What are the hurdles to the process to like get them to separate it from between like five years and just the first go?

Oh, it's all about the requirements to go through a hearing examiner. So a subdivision, anything more than nine lots requires notice and holding a public hearing.

That's where the public come in. Yeah. Okay, got it.

Yeah. If it's under nine months, it's an administrative process. So the city staff provides review of it, but there's no hearing. So it meets the requirements, it has to be approved.

So I mean, I mean, I've looked at our city map, and there's there's a ton of single family lots that are very, very large. So there's a lot of people that could potentially make a go at something like this for more than nine lots. But I don't really think there's going to be a ton. But I think at least my personal opinion is if someone wants to go through the big process, you just go through the hearing examiner. And everyone else, it's the nine. Nine is an optimal number. Because it's I don't know if we want to give an exception and just say, yeah, you can build as many lots as you want. Because, I mean, I heard you say the density requirements and then there's the parking issue. Like, if all of a sudden we have multiple people go after this very quickly, that is going to change the traffic flow analysis.

No, it will not.

Oh, it will not?

Because you're not changing the number of units that could be developed. So if it's four units per acre and you've got 10 acres. Oh, okay.

So that's where the initial traffic analysis has gone at. Okay. Yeah.

So it's going to be 40 homes regardless of whether or not you allow the flexible bulk and dimensional standards through the unit lot subdivision process. It just allows more creative rearranging and clustering of those homes within that overall.

Okay. I misinterpreted that. Okay. All right. Yep.

Well, and I think it's tricky because anytime, you know, anytime there's a public hearing element, I definitely support, you know, public comment, but I think it's tricky because once it gets to a point where like all the plans are done, that's not the best time for public to weigh in. And so if there's like an open house or something that would be more beneficial to, to residents to, you know, say that they're concerned than at the public hearing stage. So, I mean, because at a certain point, like we, as a city are bound by the regulations that we've already set, you know, we can't just say, uh, a lot of people don't like this. So sorry, we're not going to do it. It just doesn't, we can't do that. So I don't know what the right thing is about, you know, requiring more public comment, but I don't know that I necessarily think that it's necessary because that's what we're doing now while we're public hearing on the ordinance. And to stay within the, you know, the limits of the zone, that's what we're going to be looking at anyways. I don't know. Thinking out loud.

I completely agree. I mean, like, the 530 main project, like, that has, I mean, it's meeting all requirements. And everyone had a lot of vocal opinions on it. And so I 100% support that, like, And I'm kind of thinking, Mike, to your question, I kind of do think we keep them separate. We do the nine that are allowed by the state. And then you do, if you want to go up to 18, then you do the public hearing. Because I don't think there's going to be a lot of people that do public hearings.

So yeah, that part of it would not change. If you're more than nine units, you have to have a public hearing regardless of whether or not you're using the unit lot subdivision process or not. It would just be if you allow more than nine with the unit lot subdivision process, you then can flex your bulk and dimensional standards so that you can have smaller front yards, for example, with a large tract or something.

Okay.

So the difference between a short plot or one of the differences between a short plot and subdivision is changing dimensions on how they're divided?

No, a short plot is just for up to nine units. Right. A subdivision is anything more than nine units.

It sounds like everything else is the same, but we're talking about a short plot does not require the hearing or public announcements or anything. So that is a difference, I think, between that versus a larger subplot or subdivision, sorry. And so that's kind of where I'm getting my head things wrapping around it. And it seems like I'm not an expert on this, but imagine anyone getting more than nine plots of a parcel land is probably a developer as opposed to an individual homeowner trying to divide a bunch of land. So this is really the ones that's benefiting those individuals. And I'm not saying there's a drawback. It's just what we will be taking away is an opportunity for others in the neighborhood to potentially be aware. And maybe... The signs that they put on the side of the street that everyone drives around and you notice there's a development or a subplot happening, is that something like that will disappear in this instance if it was a 12-lot subdivision? No.

No, the noticing requirements wouldn't change at all. That's still the same. So, yeah.

Yeah, Chris, I just want to piggyback off what you said. I do believe that this gives residents... people that live in the city of north bend that provide to the economy it gives them an opportunity to jump in and create housing opportunities outside of the adus which adu financing is very very tricky so i think a lot of people have not necessarily um wanted to go down that road which is why we haven't seen a lot of opportunity for that but this gives individual homeowners an opportunity to create housing opportunities for our city. The developers, I mean, we've seen the big neighborhoods pop up. That's where people get upset about it because it's so dense, it's so wide. And I think this actually solves a big problem for us. So I'm a big fan. even deep in explaining this to me.

Yeah. So I'm sorry, Brian. I don't think you can see it.

You know what? I have the big screen open. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Were you drawing something?

Yeah, I was. So I'm trying to re-visualize some of the graphics that are on the commerce handout. And so I'm going to try and briefly explain the

what the benefit of unit lock subdivision and how bulk and dimensional standards apply to it.

So with a standard short subdivision, you have one overall property and every lot that you generate from a short subdivision needs to meet all of the underlying zone requirements for bulk and dimensional standards. So in this instance, I was really trying to get across setback requirements between property lines versus a unit lock subdivision you can create a much more efficient use of land by applying the underlying zones, bulk and dimensional standards to the entire property as a whole, and then creating unit lots as a result of that. So that way, each individual property doesn't have to meet those bulk and dimensional standards, but the overall parent lot does need to meet it in this sense, which can create more opportunities for building greater density.

So that works really great if you've got like this grove of, huge old trees. If you're going to try to meet your density under conventional regulations, you're probably going to either, you know, you'll wind up having to take some of those trees out because they're within the building area that you're required to otherwise accommodate. This allows you to shift where those units are going to preserve tracts of common area.

It could be helpful for like landscaping and water usage too where it's not so spread out and

Thank you, Caitlin. So when we talk about this nine, how does this change? Are we allowing people to have the unit lot sub on less than nine or the other way? We're now allowing short sub here with more than nine. So it's the same process.

So you would just be maybe doing additional clusters. So here's another cluster of six. And then your parent lot is this overall. So maybe you've got a common driveway there, common driveway there. Now you've got a subdivision of 12 lots, but you're still doing this clustered thing. It's still going to have to go to a hearing examiner. It's still going to have all the public notification requirements that apply to a subdivision, but you're allowing this flexible bulk and dimensional standards process for a subdivision.

In your example on the right, though, you're adding two more homes than just available on the left, still assuming you're within the zone's density requirements. Yes.

So you'll see in the unit lots subdivisions very often associated with more middle types of housing. So like cottages often use a unit lot subdivision, townhome, or duplex projects, and also fall under that cottage carriage type housing as well, carriage developments.

So I'm thinking of an example here. If you had a lot that was big enough to handle a second unit, single frame hill, that had room for a second unit, and you built an ADU under today's rules, it can't be split to a separate lot itself. It'd be still on the same parent lot. this allows you to split that pay-to-you into a second lot. But you could do that anyway with a short plot today, right?

And with a residential lot split process that we'll talk about shortly, which is very exciting.

So, and I'm sorry, I'm still trying to wrap it up. We're proposing right now there's a limit of nine, and that's where there's going to be change between short plot subdivision. Brad, one possible question you're asking is would we bump this up to, say, 15 Are we saying then we would allow a short plot for up to 15?

No, no, it's still a subdivision. If anything more than nine is a subdivision that requires process hearing before hearings. So what's the change? The change is whether or not you can do this. Yeah, or if you're going to have to do just dividing those into 12 more than all adjacent, but yeah.

Um? Mike and Caitlin, just one more question. So with the ADU consideration, so are homeowners and residents, like, are they able to build two ADUs and then also do nine short plots? Or are those conflicting scenarios?

No, ADUs are a separate consideration.

So essentially someone could do, okay, so someone could do 11 units if they wanted to. If it's ADUs specifically. Well, two ADUs, nine short plats.

Well, yeah, a unit lot subdivision or a unit lot short plat of nine units that each have additional ADUs, but those couldn't be split. Does it have to be a part of that parent unit lot?

Wow, OK, so this gives a lot of flexibility. Yeah, yeah, all right.

I think I like the flexibility so that we don't just get cookie cutter things. You know whoever is coming in can make it work with the property. You know, make it work with groves of trees. So I personally like the flexibility.

Well, my understanding. From this new proposal, you can add more thousands in

Smaller correct.

You can't increase the density.

OK, so OK. Yeah, I mean it's it's very restricting for like like new save you as an example. Like there's that's not. That's not an option to build a lot, but in like Ernie's Grove and. I can't remember. where you go to North Bend retrieval kennels, that's where I bring my dogs, like there's a sprawling opportunity there. So this gives a lot of people with a lot of lands an opportunity to build some density over there.

As long as they're not increasing beyond what the density of the zone.

Yes, yeah, there's obviously some requirements there.

And this is still within North Bend limits.

Yeah.

I like the picture and idea you put in my mind, but I think I'd still like to see the proposed language for it.

Yeah.

I don't know how, I guess maybe moving forward if you can give us an either or for next time.

Yeah, this is why we introduced it separate from a public hearing because we knew there was a . I appreciate that.

It clarifies a lot. When you draw things, it's helping a lot. Thank you.

Yeah. So before we go on, I guess I do want to ask a question here, if you wouldn't mind. It's a little larger question. It is, if you remember the hearing we had about the 530 main, a lot of contention about parking and traffic. And so when you talk about that this meets, this cannot exceed the city's zoning for density for a lot, It's still to me says instead of four families, there's six families, which is more people. No, it doesn't have been working.

No, it cannot.

So these are SFHs that allow what, two people per household? These will only be one, essentially what you're saying?

Oh, the only way then would be through specifically ADUs, where it's accessory to a primary home.

Right, I'm going to continue that comment because I'm sure this is what happens, but I want you to reassure me that this is part of a larger infrastructure analysis and synergy with the different city departments that do handle things like traffic and transportation and sidewalks and all those things that go for improvements for public access, that this somehow doesn't just happen. And then we realize that these are not walkable neighborhoods. even though there might be more stuff going on than we want. Does that occur anywhere in the system where we go through things like traffic analyses? Does it also include things like public transportation that is assessed to build out of these units that give us more density of people?

So when you're considering impact on services, that's a concurrency analysis, and that's required for any development. So they have to do it if it's more than, I think, I can't remember the number, 10 p.m. peak hour trips created by the proposal. It has to do a traffic analysis, has to have sewer capacity analysis, water analysis, all those things to show that we can serve the development without burdening ourselves.

I'm sure you were doing it because it's a professional city, but I wanted to hear it. So thank you. Validation. Yes. I can't just go and see their survey. No.

that was it that was it thank you very much okay so we'll also turn it back to staff regarding the lot splitting regulations so i guess that's item six yeah so residential lot splitting is also um

of regulation that's required through the legislator that we need to implement as part of our permitting process, but that also means codifying it in our subdivision code. So here before you is a draft under a new chapter 17.22. Overall, the intent of a residential lot split is to streamline the process to divide a single residential lot into two lots. So there's a lot of benefits to doing this. It gives individual homeowners an opportunity to subdivide their land with bypassing quite a lot of cost prohibitive elements of a regular subdivision. In particular, staff has the option to exempt portions of frontage improvements. As part of a typical short subdivision process, frontage improvements on the whole property is typically required. With this process, we have the option to basically exempt the parent lot from having to do those frontage improvements and put it on the owners of the newly established lot to create frontage improvements on their portion of the property. That means the parent property that's still there would be redeveloped likely in the future, and that is when they would have to complete frontage improvements. Frontage improvements are very, very expensive. They include curb, gutter, sidewalk, sometimes other elements. So they can be very cost prohibitive to individual homeowners that are just looking to subdivide their land into two properties. And it puts more of the cost impacts on whoever buys that property to build on it. Additionally, it's a completely administrative process. It would not need to go through a hearing. um essentially it would just be submitted for staff review staff would review it against our code would establish that it could meet minimum design requirements in terms of engineering or can meet minimum zoning requirements um and then it would just need to be recorded at the county and that would be the process um so overall it provides a huge benefit to individuals that are just looking to split out their land sell it for income purposes or um yeah so it's a pretty simple process um it's just dividing one lot into two so i'm here to answer any questions you may have on it yeah anything from commissioners yeah i got one yeah

So an ADU goes in the back of the lot and they do the access through an easement through the front of the lot. You're saying that the back lot wouldn't have to do any frontage improvements in that situation?

So this wouldn't apply to an ADU so much.

Okay, so another lot in the back.

Yeah, so if you had a lot with a very short frontage and it was longer than it was wide and your unit is in the front along the street and you... wanted to have your second lot, your newly created lot, at the rear of your property, you would need to establish an easement for that, but you wouldn't necessarily have to construct it. That would be on the onerous of the buyer or developer of the newly established lot, and they would only be responsible for improving the frontage subject to that easement driveway area.

Yeah, so 15-foot section of sidewalk and garden.

staff understands there's going to be situations like this where it's going to be fairly limited impact, but overall, it encourages people to maximize the... It encourages more efficiency on these low-density lots that we see that could be put to a better use. So I think it's satisfying. We see there's more value in creating more opportunities for... building housing units than there are to improve a certain section of a frontage for the existing homeowner.

Do you think it's more common for the second lot to be bought by a different owner versus the parent property, the original property doing the second house?

I think you can see situations either way. There's not a huge benefit to the homeowner to do a residential lot split. because ultimately they're still paying the same costs for things. In fact, they may end up paying more in terms of frontage improvement fees just because of the cost of construction and materials can increase with inflation. So they may be better off doing a short subdivision. It just really ultimately depends on what they envision doing with that second parcel and if they have a plan and way to pay for it upfront versus selling it off and making it someone else's problem.

You lose me when it comes to the idea of just a 15 foot section getting sidewalk.

It wouldn't necessarily be sidewalk. It would more so they would have to improve the portion of the frontage that would have the driveway. So really it would just be like the driveway area.

Picture a stretch of road that has multiple larger lots and they all start doing this and you just have this improvement and no improvement.

That's something to consider, but The state is specifically requiring this process with the intent of affordability and simplicity.

So staff are trying to implement that idea of efficiency and affordability by exempting the parent lot from frontage improvements until they redevelop that property.

If that's a primary issue that the Planning Commission is concerned about,

you could provide a recommendation that the parent lot has to do full frontage improvements what about either office what about neither lot does full frontage improvements green right that way you don't have the cookie cutter thing is when the new if they want to split frontage improvements aren't part of this process that they're required from them that'd be their lot

Like, just to piggyback off what James is saying, you're saying affordability, but when you talk about 15 feet of drainage and lights and sidewalk, I mean, that's all on either the new developer or the current homeowner that's going to develop the other lot. That just adds to the costs to whoever's going to buy the lot. So that doesn't read to be affordability to me. That's like adding another barrier to create affordable housing in our community. Well, not affordable housing, sorry, not like the technical term, but like more reasonable housing. So I think, I agree with James, like it's, I think we should have the option for no frontage improvements in scenarios like this. Maybe not all scenarios, but like, I mean, if it's like in an existing area like Edgewick or like certain areas that like don't have sidewalks, like why would you require a sidewalk to be built there?

There are already exceptions when you have a neighborhood that doesn't have sidewalks in our public works standards, the public works director can exempt that, um, under what's called a rural type road scenario. Um, so that's an option already.

Okay.

The, the idea of fringe improvements though, that as development occurs, it's connecting the street network.

Yeah. So that's, that's the other scenario is like, I mean, I live in Oldside View and I mean, I know like we're doing like the sidewalk connection on Healy or Orchard. And so eventually like the city, the goal is to have a sidewalk on every neighborhood walkway. That's safety, totally get that. But like, where do you draw the line on that? Like what exceptions do you give to neighborhoods? So I guess it's rural is what you said.

Yeah, and that's a one-off situation.

Okay.

Well, I think about this in terms of what we have. You have 140 authority has a bunch of sidewalks, then no sidewalks and sidewalks and no sidewalks. Ernie's Grove has no sidewalks. Ernie's Grove is not city limits. Well, like areas that like that, that you already are seeing some of that cookie cutter. And is that really, I guess, I'm assuming the state doesn't require that the firm departments be part of this.

Is there a way for, you know, at a certain point where so many So many homes have this cookie cutter situation that the city could put in and say, when we get to this point, we do a special improvement district, which, you know, that's a tax on the people living there, but maybe that's a way to mitigate some of the cookie cutter stuff. I mean, it pushes it back though, instead of doing a development that is kind of a good, like, Hey, let's develop, let's do it now. But maybe that's an alternative.

Yeah, I I guess my worry on that is the amount of process that it takes to set up a totally totally.

It's a big one. Why wouldn't it make sense to do it when you started versus waiting later when everyone has to do it all at once?

I mean. I guess that assumes that that parent love is ever going to do anything. Yeah, right.

I mean. I'm like a broader scale. Every property has a subject level of redevelopability. As a property and its structures age, it's more likely to be redeveloped in the future. It either falls in disrepair, the cost of repairs and maintenance end up exceeding the value of the home. There are situations where you could have the home on a parent lot just be redeveloped like everything kind of is. It would just be, you know, a longer spectrum of time before you possibly would see that actually happening. So, you know, our community does have a solid number of older single family homes. How likely is it that they stay where they are for the next 20 years or even 30, 40 years? You know, like it's taking the can down the road on those frontage improvements, but every property has the potential for redevelopment.

And I think if you put fringe improvements in it, it does kick it down the road even further.

Yeah.

When you talk about upgrading that house. And so are we doing anything by allowing the new property to be the only one sector, deal with their little section of it?

It's more of a raise and rebuild situation that would trigger those frontage improvements. If you're doing an addition or if you're doing regular maintenance and improvements or even building a second story on a single story house, those are things that wouldn't trigger frontage improvements. It wouldn't be prohibitive to the existing owners. It just may end up being something that the new owners of that property decide that they want to invest in. I mean, you see this very commonly happening in cities like Clay Hill or Medina, where you have historically old single-family, single-story homes that are being razed and rebuilt for big mansions, and they are paying for the cost of those rentage improvements as part of that process. Not that I'm saying that would happen here, but it's just an example of how that does happen in real time.

It does feel kind of like that's what's going to happen here. I think, I mean, it's hard. It's really, this is a really hard conversation. Like, short plots, I get it. Subdivisions, like, it's interesting because, I mean, we have spent, I mean, I've been on the commission for four years now, and we just keep talking about affordability. And I feel like we... I mean, this was a state mandated thing, but we allowed for two ADUs on lots that have the space. This gives us another opportunity for flexibility, but we aren't taking any barriers away from our residents to actually act on building for their family or for rental opportunities or for a new development. I mean, we're not like the frontage improvements. I mean, that's like, I think it's, it's like hundreds of thousands of dollars or close to a hundred thousand dollars. Like that just makes a $500,000 building 700 or a $300,000 building 500. Like we're not, we're not helping affordability options here. So I, I don't, I, I mean, I want to be in favor of subdivision feasibility and, and ease and access, but I, I still think we need to, we need to consider some of the street frontage improvements. And it's hard, because you can't piecemeal. You can't say, okay, so this part of the community doesn't have this restriction, but this part of the community does. But I do think we need to reconsider what it is that actually makes street frontage the city's ideal. I know there's exceptions, like we don't necessarily have to have sidewalks or streetlights or retention ponds or plants in certain areas. But I do think it needs to be a little bit more leveled out across the city so that it's more accessible for people to do this kind of work. Because I actually – I can't remember who said it, but I disagree. I think there's – at least who I know in the city, there's a lot of people that would love to develop in the city. But it's just not – financially responsible for them to do it. So I don't think it's necessarily people would just like subdivide and then sell and have them build it. I think they would like to subdivide, sell and rebuild for their future home. And then maybe they sell their home to a family member or to a friend or to someone else. So I think we need to reconsider a few aspects of this before we go any further. And I will close out my commentary. Sorry.

So the frontage improvements thresholds broadly, not just considering this process, is something that is on the planning commission work plan that we want to eventually come back to. So that's what triggers when you have to underground, when you have to construct sidewalks, what is the value of the improvements that triggers that? That's a question that we want to bring back and discuss. But for this process, the question is really just a matter of Do you want to see fringe improvements required at the time of the development of the lot itself? And do you want to allow when it's creating a separate split lot? Do you want to require that for the part of the lot that's not being developed? So that's the way the regulations are right now.

So thankful we have a white voting. You've got your Lana. And there's streets out here. So.

For example, when you got existing single family home. This is where this guy lives. He and this is the classic example that we have already on Park Street. Somebody that's interested to do this. They are interested to split a lot. Maybe they have a little driveway access there. Put another house back here. So under our current regulations, you can't. There's no lot split. You have to do a subdivision. That requires the street furniture improvements along the entire furniture. So under this law split process, what we're saying is this guy, the existing single family lot that's not being developed because it's already there, doesn't have to do his furniture improvement. This guy does because it's a new development that's triggering those furniture improvements. So then this guy at some point in the future says, I'm going to tear down that house and I'm going to build a new house. Then he's responsible to do his furniture.

Would that be a subplot or a short plot if you're dividing one property into two? That would be the lot split. The lot split would be a short plot, the process?

Not a short plot. It's just an entirely new form of division.

It's very similar in the sense that you're dividing one property into two, which you can do under the short subdivision process. The difference here is that, I mean, primarily the difference is that frontage improvements are somewhat delayed on it. So instead of going through the preliminary short subdivision process, getting your permit issued, getting another permit to do the frontage improvements along the entire frontage, and then coming back for your final short subdivision review and approval, then recording with the county to formally split the properties. It's a much more streamlined process that just requires you to submit One application, the residential lot split application, staff review it, you get it recorded, and then whenever that second property submits for a building or construction permit, that's when the frontage improvements are required on that new lot. It shortcuts the short subdivision process on a small scale, on really a case-by-case scenario, because not every property owner is going to only want to do a two-lot division. You're only allowed to do this once every five years, I think. So you couldn't just do it over and over and over again.

Specifically with a lot split, it's a one-time moment. You don't get a chance to do another lot split.

Yeah, so it's really for situations where you have a mid-sized lot that's big enough to subdivide, but not for a multitude of lots. And because it's a much more limited instance that you would apply it to, it only creates two lots, it's proposed to be a quicker process, because otherwise the short subdivision process can take you years to get through. This is something that could be done in probably six months.

Just, sorry, Brian, I know you have a question. For my end, maybe this is loosely related, but say I own the small property and I want to subdivide it. Assuming I build a new house and then try to sell it off, am I now the one doing that furniture improvement on the new section? Yes. Okay. And so when we're talking about moving it down, it's really only you're moving to the next owner if you sell it as land. And then they, in the development of the structure on there, will do that.

Yeah. If you are the builder on both of these lots, going through the residential lot split process doesn't make a whole lot of sense because I think ultimately you end up spending the same amount of time because you still need your construction permit to do these furniture improvements. It may end up saving you some costs in the long run because if you're only... You own both of these and you're only developing this, then you're only responsible for updating this. So there are cost benefits to doing it that way too. It's just up to the property owner to decide what is best for them and their situation and their plans for the properties.

Correct. So does this have to be a citywide ordinance? So we cannot say like, like, you know, downtown commercial district gets this and, you know, like all the different zones. So this has to be across the board for the city.

Residential only. So it's only for residential, but otherwise, yeah, it would be city-wide.

It is also worth noting that the newly created law would need to propose a type of housing that's permitted in the underlying zone. So if you have an existing single-family home in the D.C. zone... which is currently a non-conforming use, you cannot do a residential lot splitting process and propose another single family home on that second lot. You would have to propose a different form of housing that is allowed to be on that new lot.

Yeah, that's very sensible. I get that.

I think the frontage factor is very interesting. I am very supportive of the lot split in general. I mean, the frontage factor, it's a whole other thing to think about, but the loss that I think about, like, you know, families who want their kids to stay close and they want to be able to divide so that like their kid can have a piece of property nearby that they can build on at some point. So I think that as a community, I think it could be a great thing. I don't know what to do with frontage stuff though.

It really depends on the lot itself and how the existing structure is set up where it's very favorable to do an L-shaped kind of design like this one above, or if it's more like the image to the right where it's a very long frontage and you still want a lot of property as part of your existing lot, but you also will end up having a large frontage for the newly created lot as well. That's where it's going to be pretty heavy on whoever buys the property to do frontage improvements because that could be

So, Caitlin and Mike, um, it's tricky. I mean, I don't know. I've never built my own house. Um, so I'm not 100% sure how this works, but from my understanding is like. A person has their lot and they hire an architect to come up with all these designs and, like, you go through the city, they get permitting and then they present it to you and then all of a sudden now you're in the position to say, oh. Actually, we want to have street frontage improvements. So you need to go back to the architect to redesign.

We have a process called a pre-application review that before anybody does anything, they just come in and tell us what it is they're interested to do. And then maybe they sketch it on a piece of paper, but it's nothing prepared by an engineer or anything. That very first step is that pre-application review so that we can tell them these are the requirements that will apply to your application.

okay and then the next step if they want to pursue it is then we prepare a letter pre-application review letter that outlines all of that in writing so that they may have a road map to go forward to them with the architects okay so they're not they're not doing a double dip with all the other expenses not just from like the city expenses but like the developer and the architectural um expenses so okay so there's a little bit more of like a formal process that is established Okay.

What's that? Our intent is always to get them set up on the right path so that there's not encountering problems down the road that were not expected.

A clear vision from everybody. Sure.

I have a question. So I think the goal of this is to essentially slowly upgrade the city's infrastructure by adding these things. So someone's going to have to bear that cost. whether it's the city, you know, through some kind of a special improvement district, or it's the property owner who owns it or the property owner who's going to build it. So I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm looking towards doing this for good reasons, right? This is not we want things to be more expensive. And like you said, I don't know what the right thing is, but I tend to lean on the homeowner who builds the new lot would do the frontage. I don't know how you would split that or say it. And I don't think that that's necessarily what everyone else agrees to, but that's like, if I did this on my property, I'm getting long years. I don't want to pay all the costs of that improvement. Someone wants to come in and purchase a house and a lot of it will go for it. That's kind of how I see it.

I mean, I understand your suggestion. So it's a lot of script. Currently, in the subcommittee, this is the short-plot process. Again, this guy is this existing owner. He wants to divide his property under the short-plot process. He is responsible for all of the French. Under the short-plot plot split process, Only this guy in response. Right. So are you suggesting with the lot split process, this guy, this guy is responsible for that?

No.

The opposite.

Only for the part that's being added to that lot, which faces the road. And I don't know all of the details of the foundation improvements, because does it imply anything involving sewer or water or anything else? No, it's streets. Sorry, Roger.

and undergrounding utilities.

I understand that. I kind of lean towards that. Maybe I don't know if I have to make a decision this week, but I lean towards that because it seems the more reasonable use case, the person who's building something new would have to bear the cost of what's required for building something new.

Yeah, I understand that perspective as well.

You know, if you're going in buying a house or like building a house, you know that you're going to have...

Right. If you buy a newer house today, you end up saying, well, there's nothing in front of the yard. I'm buying something from the 1950s. You know, it's kind of like we want to upgrade the city by requiring this. That's kind of how I see it. But I also understand it adds cost. And if we have an affordability crisis... It is a tough nut to crack. I don't want people to be priced out of living here because we have onerous requirements.

Yeah, I'm sorry, and this is probably my last question, but are the frontage improvement requirements a state mandate or are these on the City of North Bend? They're on the City of North Bend. So we have flexibility to change them.

Yeah. You're just the residential lock splitting process, not commercially.

I understand that or industrial yeah.

I mean, it could be something too if.

I know if it does get piecemealed at a certain point, the city might say do want to do a special improvement district. You know when you can hire more staff, but. Yeah, I don't know for right now or it's.

maybe not through a special improvement district, it's just through a municipal project. So that's what we've done, for example, on Orchard Drive. That wasn't a district, that building was a district. That's what the city and the taxpayers are paying for. So it does shift the burden a little bit onto existing homeowners and taxpayers to help offset the costs of new development. But it is a way to increase ease and affordability to get additional units.

From a community standpoint, that seems a little bit more equitable.

You know, I mean, yes, everybody does pay, but, you know, it does, it benefits the city's aesthetic either way. Yeah.

Yeah. Doesn't, doesn't Seattle cover all the frontage projects or like at least sidewalks? I don't know.

That's a pretty big burden for a small town, though.

I know, yeah. It's very much different. Curious what they're doing.

I'm not sure, but it's pretty standard practice that major development or redevelopment projects take on the financial burden of building or updating the frontage.

When you say major projects, that's inclusive of a single-family home?

That varies. That's not something that I'm entirely certain about, but I can say with certainty that if you're building four to six townhomes in Seattle on the same property, you are paying to approve the frontage for a project like that.

Not being an expert. To me, it makes a lot of sense when you develop with a bunch of stuff, like when we saw in North Benway, like, hell yeah, you guys should pay for a site if you're wealthy.

Mm-hmm.

Someone who's adding another 80, well, not an 80, but a single another plot, they're splitting their property, they're going to have less financial means, I think. It's weird.

Unless they get a lot of money for that lot that they're splitting.

Even if they got the money, then they're not the ones building it.

They would have to increase the price of the lot to cover the cost of doing the improvement.

They have to lower the price of the lot because the person buying it- That's what I'm saying.

Whoever sells it or buys it, ultimately, one of us has to pay for the cost. So the cost will be there.

I mean, it really also depends on what the underlying zone is and how large that newly established lot is. Because there is definitely a way to recoup your costs if you are able to build multiple units on that newly established lot. It just kind of depends what's being proposed there. It's not necessarily a single-family home. It could be like a duplex, or it could be something else.

I don't know if this is true. I think you mentioned it was 140th Street, where it's on, off, on, off, on, off, and I don't think that that is really the best look for the city. I kind of want to push it towards the purchaser.

We could evaluate a threshold to be associated with frontage improvements. So if you have a frontage of the newly created lot that's less than, say, 30 feet, then we could examine situations like that where you can have a little bit of both. Because how long does the frontage have to be to really be a benefit to the community?

Right, a 30-foot section. in the middle of nowhere is no benefit to anyone.

Yeah.

So I like that idea of thinking about a threshold.

And the other thing to think about is this is probably not a very common process. It's not like people are doing massive amounts of these at once. It's going to be more of a one, you know, a few of these a year thing.

Yeah.

It scatters around 10.

Yeah. Just out of curiosity, if this was split horizontally, So there was no furniture for the back end split and it was an easement through the existing. Does that still require furniture?

Yeah, because the newly developed lot would be responsible for creating the driveway that would go along the easement that we would need before we would approve the residential lot split.

It would have both properties were using the same easement. So the easement just extended an existing driveway. to the back lot.

We would probably still ask them to improve the whole driveway because especially if it's like an older property with like a gravel driveway and we're asking them to pave it, that would be something that would fall under the newly established lot requirements. And that would be required like with or without frontage improvements.

Do we need to make a decision or recommendation?

Yeah, so our next step is our next meeting, July 2nd, I think it is. We'll come back with a public hearing and we'll line up some of those questions for you a little bit more, maybe with some diagrams.

It's very helpful to discuss.

And then we'll, I think you already said you'll have the language advance that we can look through.

Yeah, if the commission's supportive of Doing like a threshold level for frontage requirements. That's definitely something that we can discuss with the city engineer. Yeah. I think that's my nice middle ground. Yeah, the best option between them. It does not have to be all or nothing.

That and just to confirm so like the if we were to do a. Like a middle ground option like that's just for the new development. And that just includes the driveway or the entire property line for frontage improvements?

That would be correct.

The property line. So it's an entire property line. So it would be like if we settled on 30.

You can't see our nifty pictures, but yeah.

I know. I was really trying to look, but they're just a little too far away.

Or incentive to come next time.

Yeah, but yeah, the parent law, we're recommending that the parent law does not require frontage improvements and that potentially there should be a threshold associated for frontage improvements for the newly created lot. So, if it's an L shaped plot with the driveway, you. connecting the newly established lot to the right-of-way, that is information that would likely fall below the threshold, exempting them from frontage improvements. If you're looking at dividing one large lot side-by-side with the frontage into two, that is a situation that could trigger frontage improvements depending on what length of frontage we settle on.

Yeah, I think that's a great recommendation if the city engineer is agreeable to that.

Now we'll talk to him about it, and I'll try and update the staff report with his recommendation and any justification behind that.

Thank you. Perfect. Anything else, Commissioner?

I still had some grammar stuff. Oh, yeah. But I don't know if this is still, are we?

Yeah, we haven't closed it yet.

Heck yeah. Some of these might just be to take a double look at it. But page six, there is a... Sorry, I have my notes in here.

Page 6 of the. Page 6 is in a certain section.

I'm sorry, let me.

Get my mind set that I can read my notes here. There's a reference to Chapter 5819 on that page. But I believe it should be a reference to 58, 17, 60.

Is this the page six in the blue? Okay.

So just double check. Yeah. Make sure it's referring to the right law. Page 10. We've got two sections, 17, 18, 20.

Thank you. Page 15.

Uh, no, no doubt.

There is a definition section in page 15, which was very simple for and then again on page 22 we're defining. Well, a lot parent and I my question was, do we want to have two separate definitions in two separate places?

Or should we do it defined in one section and reference that in another place that was intentional because there's a separate definition for parent lot when you're talking about a lot split? So the state regulations do it that way as well.

Okay. Page 19, got two letter J's in the residential lot split.

Nice.

At the bottom of the table. Page 24, there was a K error on addition. just above NBMC 172290. It's just a K with no.

That was it.

I've got a few suggestions too. This is kind of minor, but one is on the definitions under F numbers three and four should be alphabetized before financial. You have final plat, final short, and then financial.

Oh, thank you.

And then, um, And section under L three, four and five are incorrectly alphabetized as well, so. Should be lot parent coming before lots, but OK, but that's Mike.

All right.

Wait for broader things we wanted to provide updates to you guys on first one is the way that would give you your packets is going to change. So we've just, we had begun using a new platform called Civic Plus that allows us to prepare agendas and send them out electronically rather than create a PDF packet that we're emailing to you. In the future, you're going to get an email link and that just links you to the packet. And Caitlin's going to show you what it looks like. She's got it on her screen here. Mind if I plug you in?

Yes.

It's on the other side, yeah.

So this is going to be effective for all commissions and council.

Everybody's going to start getting their packets this way. And it just streamlines some of the pre-election for us. So what you'll get is a link that takes you into the CityPlus web. And your packet will essentially look like this. So you'll see there's the minutes, and you see a little paper clip. You click that, and that will take you to the minutes. Oh, great. For each particular agenda item.

So that's why the agenda looked a little different.

And we're still working out bugs, so you'll probably see the old snappy things here and there, but I don't know if it'll be your next meeting or the meeting after that, but we'll go live with that.

I need to talk with you after meeting that.

Yeah.

Yeah, sounds good.

Another thing is just an update on the 530 main project. The Council chose not to pursue that.

Which budget is that one?

That's the affordable housing project that you guys had the meeting on back several months ago.

A lot of people there? Okay.

Yeah. So ultimately they were concerned about development standards and especially the parking issue. So because of that, and then also because some of the funding that the applicant was hoping to receive via a grant did not come through. And so the council decided to refund the money back to the applicant on that and not proceed to profit.

Was it unanimous for the council or were they split?

I can't know. You recall, Caitlin?

I think it was a majority with one or two voting to proceed.

Okay. I'm curious.

Most likely. Yeah, they're evaluating.

When was this decided? Was it last meeting?

A couple of meetings ago. Okay.

So no affordable housing there? No, OK, not there. Not there, I guess.

That's the next big question is what's the next step is proceed affordable housing. That's good. Another one is next meeting is going to be a special meeting. It'll be a joint meeting with the planning or the Parks Commission and that we are going to have on June 17th. So we went to every or once a month for you guys, this was the special circumstance because to line things up for the Parks Commission and Planning Commission, this worked. So June 17th, that'll be on the parks element of the comprehensive plan. And we'll send the packet out real soon for that. And it's fairly standard updates. We're not changing huge amounts of things, but we're changing a few things in the parks level of service standards and the parks capital facilities plan.

This is like an open house workshop or?

No, this is a hearing. So you will have the hearing opportunity for public comment, but we're not seeking your recommendation at that meeting because you won't be able to address any comment that was received and think about amendments. So then you'll come back at your July 2nd meeting and that'll also be a joint meeting with the Parks Commission and that's when we'd seek your final recommendation. So if you're interested in preview, we had a parks workshop here last Thursday. And we've got the recording of that on the city's website as well as the PowerPoint presentation. So go on to the parks element page of our website if you'd like to see that presentation. That gives you an idea of what we're doing. Otherwise, we'll include that in the packet as well. Awesome. Thank you.

Were there any other things?

No, that was it. Okay.

Well, thank you so much.

Be cool next week.

And we can adjourn at 7.52. Thanks, guys. Motion.

Motion to adjourn. Do we need to do a motion?

I think we can just adjourn.

We haven't done motions for just adjourning the meeting.

We just get it. I think I just have to say what time.

The chair just gets to declare the meeting over.

It's done. It's right out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do with the old gas station over by the poorhouse.

That is another big question. So the property is in Port Royal.