Remarks by Jenny Lagerquist
46 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 2
- Play at 1:54:01
“I would like to hear it. I don't know how the rest of it.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:54:12
“Sure, absolutely. I'm almost done actually. Okay, my last question actually is back on the LRV discussion. I think you mentioned neon green. So how does the LRV avoid us having to figure out how to deal with a developer that comes in and wants to paint a building neon green?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:55:42
“Well, and this is an extreme example, but, you know, these are the situations that we have to consider. A developer comes in and they have a building color that no one likes, but they're saying, hey, I'm doing, I'm applying state law, so I'm going to paint the building whatever color I want. And so I think that is what we are struggling with and having to deal with. I mean, yeah, I don't think a developer is going to come in and say I want to paint the building neon green but they could come in with some really bright pink which might look really good in the caribbean but not so much in…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 3:54:48
“Thank you, Vice Chair. I apologize, I'm gonna actually start mine with a couple questions I didn't wanna ask them during the public comment period, so I have a couple more questions. I did want the contractor to respond to Mark's question regarding the smiley faces and how that informed, if you could speak to that really quick, how that informed your decisions.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 3:56:49
“Right. That was going to be my next question, actually.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 3:58:43
“OK, thank you. I want to shift to the landscape architecture and the planting plan. So there were a lot of different ideas thrown out how to make it better. I think one that stands out as a recommendation to the city as you guys move forward is definitely expand that the allowed list. And maybe is it possible to add a non-native list that works with the environment here that could be utilized but then would be acceptable and that we can trust is still beneficial to the community and we're not gonna get into any unforeseen consequences, right? Because that's what we're trying to avoid. So that…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:01:32
“That's really helpful, thank you. So my comments around that are, I would hesitate to reduce or change the 70-30. I agree with those statements, but maybe the city's goal does need to be redefined. But I think what's being unsaid, and I could be wrong, so I apologize, but I think what's being unsaid is that if we don't protect that then then while while we clearly have really good landscape architects in the room right now and and do care about their work and are going to make good decisions that doesn't mean all of them are and we have developers who are cutting corners and trying to save…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:04:04
“OK, so it doesn't it doesn't speak to if you have a scoring system, this is how you handle it. No. With state law.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:04:11
“OK, so we're is are we assuming like what? What are you basing the fact that they could come in and use waivers to to like what?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:06:38
“OK, that's really helpful. I guess my recommendation would be that we I think the city probably needs to figure out how we're going to handle it. Like, you know, let's have those discussions up front. Let's ask city council how they're going to stand by these these standards. And but but, you know, like How are we going to deal with that if they request a concession on the points? What does that look like? And I think having that before we approve all of those would really help definitely me and the public feel a little more confident. What I'm hearing from the public is the standards are...…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:08:13
“agreed but but what we are hearing as a commission on every project when we don't like something is the city's not going to be willing because the onus is on them which we understand so where is that line or it's it's still going to be on the city right to to fight and so is the city council going to be willing you know you know can we provide an example where they would be willing to be like no we're going to stand up to this or do they or do they feel comfortable enough with that just those kinds of discussions”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:09:35
“Well, that's the thing. I mean, so there is an opportunity for a developer to come in and say, Nope, I'm not doing it. And that's just what I'm getting at. I just I just want the city to have these conversations and so that the public and the commission can understand, you know, where that line is, you know, because And I'm definitely not saying that these standards are not worthwhile. I'm 100% for them. I'm so happy they finally made it to us. And I think the processes have been great. But I just think these are hard conversations that we need to have. I think my last comment, so thank you…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:34:32
“Well, are we still, I mean, I'm confused now. Are we still talking about the mission statement?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:34:44
“But wouldn't that be part of the conversation that we're saving for last?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:34:49
“Ultimately, so so we can just tailor that for right now. Okay.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:35:13
“Yeah, I'm a little confused on that. So looking at this, It makes sense to me that they're zero. So if someone could explain to me why we would want to make them max scoring.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:35:54
“So my comment was specific to all. I mean, there's more than one ODS in there that could be related to massing. So I just want to make sure all of the massing is scored. And again, the zero versus a high score, I'm still a little confused because I think if we change the zero, then of course we're going to have to up the overall score that's going to be required for that section, right? we're looking into it for sure yeah okay so that is so regardless that's the intent is explore how massing is scored in general within the ods right and then then the follow-on comment is just to make sure…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:40:54
“Thanks. This is an honest question. Please don't take offense to this question. When the meetings originated, when we started the meetings, when the city started the meetings with the public, were the ODSs presented as, was it made clear to the public that these were to actually make the approval process easier.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:42:16
“And then, so the ODSs that are before us, we know that they don't conflict with all those other documents, Because all those documents still stand, right? They're still in, they still have to meet the requirements, but this is a way to do that much more quickly, knowing that these ODSs do not conflict with any of the plans.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:55:48
“Thank you. I just want to add, I mean, I feel like the intent of doing this process of making the objective design standards is to make the process easier. But the intent of the ODSs themselves are to preserve the city. And I just want us to remember that. And so I really like this conversation and agree with the approach. But we just want to remember that the whole point of having these objective design standards is to protect the city, the city's appearance and the communities and things like that.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 5:00:00
“Yeah, I mean, I think those definitely would require public comment as well.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026