Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Ready when you are, Pete. Okay. Good evening. And this is the Planning Commission meeting on September 14th, 2026 in the Robert Lipke building. And we will go ahead and convene the meeting. And Pete, can I have you call the roll? Absolutely.

Commissioner LaSalle?

Here.

Commissioner Laws? Here. Commissioner Dole? Here. Commissioner Espy? Here. Commissioner Meinig? Here. is excused, I believe. Commissioner Guimond? Here. Commissioner Henderson? Present. We have quorum.

Okay, so this evening we have one public hearing. Well, we have public comment for items not on the agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, let's, yeah. Item two on the agenda, there are, we are looking at public comments and if there is anybody that wishes to have public comments that are not related to the agenda item this evening, you can come forward, make sure you fill out a speaker slip. I haven't received any, so I'm assuming that there are none. Okay, so you might want to hand that to Pete and then I can call you up. All right.

So tonight we have Kelly Hart, our director of community development joining via Zoom and city attorney Melissa Ryan joined by joining via Zoom. Thank you.

Oh, this is okay. So Linda, you are going to be speaking for the hearing that's on the agenda item, the hearing item tonight. So this is for public comments that are not on the agenda. So I'm assuming, I'm going to go ahead and leave you, let you go ahead and comment at that time when we go over there. at the public hearing. Okay, great.

All right, so tonight, Melissa can speak to this a little bit, but we did want to have you read the script to begin the meeting. It's been a while. We've had a number of continuances. And after that, we can start ending with my staff report. Melissa, do you want to say anything? Okay, thank you.

Yep. That should not be a problem. We have before us this evening, one public hearing on the land use application that's scheduled for tonight. The planning commission's role is to conduct a public hearing and make decisions about the matter before us. And in making those decisions, we must apply the applicable codes and laws and cannot vary from or change those laws or codes. A staff report has been prepared for the application and has been made available to the public seven days before the first public hearing. The staff report identifies the approval criteria that apply to each applicant's proposal. Staff has analyzed the criteria, which are contained in the staff report. The hearing procedure that the planning commission will follow is set out in state law and the Oregon city municipal code. The hearing procedure steps are shown on the planning commission website as well. Public testimony will be called on in order. It is in the order that is requested. And if you wish to testify in person, please fill out a speaker card available at the back of the room. And if you wish to testify virtually, you will be called either from a request to speak email to city staff at our website or in advance of this meeting or by raising your virtual or physical hand when I ask if there are others in the audience who would like to participate. For the public record, please begin all testimony stating your name and city of residence. If you would like to receive a copy of the notice of decision, please state your mailing address or email address. Testimony and evidence should be directed toward the applicable approval criteria. And if you believe other criteria apply in addition to those addressed in the staff report, identify and discuss those criteria and explain how and why you believe they apply to the application under consideration. Any person may submit written material while the public record is open on each application and the written materials received by city staff during the time period in which the record is open will be placed in the record. Written materials submitted during the public hearing must be presented to the city staff in order to become part of the record. If a person intends to present a PowerPoint presentation, reports, pictures, or other exhibits used in their oral testimony to be placed in the record, copies must be submitted to city staff while the record is open. If they are not given to staff, they will not be included in the record. Any person wishing a continuance to present additional evidence and testimony or keep the record open to respond to new evidence must make that request before the public testimony portion of the initial public hearing is closed. If the Planning Commission makes a decision in which you disagree, any issue that you may wish to appeal must have been raised before the Planning Commission in order to be considered by the City Commission. And in the event of further appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals, Without raising the issue on the record with sufficient detail and accompanied by statements or evidence allowing the city and all parties to respond, the issue will not be considered on appeal. In addition to participating orally or in writing or raising all issues during the planning commission proceeding, the filing of an appeal must include the required fee. A city-recognized neighborhood association may request the waiver of an appeal fee subject to the requirements set forth in the code, 175190C5 and 175290C. In addition, the failure of an applicant to raise constitutional or other issues related to the proposed conditions of approval with sufficient detail to allow the local government or its designee to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. So the public hearing is at GLUA034SUB2403GEO2407NROD24032, the Park Place 2 subdivision. Now we will go ahead and open that record and members of the planning commission are to be unbiased and as a result, I will go ahead and call on everybody. We'll go down the line to see if there was any potential conflicts or if you visited the site, if there's any conflicts or biases. So we'll start with Seth.

No conflicts or bias have driven by the site. I think the last time might've been a week and a half ago.

No conflicts, no biases. Don't believe I've driven by the site and no ex parte. Okay, Bob.

I have no bias, no special interest. I have ex parte contact to report. I have attended every neighborhood meeting in the Park Place Neighborhood Association when this development was the subject and I have participated in those meetings.

I have no ex parte contact, no bias. I have not driven past the site. So anything concerning this agenda item, I do not have any influence or bias or any ex parte contact.

Yeah, no conflict, no bias, no ex parte contact. I'm familiar with the area and I've driven through it many times.

I made a short comment on social media expressing empathy for someone who had expressed concerns over the project, but it was a very short comment. It didn't have anything substantive or it was not deliberative about the project at all. And so I don't really believe that I have any conflict or bias and I can, review this project objectively if the applicant is willing to continue with me on this panel.

Thank you, Chair Espy for the invitation, which I assume was directed towards me. My name is Garrett Stevenson. I'm legal counsel for the applicant here. And I just want to sort of set the stage to explain the context for my comments. There was an incident about a week ago in which former planning commission member appeared appeared to threaten our construction crews with a firearm. He has been, he was arrested, he's been brought up on charges, and has posted bail for those charges. But we take this very, very seriously, which is why I, which I never do, dived into the planning commission, excuse me, neighborhood association Facebook page to see if I could understand what was going on. And when I did, I found obviously numerous comments from the individual in question, but also comments from two other former planning commission members, including chair Espy. I'm sure that this planning commission understands why I am concerned about this, because as I've said repeatedly to everybody who will listen, there is no point at which land use issues like this should ever get to the point of justifying or inducing people to either take violent action or threaten violent action. I believe that nobody could have foreseen what was happening there. Certainly I don't think Chair Espy, you could have foreseen what was gonna happen. And so I wanna be clear when I raise this, that that is not what I'm talking about here. but we are taking potential conflicts of interest and frankly, the appearance of bias very, very seriously going forward, because I think that this issue in Park Place got to be so intense on the part of this neighborhood association and some of the people involved there that people did things that they wouldn't otherwise do. And I wanna make sure that doesn't happen again. So Mr. Espy, you've answered the questions I was gonna ask, which is you've made a statement, it appeared to me to be indicative of bias, and you've said that it didn't reflect any bias. One of the concerns that I had is that your statement referred to the proceedings in 2022 as a lot of wasted effort before the planning commission. Can you explain what you meant by that?

Sure. I think what I meant by that was that there was a lot of effort on the master planning process to have a set of, you know, a development site that was entirely different from what is going to be happening here tonight. Or I mean, it's much different from what has been approved now. And so we worked really hard. I mean, to be honest with you, we worked really hard on that. And there was a lot of really good elements in there that was going to, there was a lot of mixed use elements, there was a lot of really great things that were going to be provided for that neighborhood as a result of that development. just to find out that it was going to just result in a lot of housing and that was where that statement came from.

Yeah, I mean, your comments well taken. The Planning Commission did vote to approve our application and we tried to get it through City Commission and we were unable to do so. Is it your position now that you understand before you is before you as opposed to the prior one as a legal matter.

Absolutely. We are looking at the discretionary portion of the, I believe the unavoidable crossing for the public utilities. And that's all we are going to be reviewing and deliberating upon.

as a part of this proceeding. Okay, I'm not gonna object to your participation. I think the message that I've left the planning commission on this is clear. I'm happy to answer any questions you have, but Chair Espy, I really appreciate your initiative in making that declaration and thank you for answering my questions as well as you did.

I absolutely had no idea that those other things were happening outside of that. Those were just comments that I made that were, empathetic with a fellow planning commissioner that I had worked with for a while, and it didn't have anything to do with any of the other future deliberations of this project. You bet. Okay, so I think we're ready for

The staff report. Thank you. I'll be brief. I don't have anything prepared and I wanted the commission to know that the materials that are attached in your packet were submitted fairly recently, right before the planning commission agenda was published and staff has not reviewed those or is ready, we are not ready to provide a recommendation this evening. My understanding is that there have been revisions and those are in your packet. applicant would like to talk about those and what's been happening with the design of the sewer system and how that's impacted the natural resource overlay district aspects of the application. And beyond that, I'm here to answer any questions. The applicant does have some slides from the packet that they wish to share, and I'm happy to facilitate those being shown. And Harlan Barrow is here this evening. I do want to mention that, as I mentioned, there have been a number of continuances. One of staff's concerns is that there has been such a time lag with the application that we are planning to provide additional public notice following tonight of any subsequent hearing on this application. Nothing else will change about the application other than we will provide an updated notice to provide those within the required notice area an opportunity to come to the next hearing.

Pete, quick question for you. So the last time the applicant was here, there was a question in regards to the Natural Resources Committee. Doesn't look like there's a meeting currently on the calendar. Do you know when they are going to review this specifically?

That's a great question. I don't have a date or time in mind, but what we did previously a special teams meeting, which was publicly noticed in order to provide a comment on the application. And I would anticipate we're gonna do the same thing between now and the next hearing. Got it, thank you.

And with that, yeah. Before Harlan does his presentation, I wanna cover just a few procedural issues and tee Harlan up as best I can. So we're before you tonight because at the initial proceedings on this, it became apparent to us that we were gonna have trouble meeting some of the in-rod criteria, particularly because we had a large sewer pipe running through the in-rod, which was gonna require a lot of mitigation, and also because our stormwater design used more of the in-rod area than would normally be allowed. And so what we've done based on the feedback from staff and the questions presented by planning commission is to revise the layout of the subdivision and the application and our mitigation proposal to reflect two main changes. The first change, which Harlan will go over is the removal of that, sanitary sewer line as it was originally programmed to run through the N-Rod, and we're now running that down Livesay. I think that's right. Yes. Okay. And then the other thing that has been revised is that the stormwater detention facility has been and we've actually reduced the number of lots to accommodate that so that we are within the allowance of impacts within the En-ROD for a stormwater facility. The super summary of all this is that our intention is to comply with the En-ROD standards without requiring an adjustment or a variance. And that's the fundamental difference between this application and the one that came before you, which did require a variance. And it's taken us a while to figure that out. The solution to this was not straightforward, but the planning commission and the city staff have shown great patience with us in allowing to make this work. I know that there were a lot of concerns about impacts to the in-rod and those have been reduced to the greatest extent possible. And we've had to lose some lots because of it. The reason why we're here tonight, understanding that city staff and the city's consultant hasn't had a chance to fully digest our plans, which were submitted about a week ago. The reason why we're here is we wanted to give the planning commission an update and an overview of the changes that have been made. I don't want to give the impression that we've been sitting back and doing nothing for the last few months. We absolutely have been working on this really hard. And we wanted to give a presentation of those changes, but then also start the public testimony process. I have asked Pete and he's agreed that we can open the record for public testimony tonight. I don't have a substantive presentation and I don't plan on doing any rebuttal. any comments that are received at this meeting or the next one, I will cover those at the next planning commission meeting. But the other thing in fairness to Pete that I got to do is ask that we continue this to the next planning commission meeting. And Pete, did you have a date certain on that? Was it November 23rd?

Let's see here. Yes, November the 23rd is the second Monday, second Planning Commission meeting in November, so the 23rd.

All right, so the other reason why we wanted to start the testimony now is that we wanted to try to avoid a further continuance after November 23rd into the holidays, because I will be too full of turkey to be able to make any sense to anyone by then. So unless you have any substantive questions or procedural questions for me, I'm happy to hand it over to Harlan. And then just a final procedural note, we'd ask that the planning, I don't know what the process is specifically for planning commission, but I do think you need to have at least a voice vote on the continuance of the conclusion of the hearing. or excuse me, at the conclusion of the meeting. And we're not requesting anything exotic, just a straight continuance. So anybody will be able to still submit testimony in writing and show up to testify on November 23rd. I would ask though is that we would not necessarily allow repetitive testimony. In other words, if somebody testifies tonight, that will be their shot. They can testify again. in writing if they want to, but we're trying to keep these meetings somewhat manageable as the experience that both Paul and I had back in 2022 indicates is probably appropriate. Any questions for me? No, I think that's fair.

You answered my question about whether or not additional testimony would be received at the November meeting and you answered that.

So I feel pretty good about that because there could be other people that come in that- Yeah, the intent here is to give two meetings so that people can testify. It's a very, I mean, the awkward part of this, and I think we just have to call a spade a spade, it's awkward for all of us because of the procedural nature that this has become. It's based on state law, so there's nothing we can do about it. So there is a limited, sort of area of relevance that people can address and that the planning commission can consider. But my intention is not to object to any testimony. I'm gonna let people testify and I encourage the planning commission to do the same because it's very, very hard, I know, to cut people off, especially when it's not what you can talk about and what you can't. And what I'm referring to is the fact that this is bifurcated. The subdivision itself is not subject to a hearing, but the in rod application is. And so we can, I understand how hard that is for the public. It's not intuitive. And so what I would suggest is accept all the testimony that comes in and we can sort of parse it out later as to its relevance. I think that's fine.

The other thing that I always encourage people to do is to, if they have repetitive testimony that they summarize and if they have a spokesperson to represent the testimony that they all have interest in giving. So sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't, but we'll try.

We're all doing our best. I'll reserve my right for rebuttal till the close of the hearing on the 23rd. Thanks again for bearing with us. Absolutely.

Yeah, just a really quick question for you, Pete. It may be beneficial to be proactive and make sure we have quorum since that's a holiday week. If we're planning on having an actual vote on November 23rd. Absolutely.

I would also add that we are updating the project webpage with all the latest materials. And when the notice goes out again, the link will be there again on the on the public notice so that folks can go to that project website and download everything. Everything has been submitted ever since February. So including all the public testimony and what staff is planning to do is to try to summarize and respond to public some comment in a separate document as well.

Thank you. Okay. Quick question. Is there a reason it is so far out November 23rd

two months away, over two months away? That is based on what we know to be the time needed for engineering to review the stormwater aspects of the new proposal, as well as David Evans and Associates, our consultants, to provide us with a review of the revision.

Got it. So this is an ask from the city, not the applicant. It's both. Okay, got it. Thank you.

If I may really quick, it may be a good idea when you all do the vote for a continuation to verify as part of your vote that that is an appropriate date in an actual action.

We'll do. That sounds good. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I think at this point we're ready for public testimony or no, we're ready to hear from the applicant. I'm sorry. Harlan, would you like me to put your slides up?

I think I can try and share, see if that works, because I can use a pointer. Good evening, Chairman Espy and planning commissioners. My apologies for not being there in person. I had a family issue out in Florida I had to deal with, and unfortunately I'm not able to make it back yet. But I'll just quickly go over... I guess you have to let me share.

I'm allowing it. Oh, I gotta allow it in this computer. There we go.

Thanks.

I should have clicked you through. Okay, so let's see.

Okay.

Okay, can you see that? All right. Yeah, if you can possibly move to a full screen on your computer, Harlan, I don't know if that's possible.

I think I'll zoom in to various things, but basically this is the overall view of the site. This is the overall view of the site. And I just want to reiterate something that Garrett said. As I think I indicated at the last meeting, we've been working very hard trying to figure out how to modify the storm pond down here at the bottom to meet all the end rod constraints. And we did think we could use this tract over here, but because of the wetland that's there, we could not. So it's been a process, it's been hard, but thankfully our engineers at Emurio and we've been able to figure it out. So our solution is a three pond, scenario where we have the main pond that now is outside the NROD, halfway into the NROD, so we have no variance requests. And I'll zoom in on all this in detail in a moment. We have a secondary small pond to handle this area over here. And then our third pond now is the pond up here. That's for phase one that originally was going to be temporary. And the large pond was going to handle that. But now because of the constraints, we're going to make this pond permanent. And that is part of the engineering plans that were just submitted to the city for review for the final permit for development of phase one. By keeping this permanent, we do lose four lots, which is why now our total lot count is down to 215 from 219. Harlan, would it be possible to have this as a full screen? Let me see.

Do the window pull down, Harlan? Yeah, there's a... Pete, maybe you can go to the window, pull down Harlan to your right.

Yeah, because it's pretty small when you get rid of... I know it's hard enough to share this stuff. I can zoom it around so you can see better. You can probably just go up to your upper left. Yeah, that one. There you go. It won't make it bigger?

No, the window menu in the ribbon, the window button, if you click on that, the pull-down should give you an opportunity to go full screen. F11. There you go.

I think I already was. I think I already was. Appreciate that. It's just hard to see. It's, you know, it's very, it's really, yeah. Yeah, so I can zoom in and walk you through it. But basically, the phase one, can you see that up here better now? Yep. So the phase one pond, we lose four lots here. So now our total count is 215, not 219, because we're making that permanent. And the Okay, so let me see. How do I get out of this? Back to Okay, so now I go down here. The other thing or I guess let me go back here. The other thing that we had previously talked about is that we've eliminated the sanitary sewer crossing the N-Rod on this side. So that's no longer there. And it's been replaced now by the sanitary sewer line running down from the project down Livesay down to Redland Road. And in large view, or an expanded view anyway, here's the overall project. And instead of running the sewer this way for a shorter run, like we talked about before, we're running it offsite from here down Livesay and down to Redland Road. We understand and expect that should you, you know, that the staff report will include conditions of approval and some of those conditions will relate to engineering design, modeling and agreements that are need for agreements with the county since this is all in the county. but that is what's necessary to have an alternate to the original crossing that was part of the original master plan approval, but has recently raised a lot of concerns about crossing the N-Rod, so we've gone with the alternate route. So that is implemented. And then with regard to a large pond area. Can you see this? Okay. Is that large enough to see? Yeah, that's great. Okay. So, uh, we, this line right here is the halfway into the end rod line. So we no longer extend into the end rod more than halfway. Um, we have, uh, permanent impacts, from the pond. We have a temporary impact from putting in the discharge line within the end rod, and we have a small permanent impact from the outfall. And then we have what we had before, which were the permanent impacts for the alley and for some of the small portion of the lots up here. This design with these three ponds including this pond over here now, results in ponds that are geotechnically safer, more stable. They're all in the ground. There's no elevated retainage that, if you recall some of the earlier versions, we were looking at trying to do a pond here and trying to do a pond up here. The problem with those is that given the topography and remember that this is going downhill all this way like that, those ponds would have required basically like walls holding it up and above ground situations and that although it potentially could be geotechnically feasible and Not even sure that could happen given the boulders and bedrock situation that piles would run into, but this is now basically just your standard hole in the ground. There are retaining walls within the hole to hold back the soil surrounding it, but they're the typical kind of storm detention systems that you're used to seeing. This figure, which is figure 7.1, I believe, yeah, from the plan set and is also part of the figures in the NROD report, lays out the different impact areas, 21,000, a little less than half an acre of impact from the water quality facility, including this area up here that gets graded but isn't part of the facility long term. And then also identifies the areas for the impacts up here and also for the mitigation areas that are available in the stipple pattern, including the area that will be utilized now over in the track that we were hoping to put the phase one pond in, but couldn't because of the wetland that was here. So now we're proposing to mitigate around the area of the wetland to enhance its functionality as the headwater of that creek that is offsite that is within an NROD. The NROD doesn't go onto our property, but it's adjoining. So that's kind of where we got. I know it seems pretty straightforward, but I can tell you that it took many iterations to figure all that out and get to a place where we were able to figure out how to meet all the requirements for stormwater and still meet all the limitations for the NROD. So when you look at the NROD report, on page six of the Enron report, there's a summary table that brings forward all those numbers that I alluded to in the figure and totals them up as 30,920 square feet of impact from the water quality facility, the temporary discharge, the permanent discharge, the alley and the lot. And then on page 13 of the En-ROD report, it talks about the various mitigation areas, the mitigation area west being by the water quality facility, the temporary impact, the east being on the other side of the and then the two areas of the wetland, north and south, divided by the wetland itself. So we're proposing, although we have 30,920 square feet of impact, which would result in about 31,880... I think she puts it up here. yeah 61,840 would be the number we've got 75,964 that we're proposing to mitigate so we're proposing to mitigate more than the two to one and that's primarily because it would make sense to enhance that wetland area fully. So. Then, as you continue on in the end rod report it gets down to the mitigation plan. And we, as Garrett mentioned, we're not seeking any kind of variance because we're outside halfway into the NROD. So from a mitigation perspective, there were those two options, option one and option two in the standards that identified, you know, the number of trees and shrubs, native plants that are required. Option one, which is outlined in the arborist report where we had 20 trees being removed of various sizes, came in with a lower number than what we're going to propose. And option two, which is based on area, came in with a much higher number than what we're gonna propose. And because of the existing tree canopy and the topography where we're limited within the Enrod area due to the severe slopes greater than 25%, it's not practical to put as much as option two would require and the code requires that you have to use option the option that results in the greatest number of trees and shrubs and option two just isn't practical so we're going with the alternative mitigation approach which is allowable and we're going to put in 55 trees 20 are coming out we're going to put in 55 trees. and 300 shrubs and the report goes through and talks about those numbers in total and the mitigation plan, the upgraded mitigation plan shows where those plantings will go in and around the water quality facility and then also in the area of the wetland. And both the NROD report and the mitigation plan take into account comments that we had received from the prior version from both DEA, David Evans and Associates, as well as the NRC. So we tried to diversify species. We tried to... spread them out as best we could. But again, given the existing canopy and slope, it's a challenge, but we think we have provided sufficient mitigation and in meeting the, not only the code requirements, but also the comments from the city's consultant and the NRC. So that's pretty much what I had to present, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have at this point.

Commissioners? You guys have any questions?

You mentioned the NRC feedback. Has this new plan gone through the NRC?

Not yet, no.

Okay, thanks. We are open for questions for other than just that particular portion, right? Sure. Okay. That's in our purview to review. Right. In your narrative revised September 4th, 2026 on page three, it says small wetlands exist on the site. The wetlands are proposed to be filled. Have you considered leaving some of those wetlands for our wild friends?

Well, the other wetlands that are on the property are in areas that keeping them would be problematic. So no, we haven't considered that at this point.

On page 15 chapter 13.12 refers to stormwater management. And you've done an admiral job of changing your plans. However, I would suggest that the park place concept plan, which addresses stormwater is not being even considered a stormwater management. is described in detail in the park place concept plan beginning on page 53 and refers to planters, stormwater swells, and vegetated infiltration basins.

And then- We did address some of those comments. I know it probably doesn't count anymore during the master plan approval process, but I can tell you, Commissioner LaSalle that the reason that those are not practical are given the topography. There's very limited space where we can do swales or planters. We do show some on the plans, those green areas, but you can only do those in limited slope situations. And given the slopes of the roads, there's very few places we can do that and the soil types are not conducive to infiltration.

Okay, page 35, chapter 16.08.050 refers to flag lots and flag lots shall not be permitted except where the applicant can show that the existing parcel configuration is not practical as determined by the city engineer. Has the city engineer been consulted on these eight flag lots that you have planned?

They were in what was previously reviewed, and there hasn't been any comment about that so far.

Okay, and that chapter item C refers to access way, and it states that 17 feet width will be required to serve one or two units and 20 feet to serve as three or more units. On page 36, your response is seven of the eight flag lots will share an access way with an adjacent lot. These lots have flag poles 10 feet wide for the entire length. And it sounds like absent violation of item C in that chapter.

Commissioner LaSalle, I'd like to answer the question to the extent you posed one. The subdivision application is to be approved and reviewed by city staff only. It's not before the planning commission tonight. The application has been submitted and it is under review by city staff. It will go out in a tentative type two application. But I want to make sure that we're clear about what we're prepared to talk about tonight and what we aren't. And what we're not prepared to talk about tonight is the layout of the lots, except as those relate to the N-Rod. Okay, well, the layout of the lots, it seems to me like you'd have to,

comply with the access weight width.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but that application is not before the Planning Commission.

Yeah, I think our discussion is just limited to the NRAD and the unavoidable crossings for the...

sole impact facility and impacts related to that sole impact to the in rod is going to be the storm water detention facility we are not proposing to use some of the concepts that were developed by the park place master plan for two reasons number one they're not practical They weren't when that plan was written and they're not now because when that plan was written, they hadn't done an analysis of how the slope will impact the ability of those types of facilities to actually infiltrate water. They can't do it because the site's too steep. The other reason we're not addressing it is that stormwater detention and our stormwater system is handled through the subdivision application, not through the En-ROD application. The sole reason why we're before this planning commission is to deal with the allowable impact of the stormwater detention facility within the En-ROD. We're not in a position to be able to redesign any of the stormwater functions of the site. This will be the last design that, you know, in general respects, it's going to be in front of this planning commission, because this is the only way we can design a project that will meet the city's in rod code and also provide adequate stormwater infiltration and detention and treatment. And I just want to make that really clear to the planning commission.

Your plan shows an emergency gravel road from the dead end of Holly Lane to Livesay Road? That's correct. That's the emergency access. Is that road to be locked as in the previous plan? I'm sorry, is that road to be what? Is that road to be locked as it was in the previous plan? There would be gates at the end of Holly, yes. And they would be locked? The fire department would have locks, yes. Okay, thank you. And then I don't see so far, I don't see any park areas shown here anywhere. There are none. I would have further questions on that, but I'll let it go at this time. Thank you.

or maybe ask Harlan for you to kind of expand a little bit. The large pond, the permanent fallout, can you talk a little bit about that? If that were to be utilized, where does that go? And then Pete, what kind of downstream analysis will be required on that?

Harlan, go ahead first and I'll try to answer the other question. Sure.

Hello.

I just want to interject that with respect to downstream analysis, that would be I believe that's done with the review of the stormwater plan and the stormwater design and grading manual is what governs it, which is what Public Works uses to review it. That's not something that planning staff reviews. Correct.

And we do have our storm report that analyzes the downstream capacity as well as the impacts from the facility and shows that it's all within the allowable code. That storm report should be submitted probably next week, the revised storm report that will address those issues. With regards to your question, You may recall that this cut here, which has some fairly steep slopes on either side has a water feature that runs down the middle. And so the discharge would drain down into that water feature. Uh, that's where, um, the existing, uh, discharge from the trail view subdivision, uh, currently comes down here and discharges. I've got a question for staff. And I should say also that it's where the existing drainage from the property goes because it's at the bottom of the hill. All we're doing is collecting it, detaining it, and discharging at a rate that is equal to or less than what is calculated from existing pre-development conditions.

Thank you for that, Harlan.

So I know how stormwater works in terms of how it goes down the hill in terms, because I live in the historic neighborhoods of our neighborhood and how many times that the grates have to be cleared out and other things continually. And I know how much effort the city has to do to clear out our grates for Singer Creek, also Mill Creek Canyon. Does the city have a calculation on how much this is gonna cost them in terms of labor and other things? I mean, I obviously know we have SDC fees and other things that we're trying to compensate for it, but it'd be interesting to have an analysis on that, especially when we come back together in November or around that point to know what that's gonna cost us. Is that possible or just kind of like an estimate or a calculation? because obviously there's gonna be a lot of maintenance on this for the city.

I can't speak to that because I'm not part of the department that does that analysis. Also, it is something that the operations side of Public Works is responsible for is the long-term cost of maintaining facilities that are dedicated to the city to maintain. It's not an approval criterion for the subdivision. It is an interesting question. and we can certainly gather the information and provide it back to the Planning Commission, but I think it would be very much an informational item. All of these facilities are custom designed. They're all very different, and they all have very different maintenance requirements.

And there is a difference, obviously, being a historic district, because obviously the idea is that we have a lot of deferred maintenance. Obviously, I understand that. I just, you know, I know how much debris gets into our system and how many times I talk to sewer and how much, you know, public works has to deal with all that. And obviously over time, these homes will have debris themselves. They're going to plant things, which is awesome. It's just, it'll be interesting. You know, obviously the more units, the more to deal with. So it'll be interesting, you know, just to have some type of idea because I, you know, the idea is it's all going downhill. And then if it plugs, it's a burden on that system.

Absolutely. If I may add a little bit, the city will take over the street network associated with the subdivision and the drainage associated with that. These storm ponds are part of the HOA that is a private entity that That icon in the development will be responsible for maintaining. The city as a whole collects property taxes. It also collects utility fees through the water billing system and has a breakdown of where some of those fees go to. that as we grow, we have the ability to maintain the systems that we take over. Again, though, to Pete's point, the cost to the city or the cost to the developer is not a decision criteria. And so I would think that if this is a point of interest for the city planning commission, we could bring back a conversation that's completely outside of the public hearing stage of this process.

Okay. And then the interesting part is the other part is, let's say ICON does not meet the city's criteria. It'd be interesting to know what the city would do about that as well. Because obviously you're doing almost kind of a relationship in terms of working together, right? Because they're going to be collecting HOA fees. There's kind of a team where Icon is going to be managing their site and there's going to be cooperation with the city in a way because what they do in terms of land management, you know, is going to impact the city. So there's going to be responsibility on that. And what if Icon doesn't do what the city would like, right?

the city reviews the subdivision application to ensure that it meets code in terms of maintenance if there is a maintenance issue on icon side the city has a robust code enforcement procedure and process to ensure compliance with the codes and the requirements as as identified in that development thank you

So I'm looking at this detention facility and it looks like it's, and it's hard to see, cause there's not really, I mean, there's topog maps, but I can't put it together. So it looks like this thing's gonna be perched on a fairly steep cliff or slope, right? Does anybody know what the percentage of slope that's going to be?

and see if I can help answer that question.

And then I guess the question for staff would be, would their geotechnical analysis be required for that and would it be peer reviewed? Of course, I think the applicant would review that and provide a geotechnical study we would have a review in our shop to determine whether, you know, a peer review in our shop to determine if that study makes sense.

Yeah, the application does include a geologic hazard overlay district review for compliance with chapter 1744 of the city code. That includes public utility designs requirements should they fall within the geologic hazard overlay district. But in addition to that, the design of the storm ponds.

I mean, I don't want to ordain ourselves as stormwater experts. I don't want to go there at all. But I do want to make sure that procedurally, you know, because we've had some discussions about geotechnical stuff in the past. And we just want to make sure that, you know, we have the study that's submitted by the applicant reviewed by our staff. or our designator, whoever it is that does it.

The initial study was submitted back some time ago. I'll let Harlan let you know if there's gonna be an update to the portions of that study that need to be updated if need be.

Yeah, I mean, because I mean, A possible scenario could be that the storm pond doesn't get maintained, the outfall doesn't work, it overflows or there's too much and then is there riprap underneath that to make sure that there isn't any undercutting of the pond and all that sort of stuff that you think about but you're not really qualified to make a comment on.

Yeah, in response to the question as to whether it is peer-reviewed, there is a peer-review requirement. I'll be happy to ask Public Works to let their consultant know that there's been specific concerns about the pond design if they are in the geologic hazard overlay district and what that would entail.

Yeah, and maybe this is beyond our purview when we're just reviewing the NROD criteria, but... You know, I would think that there is at least some nexus for our at least asking that question.

So the the pond is basically a hole in the ground. So this is going down here and The slope here is obviously a pretty good slope. It would meet whatever the codes are. So this is 248 and 250 here. So we're cutting down into the ground, but on this end, It's an existing grade.

Yeah, my concern, Harleyman, the reason I ask the question is just due to the location of the outfall. To me, it seems really close to the property line. And so if it were to discharge, you know, are you technically discharging, you're technically discharging within the end rod and then potentially sheet flowing onto an adjacent property?

Well, no, it's going, this is a very, this is the 25% grade break. So this slope here is very steep. There's no sheet flow happening. It's just going down the hill. Correct.

I guess that's, maybe a portrait's a word of mine, but that flow would be flowing south and down the grade, which ultimately crosses onto that tax lot to 2500, correct? Yes, it's where the drainage runs.

Yeah, I guess I was just pointing there. It's where all the existing drainage runs, and all we're doing is... Collecting it and putting it at a point instead of having it Accumulate over a sheet flow down into that drainage Because right now all of the site drains to here I Decided not we're not changing We're not changing the discharge location. Again, this really isn't relevant to the... Well, it'd be in your stormwater report to come, correct?

It is in the stormwater report, yeah. Which we'll get here in a couple days, it sounds like, and be able to trace it. Yes, next week.

I guess my concern about the increased, you know, the variance here for... using more of the end rod than would typically be allowed is just how close you are to the top of that break with what appears to be a pretty deep hole and so so so again we're not we're not asking for a variance we've designed it so we no longer have to ask for a variance yeah sorry not a variance the um 1749 155 uh

We're more than 1,000 square feet of impact, which is why it's before the Planning Commission, but we're outside of halfway into the NROD, which is allowable up to halfway without a variance. Got it.

But you're looking to have an impact, so we want to make sure that that impact's not going to be outsized or is appropriately mitigated, correct?

Correct. We believe we have now minimized our impact so that we meet the code without requiring a variance and that we're mitigating a larger area than we need to with what mitigation plantings are practical given the existing tree canopy and the limitations on available and rod area that we can safely mitigate because it's not safe to go inside that all of this area here, that is in slopes greater than 25%.

Yes. So just it seems like that's getting the top of the, you know, the amount of the retaining pond that's acting basically as a levy between the steep slope on the one side and the retaining pond on the other side, seems like pretty, you know, that it may fail, I guess is what I'm getting at. appears to be able to hold.

Well, this would be like a ultra block retaining wall here and it's designed to meet city standards.

Which again will be spelled out in your storm report that's forthcoming.

Yes, can I just, sorry to interrupt here, Missy Ryan, Assistant City Attorney, hello. I think that I wanted to flag what Pete had said at the beginning of the hearing, which is that these materials have not yet been reviewed by the city's consultants, and they have not been reviewed by the city. And so I would anticipate, and I'm permitted basically letting ICON's team know that the city will have an expectation that ICON will give a similar or more enhanced presentation at the continued hearing so that the members of the public who are there have a chance to hear this. And when the planning commission has the benefit of having city staff and the city's consultants weigh in on it, So really great questions to put to ICON from the planning commission and very helpful. And I want to say the planning commission is at a bit of a disadvantage right now because it does not have city staff or the city's consultants perspective on these.

Appreciate that, Missy. I think we're all still under the premise, like Garrett said, we're all here trying to do our best, so appreciate you elaborating, Harlan. I did have a, I'm gonna change the subject real quick and get off of the outfall, but I did have a question on the tree mitigation, which might be pointing back to you, Pete, a little bit. It looks like all the planting mitigations are within the stormwater areas. Harlan, I'm assuming when you develop the lots, each of the lots are going to have landscaping and the owners or purchasers or your customers are going to design those lots and you're going to plant trees on some of those lots. Does that not count towards tree mitigation? Does the mitigated plantings have to, are they restricted to where they go?

I can answer that. Typically we write a condition of approval to handle the variability and mitigation of trees. Some trees, I think for simplicity, what the applicant is going to be proposing here will involve replanting trees and shrubs in the mitigation areas. There are separate code requirements to plant trees on lots as part of a building permit, which is not related to the NRAD whatsoever, and that's based on lot size. If an applicant chooses to do offsite mitigation in that manner by planting trees on lots, they would need to state that explicitly in their NRAD report and call out where those trees are going That is going to be a heavy administrative burden for staff to track. However, we have done that in the past. That's why we, you know, we get the 90% of the mitigation report before the planning commission. You guys are pretty good with it. When we go to final plat review and construction plan review, we are going to require an updated mitigation report that follows the priority in the Enrod code, which is, to prioritize replanting in or as close to the affected watershed wetland area as possible. And if that is not practicable, then we can look at offsite NROT areas and other areas.

And there will be tree mitigation associated with the overall subdivision as well because there's other trees that will be impacted during the development. But as Pete said, the N-Rod mitigation tries to focus the mitigation within the N-Rod or adjoining the N-Rod, and that's what we've done. Yes. Thank you for that, both Carlin and Pete. Great question, though. Yeah.

Are there any other questions from the commission? Hearing none, is there any rebuttal that the applicant would like to have from any of the questions or comments that we have made this evening?

None for me, Chair. I appreciate all the questions and it does give us a heads up on what we can talk about on November 23rd.

I think that's, yeah, I think that's all we wanted to do this evening. I'll echo that as well and I wanted to thank the commission and staff. It's been a good working relationship. And again, apologies for the remote presentation.

No, thank you, Harlan. We appreciate it too. Okay. So at this point, we can go ahead and take public testimony. And I have Linda Smith.

And for late arrivals, if you would like to speak and haven't filled out a comment card, just fill one out and hand it.

If there's anybody else that would like to speak, go ahead and fill out one of these.

Hi, I'm Linda Smith. I'm a 50 year resident of the Park Place neighborhood and secretary of the Park Place neighborhood association. So I'm representing myself as well as the neighborhood association this evening. First, I'd like to say thank you for allowing us to have a moment here to talk to you. I want to reiterate what Missy was just saying about the ability to make any kind of intelligent response or ask questions based on the fact that there's not a lot of input yet from the city staff or The NRC has not seen this. There's just very little information other than what the applicant has put out just a few days ago. So I don't have intelligent questions to ask tonight because I don't have access to that extra stuff. So for that, I want to object to the applicant's request that I not be able to give testimony again. I can't give testimony tonight on information that I don't have, since I don't have those impact reports. So I want to reserve my ability to testify again on November 23rd, once I'm able to have access to that. And once the NRC has you know, to all the things. I also wanna just briefly say that the Park Place neighborhood is a great place. We have great residents. And I think that the applicant can, verify that in the many occasions that we've had interaction with ICON that people are generally very professional and that the actions of one individual does not represent the neighborhood and it would not be tolerated in any of our meetings. and we don't condone that kind of behavior. So I just want to reiterate that and make sure that the developer or the applicant and the council or the city planning commission both understand that the Park Place Neighborhood Association should not be represented by an individual or held against us for anything that might've happened with that. And we do apologize. if that concept comes out that it represents a neighborhood, because it certainly does not. So the other things that I just want to talk about is that the, adherence to the master plan that we worked so hard to develop 20 years ago. And I know that it's, you know, we keep hearing over and over again that it's kind of gone out the wayside because of the slopes and decisions that have been made by the state outside of our control. It still gives us a lot of heartburn. Bob was talking tonight about, you know, where are the widths of the streets? Where are the parks? Where are all the other things that we hoped would come in and including the traffic, the transportation issues and the blocked off roads. And I know that's not part of the En-ROD, but it still affects us because of the way the design is laid out. It doesn't follow that master concept plan that we worked on. And I just have to reiterate again, that when we do get these reports back, that there has to be some sort of accountability to look at what those, plans, dreams were and what the requirements with the city are now in relationship to the way things are laid out. And the En-ROD impacts all of that. The way things are set up, you're now having three ponds that all are gonna have an impact in the way things are draining and where the sewer line's now gonna go down live, say, and what all the engineering and everything that'll have to take place with that. You know, it just, all of it backs up the hill And I don't mean the water, I just mean any plans that are made affects all of the other plans, how things are laid out. So even though you wanna say this meeting is only about the En-ROD, it's really about the entire project because it's all tied together. You can't have one without the other. And so I just wanna say that what we have now is completely different than what that original master concept plan was. And we still want to, invite development, but within control. And we've all known for a long, long, long time that this development was gonna happen. We just want it to be done intelligently and respectfully, and that we make sure that the decisions that get made and the advice that we get from the city and the engineers and NRC and everything else, that all of that remembers that this is a neighborhood and it is where we live and we want it to be respected and done correctly and um i guess it's my primary uh request for tonight that once we know more information we can talk more thanks linda i believe that we can preserve your time to um

to provide testimony regarding the actual application that is before us, which is related unfortunately to the NROT. I know that you have great comments about the rest of the subdivision and they are certainly relevant, but I don't know if they would be relevant for this particular review. Yeah, but we can go ahead allow that. Thank you for coming in and expressing that and letting us know that you'd like to do that.

Thanks.

Thanks, Chair Espy, members of the commission. Jim Nesitai, I live in Oregon City. So... I think Mr. LaSalle, Commissioner LaSalle may be the only commissioner if I'm not incorrect, but if I am incorrect, please correct me. I think Commissioner LaSalle is the sole remaining commissioner from back in 2022, when we went through a very active, public comment process for the master plan on Park Place by ICON. During that time when I was commenting on that master plan, I had concerns about the preservation and maintenance of the park and And even more specifically, the preservation and maintenance of the neighborhood village in the Park Place concept plan. Because the plan that was submitted back then basically in the concept plan. That was my comments on appeal to the city commission. And I, you know, we got, we got upheld by the commission and then we lost at Luba, but I don't think that the issue that I raised was addressed by Luba. I'd have to go back and look at their opinion. So I, I know this relates to Edron, but I want to make a point about stormwater as it relates to both the concept plan and the subdivision plan. I am a stormwater guy. I spent the 1990s in Ann Arbor as a watershed planner for, I think, three different water management agencies in Ann Arbor. So stormwater is my thing. It's always been my thing. When I was a senior planner for a civil engineering firm in Tigard, when there were stormwater questions, I had some solutions to offer. So it is my area of expertise. So the reason I raised that is because, and the reason I raised my concern about the North Village is this. If my memory serves me correctly, and to bring Commissioner Lozada's point about the park again, this subdivision plan doesn't show us how it impacts or relates to the park or the North Village. My recollection, and Chair Espie, I echo Ms. Smith's comments because I can't really comment without seeing more information, but I will be submitting written comments as well. I'm pretty sure that the part, the water quality facility, the major one that's been under discussion tonight is it does encroach upon the North Village building wall as well. So I think there's a conflict there. It doesn't have to be a conflict. And I want to explain why I think that. I don't know how many of you folks are familiar with Tanner Springs Park in Portland. It was designed by a world famous urban designer named Herbert Dreisaitl. He is a genius walking the planet Earth right now. And what he does is designs waterscapes and he uses stormwater, not as waste, but as a resource for urban design and urban art. That's what Tanner Springs is. It catches the rainfall, it puts it in a cistern, It cleans the water with an ultraviolet light, and then it pumps the water to a spring at the highest elevation of the park. The water from the spring flows down through a little urban stream into a pond and then back into the cistern. So what I draw from that design of Tanner Springs Park as it relates to this is, you could have both you could have your north building north village building wall and your water quality facility if you did this instead of doing an open pond because you can build a building on top of a cistern. So you could have that, you could have a condition of approval that preserves the possibility of that site where the water quality facility is planned, but require it to be a cistern that doesn't preclude the possibility of building a structure that is prescribed in the concept plan to be built above You can preserve both what icon wants as far as the water quality facility and what the Community wants and and preserving the. North village main street, which is a central component of the parkways concept plan. So that's one point. Second point, and I don't know if this is Mr. Stevenson, I respect his point that this is a subdivision plan to be reviewed by staff, but I still don't see, and maybe this is a comment for the type two, if comments haven't been included from type twos anymore, but I don't know. regarding the clear and objective standards problem, okay? I don't see why if the concept plan has a clear and objective standard that would not be applicable to this proposal either before this body or before staff in a type two. And here's the clear and objective standard. Page 84 of the concept plan says that the park in this area of the concept plan has to be from between eight and 10 acres, okay? Now you might say, well, a range like eight to 10 acres, well, that's not clear in objectives, but I tell you what, a minimum eight acres Okay, that range includes a minimum of eight acres. That minimum eight acres is a clear and objective standards. So somehow either in this proceeding or in the type two proceeding, that clear and objective standards of the minimum size of that park has to be taken into account. um i think that's likely part of the the type two but i just want to raise it um since um you know we're all here tonight and uh lastly i'll offer to mr barlow mr stevenson any of the planning commissioners anybody on staff because i know tanner springs park pretty well I'd be happy to talk about it, its technical aspects, take a tour of it, because I think it has a lot of wisdom for this proceeding. So thank you.

Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Mr. Nesita. Yeah, I would rely on Melissa to make that call as far as how we apply the clear and objective standards. I assume it would be to the subdivision review and not the review this evening. I'll go ahead and let you guys take care of that. But yeah, I think those are good comments and we can take those into consideration on the next, when we have a staff report and some of the analysis that we're missing this evening. Thank you. Yes. Yep. So can, is there any other, additional questions comments from the commission yep so i was looking at the um

consultants and it was noting under 1749 155 standards for stormwater facilities subsection a the forest canopy within the drip lines of existing trees shall not be disturbed the response is that existing trees within the water quality facility will be removed as described in 1749-100A. My reading of the code is 1749-100 is general development standards and then there's specific standards for stormwater facilities here that says you can't remove any existing trees. Not sure if you guys have a thought on that or why you think trees can be removed given 1749-155.

That is an excellent question. I think it's gonna take some parsing out with our director and our city attorney, and we can get back to you on that. I'm not prepared to answer that tonight.

Yeah, well, it was also from ICON's item, so maybe they have an answer. Would you like me to?

Sorry, go ahead. I took a look at this. It doesn't say that no trees can be removed in order to create a stormwater detention facility in the Enrod. What it says here is that the forest canopy within the drip lines of existing trees shall not be disturbed. So I don't read, I guess I don't read this the same way you do to suggest that no trees may be removed.

I guess what would contribute the forest canopy within the drip lines of existing trees? I mean, if you have a forest canopy with trees, if you remove the trees, you're disturbing the canopy, right?

I think if it said no trees, well, I'll just tell you what I think because it sounds like you were wanting to know. If the codes wanted to prohibit any tree removal within the in-rod, it would just say that. And if the code wanted to say you can't remove a single tree to construct a stormwater facility within the En-ROD, it would say that. And I don't think it says that. That's a much easier way of doing what you suggest than saying something like, you know, the forest canopy within the drip lines of existing trees shall not be disturbed. I think we have to figure out what forest canopy we're talking about. And the way I look at this is I see there's a forest canopy here and there's existing trees here. And so it sounds like we're trying to protect forest canopy generally, but I don't think it means that we can't specifically remove any trees. Okay, thanks.

And that's what the mitigation is for as well.

Can I clarify, are we in the applicant's rebuttal portion of the hearing? Are there any other people who are going to testify?

There are no more requests for testimony. I was just finishing up the, any comments that the commission would have, and then I can certainly provide the applicant time. Okay. Is there a time limit on that? We've been a little bit fast and loose with the time limit this evening, given the number of people that were testifying. I think we'll probably tighten that up a little bit when we get to November 23rd.

And I think we were just trying to answer the question. So we'll reserve the rest of our discussion for the next meeting.

Yeah. I think once we get into the evidentiary hearing of this, then we can go ahead and have the timelines that are established under the code for testimony, which would be, three minutes per person for public testimony, and then also, I believe the applicant gets, what, 10 minutes for rebuttal, or is it five? Yeah, why don't we have five minutes.

Yeah, well, but I mean. Chair Espy, given the amount of questions that we may get, I may request on the 23rd to have more time than three to five minutes. Okay.

I have a question. If I may as well, I would suggest considering this conversation and the testimony provided as a pretty robust update of the status of where ICON sits. But without staff having had reviewed the materials, we're unable to answer some of those questions that you have. regarding code interpretation because we haven't looked at the material to determine whether it meets code yet. So I would anticipate that the next meeting looks very much so like an origination of a evidentiary hearing where you're going to have the regular process in front of you. with the staff presentation, applicant's presentation, and then public comment and rebuttal. And so we would hope that at the next meeting, the full review will be done and then ICON will be prepared with a full presentation of their application as reviewed and moving forward with staff's concurrence.

Yeah, and if it's possible, I'd really like to have the findings from any of the other applications boards and commissions like, you know, natural resources and that. I just don't think it makes any sense to have them piggyback after us because we would need to have their their evidence along with, you know, the applicants and staffs to make a good decision on this.

Yeah, I just want to get back to Commissioner Gamont too on the question about that very specific mitigation standard, or sorry, stormwater standard. Like any aspect of the 1749 code, if it is a particular standard that can't be met, It is intended to be an applicant can submit that as a adjustment through a type three process. And it is something that should be in the public notice if it is an actual adjustment request. So I will work on clarifying that and making sure that the proper public notice is provided and that David Evans and Associates also comments on that particular standard.

Okay, well, that's good that we were able to raise this this evening so that you guys have the adequate, you know, you guys are... able to deal with this in whatever way you need to.

I will just note really fast the response to that goes on beyond saying existing trees will be removed. It specifically says, quote, trees are proposed for removal, therefore disturbance within the existing canopy is unavoidable, which makes me think they agree that removing trees is affecting the forest canopy, which to me is not allowed under 1749.155. Okay.

So then that would be a type three adjustment request to remove those trees. Is that what I'm hearing?

Yeah, your adjustment criteria are in 1749-200.

Bob, I see your light on. Yes. Previously, I was kind of shut down because some of my questions didn't refer specifically to the retention pond issue. And they referred to the master plan, which they weren't prepared to answer any questions to. So my question is that I can go along with some of these general questions, but when we find an actual code violation in their narrative, are we not allowed to bring that up? Because I referred specifically to the chapter 16.8, which is flag lots, and I quoted the access way widths And they're in fact, their plans are very much narrower.

I think if there's coding contingencies related to the type two review, like the subdivision review, I mean, I suppose you could alert staff, but I don't know if that's before us. I think that we can only look at the type.

I can confirm that the type two subdivision review is not within the planning commission scope of review. only the NRAD application is.

Thanks, Missy. And I would just clarify that what we're doing is this entire application is before the Planning Commission, however, When those types of comments come up that are dealing with a particular subdivision standard, we're probably going to have to work through those to decide whether that is a type two clear and objective review requirement or is it pertinent to this discretionary ENROD decision.

So I think if there's a direct connection to our review on the type three for the, for the Enrod, then yeah, we could probably look at that, but I don't think, I mean, as much as I'd love to, I don't think we can.

I agree with you.

Yeah. Okay. Any others?

I move that we continue this to November 23rd.

So before, okay, that's great. I just wanted to pull the commission to see if November 23rd is a good date. Can everybody make it on that date?

I know the blood sugar will be high at that point after Thanksgiving dinner. But- That is the Monday before Thanksgiving. Is that before?

Oh, then it'll be very low. Okay. But all seriousness aside, can people make it on that day? Okay. I'll look for a second.

I second the motion proposed.

Okay, great. So we will continue this meeting to a date certain on November 23rd. And yeah.

Commissioner LaSalle? I apologize for that. Commissioner Laws? Aye. Commissioner Dole? Aye. Commissioner Espy? Aye. Commissioner Gamal? Aye. Commissioner Henderson? Aye. So we will be back. Just batting a thousand.

Thank you. Okay. And are there, Pete, do you have any communications for us? I do not.

Kelly, do you have any communications? Just a quick, A, sorry, I was not there in person today. I'm sure that you all did not want to share these lovely germs that I have going on right now. I would like to really thank the Planning Commission and the public for rolling through this very and then providing salient comments. And same to ICON for providing a very detailed update of where we're at. I appreciate the additional communication today and look forward to the hearing in November. Next up is a very quick, housing capacity and contextual housing needs process that we are working on. We are diligently in the phase of doing a buildable lands inventory and analysis of what are called safe harbors and how the distribution of our population over the next 20 years is to be distributed through housing. And so we have been working very diligently. Pete and Christina have done an amazing job taking the lead on this project with our consultant team. And we will be having a work session coming up here pretty quickly with the planning commission and the city commission as well to give you all an update on that. So we are working through some of those bigger projects as well. Okay, let's go employment land. Yes.

Is there anything else for the good of the order? I believe we do have a hearing coming up here on the 28th as well with a couple items on it. So hopefully we'll have quorum then as well. As I understand, we're going to have an update on the historic new guidelines for compatible change. Oh, right, yeah. as well as a variance of fence height over Pioneer Stadium.

Thank you, Pete. Thanks. Really appreciate it. Thank you, Kelly. Yeah, thank you both. Yeah, thanks very much for all of your hard work.

Thank you.

Because I know it is, yeah. And Harlan, what time is it in Florida? uh it's 11 40. okay and yeah yeah and thanks harlem for putting all that together that's a lot of work yeah good looking back a lot of work yeah thank you and thanks for your time today and we look forward to seeing you in november