Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. My name is Dorsa Plants. I use he he, his pronouns, and I'm the vice chair for a planning commission. Welcome you all to the February planning commission meeting. We'll call the order at 06:02. If we could go ahead and call the roll, please.

Sure. Chair Artesi? Not here. Commissioner Bayan? New. Commissioner Fiskel? Fiskel? Yep.

Here.

Commissioner Kelly?

Here.

Commissioner Matson? Commissioner Pettig? Here. Vice chair of plants? Here. Commissioner Poole? Here. Secretary Roche?

Here.

Here. Thank you. We've lost vice chairman.

No. I'm still here.

I Oh, okay.

Didn't hear the close of the roll.

Did you repeat that, commissioner?

Did we complete roll call?

Yes.

Do we have quorum? Yes. Okay. Sorry. I guess I'm not hearing everything.

So there's no correspondence that's been received since the last planning commission meeting that was held on 02/04/2026. For those attending virtually, we will be offering an opportunity to speak after the in person comments are completed. Each speaker will be provided three minutes to address an item. Interested parties may also provide written comment to planning commission at written law dot gov. Groups or organizations may select a spokesperson to speak on a group's behalf. As of today, no one has signed up to speak on the nonagenda items. Please use the raise hand option if you are attending through video. Press 67 to mute or unmute. 9 to raise your hand if attending through phone.

It looks like none of the remote attendees are raising their hands to comment tonight.

Great. Thank you. Alright. Now would be the time if there, motion would be in order to approve the meeting minutes for the 02/04/2026 meeting.

I move that we approve the minutes from 02/04/2026.

I will second.

There is a motion and a second. All in favor? Is there any objection or any discussion? Hearing none, those who are in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Those who are in favor, say nay. Alright. The motions have passed, and the minutes are approved. And we will move on to the director's report. Matt, if you're ready.

Vice Okay.

Quick question. Since we don't have anyone here physically to approve the minutes okay. Great. Thank you.

We can go ahead and sign them virtually later. Thank you.

Thank you, vice chair Plants. I don't have a director's report tonight. I just wanted to say thank you for filling in and, running the meeting. Thank you.

Alright. Well, we'll just keep running along, and I won't get a chance to catch my breath. Alright. So let's see. Alright. Motion would be in order to open a public hearing on docket 20 group a d dash two for one, the neighborhood scale retail.

So moved by commissioner Kelly.

Second. There's been a motion and a second. Any discussion? Alright. If you're voting for the motion, if you could vote aye.

Aye. Aye.

If you're voting against thank you. If you're voting against the motion, if you could vote no or nay.

I think that's my cue. Alright.

I've got that.

We're trying something different this evening, and, hopefully, that works well. Alright. Good evening, planning commissioners. For the record, Katie Buchel Morales, and I'm a planner at the long range planning team. And this evening, I'm here for dock item two forty one, neighborhood scale retail.

By way of background and as a brief introduction or refresh, we are exploring options to introduce small scale retail into residential zones. Commercial uses, and other on-site services were not previously allowed. The motive for this or what's driving it is, we've had a lot of conversation here with you all at planning commission, also with the public, and some of the feedback that we had received through our comprehensive plan survey. And what we are hearing is people want more access, walkability to goods and services so that they don't have to get in their car and drive. So today, I will go over the jurisdictional comparison and staff recommendations.

And really quickly, I was gonna touch on public engagement. So we did have a long public engagement period for this with an online web page, a survey, which we had 540 responses for, and a quick poll, one single question with a 187 responses. And so if you're out this summer, you may have seen us at different community events talking to folks, and we had some media coverage as well. So this was covered in This Week in Renton, the Renton Reporter, and our Renton and the utility mailing. Just to briefly recap, those survey findings, we found that there was strong community support, for this concept of neighborhood retail.

96% of folks said that they support some form of neighborhood retail in their community. The only other 4% was, those folks that so that they were opposed to the concept entirely. The preferred land uses, we asked folks to rank or not, excuse me, not rank. We asked them to select which land uses they would like to see in their neighborhoods, and the top three were eating and drinking establishments, specialty shops, and neighborhood markets. And one of the other questions we had asked is where they thought this would be appropriate, what makes sense.

And to our surprise, we heard 39% of respondents say all lots in all residential zones. There's another 17% had said specifically to corner lots, and another 17% said along streets with higher traffic volumes, and lastly, 22% for higher density zones. So we have our public survey. We have the online poll, but we also captured a lot of public sentiment, in written form. And I went over this last time we met, but I think people were on the same page.

What the goal is, which is walkability and access, and to create more communities. So we heard feedback that there was a lack of third space, community gathering spaces, other respondents saying that their neighborhood, I think they're in the East Plateau area, they feel like they're more in Issaquah than they are in Renton. So having this addition to their neighborhood would help, bridge that disconnect. And as the survey results show, there was also some opposition to the proposal, simply that neighborhoods are meant for residents and not for businesses. Alright.

So I will start the jurisdictional comparison. So in addition to looking at the four core cities that we're reviewing, we're also taking into consideration state legislation. So I've summarized this here and throughout the power or excuse me, the staff report. Other factors that we took into consideration when drafting these recommendations is some of our existing code. So we're able to, you know, have to reinvent the wheel, but just extend what we already have on the books, and also publications, that we've received from Department of Commerce offering guidance, and other academic sources, and research.

So starting with permitted uses, the state legislation said that we need cities need to require cities, neighborhood cafes and stores outright in all residential zones and on all lots. As and they have their definition of a neighborhood cafe and neighborhood store in review of our four, jurisdictional review cities, eating and drinking establishments was a really common option. Some opened up, the definition to include offices and, pet care, veterinary, some called out hardware stores, and just kinda general convenience goods. In our staff recommendation, we are proposing a lot of the same things that we've heard from our peer jurisdictions. So those are our eating and drinking establishments and expanding it up a bit from what we've heard from the state.

So we are, proposing some limited on-site services. And how we're sort of defining this? This would be markets and cafes and other low intensity convenience type uses. So, yes, smaller offices or a salon and barber, pet retail and services, so pet grooming would be a great, opportunity. And we wanna So we have a carve out there that says that other use is determined by the administrator if it feels like it meets the intent and purpose of what we're doing here.

I did wanna point out, one of the jurisdictions that we looked at, it was the city of included childcare centers in their definition of retail. We're not going to include that at this time. There is state legislation that, was passed this year, and we have to comply with by July 2027 that would require us to allow childcare centers in all residential zones. So rather than addressing it through this one docket item, we're gonna take a more comprehensive review, and Maya will be bringing that to you in the coming months. For prohibited uses, pretty similar across the board.

There's the emphasis on not wanting to allow auto related uses. It makes sense because the goal is attracting people who live in the area, so hopefully walking and biking. So no drive through service or fuel sales. We saw a call out for wanting to prohibit marijuana producers in retail, and Anacortes was, very direct. We want corner stores and didn't open it up to to prohibit or permit other uses, so they're very clear in what they want.

As far as our prohibited uses go, we are, following suit with prohibiting some controlled substances like marijuana manufacturing and retail, vehicle oriented businesses, and, some on-site services, spa oriented uses, nail salons, and massage therapy or similar services to that, and prohibiting select pet, pet related uses. So although we are, supportive of veterinary offices, not so much on kennels and boarding and pet daycare. For structure size, the state legislation didn't define structure size other than saying a minimum of 500 square feet. And then across the board, we saw ranges from 1,200 and up to 2,500 square feet. For example, in Bothell, they capped it at 1,800 square feet, but they do have an option, again, wanting to be flexible so that you can increase in size with a modification.

Burien had a call out, for outdoor seating. So, again, to help mitigate impacts on, nearby residents, restricting outdoor seating to a thousand square feet. And I think Shoreline and Anacortes took an interesting approach also. So in order to really promote, use of existing buildings, they have a greater square footage allowance, for existing structures. So if you were to, demo, you'd be capped at 1,200 square feet in both cities.

For our the the city of Renton, we're going with 1,800 square feet with the potential, again, to, increase in size with an approved modification. And, really, the the idea is to be flexible and take into consideration, the nature of the business, what the proposal is, but also site characteristics, and including a provision that would limit outdoor seating area to 800 square feet. And that would count towards your total maximum gross floor area, again, to help mitigate any impact. As far as location standards, the state legislation was very clear that this they were proposing this in all residential zones without any restrictions. The city of Bothell took a similar approach as well as Burien and Shoreline.

And Burien and Shoreline also including, prohibiting their location on dead end streets and cul de sacs, and that's really just not being able to, manage the demand. It's not intended for higher volume uses if there are, guests coming in. Location standards in Renton, we're proposing residential zones R four, r six, r eight, r 10, and r 14, and those would be allowed on corner lots in all in those residential zones. Or if they are with located within the one half mile walk shed, then we would allow them to operate there. So two options.

You're either on a corner lot in any of the zones listed, or you're in those zones listed and you fall within the walk shed. And the idea is that we borrowed this concept from the state legislature with the recent housing amendments that were made. And the idea is if there's more foot traffic and planned transit access that these businesses also be able to take advantage of proximity to, transit. And location standards. We're also proposing to prohibit locations on cul de sacs, shared driveways, and terminal or dead end streets.

Looks like we have a duplicate slide.

There

we go. Sorry. Hours of operation. The state legislation really left this up to cities to develop their own regulations for with the provision that businesses be able to operate for at least twelve hours. And we did see some variety in the core cities that we looked at, depending on the day of the week, staying opening as early as 6AM and as late as 10PM on weekends.

I did talk to staff at the city of Shoreline instead of adopting a strict hours of operation provision. They thought that they had drafted their code in such a way with the size requirements and standards and use standards that it wasn't necessarily needed to establish hours of operation, and they would also rely on their noise ordinance. Our recommendation is, going beyond what the state had drafted, which is, between the hours of 7AM and 9PM, and really wanting to be flexible for businesses to take advantage of changing market demands, and be able to respond to that. And also amending our code or regulations for home occupation, to match what we have here. So changing that from 8AM to 08:30PM to seven to nine to align with neighborhood retail.

Some cities had adopted delivery restrictions. There wasn't anything in the state legislation addressing that, but where there was information available, common practice was to restrict deliveries to the same hours as hours of operation. City of Berrien also has a weight limit of 16,000 gross vehicle weight. Our recommendation is to match what our other cities have done, which is restricting hours to the same hours of operation. Our existing, vehicle size is based on existing code, so we're proposing to apply existing standards for home occupations for those classics vehicles.

Parking regulations. So there's a lot here on this slide, but that is all subject to change because these ordinances were adopted before 5184, which limits the city's ability to require parking, and we're not required to comply with that until January 2027. So they will all have to amend their ordinances. So what is on the books today will look very different a year from now, except for the city of Bothell who eliminated all of their parking minimums in 2025. Knowing that we can't require on-site parking, we are proposing bicycle parking.

This is based on the methodology is based on our existing methodology for how we calculate number of parking stalls, which are tied to bicycle stalls are tied to parking stalls. So bringing those together so that each business would be required at least, two bicycle parking stalls. If they were to apply for modification and they're approved, we would require an additional by cycle parking stall, per 500 square feet. So in our conversation at the last briefing, we had talked about impacts on surrounding areas, and so these separation treatments are really intended to address that. State regulations didn't have anything, but it was very common in other cities to have either landscape buffers or some sort of obscuring offense or setbacks to help address any unwanted impacts on neighboring business or residents.

And Berrien also has a call out for separation treatments specifically for when outdoor seating is proposed, and I went over that in detail in the staff report. For the staff recommendation, this is another example where we're able to lean on existing codes. So we have separation treatments already. So we're proposing to require them when a business is abutting a residentially zoned lot and outdoor seating is proposed on the property abutting that site where they share the property line. So there are two options here.

One is the 15 foot wide partially sight obscuring landscaped buffer or for a smaller setback, a 10 foot wide fully sight obscuring buffer and a six foot fence or other sort of vegetative screen. Signage, the state legislation did have a provision on this that establishments may not have signage or displays advertising, signs for controlled substances, anything that's not available to someone under 21 years of age. And then from there, we saw quite a bit of variety of our, core cities that we were reviewing, ranging from 34 square feet to a minimum of six square feet and then some in between. Again, we have existing code to help us address this. So in our sign code, there's a provision specifically for nonconforming businesses in residential zones, which would allow, two signs not to exceed 32 square feet, and restrict them to not more than one freestanding sign or wall sign per street frontage.

Also, no closer than five foot to any line, so that would just require that the sign be set back five feet from the property line. And some language in there also about lighting and illumination, which applies to the sign sign code, but we'll also talk about that and light impact in the upcoming slide. This slide. State legislation didn't have any say things specific to this, but our peer cities also didn't really seem to adopt anything specific for neighborhood scale retail and residential zones. They also were leaning on existing code, to help address any impacts.

So it's similar to what we have on the books, which is, take measures so that light doesn't spill over onto neighboring properties. So that concludes, going through the peer jurisdictions, staff recommendations. We will be back with planning commission for deliberations and recommendations on March 4, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Go ahead and Sure. Go ahead.

Thanks. So just a a hypothetical question about parking. If a if a retail establishment in like this were to have on-site parking of their own, would the the the standard residential code would still apply, I assume, which is you can't have more than how many vehicles for, I think. Right? Is that right?

So the requirement is two currently with our existing code, but and there are standards for additional on-site parking. Yes.

What if it is a multifamily zone neighborhood, though, and the property is, say, a triplex? I mean, conceivably, you could have a parking lot, which, I mean, I'm sure the neighbors would actually appreciate, but it would change the character of of what you're proposing. Right? So I'm just thinking hypotheticals.

That scenario, hopefully, there would be some underlying CC and Rs or other language that would address that. So I think we've had a a similar conversation in the past. What about neighborhoods that are strictly having their restrictive covenants that they're only intended to be residential? In that case, those standards still apply. We still have to issue any permitting on our side, but that becomes a discussion for those that the standards the covenants apply to because those are the the ruling standards.

Anything?

I would think it would actually be advantageous to have more parking on-site if it although yeah. I mean, you have to consider what the intent is here. The intent is to have a walkable, you know, residential business. So

People still drive, though.

They still drive. Exactly. And especially people with mobility issues and stuff. So, yeah, there's that. And, of course, there's no there's no requirement to accommodate people.

The ADA parking requirement would remain. So that is that is one exemption.

Yes. Good to know. That's actually important. To the

fifty one eighty four language.

Okay. So you can still require an ADA space. And would you? I mean, do we currently? Because if we don't have I mean, how would that work?

Respectfully? Mhmm. This is also supposed to be the opportunity for public input, so this might be a good conversation to have during deliberations.

Exactly. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank where we were in the process.

It's okay. I think they're very reasonable questions. It's just I don't know that this is necessarily the meeting to have those conversations. So thank you.

Other other commissioner comments or questions? Alright. We'll proceed to accept any audience or public comments on the neighborhood scale retail.

There are no members of the public on-site requesting comment opportunity, and it does not look like any members of the public who are attending remotely have raised their hand for any questions either.

Is there no. There was some question that we were discussing, and wanted to open up for public comment. Do we wanna continue the answering some of the previous discussion in regards to parking?

No. It's alright. We can we can wait until deliberations next time. Yeah. This really is the time for more public input rather than commissioner. Sometimes, you know, it comes up. Well I I wasn't at the last meeting, so I'm probably just catching up. Sorry.

And if there's a day to try it, try it with the new guy. So

No. Hey. At least it's there's no one here to witness it from the look of like.

So it sounds like, now a motion would be in order to, close the public hearing.

So moved by commissioner Kelly.

Motion by commissioner Kelly. Is there a second?

Second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Alright. If you are voting for the motion, if you could come off mute and say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. You are voting against the motion, if you could come off of mute and say nay. Alright.

The motion carries. Alright. Is, I guess, a motion now would be in order to open the second public hearing on docket 20 group c d dash two four six, the electric fence code update.

So moved by commissioner Kelly.

A motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. If you are voting to open the public hearing for docket 20 group c DDash264 electric fence code, if you come off mute and say aye. Aye. If you're voting against the motion, if you come off mute and say nay. Alright. The motion carries, and I believe we have Ashley presenting.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Ashley, just for the record. And today, I will be presenting for the second public hearing for the electric fence code update. This update affects the RMC chapters 4Dash4040 and 4Dash11050. And just as a reminder, here's some of the background information. The impetus behind this bill I mean, by, this code update is house bill sixteen eighty eight, electric security alarm systems.

And, a general, overview would would be that it offers regulations for jurisdictions that don't have regulations in place. Renton currently does regulate our electric fences through the electric fence code in 4Dash4040. And currently, it's under the purview of a special fence permit, and that was something that we, were hoping to revisit through this process. And so here are the proposed code amendments. There are a few updates from last time, so, let me run through them.

So for this first slide, I have some terminology. We have decided to keep the electric and barbed wire fence, as existing language with no changes and add electric security alarm systems as its own section. So that will be added as in def definition under, e in our definition section, and that'll largely just follow the, proposed definition from the house bill. Revisiting the permissibility. Currently, residential barbed wire and electric fences may be permitted through the special administrative fence permit for large domestic animals.

And we'll largely be keeping that the same, just mostly clarifying the animal categories. Industrial barbed wire and electric fences are outright permitted, and that is still just to be expected to stay that way. Commercial barbed wire and electric fences are currently permitted by a special administrative fence permit, and staff is intending to move that person permissibility through to a variance. Barbed wire fences in commercial and industrial zones may only be used on top of fences at least six feet tall, and that is also expected to stay the chance, stay the same. And we currently don't have any existing permissibility, for electric security alarm systems, and, the avenue through that would be through a variance.

And so for code requirements, we are going to keep the electric fence code, pretty similar to how it is, very minimal changes, and instead add a a section, for the electric security alarm systems. And all of the items listed in that bottom right corner are the expected parameters. They are parameters that we have, discussed before, so nothing in that content should be new. It's just, we are deciding or proposing to keep the electric fence and barbed wire fence code as it stands and add the the house bill suggestions as it's on separate section. Organizationally, variances in special administrative fence permits, their applicability are located in the safe sub sec subsection.

For clarification, we're hoping to separate that and just refer to the variance, refer all variance requests to the variance section in our code book, which falls under four dash nine two fifty. And then the parts of the applicability that deal with the special administrative fence permit, we're proposing to just move that to the subsection for the special administrative fences, and just expand on in the applicability statement. So are there any questions or comments? Okay. Well, here on the screen, I have the deliberations and recommendations are scheduled for the fourth.

And then after that, planning and development committee would, review and come up with recommend recommendations on March 9.

Alright. Are there any questions or clarifications from the commissioners? Alright. Go ahead and open it up to any audience or public comments.

There are

no members of the public present in chambers, and I have not seen anyone raise their hand from the online members of public either.

Alright. Thank you. So, motion would be in order to close the second public hearing on docket 20 group c DDash246 electric fence code update.

Moved by commissioner Kelly.

Motion. Is there a second?

Second by commissioner Roche.

We have a motion. We have a second. If you are voting in favor of closing the second public hearing, if you would come off mute and say aye.

Aye. If

you are voting against, closing the public hearing, if you could come off mute and say nay. Alright. The motion carries. And we will move on into it looks like deliberations and recommendations for docket 20 group c d dash two four seven indoor recreation. And it looks like Maya will be presenting on this one.

Vote to open the public hearing first? Oh, no. Sorry. I'm the one that's not public hearing. Got out of the flow. Alright. So once again, I am Maya Simon, associate planner with long range planning, and I will keep this relatively brief because you've heard this twice now. But here to present on indoor recreation and kind of expanding, where it's allowed. So once again, indoor recreation is, anything that is sports and leisure time activities within an enclosed space. Very broad definition that covers a lot of different, uses and types of recreation.

Indoor recreation is currently broken out in our code into existing and new facilities, and those are allowed in different residential, commercial, and industrial zones with different conditions applied whether it's an existing facility or a new facility. As these are uses that really help promote activation of vacant buildings and a healthy community, our goal is to make the regulations more permissive. And so we would condense this into one use and simplify the conditions associated with that use, and any existing facilities that are impacted by this, will be treated as nonconforming uses. So new indoor recreation facilities under this proposal, would be removed from residential zones, but they could fit under that upcoming neighborhood scale retail amendments that you all will be voting on in a couple weeks. So the smaller gyms would be allowed under neighborhood scale retail, but new recreation facilities would not be allowed.

In industrial zones, in light industrial, they will be allowed where they are now in the Valley area, and then they will be expanded to medium and heavy industrial zones outside of the Valley area. The new facilities would be allowed in all commercial zones with no special conditions attached, and this would be the CA, CN, CV, and CD zones. They would be allowed outright in commercial office residential and allowed in just part of a mixed use building in commercial office. And then in the UC zones, which cover the landing, they would be allowed in a mixed use building with a number of conditions regarding the building design, and those would be no change from the conditions that are attached to them right now in the UC zones. Staff recommend approving the amendments as described, and this will go to playing in development committee for recommendations next Monday, the twenty third.

Happy to answer any questions.

Just have one quick question out of curiosity. Was this was this proposed as a result of a new facility in a specific zone being proposed?

There have been a number of inquiries and pre application meetings. A lot of it has been as the kind of work program titles this in indoor rec in IL and I'm zones. So inquiries about using kind of empty warehouse spacing spacing for these uses, but I don't think there's any one specific proposal that made this happen.

I'm across the street down there a little bit, but it has a planning sign up. But, okay. Cool. Thanks.

Right. If there are no additional questions from commissioners, is there a motion to accept the staff recommendation?

And move we accept the staff recommendation.

Is there a second?

Second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second to accept the staff recommendation. Is there any discourse any discussion on this motion? Alright. Hearing no discussion. Those who are in favor of accepting, the motion to accept the staff recommendation, if you could come off of mute or state aye for the record. Aye. Aye. Those who are not in favor of the motion or who are voting against the motion, if you could say nay. Alright.

The motion passes. Thank you very much, for all the the work you did putting, all these presentations together. It was really helpful in answering questions too. Alright. I believe now we are on to one of the fun parts of the evening. You can never have too many Robert's rules of orders training as I am perfectly showing this evening as I am filling in. But I believe we will turn it over to I hope I'm not saying this wrong, Patrice. Perfect. My name is Patrice Smith. I'm the senior assistant city attorney

Assigned, sorry. Senior assistant city attorney assigned to community and economic development, which includes supporting the planning commission. I do have a brief discussion of Robert's rules of order. However, I think that the folks who are here tonight have either had or, seem pretty experienced in it given that the primary reason for Robert's rules of order is to maintain order in a meeting, and this has certainly not been a raucous and out outlandish meeting tonight. I am also aware that there are, some missing planning commission members, who are newer or might otherwise be interested or take advantage of this training.

And so I will defer to you, of course, but I would request respectfully that I be allowed to present this at a later meeting when everyone is here. The I don't think there has to be a formal motion on it. But if anybody objects, I'm certainly willing to talk about I even have a fun fact about Robert's rules. But, you know

Patrice, I think it's a great idea.

Yeah. Mister chair, I do I need to make a motion to change the agenda? I'm sorry. Disregard that. Our attorneys here will be okay.

It's like, is there a motion on the table, a motion to change the agenda? Like yeah.

I would oh, man. Now see, now you're testing me. It is you could lay it on the table to a meeting after the, because we have an OPMA and PRA training at the next meeting, I understand. So April 1 is the recommendation from the audience. So

April 1

day Gosh. I get to do so many more fun facts then.

We can do this formally, but I'm fine. Like, if there's no I'm not hearing any objection. It sounds like April 1 works for the rest of the commission, and we'll just chop it up to I still need that training. So Alright. Thank you. Oh, no. Thank you. I'm really excited for that fun fact when we get there. Alright. So we are now on to commissioner comments if commissioners would like to make any comments.

Ask Patrice, does your training go over, like, how to properly manage public comment? Because that's kinda, like, the number one issue, really.

I'm happy to add a section on public comment and recommendations and best practices for that. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you, commissioner Paul. I I would definitely, yeah.

I think I have a commissioner comment as well.

Go ahead, miss commissioner Kelly.

Given that, that our attorney is here as well, I I would like to point out that the lack of commissioner discussion at a meeting where there's a public hearing, I think, creates a lot of momentum that would suggest approving a staff recommendation to just move along at the third meeting in our cycle. So I don't know if there are some other structural I know we're probably following a structural pattern. But if there were some other patterns we might consider, I think that would be interesting so that there's time for time for discussion with time for staff to potentially make an adjustment before we get to the the last meeting. And and I don't know exactly what I'm asking for here. So if there's other things behind the scenes that make that difficult, understood.

But I think it would be nice to get some more of that upfront if there's a structure that would allow that.

Answering from the legal side, part of the reason that the deliberations and recommendations are not offered on the same day as a public hearing is that often, generally, usually, public hearing comments the public hearing is held open for comments and written comments for at least another week. So we need to make sure that it is unlikely that we would be able to both have the public hearing and have recommendations the same evening. I see the long range planning director is standing to make a comment, so I will defer to him on other procedural issues.

Oh, I was just gonna add. Hearing your comments, commissioner Kelly, I I think we can talk internally, with the city attorney's office and and discuss you know? I don't think there's anything that prohibits discussion between commissioner members during the public hearing. It's just that we wanna make sure that we're providing adequate time for public comment. But, you know, tonight, when we didn't have any public comment, and, we could have continued the discussion.

I I don't believe that there's any limitation in state law that bars us from doing that, but we have a cadence. And, you know, we're creatures of habit, so, you know, we follow that cadence. But I think we can discuss amongst ourselves administratively if we wanna tweak those rules and those procedures. I I I think that's totally reasonable, and I and I definitely hear, you know, when you talk about momentum. You know?

You've got an idea. You've got a thought tonight. Let's get it out. Let's have the discussion, and we can still continue it at the third meeting deliberations too. It also gives staff another opportunity to go back and take a look and do research if we can't answer the question, you know, tonight. So, yeah, we we can take a look at that and have discussions with the city attorney's office and come back, and have that discussion perhaps at the next meeting.

K. I've got a quick little tag on that, if that's alright. So I guess that's kind of one of my questions too that happens a lot. Like, you'll have public comment, make a comment, and it's something like, oh, that's an interesting comment. I would like to kind of dive into that a little bit. So, yeah, if we could kind of understand what exactly the rules are on that and because I always feel like, oh, we're not supposed to talk about it right now, but it feels like something that I do wanna talk about.

Sorry.

You know, if I can add too, you know, when we're talking about making rules and how we wanna run the planning commission, you know, we could potentially have a little work study

session.

You know? And we can talk about how the commission would like to run the meetings and add a little bit more opportunity for comments and discussions. So, you know, happy to have that discussion again. I I do think it's appropriate the way we do it with a briefing a separate briefing, a public hearing, and deliberations. But if there's opportunity to have additional comments or discussion during either one of those three meetings on the topic, I think we can we can accommodate that.

It's and, though, it's deliberation deliberation hearing is generally the flow when it comes to the meetings.

Oh, we'll give a briefing on the item Yeah. Just to introduce it, and we'll take questions. Gives us an opportunity to take a look and do additional research, come back for the public hearing, take that public comment, and then come back one more time for the deliberations where the commissioners of you all have a chance to discuss among yourselves and then provide the recommendation.

It may require multiple presentations, yeah, because we might, yeah, ask a lot of questions prior to the

And depending on the topic, we might have a, you know, a popular topic with the public, and a public hearing could take an extended amount of time. Know, that's happened in the past. I know that commissioner Pool has been a part of those of other commissioners. Yes.

But the expectation is the public the public comment only happened at the hearing.

So, like, when you're like, previously briefed us on this twice already. Right. So the public has an opportunity to provide comments at the beginning of the meeting. And so if they had comments related to something on the briefing on a topic, they could provide public comments at the beginning of the meeting. It's open to anybody. Right? But when we get to the public hearing for a topic, we wanna make sure we capture those comments during the recorded public hearing. That's what we're required to do per state law. But if folks want to comment on something during the deliberations or during the briefing, they can do it at the beginning of the meeting during the general public comment period.

Technically, they can the public can provide comments throughout the entire process, and it's part of the record.

For sure. They can submit written comments anytime. What we don't wanna do is during a briefing at the beginning or during the deliberations at the end, we don't wanna intermingle that public comment because we wanna give the commission an opportunity to talk amongst yourselves, ask staff questions. That time for public comment is either during the public hearing for that item or at the beginning of the meeting.

Just for me being newer to this process, The script is nice. It'd be nice maybe if the script was amended to to talk about what the discussion items it could be during the the steps. Because, like, you know, you and I have a we have a tendency to have some questions, but maybe our questions are not appropriate for this meeting because of the way the process works. You know? Like

Well, that would be, I think there's a item on the agenda. Every agenda for commissioner comments, you can you can discuss anything you like during that time. That's your opportunity. It doesn't have to be an agenda item. It could be, you know, commissioner Kelly's dislike for the way we run public meetings.

I just think I think your, presentation might help a lot just to kind of refresh the procedure and process for how we deliberate, how we go through hearings, and how we go through the recommendations. Because I think it'd be easier for me just to understand when I should speak up about things that are maybe more legally critical or, like you know?

Yes. I will add this. I'm definitely taking notes right now about being able to differentiate between public hearing and public comment. And then separately, the role of the planning commission and what what your because what we were initially talking about is public comment public hearing. You as commissioners have, let's call it, a heightened opportunity slash responsibility to weigh in on the issues that are brought before you.

And the I think it'll be really good to be able to have a working meeting to talk about how do we wanna structure that in in keeping with commissioner Kelly's comment earlier tonight because I am concerned that what I did was have the effect of chilling your comment and response to the to the proposed ordinance, which is not what I want to do, but to have an opportunity so that we recognize the importance and the impact of the public hearing and the statutory requirements for the public hearing. And then I really like, commissioner Kelly's recommendation that says, okay. We've we've now closed the public hearing. Maybe we can I'm just throwing this out there. Maybe we can say, okay.

Now additional commissioner comment so that if as a result of those comments, there are amendments or adjustments to proposed ordinances, it's still within the public comment period. Members of the public can hear what those considerations are. It can be taken into account. And then during deliberations and recommendations, you can hear kind of what that update was as well.

I think you got it perfectly. At least the spirit of what I had said. Yes. Exactly.

Okay. Because I I think that's a great idea. And I you know? And it's not even April fools when I'm saying that. So so I I absolutely, Matt and Angie and I work pretty closely together, and so I think that the way that we are addressing that is is handy. We might have a convert we staff people will probably have a conversation about the best way to capture that because it's also the balance of having the information, having the input, having the conversation, and not turning every meeting into a three hour meeting because ain't nobody love that. So

We I heard more. So

Yeah. We'll add that to our list. I'll step away from that conversation now and let it go back to y'all.

Any final commissioner comments?

Commissioner plants or vice chair. Yeah. Trial by fire.

I I appreciate the grace that everyone has has had with me this, this evening. Thank you.

You did well.

Okay. Thank question just for the commissioners is I know that it remotes a thing. Is it is typically kind of the for hearings and public hearings, is it generally it's we try to be all in person just because of the kind of the the importance of the of the of that kind of step, or is it

I would say from a department staff level, remote public hearings are are just as viable and and and or or just as fine as being in person. Planning commissioners, you you provide a valuable service to the city, your volunteers. You have lives outside of coming here twice a month after work. So if you're able to zoom in, that's just as good as being here. We appreciate whether it's remote or in person.

So I don't wanna put any any kind of I I don't wanna say that, yeah, you need to come in for public hearings, or we would prefer it because, it's I I've said it before. It's remote or in person. We're just pleased and happy that you're able to accommodate us.

I would just add that as a commissioner who's been here a little while, it ebbs and flows. Right? This is more commissioners than we've had on Zoom at once in a while. So we're seeing either an ebb or a flow right now.

I you know, I personally prefer to be there, and I you know, as well as having my other commissioners be there. But, you know, not wanting to share my little coughing germs with you all, I decided to stay home tonight. So you'll appreciate that.

I definitely was intending to be in person today, but the weather, and scheduling is definitely a challenge. And I will throw on that note too, if you are driving home after this meeting, please be careful as the roads are very weird right now with the weather. If there are no other commissioner comments, I believe that we are to the last item on our agenda if we could get a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Adjourned by commissioner Paddock.

There's a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. And if you are voting to adjourn the meeting, if you could state, aye for the record. Aye. Aye. If you're voting against, the motion to adjourn, if you could say nay. Alright. The meeting is adjourned at 07:04PM. Have a wonderful and safe evening, and we'll see you again, I think, in two weeks.

Thank you, everyone.

Good morning.

Bye, everyone.