Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Nate never leaves it plugged in. [Music] All right, we have a quorum. Yes.

Yeah, you don't need one, but Yeah. Oh, yeah. Right. Okay. That's right. Um, okay. Let's get it started. Planning Commission, October 23rd, 2025. It's 5:30 shortly after. I call this meeting to order. May we please have the roll call. Cody Cornet here. Gary Pippenich here. Light present. Melissa Alvarado here. John Grant is absent. Maria Pena absent. And Nick Portella absent.

Excellent. Thanks. Let's do the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Got us. Thanks. Next is the approval of the agenda. Uh, all of those have that have reviewed the agenda, may I please have a motion to approve with a second? So moved. I'll second. Thank you. The approval of the agenda has been motioned and seconded. All in favor of approving the agenda, raise your right hand, say I. I. Next is the approval approval of the minutes from the June 5th regular planning commission meeting. Um, were you guys here for that? Were you here for that? I was. Yeah,

I think all three of us were there. Yeah. Um, okay. Next is the approval of the minutes from the June 5 meeting 2025. May I please have a motion to approve those minutes along with the second? I'll move to approve those minutes. Second. Excellent. That has been moved and seconded. All in favor, raise your right hand, say I. I. I. Thank you. Next is real quick clarification. Um Jonathan, we have uh four board members with us. Um one of them is new and was not at the either of these meetings. Um are we able to approve minutes tonight or do we need an additional person at the next meeting? Oh, right.

I think that's a that's a great question. This comes up somewhat uh infrequently actually. Um, let me pull I'm uh I'm pulling up the bylaws and I can jump back in here in a little bit. Um, it sounds like the motion was made and seconded. Um, and and there was just a vote, right? So, it's been passed and so I'll I'll jump back in um as needed to see if that works. I think it should because the action is approved by a majority of the planning commissioners that are present in voting and we have a quorum, right? So, y um I think that's just fine. I think it's just fine.

But tell you what, if it's not fine, I'll jump back in at some point later in the meeting and we'll go from there. But if if I don't mention anything, then it just let's just go on with the understanding that it's fine. Okay. Then in that case, we'll also move on to the August 21. And if for some reason we need to do it again at a later meeting, we can. Yeah. Um, next, the August 21st, 2025 planning commission and city council joint work session. May I please have a motion to approve those minutes along with a second. I'll move to approve. I'll second. Thank you. A motion has been made to approve the minutes from the August 21 meeting with a second. All in favor, raise your right hand, say I. I. I.

I. Thank you. Next is the time for public comment. During this portion of the meeting, anyone may speak on any subject that does not later appear on the agenda. Five minutes per person will be allowed. We do have some folks in the audience. Are you care to public comment on anything? No. Okay, perfect. Um, in that case, the presentation we are going over the Robert rules of order. Very important. Amy, thank you.

Yeah, right. Thank you. I might have some tips to help with the public record a little bit. I have a presentation. Crystal's going to pull it up for me. So, I have uh been kind of making my rounds around to different committees and commissions here in the city. Um for my fourth group, and you may have seen this presentation if you're on the budget committee, I presented something very similar to the budget committee. Um it's helpful for new members of committees and commissions. It's just the very basics and general um information about some of the parliamentary procedure that we of the city choose to follow, which is Robert's rules of order. Thank you. I think I can take over. Oh, I can't remember numbers, so I had to write the write numbers down. Um, Robert's rules of order have been around since 1876. So, over 150 years these have been used and they're the most widely used parliamentary procedures in the United States currently. They work very well for like small groups up to very large groups. And the purpose of the rules is to make sure that we can, as you see on the slides behind you there, um we can have a structured approach to meetings to make sure they're efficient and our discussions stay on track. Uh we can make sure that this helps to facilitate communication between the board or commission members um and making decision making happen a little more smoothly, making sure that everyone uh gets their voice heard. So, it is a fair process as well. So, those are the parts of the Robert's rules that I'll kind of focus on today. There is a lot more um to Robert's rules, but I'm

going to focus on that. Um this slide I created um just as a general slide of all of the other committee, city committee commissions and boards that we have and some of the ones that we have representation on as well. Interested in thinking about joining a another [Laughter] you have all the time in the world. Um, you have on your commission, I understand that you have a chair and a vice chair. You probably don't have a secretary. Probably does most of the uh minutes and things for you and your agenda and things like that. Uh, you um, from my understanding, you nominate your chair and vice chair at the beginning of every year. So, you'll be doing this in January sometime again. Um, just a little note, when you nominate uh someone to be your chair, vice chair, there doesn't have to be a second for that. Uh, a lot of boards or commissions think that they need a second and and you don't that. And the chair, as Mr. Cornet is doing a great job of just facilitating, maintaining order, making sure things run smoothly and you stay on on your agenda, stay on task, and then your vice chair would take over in the absence of your chair and can also support. So, I'm going to go over a couple of the things that um have to do with the speaking portion when you're having discussions or when you're having deliberations. Uh, it is Robert's rules of order. It is expected that you wait to speak until you get the attention and the permission from your chair. I've seen that done in many ways. I've seen people kind of like raise their hand. I've seen someone um say, "Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak." Or um just make eye contact with the person and and nod and you know give them some

kind of signal that you would like to speak. Be acknowledged before you begin speaking. Do not interrupt others or speak o over other people. And then another one that's sometimes hard to remember is to stay on the topic of the agenda item. I mean, sometimes those topics can be very broad and there are some interesting things to go and grab and talk about over here, but it's really expected that stay on the agenda topic. And then in the procedure of a meeting often you will have a staff presentation. The expectation is not is to allow the staff to give the full presentation before and then the chair sorry after the presentation the chair will open it up for questions and that that time you ask questions when you're recognized by your chair. This is really familiar for those of you on committees and things quite a few times. So, I believe this I know it's a lot of text. I'm sorry, but it's in your um agenda packet on page the next two slides information. Yes. Oh, you got handouts, too. 35 and 36 of your agenda packet as well. So, anybody who's not here and watches this later can see that.

Okay. Um here's what I have to say about your your motions that I saw tonight. They were like almost perfect. They were great. Um, when you make a motion and you say, "I move to please for the public record." It's it's very helpful for those of us who need to take minutes and who want to look back at the public record again later, please say I move and then say exactly what you are moving. I move to approve the agenda or I move to approve the minutes of the can't remember the date of the meeting that you had the August 22nd joint city council meeting or whatever you said.

Okay. And then um everything else happened perfectly. You had a second. Um the chair restated the motion very very clearly. Um you can ask for discussion or debate. Usually with an agenda or approval or or a minute's approval there there's not much debate but you can ask is there any discussion? If there is none then you um ask for the vote as was done. It's very nice to ask for the verbal and the hand signal. It also helps helps us as well to be able to to see that later. Um and then at the end if the chair would restate the eyes have it or the motion is passed or something similar to that that is uh good for the public record to have as well. Okay. And you have this cheat sheet if you need it in future. It's my last one. Just want to highlight some of the common mistakes. Um, and this is not common mistakes in our committees, commissions, and boards. This is common mistakes. When I spoke with my whole network of city clerks across Oregon, um, but we find that some of the things that happen is people begin speaking without being recognized by the chair. you're in a discussion or a debate and you forget to get that recognition. Sometimes the motion phrasing is unclear. Um, so so try to make sure that motion is language is clear. I believe in your agenda packets if there's a a staff report and you're moving something, it's probably very clearly given to you there what you're doing. Um, so that's helpful. Um, sometimes you might make the mistake of beginning to discuss or deliberate before a second has been

made. So, you have the um first motion, the second and then discussion. And then this one, the stay on topic and avoid going to unrelated matters. Um, and then improper voting. I have just a couple of times since I've been here had votes where like I couldn't see or couldn't hear who was voting. So if if you make sure it's very clear both like hand um or very clearly speak into the microphone um and then the helpfulness of the chair restating that motion the outcome of the votes. All I have for you tonight. Nice.

Try to go as fast as I could for you. Thank you. Thank Yeah. And if you ever have any questions or want any more information, you can contact me. I have a lot more resources. Would Sorry. Would you actually mind? Would it be okay if we laminated some of these and just kept them up here? Not like Not me. I have a laminator. That Let's put that thing to use. Yeah, because this it's just nice to look at that at the beginning of the meeting and just get a little refresher. Give a stack to Crystal and she can put them up there during your Okay, cool. Yeah, I think everyone will appreciate that. So, thank you. Okay, next on the agenda is a discussion item fall 2025 DA m the Dallas municipal code updates and hearings officer implementation.

Great. Thank you, Chair Cornet. Uh board members, give me one second here. I want to pull up a screen. [Music] All right. Well, thank you um everybody for making it this evening. Um we are looking ahead at some upcoming code amendments and um these really you're going to notice are kind of like a mix. There's there's quite a mix in here. Um I think we've we've brought forward I think it was about two years ago we did another set of like what we called like code cleanups on the code's big. We don't go through it all with you know one foul swoop. We take little stabs at it here and there. Um some things rise to the top um depending on different needs or issues that we run into. Um and that is really a collection that we keep really we have a collection and a list in our office. Um that is something that we come at times and we add to at times knowing that we need to eventually take these things and move them forward through an adoption. So um the other things that really play into this are the state's housing initiatives are constantly moving and they're moving fast. Um the states legislature is very very busy non-stop. So we're just always trying to stay up on those things. Um but we also this is also going to be a mix of a conversation that we had back in April regarding a hearings officer. So hearings officer um from that conversation is an impartial land use hired land use attorney that would really take the place of the planning

commission to talk through quasi judicial applications administrative appeals. So your conditional use permits for a shop at the library for instance that would no longer be heard by the planning commission that would go to a hearings officer. frees up the opportunity for the planning commission to focus on code amendments like what we're discussing this evening. So, um I'll get into it. This is really what it is. This is a discussion. I'll try to break these things up into chunks and I'll stop after each one so you can ask any questions that you have. Maybe we'll keep it that way instead of holding things till the end. I think it might be a better flow for all of us. So the meeting purpose is really it's discussion before the formal adoption process of these code amendments if we do move forward with them. Um we're collecting some feedback on each of these changes that we're going to highlight and we're really just looking at the overall this is just an overall discussion. We're on the basics of the topics, the context. We're not really getting into the weeds of the formatting, minor edits, those things. We haven't provided you the red lines by any means. I have a stack over here that we're working with, but if there's specific questions that come up on the different topics, we would be able to answer those questions for you. But our red lines are still at this point, we haven't moved through an entire adoption process. So staff has a lot of work to still do on that. So really kind of a breakdown of the discussion we're going to touch on. There's three main points included in your staff report. A, B, and C. A is the bulk of the title 10 code amendments. Title 10 of the Dallas Municipal Code. That is the code, the land use and development code. That is the code where the planning commission has the authority. That's what we work with whenever we have an application come in. Those are your setbacks, your building

heights, everything to do with our rules and our regulations for development. Uh B is talking a little bit more about the hearings officer implementation process that we have laid out and C is the planning commission's uh restructuring if you will and some of the changes to expect with this whole entire process. And at the end we'll touch on some attentive schedule that we have planned to move this process forward. Um you'll see we had hopefully in this next year we're going to see a lot more code amendments moving forward. Um we're really starting to dig further into our housing production strategy. So there's going to be a lot of work coming out of that. Um and overall efficiency. The reason we've kind of mashed some of these together, we were initially thinking of just bringing the hearings officer forward by itself, but I think overall efficiency, respect for your time, think we have an opportunity to bring in the hearings officer as well as some of these other cleanup items and um all in one package just to, you know, like I said, overall efficiency here. So looking at the title 10 code amendments, there's some on housing and land use standards, procedures, administrative revisions, some code maintenance and touch on some fencing standards and another one in here that was added just the other night. Um this is layown yards. This isn't something that is in your packet, but we will get into that as we go. So, taking a look the the first section that I'll I'll talk about and then we can, you know, you can ask questions as we go along. Uh, we're taking a closer look at the um different care facilities that are listed in our code, making sure that they align properly with state law. Um, I think our definitions are slightly different there. Residential care facilities and residential care homes. There's also child care facilities and child care homes. I I could have the

names off a little bit. Child care, we're not really touching on that. We will align it to make sure child care, there's been some movement at the state. We cannot apply land use regulations to child care to child care facilities. If you're a child care facility, we can only apply the same standards we would apply a single family home. That is kind of consistent with these residential care facilities. These are for um you know, adults, more so adult-aged individuals that need special care. Um so taking a look already we have in the code in our medium density and high density zone we already allow residential care facilities. The state allows for we have to require them. So the state also though allows for a provision that allows us allows the city to add them to all zones and that is what we are proposing here. So we want to be consistent. We want a residential care facility to be allowed in all of our zones. We would be um ensuring that it follows all policies and procedures that that we can by state standards. I do believe child care facil excuse me residential care facilities we can apply like a site plan review. it would go through like a land use process. Still verifying some details on it, but that is really the first one would be just simply adding residential care facilities into the low density zone. Residential care facilities are the total, it's um to give you kind of a size. When you're talking about a residential care home, it's zero, it's it's 1 to five individuals. Um care facilities 6 to 15. So, it's a little bit of a larger type of group home. So you can almost think it's like multifamily. It's not multif family, but it kind of gives you more of the feel and like a a one to five is like a single family if you were to put them into the you know buckets for comparison. Uh the next is taking a look at

adjustments and there is you know Senate Bill 1537 that creates some mandatory adjustments that cities have to apply to housing developments, specific housing developments. There's different income restrictions. There's different things that play into this that that makes it so that we have to apply these standards, but you're talking things like a 10% reduction on a setback. Um, a little bit of a height increase on a building. You know, they currently we have a process in our we have an adjustment process where we have administrative adjustments and quasi judicial adjustments. Currently, most of those adjustments allow you to go much more than what the state allows, but basically what the state is saying is that's all well and fine, but that has to go through a land those both have to go through a land use process. Um the state adjustment basically these mandatory adjustments basically say you meet one, two, and three, you are required city to move this forward with these adjustments. We're also going through that entire section just to provide some overall clarity and in the whole process that we have. Um, we haven't had adjustments in front of the planning commission, so you're probably not too familiar with it. Adjustment, you've probably all heard the word variance. We've had a variance application in this last year. Adjustments, the best way to look at it, is like a mini variance. They're basically carveouts of very specific things that you can increase like a 50% increase or 50% decrease, a 33% increase or decrease, these types of things. So, we would be taking a look at kind of cleaning up the adjustment section overall. And one one approach that we're looking at is basically implementing like a

tiered system. So adding not only administrative and quas judicial but add adding this ministerial which would be your adjustment application. So if you apply if you comply with the standards of uh 1537 we would have basically be able to process your adjustment the same as a building permit. No need to notice the neighborhoods. I mean we're talking like I said when you're talking about a 10% reduction to a setback it's we're not talking a lot. you know, there's we're talking inches in some cases probably. Uh, so next is affordable housing provisions. Um, I think Senate Bill 8, which came around in probably the last 5 years. Senate Bill 8 opened the door for affordable housing. We have to require affordable housing on non-res in non-residential zones so long as certain standards are met. and those certain standards, one of the biggest is a covenant. You know, there's a restriction on the property that those properties will remain affordable. So, currently in most of our commercial zones, we require that the ground floor be a permitted commercial use. This would just specifically call out that a permitted use is an affordable housing development so long as you can meet X, Y, and Z. Um, this isn't something not to say you have an option on it, but this is something that if we didn't add it in and someone were to come in and apply, we would have to apply it no matter if it's in our code or not. So, this is one of those additions. Um, recently for an update, we haven't met for a while, uh, there was a development, an affordable housing development on um on the west side of town, Channel Loop Road. It's known as the Ch channel with Loop affordable housing community. It's not a very creative name, but um that was a we had to apply the statemandated approach

there. So, it's a commercial zone, but we had to apply this. So, it's really just adding in what the states already requiring that we do. Um and in doing that, we would then create one second here. we would create a separate section that specifically calls out what those requirements to be affordable housing is. Go for it. I guess yeah, I guess um when you're talking about the covenants and what affordable housing is, do do we have to approve those covenants or do we have to come up with those covenants

or like who decides if those covenants are good enough? Uh they they work with the state. The developer works directly with the state on this. Okay. So it's it's kind of out of our hands. Okay. It is. Yeah. That's good. Um and then the the development you're talking about is the 76 unit right across from Mupto. Correct. Right.

Correct. Yep. Yeah. So that was, you know, the city um basically there's there's provisions all over state law that if it's not baked into our code, we still have to comply with those state provisions. So um that's how we approved that application. And then the downtown parking exemptions. Um, this is something in our code that in the CBC2 zone, well, there's there's some language in our code that basically says parking may be exempt if you're located in this zone or this zone. So, CBC2 is one of the zones listed. The other is a recorded downtown parking district. Well, when you really get into the weeds and you go back into the 80s, this downtown parking district, there was multiple properties in the downtown area that paid into a fund to be exempt from parking. So, that code basically calls out these two sections and it's basically saying it may be exempt. Well, if the city were to ever require, the city cannot require any property in that zone. But the CBC2 it says may be exempt. It's not clear and objective. And if we're talking about housing developments, it would be really difficult to defend that. So the clarification here instead of may be exempt, it shall be exempt. So basically, if you're in the CBC2 zone, you do not need to provide parking with your development. Um, I know we don't base all of our code amendments on you, you know, figures, you know. Um, well, we do a lot of times. Um, but I know our parking numbers will be out of date at some point, but with our recent parking downtown parking study that was done, I think we're our capacity is 45%

maybe that is full. So there is there's a substantial amount of parking in our downtown area. Um you also look at developments, you know, not only um you know what this does is it it helps with that downtown revitalization um downtown areas, especially the CBC zone. Well, the CBC zone is one of the zones in town that actually it's the only zone that has a zero foot maximum setback. And the reason around that is because it's all pedestrian focused. You don't want to have those big 10-ft setbacks on your storefronts downtown, right? You want to build everything to the sidewalk. The goal and the, you know, the ability in your downtown area, you're able to build on the entire parcel. Um so when we look at for the city to you know to be selfish on the city side of things when we want to the urban renewal agency when we want to look at the that Tony site how to develop the Tony site there's no parking if they were to build it out per the requirements. So what this does is I think it was implied early early on that you know that may be exempt. It was really the goal was to exempt parking here. So what this would do is it would for sure exempt parking in the CBC2 zone. Um so with that before we go to the next slide does anybody have questions on any of these?

Yeah. Um so with this amendment that we are planning to make um in regards to CBC2 maximum and the no parking thing there is no opportunity for a developer to in CBC2 to even create parking on their lot unless they did something underground or above or something. Well, so yeah, that that max that I was talking about, that's for your front and I think corner like uh your your corner setback. So basically if you go on a corner lot, there's a zero foot maximum,

but you can have parking on the backside those buildings. Yep. You could any building could be set back just enough to provide the parking, but um this makes it so that it it wouldn't be required, you know, and it's like, you know, when we talk about revitalizing our downtown, Dallas is old. It was built way before the advent of the automobile. So most of these buildings downtown, a lot of the buildings use up a good portion, a footprint of the lot that they have. So, I mean, if we're to see any changes in the uses downtown, be really difficult for individuals to to meet the parking requirements of anything. You know, you can go from a store to a store, but if you're talking about being a store and turning it into a housing development or anything of like an, you know, a restaurant, maybe more increased foot traffic, makes it really difficult for those to develop because of the parking restrictions.

Anything else? I had a question on the adjustments. Um, are it sounds like you're essentially taking what has been the process and clarifying it, making it more objective. I It felt a little bit like when you were talking about it, there were some things that would be more strict now than the practice has been based on the state.

Yeah. So, so what we currently allow, let's say, so the state's mandatory adjustment, one of them, for example, is a 10% reduction in a setback. Well, we have a process where you can do a 33% reduction and then a 50% reduction. So, we allow more than what the state's mandatory adjustment allows. The thing with the different the difference here would be these mandatory adjustments would be slotted in as like a ministerial building permit type rather than going through a land use application and I think there's an income restriction based on it. So um and it can only be used for housing development. So, it'd be one of those things that, yeah, you could still a developer could still go through and get a 33% reduction. Um, but then you're going through a full land use process and and all of that.

And that's it's going through a land use process right now to make that adjustment, right? Correct. Yeah. So, it's not making it more difficult. It's just slotting in some of those smaller adjustments.

Exactly. Yep. It's it's a specific carve out for these smaller adjustments. But yeah, we we we'll still keep what we have. All right. So, the next section I'm looking at procedural administrative revisions. Um lot of what you're going to see in this is going through and redlining and taking the responsibilities from the planning commission and slotting in the hearings officer. Um the next uh is touching on some updated procedures and noticing. Um you know I think with the city attorney and I when we start to open up code we you know sometimes there's a little bit of scope creep but um we like to take in as much as we can. If we're going to go through this process and take the time then we're going to go through and make sure that it's it's as tight as we can. So, um, what this touches on here is, um, some updates to the application and appeal procedures. There's some inconsistencies there with maybe state law. So, we just want to tighten that information up. Um, and then also the we we've heard this time and time again. Um, but we would we are proposing to expand the public notice for administrative applications from 100 ft to 200 feet. And that is um something that would definitely like to run by this board. Um there's also another change and I forgot to include it on the slide but currently the requirement for this for our our our process here to to do a code amendment is it goes to the planning commission. planning commission makes a recommendation and then the code requires that you have to go to city

council within 30 days. We're going to extend that to 60 days because a 30-day turnaround is really tight. It's really really tight. If you miss one little thing, you're technically not complying with our own code. So, that's also going to be a change in there. But, um, I'll take a, you know, um, any questions on this one or any thoughts on expanding that public notice radius if there's any, um, concerns on that one at all. I think it just creates a bit more, um, just gives more opportunity for people to, um, focus or comment in on the project itself. Is that in response to comments you've been getting from folks about applications?

I get them all the time. Yeah. Um is there a standard state laws 100 feet? Okay.

Um previous place I was at 200 feet. Um and then quasi judicials 300 ft. I say I think some of the concern here is you know when you're talking about a minor partition you're dividing land it's not really much um that's 100 ft notice but then subdivisions are administrative actions so if you have a 25 unit subdivision or in the case of maybe the Grove subdivision from a couple years ago that was 70 lots we noticed a 100 foot radius So you would you could pro I mean I think any of us can agree that a 6acre parcel developing out 80 lots is going to have more of an or 60 lots whatever it was 70 it's going to have more of an impact than just 100 ft. So that is something yes an indirect response to some of the comments that I've heard over the years but entirely entirely up for your your thoughts. We don't have to make this decision now, do we?

Well, it'd be good to have a consensus of some type or some direction forward. Um, but the decision itself, no, I mean, you'll be when we adopt it, we're we're targeting in December. So, um I would think I mean and Jonathan correct me if I'm wrong, we could probably if we bring it forward and we put in there 200 ft and the night of that meeting if you want it to be 100 and stay as it is, we can strike it before it goes to the full adoption with council.

Yeah, no problem. No problem. It's just um it's a good opportunity now for the commission to sort of weigh the pros and the cons um of expanding that notice radius. you know, the the the pros, as Josh mentioned, you know, 100 feet is not all that long uh of a distance or that far of a distance. Um it certainly can be um uh uh a lot longer. There's no like cap on it. Um state law requires at least 100 ft and that's the standard. If we didn't have if we didn't have a local standard, we'd apply the 100 foot standard. Um the the pros of that um are, you know, more notice for potentially impacted neighbors. The cons of that are uh more notice for potentially impacted neighbors, right? And so it goes both ways. Um and those are the policy considerations and the commission's recommendation to the council would, you know, sort of inform that for the council. Um, I know that the the mayor of the city has had a particular particularly um had a keen interest on expanding notice. And if you asked the mayor, I think he would say we should make it a mile in every direction. And and I think that there's probably a happy middle ground there. Just for the record, there's nothing wrong with 100 foot. Um, we can't go any lower than that, but that's that's, you know, under state law, that's completely fine. Um, and I guess the only reason to expand it would be to uh increase notice to um adjoining properties and you can I think the commission can can sort of consider what the implications of that might be. Um, but yeah, just wanted to hopefully that's helpful. Uh, you don't have to make a decision tonight and um, you could always change your mind later. It would just would would be helpful just for drafting purposes for the planning director and myself. Thanks,

Josh. Is this a 100 foot radius? Is that what this is? Yeah. Okay. I'm just concerned if it gets expanded to 200 feet, is it bringing in uh um I don't know, uh maybe residents that aren't directly being impacted by this. Like if this was a downtown like CBC2 and we went out 200 then it would start eating up beyond um like Third Street into some residential areas and I don't know how a business might be impactful there.

Yeah, it's it's a good thought. I mean um I forget our our dimensions downtown our block dimensions. Um I want to say it's like 120 by 600 something like that as a block. uh typical block size or some of our typical block sizes in like our our other residential zones 50 by 100 50 by 120 those are common. So, I mean 100 ft really it's 100 ft a lot of it in most of our residential zones you're really just touching the neighbors that are butt um 200 ft a little bit more maybe you grab a couple more but yeah in the CBC zone where there's tighter properties yeah you're going to expand that out a bit for perspective when we brought forward the Basal Commons development 116 unit development downtown um site plan review process we noticed 100 ft. Um, conditional use permit, so they could increase the height that was 300 ft. So,

um, kind of perspective for you. Yeah, it just really kind of depends where you're at. And if you're looking at like the industrial zone, we noticed, uh, we're working on a project out on on West Second. We did the 100 ft. Four properties total. So, it kind of gives you perspective of really where you're at in town. Thank you.

You bet. Um, I'm wondering, okay, so this is all, you know, future future stuff. It's it's kind of coming as a package. So, let's say we get a hearings officer. We expand this to 200 ft. That hearings officer is going to be the person receiving the public comment and the well, all just all the public comment um and not us. So, I'm wondering if we're the city um is paying this hearings officer slat attorney to handle this stuff, are we creating more maybe unnecessary pressure on that person? um just it's just more stuff to sip through because I mean frankly how much how much of the public comment is actually usable applicable stuff like we can use in in a hearing. It's may maybe collectively 5% at the most and

Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm just I'm just wondering I'm all about noticing people and making sure that people are active in the community. And I think it's a I think from a PR standpoint, it is great to expand that for 200, but I think to 200 feet or more, but I think as far as a utility and like actual efficiency to the process, I don't I don't think it's necessary.

Uh can I jump in? I just want to mention, you know, um just mathematically just something to keep in mind. um for every every time we increase a length metric we are um because the area of a circle right is uh the length squared more or less it's the radius squared so uh doubling the length from 100 to 200 quadruples the notice area and if you apply that um if you apply that to for example our RL zone on average it's it's an additional 19 parcels that would receive notice assuming it's like a 5,000 foot minimum lot size just based off the density.

Um so again just taking the 100 ft radius to 200 as as an example um it would result in 19 extra parcels in the RL zone. In the medium density zone it would it would result in about 24 extra parcels and in the RH zone it would result in 38 extra parcels that would receive notice. Um, and so hopefully that's helpful context to sort of inform how your conversation goes next. That's a lot more people, which is great. It is. It is.

I'll go for it. Is there already I mean it sounds like in some ways based on the complexity like like you said the site plan for Basalt Commons was 100 ft but when they had to do a conditional use permit so something that wasn't sort of are we checking the box following the code it was something with more discretion the notice was indeed larger and so like I I mean part I can understand the the interest in sort of the appearance of further transparency with a larger notice radius. Um, but I feel like if there if a lot of those 100 ft decisions are really like have you are you following the code, yes or no? There's really not a lot of wiggle room, I guess, in that. And it feels a little bit disingenuous to let folks know and then receive public comment that's not going to have an impact on the decision. It feels like, like Cody said, a waste a waste of the hearings officer's time and frankly a waste of the folks that are going to come in comments time if it's not going to have an impact on the conversation. Going along with that, I think if I think if the goal is to if if the overall goal of expanding it that extra to 200 feet or whatever the number is going to be is is more transparency and more insight for the public to know what's going on with various applications throughout the city. Um I think a lot more effective and far less expensive way would be to put them on the front page of the website be like, "Hey, we we just got this. We just got this application. It's under review. Like a scrolly banner on the front page of the city of the Dallas website. That

way people can just look at it and if they care they can comment because because the the radius isn't that doesn't bind. Anyone can comment on anything. Like it's not like oh you're in this radius so only these people can have. So I think that that would be a better idea. Uh I think it would be less expensive and also I think that and this is just a personal philosophy. Um I think that it is a citizen's responsibility to be informed about their city and their town or whatever it may be. At some point the city can't do everything can't do everything in regards to keeping people apprised of the goings on. You know what I mean? Like a citizen has responsibility for the place that they live. Um, yeah. I mean, I I think it'd be I think it'd be far less expensive to just put that up on the website. Here's a weekly update of all the applications we received. If you care, feel free to comment.

Yeah. And I think, you know, we do send out all of our notice of applications also go to the media.

Um, I know the media picks up on them at times. I mean, we probably see, you know, once a month there's probably a notice of some type of application. I mean, the when we had the channel with LW project, um, one of the comments that came in was an individual that was outside of the notice area. So, it's you you can still comment on an application whether or not you're 100 feet or 300 feet or 500 feet away. If you find out about it, you can comment in on it. So, well, I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but it sounds like this might be almost a consensus of um maybe we kind of nyx this idea and u kind of keep it how it is.

Melissa, I know it's your I know it's your first first show, but do you have any thoughts on that? No, I mean I understand the concept and I agree with letting more people know than less, but I mean I agree with your guys' point. looking at the broader picture. It's kind of it's causing more work and for what? All right. Oh, thank you. We have it.

All right. So, the next set is a bit lengthy here. Um, this is all a lot of it's talking on you know some code maintenance and internal consistency. We're updating some definitions as we talked about this care facilities earlier. Just want to make sure that all of our care facilities are aligned. Um really just kind of some tweaks in there. One of them is our airport is actually not listed correctly in the code. So we just have to correct name then there. And the other one I think everybody saw an email I sent out a while ago. This is about an interpretation a director's interpretation regarding kitchens. So it it seems like a silly matter maybe without some context but um a kitchen is the element that is used to define what a dwelling unit is in the city of the Dallas. Um there are um I would say non-permitted or whatever the case may be units all over the Dallas as I talked about earlier. It's old. Dallas has had, you know, multiple buildings all over town that we know have been converted from one time or another. Could have been converted 50 years ago. Somebody could have put a kitchen in their basement 50 years ago, still listed as a single family home. Um, we come across these unsuspecting buyers maybe come across and they see something's posted. Oh, there's this extra kitchen. Oh, it's immediately maybe pops into their head. I I own a duplex now. and they come to us and they try to get these addresses. We don't assign it unless it goes through a proper process. We also have seen in the past where there's um you know we we want we want as many units out there as we can but there's also a process that you go through to establish a legal dwelling in the city. There's system development charges you check you go through a building codes process. We

have at times encountered. I've actually been on site and and inspected properties that have everything that you need for kitchen and cooking facilities, but those they were all bedrooms, quote unquote bedrooms. So, um you go through that whole entire process. You're not that building. Um this one in particular was a single family home. Had a garage. The garage was turned into four units. Um, each unit even had a washer and dryer facility in it. So, they are very much standalone living units, but they did not go through proper processes. They're not paying into the system that they are truly impacting with system development charges. So, long story short, the definition of kitchen is something that has been disputed. It's a gray area all over the state, planning jurisdictions everywhere. Um, so we decided to move forward and take that interpretation that I provided um the other, you know, a couple months ago and actually add that into the code. So there's now a definition of a kitchen. Um then yeah, go for it.

Sorry, can you um just refresh us on not that I don't remember that email, but it was it that was that one of those things like if you have all this stuff, it's a kitchen or was it correct? These are the things you find in a kitchen and is and if you have X amount of them, it's a kitchen. Correct. X amount of them and it's a kitchen. Yeah.

Um the next is something long time coming. We adopted the short-term rental license back in 2020. Um there was a couple there's still mention of the bed and breakfast permit in there. So these are just basically cleanup. No longer bed and breakfast permits. We haven't issued a bed and breakfast permit since 2020. So, uh, that's just a little bit of clean up in our code. Um, we're updating our roadway. Oh, yeah. Go for it.

Sorry. Um, will you please describe the current short-term rental policy? Last I was aware of, um, commercial zoning, CBC, it's it's not automatic permit, but you just apply for the permit and you get it. And you would be allowed to either rent out short-term rent your primary or non-primary residence. In residential zoning, it must be your primary residence or a dwelling on your primary residence to receive that short-term rental permit. Is that still the case or did something change? Yeah. So, um I haven't looked into it for a little bit, but um some of the changes, the most recent changes that we made, um we went through a process last year about this time, and we put a cap on the amount of short-term rentals that can be issued in the Dows. And that's based on 1% of what was included in the housing needs analysis of the total number of units that the Dows has. So, that's 72. So, we're going to cap the short-term rentals in the Dows at 72 units. We're sitting at around 50, so there is still some room for growth. Um, the other thing that council wanted to see is they wanted to eliminate the clustering of short-term rentals, meaning they don't want short-term rentals all stacked up next to each other. We have a neighborhood in town up by Sosas Park. There's a big cluster of short-term rentals. So now the requirement is if you are in a residential zone, you cannot place a short-term rental. If you're within 300 feet of another existing short-term rental, all of those that are in that cluster, all of them are existing non-conforming. They can continue to operate, but if you live in that neighborhood, if you're buying in that neighborhood, you would not be able to place it if it's within 300 ft. In the commercial zones, it's not 300 ft,

it's 100 ft. It still creates, you know, it still allows, you know, you know, kind of combats the issue of like the clustering, but it's not as much as in the residential zone. Our noticing requirements have increased. Here we are just talking about noticing requirements. The noticing requirement is is a bit much, I think. Um, but it's 500 ft. When every time there's a short-term rental, we notify the neighborhood within 500 ft. It's it's it's a it's a bit of a distance. Um, does that answer your question? I know it's kind of shifted a little bit from it was previously.

Um, I my other question is let's say let's say residential zoning. This is where the cap exists, right? Not in commercial, just residential. Oh, there's a cap on all of them. Cap on all. Okay. Yeah. So, let's say you have house that has that short-term rental license and then next door there's a house with an ADU and the person just wants to short-term rent the ADU, but within it's within that 300 feet. Yeah. Is that not okay? They would not be able to. I see. Okay. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah. And there's nothing to do now with any kind of Well, we haven't had it before, but there's no um residency requirement at all.

Okay. Yeah. But wasn't that the case for a minute? uh it wasn't necessarily a res residency requirement as much as we just I think it was kind of you know it really turned in a way of like data collection to see how many you know um how many were um living on site or not. Um we collected you know information at the time of application to get let us know where their primary residency was um but it wasn't a requirement. Okay. Yeah.

Uh, Chair Cornell, I was just going to mention uh the city of Hood River used to have a residency requirement and then there was some um some litigation uh connected with that and they subsequently changed it. They no longer require um the owner to live there. They uh that that that requirement can now be met by like a long-term property manager or long-term resident um that's not the owner, something like that. But the city of the Dallas, I don't I don't believe we've we've ever had that kind of a a limiter here.

Got it. Okay. Uh so this next one is really to clean up. Um this was something that was kind of really just we didn't update our street standard matrix at the same time as our TSP roadway design standards. So effectively what these two things are is it tells you what the uh what your dimensions are for a street. If you're building a new street with like a subdivision for instance, it needs to be 50 ft wide. Code says 54 ft. There there's some inconsistencies there. I think one of the reasons this was actually brought to our attention again or as another reminder was during the Alfred subdivision appeal. There was some question about the width that was being used. um the Dallas municipal code that um the street standards matrix is much older compared to the TSP which was adopted in 2017. So we have always used at least in the time I've been with the city we've always used the most updated information the TSP. So that is what we're going to be do we're going to be replacing the existing street standards with the TSP. So it's basically removing one table, adding another table and it's all about uh roadway dimensions ultimately. Um and then the next is you know going through our permitted uses and adopting some SIC language. So currently when you go into the code you go into each zone you have your permitted uses, accessory uses, conditional uses. There's just a long list. While what we're going to be doing is just um some general cleanup in here, making sure that you know things are categorized appropriately. We also have these sections where when you get to the um medical marijuana facilities or the um retail or um

retail marijuana facilities as well as the transitional housing sections. Those you'll see a list of all the permitted uses. And then if if it gets to one of those, then it's a long list of everything that you have to do to be able to open up a retail medical, you know, a retail uh cannabis dispensary or whatever the case may be. So instead of having these really long lists, this is a lot of housekeeping. We're basically moving those requirements, putting them into their own section of the code. Nothing's really going to change there. It's just that we're we're repositioning some things. Um the other is uh the use of the SIC which is the standard industrial classification system um to assess similar unlisted uses. So currently in the zone in each of those zones you can look at the bottom of your permitted permitted uses and you're you'll see a line that says similar uses as determined by the director. Well, what the city of Medford does down in Oregon, down in southern Oregon, is they use the SIC. So, basically, it's a huge list of uses and we would then be able to if a very specific use is not listed, we would be able to go use the SIC and align it to find out where exactly it fits into our code. So, it's easier to assess because we get them all the time. you know, we get uses, you know, people come to us all the time with with unique uses or just something that just may not be in the code. So, this gives us more flexibility and the ability to actually make those decisions on solid ground. Any questions on this? All right. Uh, so the next is uh talking about fencing standards and lay down yards. Uh

so the first here is um this is a standard that would allow up to six foot fence uh six foot fencing on in school front yards uh to enhance student safety while also maintaining driveway visibility neighborhood design. Um most of our schools are located in residential zones as they should be. Um, in residential zones, the code requires that f fences in a front yard may not exceed 4t for the first whatever the setback is. Let's use a low density for for example, you would take the front yard setback of 15 ft. Therefore, for the first 15t, it can only be a 4ft tall fence. Well, we had an applicant or, you know, a local school come in and chat with us about wanting to install a 6ft fence along their property line. Uh, they have a grant. It's a FEMA grant, and it's actually a grant that is is designed to improve improve or enhance the overall safety of the school, you know, the world that we live in. So, I don't have to say much more on that, but I think student safety is, you know, definitely a priority for the community. should be more of a priority for uh the country as a whole. Um but what this does is this would allow six foot fences in that front yard. Um in having a conversations with this group um let them know what the standard is. They were interested in possibly pursuing a variance. I thought a variance would be actually rather difficult. But one of the I you know one of the things that they had mentioned is just the overall precedence historical precedence. If you go around to most of our schools in the Dallas, we have a lot of sixoot fences in those front yard areas. So, not only would this help this

organization, but it would also ensure that most of our schools come into compliance. And at the end of the day, we are talking safety. So 6' tall fences um they are are not you know it's a different aesthetic obviously but it's a school is when you know where the schoolyard is in a neighborhood it's very much different than your your your gritted out streets or whatever the case may be. Um this standard from the searching I could find it's I haven't found a lot of communities that allow 6ft fencing in front yards. Um, not saying we can't do it, but um, I think just with some of that historical precedence we have in this community, um, I think it's as well as student safety, can't highlight that enough. I think this is a, um, a worthy addition into our code. Um, also fence permit fees. This introduces a fence uh, a permit requirement and fee for all fences over 4T. So currently in our code um you do not need a fence if you are building something 4T or lower. Um from 4 to 6 ft it does require a fee but it's or it does require a permit but it's free. Um I can't tell you how many permits we get in a month regarding fences. It's a very very common permit and you would think something as simple as a permit is probably one of those overounter over- the-counter type of things. There's a lot that goes into permits just trying to coordinate all the correct information with property owners. Um so because of this I um we would be proposing that there would be just a fee applied. It's going to be similar to like a minor building permit. Right now it's probably 40 bucks, maybe a little bit of an increase. We're going to start looking at some height in or excuse me some fee increases um coming

up in the first part of this year and that might be um something I would be something that we add into the code. But like I said wouldn't be crazy but it would be I think in line with at least trying to recoup some of the time that goes into fence permits. Um and the last one here is a lay down yards. Uh lay down yards are um effectively construction construction zones. You you have a vacant lot. You're doing a big project. You have a vacant lot that you store your equipment or job trailers at right next to the job site itself. It's known as a layown yard. Currently lay down yards are only allowed in the CLI and industrial zones. Well, there are um some big projects coming up that the city has. Um but also we've seen you know really the need in those commercial and industrial zones. We you know there there is a need for lay down yards. So basically what this is this would just allow those layown yards to be located in more than just the CLI and industrial zones but restricting them from residential zones. Uh any questions on these? All right. So the hearings officer process um this builds on a conversation as I mentioned that we had in um April. Um this is as we talked about earlier this is a land use attorney that the city would hire to on an as needed basis to review quasi judicial applications and administrative appeals. Um they would there'd be no other reason to meet with the hearings officer aside from when an application comes in. um all legislative actions um reviewing studies, different master plans if they come in, whatever the case may be, all those would still be handled by the planning commission and the city council. So

still the city council and the planning commission would still much be able to to be the visionaries of how this code works and how future development occurs and the work that you put in those rules are then applied. a hearings officer would then apply those rules to an application. Um, multiple other cities or communities around Oregon are using a hearings officer. Um, Wasco County is one of those. So, I think you are starting to see more and more use of a hearings officer system and we're looking at a phase roll out with it. it would be starting as soon as next month and it's going to take a few months though to get everything in place, but we're looking at from November to April uh of next year is when the whole roll out would would happen. Um the selection process, we would be following the local contract review board rules. When I met in with you all in April, we discussed the possibility of an RFP. There's also, you know, we may not need to go through an RFP process. There could still be what we, you know, internally have thought some some kind of selection team that, you know, multiple people together, some type of like a a selection committee to to basically take in. Um, we'd receive applications um or whatever probably uh resumes, review resumes, and go from there. Be able to select. remind us what RFP stands for.

Uh request for proposals. Got it. Um so yeah, touching again I kind of repetitive slide here. Um we would implement by uh April 2026. Hearings would remain open to the public with virtual options. And then another item here that we want to be sure of is that the commission would continue to receive the packets and the decisions. That was something that was mentioned very important to this board is they want to still stay in the know of what's going on. So you would really stay on all those all those distribution lists. Yeah. Is there more hearings off officer? No. Okay. May I have a couple questions?

Yeah. Um would so when the planning commission receives all packets of decisions um are those just going to be emailed to us kind of like how those decisions are now? Yeah. Okay. Would it be appropriate for us to put on just on the agenda like this this has been decided like just to still kind of have it be like part of our system. Not that there's anything that we can do about it, but just I don't know. Just so we know. This isn't decisions on agendas. I mean, it could be something that we could provide a like um staff update during staff comment. Is that something that work for you?

Exactly. Yeah. Like super brief just like an update of what's going on just so we're kind of apprised of those larger things. Yeah. Give you the opportunity to ask questions too if you have them at that time. Perfect. The other question is um once that hearing officer makes a decision, is this is it still going to city council for a final approval or is the hearings officer make the decision and that's it? Because I remember that being a bit of a discussion.

Yeah. Yeah. And I I I do appreciate the reminder. Jonathan reminded me about this the other day and then I I still forgot about it. Um yeah. So when we last met in April, the decision um well kind of the consensus I would say at that time was to follow what they're doing over in Wasco County um where the decision is made by the hearings officer. If it's appealed then goes to city council. Okay. There is a world where the last decision is the hearings officer.

Okay. So, that is something that's actually good conversation topic right now. Um, how would you like to see it be structured? U, there's pros and cons to both. Um, I think Chair Cornet, you're the one that actually pointed out the last time around that, um, having the hearings officer decision being the last, it streamlines the process. That is for sure. It will be a shorter process if it just goes to the hearings officer. I'm that's I am still for that. Yeah. Um and then if it's appeal that goes to city council. Correct. And then if it's appealed then it goes to Luba.

Yeah. Okay. So So there's there's a route that hearings officer would be the last decision or go and then it's appealed goes to city council and then it's appealed and goes to Luba or hearings officer is a final decision it goes to Luba. Ah got it. Okay. Yes. Apologies, I misspoke. So, okay. Yeah. I mean, if if the planning commission itself isn't touching it, do we really are can we make that decision essentially on city council's behalf?

Well, you'd be making the recommendation. So, you'll you know, when a time comes, come in December when we present this to you, it would be up to the planning commission's recommendation. And you could make a recommendation and Jonathan can correct me if I'm wrong, but you can make a recommendation. City council can strike it and have it go at the end their way. But, you know, our council does appreciate the comments and the contributions of their boards. So, I think they definitely if it's something that the planning commission is making a recommendation on, they will definitely have a conversation and consider it. Is there a route that's more common practice in Oregon, whether to go through city council for an appeal or no?

Um, or is it really all over the I think it's it's mixed. Yeah, I think there is some mix to it. Um, you know, I know that we just our our local example of Wasco County, they go back to it goes a hearings officer and then it goes to the board of county commissioners. And after that, it can be it would go to LUBA. If it's appealed, it goes back to the board of commissions. But not one of those things like where the hearings officer is like, "All right, here's my decision." And then it goes to city council or the commission as like, "Okay, now now the final decision is is made for sure." Yeah. It's only going to city council if it's appealed, right? Yep. It's only going to Louva if it gets appealed. Okay. Sorry. I meant commission like Wasco County Commission, not

correct. Yeah. It's only going to the board of county commissioners if it if it's appealed. I'll just Can I just weigh in, Chair Cornette? I I think I can't speak for the city council um on this issue, but I think I would I would frankly be a little shocked if they didn't want the final decision uh to rest with the city council. I think it would be an uphill fight even even with the planning commission's recommendation if that's the way the planning commission wanted to go. Sorry. Yeah. The the final decision or the appeal.

The Sorry. So, in in the in the Sorry, I I hear what you're saying. Um in in uh the world of um land use, uh the city's final decision is like the uh ultimate destination for any appeal. Um so I you know the city council I think I can say confidently has no interest in being like a a decision maker absent an appeal to the city council right so uh the hearings officer would certainly be like you know administering decisions um land use decisions for the city in quasi judicial actions I think is what's being proposed here but um the city council I think ultimately you know at the end of the day would be the uh final decision maker for the city own an appeal. Does that make sense?

Yep. Yeah. And and that was my fault because I should have clarified that uh the hearings officer would not be making a recommendation for the city council to decide or adopt. No, they'd make a final decision. Yeah. In the context of land use, the final decision um a decision is what's appealed, right? And and that's the way that the legislature has structured that. Um and so no, they wouldn't be making any recommendations to the city council. they would be making decisions on land use applications.

Um, and then an appeal to that decision would be, you know, I think what's being proposed here would be appeal to the city council who would ultimately make the city's final decision for purposes of determining like is it ripe for luba. the the number one thing that happens, you know, it used to happen a long time ago in the 80s, um it doesn't really happen much anymore, is people would appeal like planning commission decisions back before even hearing officers to Luba and Luba would just say, "Look, you guys didn't exhaust all of your uh local appeals." Um and so they, you know, Luba would just say, "We don't have authority to to hear this." Um so that has to go back to the to the city planning commission for a recommend, you know, for their decision to be made or to the city council to be made. Um, and here I I think the structure would be as proposed, you know, looking for looking for the planning commission's insights and so it's not a foregone conclusion, right? And certainly I don't want to make it seem like the planning commission tonight can't even like you guys can absolutely make it make your recommendation whatever it is that you want. I'm just giving you my my perspective as um the city council's adviser and based off of my working with them and and my my my guess. I think that they they want to keep the city's final decision-making authority with them. Um but Josh, if if I'm if I'm wrong on that, let's give them as much context as we can to give us some good direction here.

Yeah, I I would agree. there wasn't um I don't think we really got into the weeds on it because what we proposed to them was a structure that would go back be appealed to them. So um I think it would be a healthy discussion if you wanted to bypass city council. I don't Yeah, I'm I'm fine with personally I'm fine with just getting appealed to city council. Yeah. And the hope is we're hiring one of the best land use attorneys in the state, right? I mean, so hopefully our hearings officer decisions are solid. Yeah. So, okay. Okay.

I have a question falling back to the layown yards. Um, understanding that we've got two pretty large scale municipal projects happening within the next 12 months or at least breaking ground in the next 12 months, is the city intending on using the parking areas down off of First Street to provide layown yards for the engineers and construction that will be on site.

Yeah, great segue for um an upcoming meeting next week about uh the impact of downtown businesses. But um yes, what the plan is is the Tony site is going to be intended to be used as a layown yard for the Federal Street Plaza. And the lot that's just north of the Tony's site, that's that other parking lot. That's going to be used as a layown yard for First Street. None of the other sites or parking lots at this point will be will be used. Um, First Street is going to be closed the entire time for that entire project. So, there's going to be some some big impacts to traffic and parking downtown. We're actually going to be making some modifications to those parking lots. We're going to be cutting out some of the middle um planner areas to allow for cars to bypass cuz currently how those parking lots are designed, you have to go out onto First Street just to be able to use them. So, with it being closed, we're going to make some modifications to the parking lot. And then the Urban Renewal Agency just recently refinished those two parking, those sunken parking lots, what I like to call them. So, there's the brand new parking lots there that are going to be open to the public.

Thank you. You bet. By that time, going off parking lots. By that time, will the one that's on the corner of fourth and uh the old used car lot? Third. Third. Thank you. Oh, third in Jefferson. Yeah. Is that going to be refinished? And

so that third and Jefferson lot. Um the intent is parking, public parking. Um but at this point we are holding a little bit for the Basalt Commons because that could be used for a lay down for that project actually. Yeah, the Balt Commons is going to be uh a massive construction project downtown. We'll probably see some lane decreases. is we'll probably potentially see half road closures on both of those abudding roads, but um they will need some space for material. So, uh before we develop out those parking lots, um we want to see if that project's a go because there's no sense in us going through and paving it and then having equipment tear it up. So uh so the next topic here is the uh the commission's structure and procedural updates. So along with this project, we will be updating title 11, the comprehensive plan and the bylaws. So title 11, as we've been talking about here, title 10. Title 11 is the the title that that um lays out and outlines like the structure of what the planning commission is. There's also a layout in there for the urban renewal agency and the historic landmarks commission. So, this is really this is the section of the code that talks about how the planning commission meets on the first and third Thursday of every month. Um, as we've talked about before, the as part of this process, the planning commission, we would be reducing it to one meeting per month. That requires a code change just to be able to make that shift. So, um, the thought is that the first meeting of the month would be uh the first, excuse me, the first Thursday of the month would be the planning

commission meeting. Any holidays that land on that would just move to the following Thursday. So, for example, January 1st is a holiday this year and that's the first Thursday. So, that first count, you know, um planning commission meeting would be January 8th. Um to make this change, we really just wanted to get a consensus. This is what we discussed before. Um if you're fine with this process here, um to make this change in Title 11 is a council action. So, staff will be moving forward in November just to make this tiny tweak to that. And then coming the first part of the year, we would start having planning commission meetings once a month. So, any comments, concerns with that? I think we've chatted about it before.

Just want to do three meetings a month or just go down to one. All right. Just check. And uh and then with this shift, um hearings officer meetings would then be held on the third Thursday. So the thought there is that we'll we'll we'll stay consistent with what planning commission meetings have been so I think it's easier for the public to digest and people what they're used to and those meetings as I mentioned those are going to be on an as needed basis. So they will only be scheduled if there is an application that comes in the door. Are those meetings public? The hearing officer meetings

they will be. Yep. And as part of this comprehensive plan um and bylaws, the the adjustments there really a lot of it is is similar to we talked about earlier. A lot of it is just changing the responsibilities within each of those documents. So when we come back through this code enforce or excuse me uh through this code amendment update, we're going to be bringing forward title 10. There's going to be a lot to it. There's going to be title 10 updates. There's going to be comprehensive plan updates as well as your bylaws. So, it's going to be a it's going to be a big package of changes. Uh, so next steps, this is all tentative. Um, conversations went really well tonight. There's not um I think we have, you know, our our direction on a few of these items here. Um, the next step is for city council title 11 amendments. Very minor adjustment here. Um December 18th is when we'd be bringing the planning commission together for these code amendment adoptions. Um or this is for your the recommendation that you'd made making a recommendation to council.

This is the title 10 stuff.

Yep. January 12th would be um city council for the code to be adopted. It then goes into effect 30 days after that. In that period of time, February to March, we would be having a selection process for the hearings officer. And then in April, we would be implementing and having a hearings officer going forward. Um, there's a couple caveats here and I'll work with the city attorney on it about potentially, you know, ordinances are typically 30 days and they go into effect. We may take a look at structuring it slightly different so that the hearings officer portions go into effect April 2026 because there could be a world where come February this new code is adopted hearings officer in place who then oversees applications in that period of time. So there's a little bit there's some nuance that we need to to kind of figure out with that. Um the other aspect though I just my apologies to go back to this slide really quick. what I was talking about with adjustments. This is something I did want to get the uh the board's comments on this. So, currently when there is an absence some you know when we deal with attendance issues there has an issues but um ultimately what it is is let me find where it's at x amount of meetings. So how currently how it reads is that a member who is absent from three consecutive meetings or is absent from over 15% of the commission meetings in one year without an excuse as approved by the planning commission is presumed to be non-performance in their duty. Um, we would just be making a tweak to that to basically because you're reducing you're you're going from

technically 24 meetings to 12. I think we would reduce that to absent from two consecutive meetings or absent from three of the commission meetings in one year. And this is all without an excuse. Um, we do need to refine some of the language about excused absences and things of that nature. Um, so any thoughts on any any concerns on attendance or any of those changes? I think that's super fair. Yeah. Does does Cody get to decide what an excused absence is as the chair? Yeah, that's I mean not conventional.

I think you all actually have the ability to do that. But yeah, there's some some tweaks to that um that we'll be making. Um, sorry. All joking aside, seems reasonable. No. Yeah. And with that, I can answer any further questions. I I have no further questions. Okay. That's all good. I'm good. Okay. Um, in that case, uh, let's we're going to close that item and we'll move on to the staff comments and any project updates.

Yeah. One second here. Um I think I've kind of updated you uh with some of the work that we've been doing. I think one of the big ones is the yeah the China with loop project was approved made it through the process without without any appeals. So their team is hoping to uh submit building permits very very soon. I think they're looking at potentially December. Another exciting piece, you know, that this world that we this development world that we live in, financing's horrible, the money, you know, money's difficult to come by right now. Um, this project has secured all of their funds. Um, so it's it's it's pretty exciting to know that they're actually able to move this thing forward. Um but yeah, that's uh that was a big that was a big project that we worked on um over this last year or excuse me over the last couple months. Um the other one, you know, um a shift uh into like the urban renewal side of things. Another big project that our department has been working on is getting the first street project across the finish line. You may have heard about the first street project, I don't know, maybe for the last 25 years. Um, it's finally gone out to bid. So, um, we just want to thank everybody that's been involved along the whole entire ride. There was a big push right at the end to get everything taken care of. Uh, First Street, um, we I had a presentation in front of our historic landmarks, um, our, um, city council as well as urban renewal. the first first street was really like the main corridor of the Dells. It's really where all the boats came in on. Um major commercial activity moved like

late 1800s um to Second Street and um slowly you saw First Street start to abandon. There was some fires, there was some flooding, different things like that. never really rebuilt, but it became the heart of the of the Dallas Chinese community. Um, the first three parking lots that I was just talking about that we repaved and finished, that is actually sitting we I call it the Chinatown block, but basically Court to Washington is is the block where Chinatown was. Um so there is a lot that that area is um it's a four blocks that we're talking Union Union to Laughlin um is is home to four arch archaeological sites. So the work with Shipo the state historic preservation office is there's a lot of work with them. We've had quite a few permits a lot of research going into it. Um so yeah it's a it's exciting. It's a complex project. Um bids will be um bids are due mid November. So hopefully we'll start seeing some groundbreaking by the first part of the year. Um yeah, other than that, that's about it.

Cool. Um commissioner comments and questions. Uh I think the only comment we have is that we're welcoming Melissa Alvarado to the commission, which is great and we're happy to have her. And on that, do you guys have anything to to add? All righty. Meeting adjourned. All right. Thank you. Thank you. We're I'm just going to leave these