Okay, good afternoon.

It's two o'clock, and I'm calling the meeting to order.

And I would like to welcome everybody to the September fifteenth, twenty twenty-five workshop for the City of Frederick Planning Commission.

Um, before we begin today's proceedings, I'd like to give an overview of the process that we follow, um, since it's a little bit different than the process we use for the hearing.

Um, we for each item on our agenda, we start by having the applicant come up and give us a presentation, um, especially focusing on any modifications and the reasons for those.

If you're asking for modifications um following the applicant presentation, then we'll have an opportunity for the commission to ask questions, then we'll have staff weigh in and bring up anything that that they need to bring up regarding the application.

Again, we'll follow with commission questions.

Um, at that point, if appropriate, or if we if needed, we will have public comment um on the applicant on the application.

And um, since this is a little less formal, we may have some back and forth discussion if needed.

Um let's see.

So at this point, there's hardly anybody here, but those of you who are here, um staff applicants and public need to be sworn in if you're going to be making a presentation before the hearing.

So at this point, if everybody who wants to make a presentation is sworn in, and I will I'm will stand, I will do the swearing in the raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given and the statements made in this hearing before the planning commission will be the whole truth of nothing and nothing but the truth?

If so, answer I do.

Thank you very much.

So we have a slight change to our agenda today.

Um the first case on the agenda, PC 25-246 FSI has been withdrawn by the applicant and asked to be rescheduled.

And um, so we will start with um the Frederick Commerce Center South, and then before we get to our discussion on the rules of procedure, we have the letter regarding the zoning text amendment regarding the MU phasing that we're gonna have a discussion of.

Um, so we will put that after the discussion of um or item number four, now three on the agenda.

Before we start, I would like to let give Christina the opportunity to make any announcements or if there's anything that you feel like you need to say.

No announcements.

All right.

And we will move straight to the first now.

The first item on our agenda, which is PC 25-395 PSU and PC 25-396 PF CP preliminary plant and preliminary forest conservation plan for Frederick Commerce Center South.

Thank you, everyone.

Uh, my name is Joe White Bret.

I'm with Trem and Crow Company.

You sure to meet you.

Michael, a little closer.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

Joe Whitebird with Tremel Pro Company, joined by Bruce Dean, my colleague Pete Torres, and Sam with Kimley Horn, our civil engineer on the project.

Um, so this is Frederick Commerce Center South, which I know you all are very familiar with, having had it up here before.

Um, so overall, what we are doing is submitting revisions to our preliminary subdivision plan and our preliminary forest conservation plan.

These revisions are driven by we've identified a user to come in and purchase a portion of the property and construct a building specific for their uses.

Uh, and as a result, we need to consolidate some lots we've been planning on making, and we need to reconfigure some of the forest conservation areas.

So that is what uh the revisions are accompanying them is the site plan for our user.

This is their specific building program that they need for operations.

Uh with that, you know, I'll talk briefly about the preliminary subdivision plat.

As you may recall, um this property was initially annexed back in uh as part of resolution 2322 back in 2023.

Uh we're meeting all of the conditions of the existing annexation.

And was previously approved in October of 24 with the initial preliminary subdivision plat that we had submitted.

We're still meeting all the conditions of that approval as well.

Um APFO for both water sewer and traffic has been tested, and APFO certificates have been an issue.

All everything we are currently approving is within the confines of those prior approvals as well.

Uh logistics park road is a proposed to be extended per the annexation requirement.

The location of that road is unchanged as well from the previous plat.

So truly, we're just consolidating a couple lots uh that we had previously proposed into one larger lot, referred to as lot four.

Well, submitted a preliminary forest conservation plan uh revision.

Similar to preliminary subdivision plat.

We're meeting all prior approval to conditions.

Uh the reason we're revising this plan is to make sure that our user can stand on their own in terms of providing forest conservation.

Previously we looked at the property to the south, uh, sometimes known as the Mercer property and this site all together, and we had allocated these areas in a way that you needed all of it at once uh to be able to work.

With this new user in tow, we don't want them dependent on any other areas, so we're relocating some of the forest conservation areas.

So that includes the stream running between the two properties, and as you may recall, there is a bald eagle's nest that we located on the site.

We're going to be able to expand the area of new planting around that nest, providing more of a buffer.

Uh and I'll also note we do monitor that nest in this past breeding season, it did appear to be inactive.

Uh we don't have any ongoing any activity on the site at all at the moment.

My hunch is they got sick of living under the runway.

Um so regardless, we're continuing to maintain that buffer there.

Um, and this also leads us to be able to keep some additional specimen trees that will now no longer be cleared.

Uh and that's also further south on that property known as the Toms property, uh, which is currently shown as lot four on the preliminary subdivision plat.

Accompanying all this is the new lot four site plan.

So again, this is for can we just that's a separate case and we'll just let's finish this one.

Yeah, I was gonna say let's break it up.

Yeah, yeah.

That would yeah, that would be good.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

All right.

Um, I think that's all we have with regard to the city.

Okay, you don't have all right.

We'll do uh roll call for questions.

Um we'll start with Commissioner Manellas.

I thank you for the overview.

Um quick question about um so it talks about the city.

I'm on page five of the staff report um and the APFO, and I'm talking about the water and sewer for the city.

It mentions that you have to extend the um water need to be extended on the property, but it also says that you would have to reclassify it as county rather than city.

And I'm thinking to myself, um, and then it says the part B of my question is a private forest maintenance proposed just of all lots and will be privately maintained.

What does that look like?

So for the water and sewer category to start, um we are getting water from the city, not the county.

Yes, and sewer both.

Um the classification is a process that runs through both the city, the county, and the state, and is really a planning tool to forecast when service might be provided.

We have already completed that process and moved to what is known as a W3S3 category that allows for development of the property recordation of final plots that has been completed and MDE provided a letter to the county, who I believe in turn provided a letter to the city notifying everyone that that process has been completed.

So it's just a formality, is that what you're saying?

It's I just want to make sure I have to do that.

It's a formality, but it's already happened, is what and then the second part I think was a private main card.

So there is a private forest main for the sewer.

Yes, so typically sewer flows by gravity downhill.

At this particular site, we have to go uphill.

So we're using some sort of pumping uh solution, whether it be grinder pump forest uh and and it will go into a forest main.

It's basically a pressurized system for getting sewage uphill.

And the city does not maintain those.

The easement that will be required is for the brief area where we go across gas house pike with that.

So that will allow the owner to be able to go into the right-of-way and make repairs.

And we actually did the exact same thing for the first three lots as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Commissioner Valencia.

Um it sounds great with the little inner Lorax in me when you're saying about the forest conservation.

Um, would there be so would you be taking away less trees since you can save some of the specimen trees that you were talking about?

Or like how is that changing the number if this is combined?

So the way the forest conservation works is there's a threshold you have to meet based on the existing forest on site.

And when you clear more forest, you have to plant more to meet your threshold.

So as part of our revision based on our users' specific needs, we are clearing less forest.

So we are then in turn planting less.

But the result is we also excuse me, save some larger existing specimen trees.

Okay, I just yeah, thanks for clarifying.

Commissioner Llewellyn?

I have no questions at this time, but thank you for the presentation.

Thank you.

Um so my question is arise from your observation of the inactive nest.

Are there N DNR guidelines that you have to follow to keep?

I mean, I know that there's a requirements in the in the original site plan for monitoring the nest, but at what point do are there the criteria met that everybody's certain that the eagles are gone and you have to stop you can you you can stop that monitoring?

So we obtained a permit from US Fish and Wildlife to have impacts within a certain radii of the nest.

Um as a condition of that permit, we monitor.

So as long as we think we may have construction impacts within that radii, we'll keep that permit open and continue to monitor.

Great, thank you.

Anything else?

All right, anything from the city.

Um I know a couple of you probably were here, but they first came before you, and a few of you are new, and like they said, they are part of the two uh farm and annexations.

They had structures on site that they got approval for demolition that that is still valid.

Um they are expanding on lot four and reducing the number of lots, but the land area is essentially the same.

Um and they are looking for uh a large facilities uh building, I believe.

And they will need to have uh the FAA.

Oh, that goes with the site plan.

I'm sorry, we I'm jumping ahead too.

Um they do have their street details, we're already approved for the road and the expansion and widening of uh gas house pike.

That's already done.

They um will need a joint access easement between uh two of the lots.

Um as for the forest conservation, as they said, um they received the permit from um from the state, and with that as conditions of approval for originally with the forest plan, they were to provide those to the city for unconditional approval for their forest plan when they move forward.

Um the plans that they had before the the preliminary plat and the for uh preliminary forest conservation plan, they never reached unconditional approval.

So they are coming back and revising these plans, but um one of the things that changed with um you're asked what were the changes of forest conservation?

They they had provided um some extra width along the um there's an existing easement down by the um Minoxy River.

That that was a large width, they have to reduce that somewhat, but it's really very acceptable.

It it will meet like 300 feet from the river, which is something the state strives for for uh wildlife.

The other thing is they did have a buffer between um the uh Aldi property and themselves, I guess it was the Aldi property, yes, and themselves, and that's been eliminated maybe because of the the future site plan that they have there, but they have again areas and other aspects of the um of the site.

So, and as they said, they were um found that they are updating their specimen trees and what they're saving and what they're clearing.

Um we will get the APFO certificates um um reissued or a validated uh their archaeological had been completed, so that's finished, and that's it for the preliminary and forest.

Great, thank you.

Do we have any questions for staff?

Seeing none.

All right.

Um, is there any public comment in this case?

No, all right.

Sounds good.

Any other questions for us?

No.

In which case we can go on to the next one, which is with my glasses on PC 25-397 FSI final site plan for Frederick Commerce Center South Lot 4.

All right, thank you.

Um so the uh prior history of this is we had submitted a speculative building plan for lot four, and that consisted of two rear loaded warehouses sharing a truck court, totaling approximately 403,000 square feet.

Since then, we have identified a user who wants to come in, own the property, and have their own user specific building program.

So we have submitted a new site plan for an approximately 225,000 square foot warehouse and logistics building.

Accompanying this building are two small auxiliary buildings.

One is approximate they total together about 6300 square feet.

One is filled with uh visual equipment to basically scan delivery vans leaving the site for damage and make sure no one's driving off with their muffler hanging down or a flat tire.

Uh the other is for minor service to that vehicle fleet.

Um as with the other two plans we've already discussed, we are needing all of the prior approval conditions, with the exception of one that is no longer relevant.

So you'll notice on the site plan we have eliminated the connection to gas house pike from the site.

The site is only accessed off logistics park road that runs north south now.

Um and that was the comment that we are no longer meeting as it's no longer relevant.

Um we also are providing 264 EV charging spaces as part of this uh site plan.

And the site plan is laid out very specifically for that user.

They've put a lot of thought into how their operations work, and it's frankly, this this is what they need.

Um they've designed it with curb cuts on logistics park road, they're organized so that various vehicle types are interacting as minimally as possible.

Uh so delivery vans, minimal uh intermingling with associate vehicles, minimal intermingling with any other truck traffic.

Uh so it's been very well thought out.

Uh, and again, we're meeting all of the prior conditions that are still relevant.

Yes.

Um one of our comments we received, we are were noted that we need to submit for a modification related to parking on this site.

Um, and I think we're having currently having some discussions about um some of the delivery van areas and whether those are parking spaces or loading spaces, and whether a modification is required at all.

But I will also add now, uh, since we don't have a resolution on that.

Again, this is what our user needs.

This is based on their typical building programs, and with the new site plan in general, we aren't developing further south at this time anymore.

So overall, this is a significant reduction in total impervious area on this property.

I believe that supports the need for this additional parking and loading areas.

And then you're also asking for a lighting modification, lights below, or modification?

Yeah.

It's on two.

I don't believe we're seeking a modification at this time.

It is.

It is.

I thought we were modifying that lighter.

It says slates delivered west and east, so we'll be requiring modification.

I will say that to the west and east are more warehouses than yes, logistics centers.

Yes, so we're it's not like we're negatively impacting anyone who would be bothered by it because it's the same use as ours.

Correct.

And I think we are also looking into if there are any tweaks we can make to where the light poles are to eliminate that need as well.

So we we will have an firm answer for you.

Okay, great.

Well, ready for questions?

Um we'll do a roll call, start with Commissioner Blence.

Yeah, mine was on the lighting, so thanks.

Commissioner Wellan?

Uh yes, just if you can clarify, um, when this was first approved, there were a certain number of parking spaces that were approved.

So is this total, even though it's a modification, less than that with the combination of lots?

I do not have a definitive answer.

I don't remember exactly how many parking spaces we had in the previous plan.

I would say it's not really an apples to apples comparison as you have some different types of buildings, but we are reducing the impervious cover, which would include the parking areas because further south at this time we have no plans to develop further south.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Manellus.

Nothing, thank you.

So when you say you have no plans to develop further south, is that just the rest of that lot?

Yes further south.

Correct.

Okay.

Tramil truck company still intends to develop what is known as the Mercer property on the south side of that stream.

Okay.

And our user who will be purchasing what is known as the Thoms property north, this is their plan at the time being, and I can't speak to any future plans they have.

Okay.

Thank you.

Pam.

Um, like we said before, they've expanded on lot four for this user.

And uh as for the parking, we'll have that kind of uh sewed up of what exactly uh is determination for the parking spaces.

This is um we've run into this where we've got uh truck loading versus um the overall parking on site and everything.

So we'd have to uh have that number required.

The modification for spillover that could be mitigated.

Um the storm water is uh still pending uh for approval, and also the APFO certificates will need to be done before it moves forward with you.

Um this place also falls under the archaeological assessment that was before and that is completed.

Um I just want to mention something before uh this applicant leaves, and I um keep saying myself I don't want to forget.

Um we had had a uh DRC meeting with you all and gave you some comment letters, and then since that fact I went through the report and everything else, and now I've even added some more comments.

So I would like you uh to look at all the um packet for the workshop and those letters again and make sure you've got all the comments covered um and response because there are a few with each of the site plan uh comment letters, I believe.

Absolutely.

We we'll double check that we have everything, and it's part of our resubmission process for I believe the 29th.

We're gonna go through and make sure that we've responded to everything point by point.

And they're scheduled right now for the November 10th uh hearing.

So we will review their plan, see where they stand as cleanup, and then make sure that um when they come forward with you.

Um I think that is it.

Yeah, right.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

No.

That sounds been any public comment in this case?

No.

Any additional questions from you?

All right.

No, just thank you for your time.

You're welcome.

It looks like we're good.

All right.

Next, my glasses on so I can see.

There we go.

Is um PC 25-249 CTA zoning text amendment regarding section eight table, no section eight thirty-eight, table eight three eight-one.

Um we need to swear you all in.

That's right.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given and the statements made in this hearing before the planning commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

If so, answer I do.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Give the statutory framework as it relates to the land management code itself, and then maybe get into the have uh Mr.

Smariga or Mr.

Davito get into some of the particulars as to why we would like to uh um uh I guess go with this option, and you know, we have some of those examples that they might go through, and then we'll obviously entertain any questions that you all might have after staff input.

So again, the concept here, um what we're basically talking about is in within an MU mixed-use project where you have um a larger building, what is the percentage uh breakdown of non-residential and residential on the first floor?

And currently in the um, so you know, we again we're very excited to be putting putting concepts together, proposing the staff and and wanting to bring them forward.

One of the concepts we were looking at from one of the buildings was that you were gonna have some residential as a percentage on one of the first floors of these buildings with the balance being retail non-commercial.

And the what we ran into is this section um 838 of the land management code, which relates to what is called mixed use vertical, mixed use development vertical.

And you have this very interesting table which sort of runs down the standards and sort of what can and cannot go into the particular part of the building.

And so the section that we kind of ran into was use is permitted on first floor in a mixed, what's defined as a mixed-use building, retail office, industrial, with no reference to residential.

And so, you know, again, as with everything in the land management code, you kind of put yourself back into the shoes of 20 years ago, what was sort of the justification for some of these provisions that were kind of running into some hurdles here.

And it's it's interesting to note what what is helpful in trying to ascertain that legislative intent is that there's actually an actual diagram in the section, right?

And it's it's describing a mixed-use development vertical building, and you sort of see how the concept was that okay, you have you know residential on the first floor, but then on the on the ground floor, what they're calling retail slash commercial, and and then they're sort of counter uh they're juxtaposing that with what you would call mixed use development uh horizontal.

So this is right here in the code, sort of illustrative of this section, and that's typically what you would show to you know a judge or whomever, hey, this was the intent of the language.

And when you when you look at this uh example, what quickly is brought to mind are you know your your sort of redevelopment projects within the city within the uh downtown and city proper, and that totally makes sense because it's uh carrying forward the the um sort of the redevelopment and and other patterns of of the buildings here.

The issue is that because it's calling out in this section for mixed-use buildings within, you know, as applied to MU1 and MU2, we're now faced with a situation where these these constraints are also placed on something like brickworks, which is effectively a large um you know, redevelopment of a lot of a larger amount of acreage greater than a block or two in the in the downtown.

So what we realized is okay, well, clearly there has to be an ability to in 2025-2026 bring forward a viable project that will allow for within a building itself the first floor to have some uh residential, which again we've seen um in other projects and other jurisdictions.

And so that's what brings us to to really this proposal of the text amendment.

And as you can see, it's it's fairly straightforward, kind of getting right to the crux of it.

We we're suggesting that the um that this that you all in the city um legislature consider adding a reference to residential as being permitted on the first floor, and then we know we know only an MU1 and or MU2 for building containing a mix of uses where the site plan is greater than three acres.

The logic of that or the rationale for that being this is exactly the situation that we're trying to sort of bring a project, bring a concept forward for.

It's a larger development, a larger MU1, MU2 that's had a master plan that's that has multiple preliminary plans and site plans, and therefore it's not being evaluated in the same way that sort of a redevelopment project would on a single building in downtown Frederick.

And so with that change going into the code, we believe we'd be able to bring in front of you all a plan then finally, because again, this is just the change in the code, we would have to come in with the mass with the um with the site plan, you know, again, uh, that would reference all of the things that were were um more memorialized in the master plan approval, you know, let at least then we could say, okay, hey, look, you know, all of these different ideas and concepts we have, we can at least now bring them in front of you for you to evaluate because again, we're showing a certain percentage of residential on the first floor for one of these buildings.

And so that's that's really in a nutshell kind of why we were proposing uh this legislation.

Um again, I think that as you all are well familiar, there are very many idiosyncrasies of the land management code, and this is sort of the latest in a series of them.

Um at the very least, the the legislation does afford the ability for an applicant to propose a text amendment.

Again, really the purpose is hey, look, can we make this tweak so that we can at least come in and show you something that we we're excited about and even get our foot in the door for you to be able to take a look at it?

Um so with that, I don't know if um maybe Chris or or Mr.

DeView, if you wanted to kind of run through what it might look like as it as it relates to the project itself.

Sure, I can get started, and Eric can chime in.

Um Chris Mariga with Harris Moriga.

I know we're not supposed to talk about specific projects with a text amendment, but we are gonna let's talk a little bit about a specific project, and then we can talk about how it you know correlates to the MU at large.

So as we looked at the brick, which is fine for like Noel said, downtown infill.

If you have a small building that's you know 30 feet wide by 60, 70 feet deep, which is about the typical dimension of a retail type depth, um, you know, and you want to have uh retail on the lower level with a mix of uses, it's it's it's kind of gives you the idea of what you know you're requesting in a mixed use type development.

The scale though for some of these mixed use developments in total is much larger than an infill in town.

So we're we're DB might be appropriate to have this requirement.

It's a little harder in a mixed use development, for instance, on brickworks.

You know, the retail space between the grocer, the uh the different inline tenants, the restaurants.

We're talking about 80,000 square feet.

There you go.

Thank you.

That's perfect.

That's our uh that's our multifamily building.

Um the first floor on this building is over a hundred thousand square feet, and the dimensions are such that we'd have units facing to the west, we have units facing to the east, we have a parking deck in the middle.

So you would never have it's too wide to ever have a retail space where you for the entire length of the building or residential, the entire length of the building.

Um so what we had hoped to do is to incorporate some retail, you know, that would be appropriate, maybe facing the other retail on the brickwork site so that the street network would be the same, the same feeling as you walked around the neighborhood, it'd be kind of continuous as if you're in a downtown environment.

But then as you get to the backs of the buildings, maybe even some of the sides, transition into some residential units, which is what we've shown in the four different examples in the packet that we sent in.

So clearly architecture is a big part of that, making sure you know that the residential unit units feel you know cohesive with the rest of the non-residential, but also maybe differentiate so people aren't you know trying to get into people's units.

Um but there's four examples we provided in Baltimore, Richmond, Washington that show how that transition can be made.

Um and again, the key is really the scale of the project.

So, you know, as mentioned, you know, requiring it on the entire first floor retail on the entire first floor would just be you know a burden so strong that it well what will happen is what we did when we brought our plan in, we couldn't introduce any retail because it just was too much to be supported.

Um but we can support parts of it.

So this is where you know the tax amendments just basically trying to give us in any applicant a chance on any project to come in and say, look, this is how we think we can incorporate both, and here's how we'll do it.

Here are the elevations, and here's the plan view of how the retail spaces will relate to each other.

So that's great.

And then I just would again highlight when we say any project, it's it's MV1, ME2 with the three acres.

Certainly any project as it relates to how we already have in place for DB, sort of a facility for that.

But again, there's this sort of missing piece of okay, well, what happens with these larger sort of uh uh projects that are redevelopment, or even I guess it could be greenfield if you have an MU2 come in down the line.

But um to Mr.

Samrigo's point, really scale.

Thank you, Noel.

And again, Eric Davina with Greenberg Gibbons.

I really don't have anything to add per se to what Chris and Noel just already said.

I will just point out that the we think it's one, we've done it elsewhere, our Hunt Valley Town Center project, we have retail and residential right next to each other, and it's mixed on first levels of the boats.

We so we know firsthand it does work.

We've also given other examples of other cities that do it where it does work.

And here, especially because of the way this layout is, and we don't have a site plan here, but if it would be helpful, we can certainly bring it to the hearing, but we didn't want to be so specific to brickworks because we think it works across the board.

But it would activate that area as well.

And you know, the pedestrian way that we've set up the whole community, now you're activating it on all four corners as opposed to just a multifamily building sitting on the edge of a retail parking lot.

This is a way to connect it all and make it a a very cohesive those two lots to really work together.

If you remember our site plan lot four is the retail and lot six is this multifamily, and they're right next to each other.

They even share an access road.

So this is a really natural fit to be able to do some of this retail, however, a hundred thousand square feet of retail on the whole first four footprint is is not gonna work, obviously.

So we can make the project work without this text amendment, but we do think this makes it a better project to have this text amendment, and that's basically the crux of why why we're supporting this and are asking for this.

Thank you.

Okay, okay.

All right.

Um we'll do our roll call for questions.

I guess we'll start with Commissioner Lewellan.

She has a had a chance to go first yet.

Um so in in these examples, um I'm just trying to picture it because I've I've not seen it in person yet to understand it.

So would the proposed sizes be the same for each unit?

Are we gonna have like a a very large um commercial area next to someone's resident?

I'm just trying to to visualize it a little bit more than these pictures because I couldn't tell from the photos if these were just vacant storefronts or they're residences.

Go ahead, Chris, if you want to say can we pull up some of the pictures?

Well, I was gonna say the one we had up there is a good example.

So um that area we're looking straight at, I believe, is like the the public space of the multifamily building, so there might be the workout facilities in some public areas, and then just the left of it would be where the retail area is.

So that's a natural fit.

Okay.

And then there'd almost be a natural break in the building where you go into the partner out.

You kind of see that black area there.

So the residential then would be more on that side.

So it's somewhat physically separated, so it's not right on top of each other, okay, but it's integrated into the entire large project.

I don't know, Chris, if I said that well, yeah.

And where they do transition from one to the other in some of these is there.

Yeah, if you can kind of show me on some of these photos, what I'm looking is that you go.

They're one on top of each other.

So this kind of shows at the corner, the activated space, and then as you would continue down, like the right down the street.

Uh-huh.

If you scroll down, then it transitions into a little different look.

So this one's a little more commercial than some of the others.

The other is if you go to one of the other things.

I think one at the end might show a good yeah.

That building in the next picture maybe shows.

Yeah, so again, you can tell the commercial, and as you turn the corner, again it goes to residential.

Is there one more below this?

Yeah, here's another here's where you see the architecture.

So on the top picture from the left to right, you start with the commercial spaces, and then you can see the treatments a little bit different on the residential units, the white next to it.

So if you scroll down just a little bit, there you can kind of tell how it's broken.

These happen to have doors out on the street.

That's something you all would review when we would come in with the elevations.

You'd get to see what's not in a building would necessarily not in a residential, you know, necessarily have doors like that, but it's an option if you want it to.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, that's helpful.

Okay.

Commissioner Manellas?

Okay, so I have a comment and then a couple of questions.

Um understanding that this text amendment has citywide implications as well as you are the applicant that's bringing it forward, and that it would that you would benefit from the citywide application.

Um the first thing is moving forward, if we could have a picture of the site plan that would be helpful for me so I can see where the lots are.

We're used to seeing that on the city side.

If we could have like that map that shows like the different designations of the zones that we've had like M1, M U.

Do you know which map I'm talking about?

We've seen it before where it will it has a different colors on it and it tells you what the zoning map.

Is it the zoning map?

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

Yeah, that's public, yeah.

Okay.

So with this, okay, so I guess I should go to the book and look at that myself rather than it is a it's a fairly large map.

Okay.

Okay.

So that's one.

Um two.

Um, where is the text?

Where's the language?

I'm confused.

Is that is the language is the language the box?

Like I couldn't understand where the language was.

I was looking for it.

So it's a confusion.

So, you know, again, part of it is just sort of from from a drafting perspective, how you indicate in an ordinance what we're over changing versus suggesting that we change.

So it's literally, you know, again, it's it's within the this um matrix itself.

Right.

So where I see the word residential.

Yeah, so really the current the current law just reads retail office industrial.

And then so what we're suggesting is adding the the word residential with the footnote, which would go, I guess, right under the box under the matrix here.

Um so that's again, it's hard.

It's when the way the way we have to show, I mean, I guess sometimes it's it's a matter of what of the existing uh code you show in the ordinance.

So okay, so this basically is so that's what I was confused about.

So basically it's just the word residential with a star and then something at the bottom of it.

Correct.

Um it doesn't speak to I'm I guess I'm still confused with that because I don't understand how that would work per se.

But I'll get back to that in a minute.

Um so in regards to the first floor, um you guys gave the example, I think, of lot six, maybe I think it was.

Um staff report it mentions that.

Um I think was it lot six?

I'm trying to.

I remember seeing it, but I don't know where it is.

In their response to the station.

Is it in your response?

Okay.

So I'm just wondering to myself, um, so lot six, is that the one that's 80,000 square feet?

Multi-family.

Is that the one give and take?

100,000.

It's it's the entirely now all multifamily residential building.

Okay.

So I'm with the parking deck in the middle.

So the the units wrap the parking deck.

Okay.

So um it makes sense that you would say that it would be hard to get real retail in there.

Um but I'm just curious about why a text amendment wasn't submitted, you know, um prior to.

Like, I guess you kind of knew that, you know, to some degree what the layout looked like, what the building would look like, you know, and why the text amendment is coming now.

So it is.

Because because right, because the uses you knew that it would have to be commercial, you knew that you already had that square footage.

So I guess I'm just kind of like curious about you know, why now that's coming, like because you knew that there's no way we could fit retail into this huge space, you know, so we would have to probably request something.

Um so as far as the timing to the specific project, certainly um, you know, as you move through the approval process, and then it firms up your ability to sort of propose what would be coming next.

Um and I'll just speak for sort of what my experience has been on this particular one.

It wasn't until you know, again, you you sort of know what you want to propose, but then it isn't until you get in get to interaction with uh professional staff that they'll start pointing out well, actually what you're proposing may or may not work.

And you guys certainly don't see this, but there is a lot of back and forth as to you know what is the interpretation of the code, what's the reasonable interpretation that we can you know the staff will accept the plan that they say abides by what you can even submit.

And if you know, at a certain point, sometimes it's like okay, that makes sense, you know, that's a reasonable interpretation, but here clearly there, you know that that particular cell in the matrix right there that doesn't have residential, we sort of ran into that.

So I don't know if that helps with the timing.

And I'll just add a little more color with that too.

I mean, the the project you all have approved at this point works as is, it meets your code as is.

When like Noel said, when we went back and said, well, hey, it'd be a better project if we were able to integrate some retail onto this first floor, and there's also some slight elevation changes in the building because of the way the grade falls, and we thought that might meet the letter of the code, but in talking with staff, it's just we do believe there's a code limitation and the way the timing was and where we were in the process, it made sense to come down for this text amendment because we can integrate it at this point if we have to, but again, if you deny it, the project we can still move on, and it would just all be residential in essence.

Our preference would obviously be able to do this, but we can do it either way.

Thank you.

Um I'm still scratching my head about the um and understand about the um language with the you know, just the word residential with the asterisk.

I guess I'm trying to figure out to myself, like, you know, there's no conditions, there's no like percentages, like what percentages of this 80,000 square foot building will this be in?

Yes, I heard the back, but how much of the back, you know, is there a separation wall between internally between the residential and the commercial, you know, uh is there uh parking for the commercial, I guess it probably would be open parking outside, and then the residential is I think up there in the middle somewhere.

And um, what else am I thinking?

I was also thinking about like the traffic, you know, what that would look like with additional residential, just a whole bunch of questions around what that would entail that's really not described, you know, or covered in that's a table that has the asterisk and it says residential.

It's almost like it's a free-for-all.

Yeah, no, those are all fair questions, and quite frankly, that's that's sort of why you know we we sort of grapple with sort of this land management code and and text amendments and legislation because quite frankly, I mean the way it's currently drafted, if and again, this is a table, table 83-1 mixed use building the work unit standards that covers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, nine different zones.

So if I came in with a site plan for DBO and I wanted to do a mixed use building, you know, currently I could just show office.

But to your point, there is a process question involved.

So it's like, okay, so you're gonna show office.

Well, this just at least allows me the ability to show that use on a plan.

We submit the plan and then the rest of the land management code and APFO at that point applies.

As it stands, we can't even come in with a plan that shows a percentage of the first floor for this building as um anything other than all residential or all um non-residential.

So at that point, if if the text amendment, you know, again, it's it's sort of like I guess think of it also as like kind of an equivalent which we all use all the time is the use table.

So there's the table that says the different zones, and these are the uses that are committed.

If we add a use, so it's sort of like kind of like one of the more recent ones that comes to mind is like a convenience store in um whatever, whatever zone we added it into.

All we did was we just the text the city legislated in an additional use that gets added into the into the um the use matrix.

Then at least at that point it allows the application to come in and the rest of the code applies.

So um in case it helps, and maybe I'll punt this over to Chris.

But I mean, with this text amendment change, let's say we did want to come back and put 5,000 square feet of retail in, we'd still have to come back to you and show you that additional square footage and show how it meets all of the other requirements of the code that our traffic study still works.

I'm looking at Chris now, I don't know if he's nodding or not.

I mean, it's not like we can just come in and throw 5,000 square feet of retail in here now after this text amendment passes.

We would still have to come back to you and say this is our proposed use.

This is how it still meets all of the other requirements of the code that are in there for APF and traffic and everything.

If that makes sense.

So this is really just a it's really just allowing us, like Noel said, to show it on a plan to then go through the whole approval process with that.

Okay, so let me repeat what I think I heard you say.

So the reason why this language would be broad in terms of having just the word residential in this mixed use designation is because you don't know yet what the uses will would be.

So therefore, once if this text amendment was approved and it's residential, and depending on the number of units and what the commercial piece could be, then you would come back and provide more details because there are other sections of the code that would apply to those pieces.

Is that correct?

I think I mean I think that's a fair statement.

But right now we couldn't even have submitted a plan to you all for review that showed retail in that location of the multifamily building because it was not allowed by your code.

Now, if we want to in the future show you a revised building that has retail, this provision would allow us to just show you that plan, which right now is forbidden by your code, can't show it to you.

Okay, so the code currently says that with a multi unit building, you cannot have a commercial on the first floor.

You cannot have uh residential on the first floor.

First floor.

Or you could have all residential, right?

So right now the plan that you've approved for that building shows 100% residential use on the first floor.

That's allowed by your code.

You cannot do both residential and non-residential on the first floor of your code.

That's what's precluded.

So if we want to show non-residential retail with residential on the same the same floor, this text amendment would have to get passed first.

Okay.

I think you're on to something.

I mean, sitting here mulling this over.

Thinking like, is there a problem with it?

You know, what would be the downside to what's being proposed?

This is my opinion.

The downside would be in the mixed-use building if you have residential.

This is like a cake, right?

Residential on the first floor, and then maybe you had office on the second, an office on the third, kind of inverting what the typical would be.

So maybe this residential when it's on the first floor, it needs to be accompanied by something else, whether it's office, so it's not a standalone use on the first floor.

If you're gonna have other uses of a building, I think that's maybe where you're heading, so that you know, you don't have that inverted case where people are living in the lower level and offices are above.

If you have if you have residential down low, you should also have other mixed uses on that ground level, I think.

Well, why don't we finish more questions before we start problem solving?

Yeah, Commissioner Valencia.

Um I think yeah, you're probably gonna be shocked.

I think this was a great presentation, it makes perfect sense to me.

And I think that um, yeah, like when I first saw this, I was really thinking accessibility, because there's so many times that there's mixed use, and it's just like I always look at the commercial part of it, and then I always look up and I'm like, wow, so if I had trouble going upstairs, because not all of these buildings have elevators, even if they're new or not, I always think about accessibility.

And I'm always like, why is there not residential on the bottom floor for that reason?

So that was my first thought when I saw this, and I was actually pretty excited that you guys were bringing it forth.

So I'll stop there.

Thank you for this.

All right, and shocker right.

Yeah, I'm excited about a text amendment.

Sorry, just to respond.

I mean, those are the things that arise as you work through the code, and that's why you know, in the our preamble the suggest a preamble language we referenced that there are some limitations that you know we we've we're seeing we need product that responds to those limitations.

So one of my thoughts was, and maybe this is more for city staff than for you all.

I'm not sure.

This section 838 applies to vertical mixed-use buildings.

So at what point is a product defined as a vertical mixed-use building.

Um I mean, obviously, the multifamily at Brickworks is not now defined as a vertical mixed-use building.

Is that something that when somebody's proposing a master plan, you know, they want to propose?

And you know, I mean, it's only when something is designated as a vertical mixed-use building, does that table even start to apply?

So that was the first thing that I thought.

The second thing that I thought was to me, the acreage restriction doesn't make a bit of sense.

If we decide this is a good idea, I don't care if it's on a one-acre lot or a 10-acre lot.

If we think it's a good idea, we need to come up with parameters for putting it anywhere.

Could that be a the square footage size of the ground floor?

You know, we don't want it on, you know, ground floors less than 20,000 square feet.

I don't know.

If it's okay or so, so think about that and see if that makes more sense.

Um I hear what you were saying.

I still think I would want to be convinced that we can't come up with any scenarios where something could be proposed that wouldn't be governed by the rest of the LMC.

Um, my gut feeling is without some design guidelines on how this would work, a mixed vertical mixed-use building isn't going to be covered by our existing design guidelines, because right now we have commercial design guidelines and residential design guidelines, and so that would be something I'd want to address.

Um I would also think that we'd want to put some parameters around it, like it has to be, you know, the the retail has to be on a public street.

Um the retail, you know.

And you know, maybe not even a percentage of square foot, but but some parameters that say where it is okay and where it isn't okay.

So those those were the things that that when I when I was reading this, I was like, yeah, I mean, I overall I'm not objecting to the concept.

Um I think it needs more words than just residential on an asterisk.

Those are all the con all the things you raised are were kind of where we started at the starting point.

Like, well, why can't we put resident and so the things that you've clicked off like Commissioner Strawson, you know, those are sort of what we were grappling with, and that's why so I still think it needs a little more grappling.

Yeah, well, and what I and only because I've been involved in a bunch in a handful of text amendments related to mixed use, this is sort of where I take a step back and kind of say, okay, what is it?

Why is it why are we why are we having to legislate the change here?

Right.

And I think it's because again, you know, when we when we go back to when in 20, you know, 2005 to 2009, MU1 was where we the city zone specific properties as the new mixed use to be under the land management code.

There were only a certain set, a subset, a very small subset of properties.

Then it added this MU2 where, hey, you know, if you meet certain criteria, you can come in and apply for this MU2.

So we have M U1 and M U2.

They're subject to, you know, depending on if you're M M1 or M U2, both have a master plan.

MU2 does have conditional rezoning as part of its uh process.

So there's a there's a very heightened, and it makes sense because you're looking at a mixed use product with a with uh a lot of um sort of design criteria and guidelines, but it's it's a very robust you know review of a project or proposed project.

Whereas as you know, if you look at a DBO project, you basically have the DBO section of the code, a use that's permitted, you come in with the site plan, here you go.

All the standards are already sort of within the the the um that section of DBO.

I think where you know, again, it it seems simple, but you know, I I difficult to admit, but as a lawyer, you kind of you like simple.

I mean, MU1 and MU2, it's it's only going to be there's gonna have to be a master plan that's already applied for before someone can even have, and again, it's not just our project, any project will have the ability to have the benefit of uh showing you a plan that has some residential, some non-residential within a first floor.

So again, it will preclude it will assume that there has already been an MU1 or MU2 that has gone through the process before someone can even sort of show this at the at the site plan stage.

And that's kind of how I was trying to sort of think sequentially.

Why is it that you know, again, you just all we're doing is adding in a term and then putting in this this uh floor of a of an acreage.

And the acreage, again, to your point, Commissioner Strawson.

We were just trying to think of again, again, speaking to how much MU1 and MU2 is out there, it's kind of like three, you know, we started out with one acre, really, but you know, if if if we're if there was a sort of a question or doubt as to the general applicability citywide, it's like okay, well, you know, three acres or more, there's gonna be a map, you know, more likely than not an ME2 master plan that has come in, had a conditional rezoning as part of the process and that sort of thing.

And so all of the standards, you know, that they can say, well, what you know, what about the parking, what about this, what about that?

I feel like that's again, you when you take the code as it works together, use is allowed in MU1, MU2, master plan required in process, preliminary plan, site plan.

I feel like it gets all of it ultimately, because just as with these other provisions where it already as it's written, retail in a mixed-use building in MXE.

So I come in with a uh with a with a site plan that's showing the retail.

Well, how is all how are all of the impacts and and other sort of considerations taken into account?

It's the rest of the section on MXE that the planning commission would be uh providing.

So hopefully that makes sense.

Again, in its isolation, all of those questions certainly arose to us as well.

I think the ground floor minimum is a great idea.

That the reason I struggle with percents sometimes is depending on the size of your project, as you say 25% has to be retail.

When a hundred thousand square feet, that's still a lot of different things.

That's still a lot of value.

We still can't do it.

Yeah.

But if you're gonna have a mix of uses on the first level and you're required a certain amount, like a minimum amount of footprint, I think that might be a great way.

He then can also scale it so that if it's a small enough building, you just have to be retail down low.

Maybe it's not appropriate in a 1800 square foot, you know, one-level DB zone property.

But once you get to a certain size, there is a number where you can you know hit that threshold.

That's a great idea.

Um and then my last thought is because this is we're changing the land management code.

It this goes to you and staff.

If there's any evidence that this is a citywide problem, you know, other other places where there's been an issue, you know.

Other places where there's been an issue, you know.

I mean, I don't want to, I don't want to fix a problem that's not there.

So anyway.

Um, any other questions from up here before we go into staff?

Just commentary.

Um, I do have some questions for staff, but I think part of the struggle that I feel like I can say we have um about text amendments is the fact that you know sometimes you want to be able to provide a flexibility for a specific development or developer.

However, because it's has citywide implications, is kind of entangled in that and making it very difficult to really want to be flexible and to be uh supportive in the success of a development.

It's just kind of hard.

I don't know what the workaround would be for that one day, but you know, that's just one of the um I think things that we struggle with as it relates to text amendments.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Hello.

Um so yeah, going to the this uh text amendment, the three acres uh was put in there because the purpose behind the text amendment was really to address these very, very large buildings.

But the original intent behind this code for mixed use is to make sure that we have active streetscapes, right?

So your first floor of your building, you want it to be active, it's like a regular retail commercial area, and then you want that quiet space up top.

Now we do have vertical mixed use, and then we have horizontal mixed use.

The horizontal is that type where you've got one building that might be one story that looks two stories that has a grocery store, and then you've got multifamily four or five stories high next door, right?

Um vertical mixed use looks a lot better, it functions a lot better.

Um and so the the three acres was to kind of ensure that our smaller sites maintain that active streetscape.

Um in the staff report, uh, we've also mentioned um that we do need to really focus, and you guys have mentioned this on the design, because it is just adding a use, there are no qualifiers or anything like that.

Um, and the way the architectural standards are set up currently sort of divides between the type of building and doesn't necessarily address first floor residential architectural requirements, such as you know, separate entryways, good lighting, that sort of stuff.

Most developers will do that anyway because you know they want to sell it.

Um, but that is something that we address was that the the design standards weren't coming in with that.

Um there is a um already in the LMC uh regarding commercial buildings of budding arterial, minor arterial, and collector streets needing at least 50% active uses.

Those active uses are the ones that generate pedestrians the most.

So a cafe, wonderful.

Um, but uh a home, a town home, maybe that's just gonna sit there empty between nine and five Monday through Friday isn't an active use.

So we would want uh you guys to kind of put that into the thought the street classification in reference to where these residential entrances on first floor can be.

Uh we do have proof of first floor residential being used currently in the city.

Um and I believe I cited that in the staff report, section 817, the DB district, which is downtown business, you sometimes find these um smaller buildings that are really that used to be a business, used to be some sort of commercial business, and it just is not doing that anymore.

It's not doing business, it's become vacant, it's run down.

We have a caveat in the code to convert that first floor business into residential.

So we do have some precedent for for first floor residential in the code.

Um staff only has concerns about the the street classification and those sort of design details that really make a community and a home a home.

All right, any questions for staff?

Yes.

Go ahead.

So um, what were you saying?

You said did you say 15 or 50?

50.

Five zero.

Okay, 50% of active uses.

And you were just saying that you know, you need that commercial 50% to have that foot traffic.

Yes.

Okay.

Um and when you mentioned um that we do have some precedence, and we do have some buildings that have uh, just to make sure that I'm clear, um, we have buildings that have a mixture of residential and um retail on the first floor.

Is that what you're saying?

So the precedent that I'm mentioning is um the code itself, the land management code has a caveat to turn commercial first floor into dwellings.

I can pull to see how often that has been done, but I imagine that's few and far between, but that it is in the code speaks to a need for it to be in the code.

Okay, but it doesn't have both, right?

So it just has commer, it just has you can turn it into residential, but you can't have there's a code say you can have both residential and commercial.

I'm hearing you reference, I'm just asking because I'm hearing you reference um you said that the code does allow for you to convert it from residential to come.

From commercial to residential on first floor.

Right, on the first floor.

But does it have anything that speaks to both I may?

We've had we've had um so that's allowed with the conditional use approval.

Coming over closer to you.

Um so um you can convert the first floor of a downtown business to residential, and we've had conditional use approvals for partial conversions.

Um they wanted to maybe change the front portion of the building.

Uh I think that that's a relative um uh provision of the code in this context because it's it's a precedent for um expressing approval for desiring active non-residential uses on the first floor, right?

We recognize that there may be some instances where it's not viable any longer, and we want to give applicants uh opportunity to have residential on the first floor.

But the the desire in the intent is to have those active uses.

Um but we have had partial conversions of first floor uses.

Okay.

So just to clarify, so you have you have had partial, but they have not been mixed use one or two, they've been downtown business or whatever, and have they been vertical, are they vertical buildings?

Um probably I can't to get you the exact, we have to reference the cases, but um in the their multi-story buildings, and I would anticipate that the upper stories were already residential where they were converting that residential use.

Okay.

So I just want to confirm this so that this would apply to vertical buildings.

Vertical, so I just want to make sure I'm clear.

This would apply to vertical buildings that are zoned mixed use one and two, not horizontal buildings.

Correct.

Horizontal MU development really just pertains to multiple uses uh expanded geographically over a property versus um vertically.

Okay.

And so um, do we know um how many vertical MU1s and twos that are throughout the city the only example I can think of off the top of my head are Minocase Center, I believe they have um first floor non-residential uh for Women's Mill Monacosy Boulevard?

Okay.

Yes, um off of Mill Pond.

And so the only reason why I'm asking that question is because I'm thinking to myself, from a citywide application that Kyle would apply, just wondering how you know, anywhere in this city that has a vertical M1, M2, how that would have impact.

Like, so I would say, would this only apply to new MU one and two, or would it be any existing?

Conceivably it could apply to someone wanting to revise their site plan.

I mean, I I would also you know when we think about what we're looking at when we look at a text amendment, one of the items is um, you know, does this implement the comprehensive plan?

And throughout the comprehensive plan, there are policies that are advocating for mixed use development and and vertical mixed use development.

Um if we I know that we we want to understand if this is part of a larger problem, but sometimes that's not the goal.

Um sometimes the goal is to make way for opportunities and not try to address just problems.

Do we have issues where this has occurred?

Well, if we want to entice developers or allow them to insert any amount of non-residential on the first floor, it's important to remove those barriers.

Right now it is kind of an all or nothing where either you have to do all first floor non-residential or none, and so situations where someone may have been like, oh, I see an opportunity for a modest amount of non-residential, but I can't do the full thing, we're precluding those opportunities from even coming through the door.

So I think while it's it's good to understand if we have past problems, I also think it's equally as valuable to look for future opportunities.

Which I absolutely agree with.

And I think that's why I was trying to figure out if this would be existing or brand new development, and that was one of my questions.

Um I asked staff that question, just wondering if somebody had an MU one or two that was vertical, you know, what would the implications be?

Not necessarily what problem solving, but more so the um interactions with the built environment, you know, foot traffic, um traffic, just that's kind of swirling in my head when I'm thinking about okay, we have citywide um implication, and this is an opportunity, you know, to provide more uh density, more foot traffic, more interaction with the environment, what would that look like?

You know, what would the implications be?

So if if there was an existing MU fully residential multifamily building, and someone said, ooh, this text amendment's been done, I'd like to now add some non-residential on my first floor.

That would look like a final site plan amendment.

Um we would I think the the point Noah um was trying to get to that all of the other provisions of the code would come into play.

We'd go, okay, how much non-residential do you have, how much parking does that require?

We have some shared parking requirements already in the code that would maybe allow us to balance what's there, and then maybe they need three more spaces.

So they add three more parking spaces, um, maybe they're adding a dumpster location, those sorts of things.

So that would be an opportunity, um, but it would go through a process.

That was very helpful, thank you.

Anyone else?

I think I'm good too.

Um public comment?

All right.

Any other questions that you guys have of us or staff?

Very helpful.

Thank you.

All right, good.

Well, I look forward to seeing something.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so before we go into the rules of procedure, um, we have a quick discussion about the MU text amendment letter.

Um staff wrote it, they sent it to us earlier today.

Dorothy had a chance to review it and has added some specific um suggested revisions.

Um I have a thought, but if either Commissioner Valencia or Llewellyn have anything you want to add to this.

Well, they're thinking, my thought, and I don't know if it's so no as I was reading this, and we've and Commissioner Manellas added the bit about the case by case, and we talk about I mean, I know we talked about at the meeting that we recognize the need for flexibility.

What I don't see from this, and which I realize maybe we didn't even address at the meeting, is where is that flexibility?

Did we envision flexibility at the master plan level for somebody to propose a different schedule at the master plan, or were we, which is my thought, my interpretation is that we were proposing flexibility in allowing a modifiable standard?

So that actually is probably more a question for the commission before it goes back to staff.

I I think I had the same vision where it would be flexibility in asking for a modification.

Okay.

It's like, okay, this is something we're running into.

Can we ask for a modification right now?

Proceed from there because that's when you're addressing the problem.

Okay.

Agree, right, right up front.

That makes sense.

So did you just to clarify?

So the the proposed text amendment was two components.

One proposing uh alternative phasing, getting rid of the whole prescribed percentage.

Right.

And then what happens when someone has you know, say starting from day one, they proposed a unique phasing schedule for themselves and now need to come back and ask for an amendment in the future.

Right.

Is your conversation question now pertaining to the ability to modify?

To modify the phasing later.

Later.

After you've established a unique phasing schedule, the the ability to mend amend it.

No, we've denied the concept of allowing them to make a unique schedule of their own.

Okay, that's that's all we opposed all of us.

All of us oppose that.

Okay.

So the So this so that needs to be clearer in the letter.

Yes, the can I mean that the commission wants to maintain the prescribed 7525 and then allow the developer to request a modification or an amendment, not a modification.

Yes, an amendment later, later date.

Yes, but do you want to allow them to ask for a modification with their approval of the master plan?

No.

No, no, no, that's way too far down the line.

No.

So it is a so it's a you would like to maintain the current phasing structure, build in a provision that would allow someone to ask for a modification to that provision at a later date based on your or an amendment to their master plan that allows them to change whatever the correct wording is yet.

Boy, that doesn't like it yet, does it?

Um you want to maintain your percentage that's in the code.

Yes, and allow a developer to request a modification based on specific findings of data.

Yeah.

Yeah, the rest of this I thought was fine, and I agree with Dorothy's decisions.

Yeah, the rest of it was fine for me too.

I just wanted to make sure that someone could come that we had enough flexibility to allow a person to come and make a request that we could then consider and approve if required or need be based on what I just I like how you wrote the letter initially, but I've just felt like it didn't reflect the flexibility that we would like to have for anybody that comes forward and feels the need for that.

So if we revise the letter to state that the commission wants to retain the current phasing structure, but request I can't see.

You guys are having technical issues today.

Oh, is it us?

Is it all of us?

Oh maybe that's what it is.

All right.

So we're amending the letter to indicate that the planning commission's would recommend that the phasing structure stays the same, but that a modification provision be built in that allows an applicant to justify upon good economic cause and other data that they can propose and ask for an alternative.

Okay.

If we are to amend it that way, would the commission because we we do need to um file and advanced a request to get things on the council agenda.

If we rewrite, um, is the commission comfortable with Joan signing that that says exactly like could we still view it and then just say yay or nay?

You could just send it by email.

If anything is required, I'll we can eat we can are we Scott, we're allowed to individually email Joan.

Not the whole group, but Joan and Gabrielle and Christina.

I I don't want anybody copying all on anything.

That's my point.

Because that's we're not having that.

So if a letter gets sent and in an individual, I would prefer actually you respond to staff, then staff can send that out.

So if you have a if what I'm understanding is you have a change to the letter, you want to say yes to the letter, I'd rather you respond to staff so staff can collect that and then contact Joan.

Is that what we're doing?

They all see it and somebody has something right.

That's my point, yeah.

Yeah, if the if the staff sends it to me for signature and I go, okay, that sounds fine, but they see it and they have another correction.

How do we incorporate that?

I would assume that we would include the chair on our response to staff, because she's the one that had the letter in the first place, and she should be aware that the change that there was a request for a change.

So I don't want yeah, no, I mean I really don't want a discussion like that happening, sort of not here in the room.

So if you have a change that you want to see to the letter, then we should be discussing it in public and not sort of email chains with staff, and then whether or not Joan would see that at the end.

I I would imagine, excuse me, that the chair could see the final version and say, here's the final version with the comments.

If you have additional comments that you want to talk about, and there are additional changes that you want to see, then we probably should be back here to discuss that and have that in public rather than doing it as small changes and tweaks, be it you know, if it's an and or an or or something that's tiny, I think that's something that staff could do, and then Joan could the chair could discuss that with staff, and if you had a change that you want to discuss with staff, you could send that to staff, but I'd rather the communication be that way, like you send something to staff, not to the chairman, because if there's only four of us now, that's half of you that are in on the conversation.

And I don't really like that sort of almost a majority in that regard.

So why don't you contact staff if you say I'd rather it be this or I want this word capitalized or whatever these tiny little changes that we're talking about, send it to staff.

Staff can compile those and then send it back to the chair, and the chair would feel comfortable then that staff has received all the comments and has made whatever changes that are there.

And if the chair says that looks good to me, then she can sign it.

If she says no, I don't agree with that, then we're back here again.

We're trying to have this thing not happening offline.

We want any any substantive changes to be made in the open setting.

Okay, so I think that this letter is pretty much done, and that if there were any changes, it would be very, very minor.

So then I should just email Gabrielle and or Christina and not copy Joan on that easy.

I think the question is even more fundamental.

Do you all really feel strongly that you need to see it before I sign it?

Yes.

I do.

Yes.

In that case, then we need to just finalize it at another hearing.

Yeah, because I'm I'm like without us being able to send that back through email.

If we just we just said revisions, but we will not have that printed in front of us right now today to approve it.

Like Gabrielle just typed up what we just said we wanted to add, so we don't have that in front of us now, the final.

So if there's if there's there's more changes than just you know a typo or uh uh you know changing of a word here and there, then yes, let's bring it back to another meeting where it can be available, where if anybody chose to, they could make a public comment about that, or they could see what you're gonna say.

I'd rather it be done sort of in an open forum than anything that would even suggest that we're trying to not have this public.

So then what we just said we wanted to add to it, then this will come back to the next workshop next month, or what was the next meeting?

Because we just added stuff.

This is what did things because now the whole thing's held up because we can't send an email.

Yeah, I think what you're saying is that these are all some of these are substantive changes.

There's something that you feel are substantive enough, that would be back at the next meeting, and they're not just little minor, like something small.

So, what I'm hearing is they would like to have it back at the next meeting.

I think we could bring it back to the next.

I I would presume we could bring it back to the next regular meeting uh in what's October.

Right?

I think this I'd like to propose something.

This is like very extended out because of this email train.

It's like we just we we're saying this looks good.

We had some wording changes that we wanted to add, which I think could be typed out, we view it, and then it's a yay or nay type deal.

Like that's how I feel.

I feel like this um if Gabrielle gives a yeah, I I hear what Gabrielle's saying that she's about to say out loud, this is work.

My recommendation would be I mean, I think the directive is fairly clear.

Um, we'll produce another draft, send it to the commission.

If anyone has any comments, write Christina and I back.

If they are, hey, you misspelled this word, we'll fix it, circulate it back to Joan, say hey, Natasha pointed out that we spelled this word wrong.

If if we're if I'm receiving comments back that are, oh, I don't think that's what we really meant, then we need to come back and have a public conversation.

But I think the the intent to reiterate is the letter is going to say that the commission would recommend that the provisions stay the same for the phasing with the prescriptive 75-25 percentage requirement, but that a option for a modification to that be introduced into the code based on the economic data and the the findings being clearly established.

And and then we'll we'll send that out.

That's perfect.

Thank you.

That's that makes sense.

I don't think we need to pause the whole thing for a month.

All right.

Can we take a five-minute P?

Don't see it.

Okay, we're gonna take a five-minute break.

Um continue our discussion of the rules of procedure.

So, how do we want to start at this point?

They're not listening to you.

Where are we convening?

Um, yeah, do you want to start?

Do you want us to start?

Sure.

Let me give you just a rundown of what's in your packet.

Um, so you have a workshop summary, you have our rules of procedure to that are currently in place.

The ordinance, um, the city council adopted to move the planning commission, kind of the the regulations establishing the planning commission from the charter to the city code.

You have a draft of the rules of procedure that's been updated since our last workshop that's marked up.

So under line text is new text, brackets is indicating text that is being deleted, and then you have a draft of the clean version of that, so what it would look like if we accepted all of those changes in underline and brackets, uh, and then a sampling of rules of procedure from other um other jurisdictions that are share similarities with the city.

Um so in the important issues section of your your workshop summary, we just kind of recapped the changes that we had gone over at the last meeting in in what was what was changing aside from kind of housekeeping reference changes.

And then we on the second page we go into um the items that were discussed at the workshop and kind of responses to those.

Uh, the first one being the attendance requirement of uh what's new section 2.6 uh and providing some background on the state legislation and why we are required under the state's enabling legislation to have consistent regulations for boards and commissions that were adopted in the city code section.

And the second topic we addressed uh was the prohibition on researching matters of fact.

Um this is now in section 9.1, and that's just a matter of being relocated with the other changes.

Um we were revising the reference to field trips to say site visits, um, but otherwise wanted to provide an explanation about the types of decisions that the planning commission makes, which are quasi-judicial for the most part, um, with the exception of when you consider text amendments or or policy documents like the comprehensive plan or let's move Frederick.

Um the the majority of things that are before the commission every month are quasi-judicial, and in that capacity, the planning commission acts very much like a judge who's being presented with information and facts both from the applicant from staff as the technical resource in reviewing for consistency with the code and why it's important to maintain the integrity of that process.

Um namely, we don't want the decisions of the planning commission to be appealed.

Um we want the decisions uh to be based on a relevant fact matter and um be consistent with the authority that's given to the code.

Uh so we did work with the legal department to kind of provide a hopefully a relatively concise um summary of what the commission's responsibility is.

This also uh holds the same for the council when they consider quasi-judicial matters.

They don't do it as frequently as the planning commission does, but when the council considers a zoning map amendment or a master plan, they're acting in the same capacity, and we provide the same recommendations to the council that they don't have the authority also to conduct independent research and introduce that into the decision making process.

We did provide some examples of what would um not constitute independent research, um, you know, reviewing the record, um, understanding the the code itself and understanding the legislative facts.

So if you have questions about well, why do we zone things this way?

Um, you know, that's that's not independent fact finding, that's just trying to understand the terms of the code that you're trying to apply.

And then the last section, we uh amended since the workshop, uh the and I should have said with the attendance and with the introduction of findings of facts, we didn't make any changes to the draft rules.

This third provision with training opportunities is where we did introduce some new language, as you'll recall in the the updated draft.

We tried to spell out more concisely what the planning commission was doing at each of its meetings at its workshop as at its uh pre-planning commission, and in that section, we introduced kind of general language that just says general information related to the commission's roles and responsibilities in accordance with chapter two, section 245 of the code, may also be presented by staff to the commission at pre-planning commission meetings.

General discussion items will be advertised on a published agenda for the pre-planning commission meeting.

Um I don't think it would be worthwhile or advantageous to introduce much more detail as that because you want to maintain flexibility over the years to have the discussions the planning commission wants to have without being too prescriptive, but that does set the tone for what those pre-planning commission meetings um will be used for and can be used for.

So those are the only updates we added, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right, so how you guys want to do this?

Okay, Commissioner Valencia.

Okay, um so for let's let's since I'm on this page with the workshops in section seven.

Can you in section seven for the workshops?

Um is this saying that the training will be at workshops then if we notify a topic at least 15 days prior.

But um we're I guess just back to the training discussion.

Is it gonna be I don't know?

I so is that decided that it would be on workshop days instead of on Fridays on the Zoom.

You know, I think the feedback I heard, and correct me if I'm wrong, um, was that that we saw merit to having this language about the workshop if there was specific information that one of the planning commission members said, I want to discuss this at the next meeting.

Um, and that would maybe require some organization on our part to pull together those resources to make sure we had time on a workshop to give to that.

Um the language about the pre-planning commission was intended to accommodate your recommendation that there be 20 minute learning sessions um at each pre-planning commission meeting.

Which section is that?

Sorry, I'm trying to find that.

I'm not seeing that's uh it's section two.

That's on the last page of the workshop summary.

Um it's in section 3.3.

So the new text of that section says um, except as otherwise indicated in the approved planning commission meeting schedule, a pre-planning commission meeting will be held at 3 p.m.

on Friday of the week prior to the regular monthly meeting.

Sorry, I just can't find 3.3 because they all say three.

Oh they're saying three, four, or four, two.

Where's threes?

Three point oh.

Oh, I see in the bracket.

Okay, three point three.

Okay, I'm here.

Okay, go ahead.

Sorry.

Um, I'll come back to that, but um my other section that I wanted to touch on, or I'm not really seeing like a major revision that I think we were just like always discussing was in the I don't know if this is on the original, it was the 10.1.

Um, I think now it's 9.1.

Like the only thing that's been changed there is field trips to site visits.

But I think we had a lot of discussion around commission members take no part in daily staff routine of administration and regulations and research of matters of fact, although they do participate in field trips and discussion pertaining to the more significant matters to be considered at the commission meetings.

Um I think I think we had a lot of discussion around the research of matters of fact and what our parameters are there, and I just uh there's no revision for that still.

So have questions.

We're asking about the parameters for researching matter of fact.

Yeah, because that's been brought up since we did provide in the workshop summary some examples of what would not be conducting matters of research on matters of fact.

Um and I think it's important to point out whether that language is in the code or not in the code, does not um does not change your inability to do that, or I'm sorry, in the rules of procedure, right?

If this language weren't in the rules of procedure and the planning commission were conducting its own research on matters of fact, so the planning commission brought examples of case studies they were trying to use to justify, you know, a decision.

Um it doesn't matter if that language is in there or not, it you it's still not consistent with the role, and that's what we're trying to explain to you in the workshop summary, is that when you're making quasi-judicial decisions, you sit here much like a judge with um an applicant who's bringing you facts with staff who's reviewed it against the technical code, and is you know, applying applying the facts of the project to that technical code, and so the planning commission's role is to evaluate that information and not introduce its own findings of fact to make a decision.

So whether we had that language in here or not, that wouldn't change your role.

And I think it is important to maintain that language because it makes planning commission members aware um so that they can go, oh, I'm not supposed to do this, um, and we can avoid those those situations.

And this is consistent statewide, um, this is consistent um with as I said with the city council on what the role of the planning commission is um in conducting its review.

So I think I think that that information is important to continue to have, so we make sure that people are aware of what their role is.

Um, as I said in the workshop summary, we did provide some examples of what would not constitute findings of fact.

Um, you know, I think it's going to be different in every case, and so I would encourage the planning commission, much like we've talked about whether someone feels that they've have a bias and should you know recuse themselves.

I would encourage the planning commission to say, you know, is this information applicable?

Can we have this data?

How does this relate to this case and allow us to do that?

I don't think it's it's um realistic to to sit here and and provide a list of things you can and cannot do.

Um we've provided some general what are not you know research.

So I think perhaps one of the first trainings that we need to do is just refresh everybody's memory on what a quasi-du-judicial hearing is.

Um and I was curious, are do all planning commissions in the state all pretty much operate as quasi-judicial judicial?

Um, because I was looking in all of the the examples that you sent us, and none of those other jurisdictions that you sent us have this aspect of their you know in their rules of procedure.

So I was curious if you know are they all operating as quad quasi-judicial, you know, or are we somehow different?

So it sounds like a Scott question.

Right.

So what we got from IT was if you're not talking right, we should turn off our mics, because apparently that's what's causing the echo around here.

Um I don't know what the rest of the state does.

I don't know if if Gabrielle knows if all planning commissions are all these quasi-judicial functions.

Um I I'm certainly cognizant of you know that's that's what we have.

And I I think the way Gabrielle explained it, I I that resonates with me, but I don't know if it resonates sort of with what uh what you're hearing.

But the point being that we really want you to evaluate the facts that are presented to you and not present new facts to yourselves or new facts in and amongst yourselves, because that's sort of the thing.

I understand what you're asking about the rest of the state.

I can look that up.

I don't know the the direct answer.

I'm I'm much more you're much more important to me than what's going on in a different county.

And then and when you put it so first of all, the the explaining it this way resonated more with me too than it ever has before, which made me realize that maybe we need to explain to everyone what exactly it means to have a quasi-judicial procedure.

Um there were in some of the examples, and I can't remember which jurisdiction now, but some of the examples that you sent us, there were um rules for when we're operating as quasi-judicial versus when we're not.

So and there are differences, and and certainly we do have functions when we're not operating as quasi-disciplinary, when we're a recommending body.

Um still, in that case, I would like us to try to be as consistent as possible.

If you're recommending whether or not to adopt a resolution or whether or not to uh say yes or no to a zoning um, you know, text amendment uh or it's zoning change, then you should still consider all the facts that are being presented to you rather than having to again to go out and look it up yourselves.

Now we say that every one of you is put on this board and you have your own thought processes, you have your own background, you have your own history that you can utilize when you're having you know discussions, and and that's a good thing, but it's it's really up for the uh applicants, good or bad, whichever side they're on, and staff, good or bad, whatever information they're giving you, and you will you're an evaluator of information and not a purveyor of new information.

I and I don't know, I don't know how to say it differently than that, but that's sort of your role rather than to be the investigator, you are the the judge that sits up here and makes decisions upon all the information that is presented to you.

That's and we can do the training.

We need more information about it.

Oh, certainly and we you know, it's not acceptable to say that's not relevant.

If it's raised by somebody and part of the discussion, then we need that information.

And that's that's possible to it.

I don't want to agree with that other statement though, because there has certainly been public comment that we've received that that isn't really relevant to but that's for us to evaluate the information and decide whether it's relevant or not.

So it's not relevant, so it's not appropriate for staff to just say that's not relevant.

Well, okay, hold on.

Let's let me make sure I understand.

I've I've heard lots of people make public comments before the board that are that are not relevant to this.

They're they're talking about something in left field, and it doesn't really, and it shouldn't resonate.

You are the deciders, and you give weight to whatever information is provided to you, and you decide whether we're going to give that a lot of weight or a little weight, or we're gonna to some extent, we're gonna judge the credibility of the people that are giving you information.

I would hope that everybody is is being honest and truthful, but it is your job to evaluate whether what you want to believe when someone is talking to you about that.

And that is your role.

But as an example, public comment relating to moving of wildlife in the Rock Hill.

Sure.

Um we asked for information about wildlife rescue or wild the wildlife regulations.

It was said that's not relevant, and so we made a poor decision.

If we had seen that information, we would have made a better decision.

Sure.

But but so let's let's focus less on that one.

Yeah, right.

So someone says, I believe that there are endangered species up in this area, and we're doing a forest reforestation there.

We as a commission don't do anything with the Endangered Species Act.

And so it's not for this commission to that.

Now, it's possible that they can't reforce that area if they are violating some other form of the Endangered Species Act, right?

There's some other block for them to do that.

They can't get around it.

That's for somebody else, right?

We we don't take that into consideration.

When I look at the rules and when I look at the rules in the land management code, that's what you are making your decision on those rules.

If somebody talks to you about something else, endangered species, you can hear it, but if it's not part of the purview of what we're looking at, then that's it.

I I had a case when I first started, I'll give you the example.

Somebody was building a building, it was going to cast a shadow on the next door neighbor building.

And the commissioners at the time looked at me and said, Can we make a decision based upon the shadow that's being cast?

And I said, Well, it's you know, they're allowed to build up to 40 feet or whatever it is.

So, no, that that's not part of the criteria that it's going to cast a shadow on this other building.

They said, Thank you very much, Scott, go sit down, and then they denied the case based upon it was going to cast a shadow.

It got appealed, and we lost on appeal because even though that was information, it was relevant, and the the next door neighbor said, You're gonna cast a shadow of me and the commission.

That's horrible.

Well, what a terrible thing.

We don't want that.

They made a decision on that, which wasn't part of the planning commission process, wasn't part of the land management code, and we were overturned on that.

So that's what I'm trying to say is you might hear information, it might very well be, oh, we're gonna destroy habitat for this whatever endangered species thing is.

That's not for you.

There might be a block, somebody else could file an injunction in court to say they even though they got permission from you, they still can't build it because that's gonna do something else to that environment, and that that species somehow is protected.

I'm using this as a wild example, but that's the direction.

Yes.

The and if you had given them the information in the first place, they would have been able to go, oh, I see that.

It's I can make a better decision knowing this.

I just yeah, I I'm gonna add to this and just say that I've looked at the LMC and it does talk about getting a letter or something.

It speaks to other laws, but it also speaks to the DNR will make the determination whether there is you know, um endangered species and stuff like that, and it also speaks to you know the site plan that you are not allowed to really do anything unless you have that letter.

And in fact, in past packets, we have a copy of the letter.

Why have the letter anyway if it's immaterial?

So I just think that we need to be careful about saying it doesn't matter when it really does per se the letter itself, getting the letter, because that is because that is what we get every single time.

And I looked at the LMC when I was providing my response to to the applicant about why it was rejected, and the LMC does mention some of these pieces.

Now, if you want me to go back home and take a look at it and tell you exactly where I will, but it does state it.

Otherwise, why are you giving us the letter in the first place?

Yeah.

I just you all don't understand how individual thought processes occur.

If somebody says they need to see something, it's because they need to be able to figure out and weigh um what's going on.

It it I so to me it's if we somebody asks you for something, it's because they need it to help resolve their thought process.

You are more than welcome to say, here is what you asked for, here's why it's not relevant.

And and but don't just say, no, it's not relevant, we're not going to be able to do that.

And I give it to you, not give it to you.

And I think that that speaks to why I also want to see language in here about information is required, should be provided to us based on this um um code here um that I showed Scott, because information should be provided to us when we request it.

Um and we shouldn't have to ask for it multiple times, it should be provided.

Number two, there can always be guiding information, which is what you did excellently, Gabrielle, when you provided us with a document that explains in in the staff report what we what we are to consider and what we are not to consider as it relates to a text amendment.

But the information should still be provided.

And um you talk about not wanting people to do research, but then you know, the information is not provided.

The information needs to be provided.

Um, and I went on the Maryland planners website that speaks to the roles and responsibilities of planning commissioners, and it talks about formal and informal roles, um, and in how you do your duties, and one of the informal roles is independent research.

Um, but um that's all I'm I'm gonna say for now, but I do have questions and comments about throughout this entire document that I haven't gotten to yet.

Sure, I did want to note um Frederick County's rules of procedures have the same language about um the planning commission members take no part in the daily administration of regulations and research, a matter of fact.

So it it it is consistent, um I think establishing that basis for the way that the planning commission acts as a quasi-judicial body.

Right.

But if if if you're not pulling, and I gave you that example, a perfect example to you and Scott the last time, it's not under your purview to pull a report from the matrix, you know, bright MLS.

But I can do it because I'm a realtor.

So it's not part of your daily functions and duties.

But if there was information on here that I am requesting, then I would hope that you would be able to get that information based on your interdepartmental relationships that you guys should have, and you should be able to get that right information.

And so I think we need to spell out what is the work that staff does that you feel that we shouldn't be doing.

I think that's also a discussion of the executive branch, right?

Um, so the planning commission um the our our chain of command, right, is through the executive branch in deciding what staff does as well, right?

It controls the resources.

So the planning commission, I don't think unilaterally has the the authority to say what staff and staff doesn't do, right?

Because it the you're only one branch of the government.

Um right, you're you're a portion of it.

We we uh have the executive branch, which decides what we do every day.

Um, you know, and I think there's also the question of what data we have access to.

Um, if the planning commission requests every super fund site in you know the tri-state area, we might not have access to that, nor are under our professional accreditations are are skilled at presenting that information.

And so we also have accreditations as an AIC planner to P planner to act ethically and not um not presume to provide information that's beyond our scope.

So it would be unethical of me in my scope to pretend that I was well trained and and versed in information that is not part of my professional, my professional forte, right?

Um so when we ask for things that are outside of scope, if you ask for every super fund site, you know, in in the tri-state area, that is not something that anyone on our staff has any qualifications to represent data to you on.

So and and it's not relevant to the code.

So, you know, kind of what is the what is that exercise for?

It's not relevant to your decision making, it's outside that professional scope of the staff we have.

What are what are we doing with it in the first place?

Then just because someone asked about it does not mean it's data that we have to entertain, right?

Because it is so far out of our scope.

So I think there that those are um important considerations when we talk about what what we do and do not provide, um, it's not just a matter of resources, like I said, and kind of the executive branch managing the resources of the department, but also um kind of the integrity of the process that we have to be mindful about.

Okay, so back to the example of the bright MLS report.

You don't do that.

That's not part of your functions and duties, right?

It's not.

Correct.

And you can't pretend that it is to give me something that you just can't give me because it's not part of your professional, you know, process, your makeup, but I can pull it for myself.

So I should be able to pull it for myself because I have the credentials to do so.

So we would not want you to do that in a quasi-judicial matter because then you'd be conducting your own research, you know, and then in the text amendment it was legislative, so it's not an appealable thing.

But if this were quasi-judicial decision that you were approving a master plan and you did that.

Correct.

What I'm saying is right, if if it were quasi-judicial decision and you said, you know, Gabrielle and Christina and their staff, this is something outside of the ballywick of of planning, or anyone here in the, you know, in the Department of Public Works, Engineering, et cetera.

Um, and you did that, that would and then said, I'm gonna make a decision on this fact, or it appeared that you made a decision on this outside fact, it would it would make your decision vulnerable to an appeal, which is what we're we're all here to hopefully avoid, right?

I mean, that's our job, that's Scott's job.

That's that's the planning commission's job to make good good decisions based on the facts.

So introducing your own facts um make the decision vulnerable.

Can I um can I like kind of piggyback off this?

I think I think, yes, it would be totally acceptable to just be like that's a ludicrous request if we're like we want to know the whole national whatever.

But if it's more so asking something that does pertain to the city, we're asking for city data points, if we're asking, and there are departments in the city that have this information that can be pulled, like department of economics, that's not unreasonable.

And like the way the city I think we all believe to work is that they're working together, the departments were together to run the city.

So we're asking for something that's like an economic development question, like if it is you know, what does the market look like in the city, then that should be a reasonable request that we're asking for, even though it's not your department, that should be accessible.

So I think if what we're asking for is to see some wording that says, like maybe you know, we're not here to tell you how to do your job.

That's not what's trying to come across.

It's more so um you have access to the other departments in the city that it should be a collaborative working situation.

I would think, if we're going by all the different legislative branches, but so if we have something that's like a department of economics question, that information should still be available to us through your department just by communication.

So let me address that.

100% look we're we're all here to try to get to the right answer, right?

The staff is does their very best to try to give you all the information that you need.

If you asked a question of something that has something to do with economic development, we can certainly get that.

Anybody can go to economic development and get that.

If that's something that you feel is relevant to your decision making and you ask us that, then we'll certainly entertain that information.

If we can if again, assuming we can get that, if you ask that question and we say the answer is X, however, that consideration of whatever X is not within the parameters of what is allowable for you to review as part of a site plan review, right?

You want to know something else.

It is it it is certainly a consideration of mine.

Now you're asking for something that's not, let's just pretend for a second, you're asking for something that's not within the four corners of what you're allowed to consider for or what you should consider, and then you make a decision that that makes the applicant happier or unhappy.

The fact that that was brought up and it had to be considered because we gave it to you, it was shared, it's part of the information packet, it opens the door for someone to say, Well, your decision was flawed because you gave consideration to X, whatever it was that wasn't a part of the consideration that you should have made.

And so it's a it's a really fine line.

But couldn't that go both ways?

Couldn't our decision be flawed because we weren't provided information that we requested that we needed to make an equated decision.

Well, so it could go either way.

Yes, it is.

It's certainly possible, but again, your decision here is only based on the information that you receive.

Right.

So you have to make a decision.

We've certainly had lots of cases, and I I would never want you to make a decision if you feel like you need more information.

If if the information hasn't been presented to you and you say, I don't have enough here in front of me to make an informed decision, I don't want you to make a decision.

But I feel like that's what we keep bumping our heads on with this whole discussion is that we are we have asked for additional information because of something that was presented.

And so I've for me, if I feel like if the applicant presents it or staff presents it, then it's to be considered.

If it's on the table because it came out in the presentation, and then I'm like, hey, you know what?

Now that you brought that up in your application, then I would like to get some more information about this specific part, and then we request more information.

But I I don't want someone to bait you into getting into that if it's not again, if it's not part of it shouldn't be.

I was gonna say maybe we should just table this part of the discussion until you've had a chance to explain to us a little bit more about how we're operating as a j quasi-judicial group.

Certainly I can't.

I don't still want some I still want to say something.

But no, I still don't have to have answers.

Okay.

So I still haven't had a chance to.

Well, I'm only talking about this part of the process.

Let me let me sort of say this.

Everything that we're discussing, I think is very important, and it needs to be resolved.

I don't believe any of it actually needs to be a part of our rules of procedure in terms of how we provide information to you.

That's a given that we're going to give you this.

No matter what we're doing.

It's not a given because we haven't received it before.

Okay, but that's a that doesn't have to be part of the rules of procedure.

That has to be what we give to you, right?

And it's it's not you can put it in words here, and it might not it might not get provided as you wish in the future.

We're talking about rules of procedure in terms of what you are or not supposed to do as a part of just your daily functioning, and that's what this document really does.

I need to be able to I hold on for a second, I need to be able to make some comments because what I'm noticing is that you and Scott are mentioning master plans and site plans.

This is not what what we're talking about, talking about text amendments or anything that that relates to that.

Hold on for a minute.

Just need to be able to ask for information, additional information related to those two.

We already know, or at least I already know that with a master plan and a site plan is pretty much standard and standard information and so forth.

That's not what we're talking about, or at least that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about text amendments or anything related to where someone comes in and we're not talking about nonsense and hocus pocus.

I think you guys are you know that already.

We're talking about things that are like if someone says something that you believe is out of scope, but is the that is the applicant, then we should be able to say, you know, if this has a citywide implication, I'd like to see more of this and this and that, and not say it's out of scope because the applicant said it.

I mean, I understand that with text amendments, you know, that it is citywide application.

We knew that five years ago, and then this also has an implication for one individual applicant who brings it forth, um, and that we're not allowed to change the language in there because it's the intent, right?

So get it, understand it.

But my point is information should still be provided, shouldn't have to ask for it three, four, five, six times, should we provide the first go-around?

And the second piece that I think we have not discussed as well, that we had mentioned the last time is what happens if somebody gives information that is either incomplete or inaccurate, what is the city's role or responsibility in terms of ensuring that we have what we need?

Like we're talking a lot about information and what we can't do and who can do this and who can't do that.

What is your role and responsibility if Dorothy Manellus comes in here and gives you data that's either inapplicable, not accurate, or whatever?

What is your role and responsibility ensuring that these people up here um aren't making decisions based on what Dorothy said per se, but more so having the whole picture and not some of that picture?

I think that's a really good question.

Um you're speaking Dortmund Alice as a as a person.

Yeah, I'm an applicant.

Um so it would be difficult, although I don't think it would be difficult to say that person just gave you false information.

Right.

But we would never want to say that.

I mean, we're better than that.

But how would the staff relay to you that they don't think that the information is a hundred percent accurate, right?

They can present to you, we believe this information is correct or not correct.

I think sometimes what we we get, and we're we're now we've gone into the world of we're not talking about um uh quasi-judicial, you're talking about other things, and you want information on cases that aren't dealing with quasi-judicial.

And that and maybe that's where this disjoint of information is is coming from because I think or I thought that you were certainly looking for information on cases, and I don't I don't know which ones specifically we're talking about, but when you're making a quadrijudicial decision, I think it's really important that you listen to what's being said and decide based upon the information given to you.

Dorothy, you're pointing out that you're asking for when you're making a recommendation on something and you need additional information to help you with a recommendation.

Um I I don't want to ever be in a position where you have to ask more than once, but at the same time, it's possible that staff doesn't have that information at the time, or it can't get that information, and you have to rely that that your staff here is doing their very best, right?

And Gabrielle's not gonna withhold something from you if she has it and say, here it is, but I'm putting it behind my back because you can't have it.

Would we don't ever want to do that?

And we we can work together to make sure that you get it.

So I think I think it's important when we say making a recommendation too.

We make recommendations on quasi-judicial things, so they're not mutually exclusive, right?

I mean, when they recommend uh rezoning, that's quasi-judicial.

Correct?

Well, except that our decision on a rezoning is not the reviewable.

Right.

It's gonna be reviewable.

But should be in making their recommendation, it should be based on the facts.

So the council has the benefit of a fact-driven recommendation.

Agreed.

Correct.

Um, so when you make your recommendation on a rezoning or master plan in instances where the council reviews those, you want those to be based on the facts because that's what's going to be most beneficial to the council because that's what they have to do, right?

We don't want to make a recommendation that is based on things they can't consider because then you didn't serve your function in advising the council, right?

You want to do a good job of that.

Um so I think it's important to distinguish between legislative, you know, when we review text amendments or comprehensive plan updates, which we don't we don't do that frequently, um, or you make recommendations on you know, area plans or let's move Frederick, those sorts of things.

So those would be your non-quasi-judicial functions you'd be operating in.

And when you can consider whatever information you want to as part of your your decision making.

Um, so I think we should be certain to separate out those two.

Um when you ask what is our responsibility in making sure that the technical information is accurate and before the commission.

Um, I'm assuming you mean an applicant's application, not just public testimony.

We don't review testimony and and do any research to it.

So our entire process up, you know, there's usually about six to eight months of plan review before the planning commission even sees things.

Um in site plane cases, maybe it's only two or three months.

Um, but in those bigger projects, we've been working on those for a while before the planning commission generally sees those.

That whole process is a technical analysis for compliance with the code.

So when we bring you a workshop summary and we say this doesn't meet this, or they haven't provided this, and you get those comment letters, that is what we are doing.

We are advising the planning commission that they're these are still the outstanding issues.

When we get to a hearing, if we've gotten something on the agenda for a hearing, that that technical review is complete.

The applications you are receiving in front of you with a recommendation for approval with a few technical comments, those are complete technical plans.

That's our whole job.

Um so I don't know if I understand exactly what your question was in terms of how do we confirm and impress upon you that these things are technically accurate and complete.

Yeah, because we do that.

I can clarify.

Um so obviously, like Scott said, um, we're not expecting you as staff to be like this information is incorrect.

You know, that's not what we expect, but we do expect you to provide us with information because we're talking about you're saying that we're judges.

So you're providing information, the applicant is providing information.

And as you told us the last time, the applicant can provide whatever they want.

You said that you don't control their information.

And okay.

But the issue is for me, you may not control their information, and that's fine, but we need to make sure that what we're receiving is sound and accurate.

So if somebody's coming in here with data that's for Montgomery County, you know, for us to look at this is just an example.

We're not in Montgomery County, we're in the city of Frederick.

So the expectation is the applicant would provide information around the city of Frederick.

And so, you know, my expectation would be that staff would look at that and be like, wait a minute, those numbers seem kind of off.

Like, what did they get that information from?

You know, and then kind of say, you know, I don't know how, but kind of be like, look at that and be like, because I don't think we should be making decisions based on Montgomery County data, you know, you know, if we have city data.

So this is just an example, okay.

Um, but all I'm saying is that I expect someone in staff to be paying attention and saying, even if they didn't see it before and they're seeing it now, you know, while we're sitting here, we're making deliberation and discussions and decisions based on information that is provided to us.

If the information is not accurate or is inapplicable, I would expect someone to be able to somehow say that to us.

I don't know, do you want to blink, you know, blink and say, hey, you know, this is not accurate.

But I'm just saying, you know, I'm trying to make a light joke.

But my point is where does your responsibility begin with that?

I think the commission has asked for examples from other jurisdictions, even our rules of procedure here.

We were asked to provide examples from other jurisdictions.

If the commission doesn't want that information for comparison's sake, I mean, I think one of the things we do when we evaluate changes to codes or a lot of different things is we look around and see what are other people doing.

Um, we don't necessarily go, oh, that that's gospel because it has to fit into our context and in our world.

Um, but I think there is some benefit to seeing other jurisdictions information if the commission wants it and it's applicable.

Um but we can't, we're not the experts on that data.

So I would just be cautious if you recommend to see examples from other places.

Um I think we're missing each other.

And that's okay.

Because I don't because I don't think we're allowed to if it's if I'm under I don't think we're allowed to talk about specific things.

Okay, so I think what you're asking about is the public comes up, they say whatever they applicant, the applicant, sure.

The applicant comes up and they give a whole presentation that staff has never seen.

And there are very very clearly some things in there that probably don't apply.

Very clearly some things that you know we're definitely taking a harder look at because we just we need you know other confirmation.

Those are the type of things that really rely on you guys, unfortunately, to say what I'm listening to, I don't feel like if Joan were to say, you know, well, Montgomery County, we I don't feel that that uh should be comparable because the way that they operate or whatever reason she has is very different.

But what staff does a lot of times is we do compare to other municipalities because the wheel's been invented and it just you know that's that's how it goes.

Um but we do not tell you guys if the applicant um if their presentation is inaccurate because that's not really our role.

We look at what they have submitted formally, and then we're gonna break down all of that information.

But if I'm talking to them on the phone and they say something that I don't think is accurate or or applies, I normally will say, okay, I understand that, but we are talking about the application and what you have provided specifically in the application.

And that's normally the the end of that discussion, but I we cannot do that in the middle of planning commission, unfortunately.

Well, let me add something because I have heard there have been occasions where I know that the applicant has talked to Gabrielle about something and we disagree with that, right?

We don't think that that is appropriate or it's not accurate.

I know that in sort of being proactively, I know that Gabrielle has maybe inserted some things into the staff report that says, you know, this may be presented to you, and we don't think that that is particularly relevant in this case.

And I've known that some applicants have said that anyway.

And I and I believe that Gabrielle has in the past, and and I think that if we're right down to the nitty-gritty and somebody says something that is just a fabrication, I think staff will say we don't believe that that is accurate information.

It's it's on us to tell you if we think that they are absolutely fabricating in front of you, and if that comes to the point of us doing that, we'll certainly do that.

Most of the people that that that present to us are not that way.

We don't have to really concern ourselves too much.

But when it comes down to it, if someone is outright giving you a story, if it's black and they're saying it's white, staff will say that.

Staff will say we don't agree with that, and if we know about it ahead of time, we're gonna put it in the staff report because I've seen Gabrielle do that.

With somebody's somebody's purporting to say this, we know it's this, she'll she'll address that in the staff report.

Generally, those kinds of fabrications are known about ahead of time.

If they're gonna assert something that we think is totally off base, she'll take care of that up front.

And you might not see that, but I know that because I've seen it, that she'll insert something that sort of clues you in, and or include something in the staff report that gives you an indication that that's not right.

But if somebody on the spot makes up a fact that is not accurate, it is on staff to turn around and say, Well, I heard what he just said it was white, we believe this entire issue is is red, and just to let you know that despite what the applicant just said, we think it's you know, don't look over here, we think it's over here.

And staff will do that for you.

This is what brings it back full circle, though.

So if that is happening, that whole situation is happening, and in the off chance, you know, maybe everyone's just not catching that that was a misrepresented fact.

So if we're up here and then we say, hmm, that sounds a little off, staff did not intervene because they don't have a million miscellaneous facts off the top of their head, which we cannot expect that from you for every single thing that could potentially be off, and we wouldn't.

So if then it comes back to us, and we're just like, hmm, that sounds off.

You guys didn't say it was off, nothing was intervened.

Now, you know, just so we can be sure of our decision up here, we would like, you know, uh a report from Department of Economics.

This is how this is where I don't understand how we're being so disconnected right now with this whole discussion because it brings it back full circle.

If something is getting missed, it feels off for us.

We don't feel like we're making an educated decision with what's being presented because we don't actually have something in the report or some actual statistics or an actual report that can be pulled from city staff that could just show us whether it's your department or department of economics or somewhere like that.

That is all we're asking for.

If we're getting presented, oh, here's the you know, the county numbers, well, we're in the city, so can we just see a city report to reflect the same information that you're trying to present to us?

I don't think that's absurd for us to ask.

That is all that we're asking for.

It's not really more than that.

If we we understand that we do compare to other municipalities, you know, you want to see, you know, that's fine.

And no one's gonna refute that either.

But if we're like, okay, this is what a municipality over here is doing, it's working well for them.

Okay, well, then can you show us the data of what we're doing and how that compares to the data you just presented?

I don't think any of that is out of scope for us to ask for.

And so I think that's why we're going in circles here.

Okay.

And so hopefully that makes sense.

So that's I think a good request.

I think that's a a good factual statement of something we not talking about anything in specific.

Right.

If something like that were to come down, what another consideration that we have is I don't want the process to bog down because they've they've mentioned you know the the height of the mountains, and we say, well, that's not relevant.

We can go find it.

Because we still need the info.

Right.

So if it's something that you think you can't make a decision on without this information from economic development or somebody from the Department of Public Works telling you something and you don't feel comfortable, then let's not decide that.

Despite whether or not planning staff thinks that whether that information is a is a two or a letter B, and it doesn't make a difference to your ultimate decision.

And I think that they could say to you, I don't know that this information is completely, you know, objective in terms of what you're deciding, but if you want it, we'll just have to continue the case because I don't think they have it in front of them.

They'll have to go and get it.

If that happens, I don't want I don't want someone to weaponize that and use it against you to say, oh, well, you didn't consider this, and you say you're right, I didn't consider this.

And guess what?

That isn't a con that's not a thing anyway.

But if if it's something that you feel like you'll need, then we can no one here can make you vote on anything that you're not comfortable with.

I don't ever want you to do that.

Right.

And if you say, I want this information relevant or not, then we'll do our best to try to get information for you.

I don't think anybody here wants to withhold that.

That's been the issue is us asking for the information multiple times on the same case, and then still being expected to vote without the information.

So is like we can continue how many times.

And I know we had the issue with the co-star, and you don't need to respond today.

I sent individual emails out to everyone asking them because I think there's a big disconnect.

I I know the co-star report with the taxman was an issue, it was an issue.

Commissioner Nellis and I discussed it.

I thought that we were of the understanding of its relevancy, we didn't provide it, but ultimately after understanding more, we provided it.

If there are other facts that you feel you have not been provided with in the past year and a half or data that you've routinely asked for and has not been provided, please email it to me.

Because it really, and this is a very earnest ask.

I don't know what other instances we're talking about, and it sounds like there are other instances, and if I I don't understand that that's not an in a intent to to not want to assist, it it clearly is I don't understand, and Christina doesn't understand, and if we want to resolve these issues, we need to understand, right?

I mean, I I think it's it's important for us to to provide that feedback.

I think we need to understand that if we asked for information, it would be provided.

So I don't I don't understand though.

I think the point is I don't understand when you haven't been, with the exception of the Co-Star report where there was clearly a misunderstanding between Commissioner Manales and I.

So I don't understand in all of the other staff reports that you've received over the past how many of our years your of your tenure on the commission, have there been other instances where that hasn't happened?

Because that is the expectation that we will support the commission and all of the relevant data that you need to have.

Um I understand this one situation, and then like I said, I if you can send me and Christina an email on the side, that is perfectly helpful because it really is an earnest need to understand what the commission feels is not being met in order to provide that, right?

We don't know what we don't know.

Um and I think it's clear that in this conversation that there needs to be two types of things with city staff and the planning commission, and one is informational sessions where we can have these kind of discussions, because obviously this discussion derailed the rules of procedure conversation, but it was an important conversation to have.

And we also talk about training.

So I think that it's important that we have two different things.

Um informational sessions where we can have this discussion and two training.

So that way it's you know helpful for us to all.

And um I don't want to um so I do I do have questions with the rules of procedure, but I don't know if we want to continue this discussion now or wait till another time because a lot of time is fast.

Uh, what do you guys want to do?

I apologize because I do have to I have to leave now.

But I I feel confident that Gabrielle and and staff can answer questions about the rules of procedure if you want further conversation on training and everything else.

I agree.

Let's do it.

Let's do a judicial um, you know, sort of functional training, judicial um quasi-judicial training.

Happy to do that anytime.

When my trainings be held.

Well, we have a new commissioner coming on board, I understand.

Yeah, let's wait for that new commissioner to maybe next month, if that's okay with you.

And then we can do it quickly.

And can real quick before you go, um, I was I wanted to ask you.

Um I was thinking about I still have the copy of this of the training that you sent that we did about findings and making motions.

Sure.

And I was wanted to send that, resend that to everybody because or have you resend it.

It was a parent from our hearing that we've kind of lost track about how to make a motion and how to make findings, and I thought that that was just refreshed.

Is that okay if I send it or do you meet the question?

I think whatever I've given you, you can share with anybody you want, or I can resend it.

It should be the same thing.

That's all part of the training of the judicial decision making.

Okay, yeah.

I mean, I'm not gonna change it, but it's just it occurred to me that it's like when we didn't when we didn't know how to make a motion that hadn't been already written down by staff, it's like, oh, we need to go over this.

Let me let me preface it because whatever I gave you, I feel like when I talk it through, it it comes out better.

So it's it's written as best I can, but I always feel like I maybe because I feel like I can as I'm going through it, I I'm mentally thinking through it, so I I don't want to not go over that training anyway.

Can we say we will at our pre-hear pre-meeting in October, we will discuss the quasi-dojudicial and give everybody the opportun the opportunity to ask you questions about making motions.

We can, yes.

I would prefer to do it at a workshop when I'm standing here rather than looking at you all through a computer.

I would prefer to do it that way.

Okay, okay.

I will say that I will not be here for the pre-meeting and the hearing in October.

So it would be great for this session to have it at workshop when I'm presenting.

Depending on when we get our new commissioner in, too, right?

Right.

I don't know when we get that.

Yeah, but you're right.

It would be it would be helpful to have him in the training we were scheduled to do in May, but then had to cancel it, I believe.

So we'll we'll get that.

I think you had been scheduled to come here in May, but then we didn't have attendance, so we canceled it.

So yeah, you can do it in October October workshop, so I can be here so that we can I I feel better.

I act I think I can interact a little better in person.

I would prefer to I will I will resend that as you sent it to us, C C and Christina.

Sure.

Now I do have a couple of little things to add to the rules of procedure based on things that I've seen in other jurisdictions.

If we have you, so I'm gonna I'm gonna head out and let you finish that, and then I will be here and any other time.

Always know that if you have individual questions, please contact me because you know I'm here to help you through that.

And if we want to talk about something a little bit more in depth, always contact me and I will get on the phone with you and we'll talk one-on-one and figure out our questions, okay?

So I'm always here to try to help with that.

So thanks very much for listening to me blather on tonight.

So the first thing I want to it looks like most of the other jurisdictions put in their rules of procedure, something about when the meeting is going to end.

Um we are not going to hear new cases after 10 o'clock.

Can we add that to the rules of processing?

We have the resolution that the board has set that's still the council has set that's still in effect that I believe says 11 p.m.

When I started, yeah.

So I'm when I started here, the the resolution that Gabriel talked about said 11 o'clock and nothing ever starts after that.

So that's a that was a citywide policy.

It helped with HBC.

It was for uh mayor and board at the time, and it was for planning commission.

If we want to change that, I I don't think that's unheard of.

We should probably have a um generalized.

Let me speak to the city attorney about that and see if that can be changed for a different thing.

Okay.

Because but I like that idea.

Because we want to change that.

Let's do that citywide.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah.

Um and then the other thing that I saw that many jurisdictions do is a requirement that the um, and this kind of ties in with our discussion of the calendar, which is going to happen at the beginning of the year.

Um, that the agenda and the packets be posted seven to ten the it appears the jurisdictions differ, but ten days or seven days prior to the to the meeting, and um, and then that public written public comment must be received two days prior to the meeting.

Um I would like to see when we get to redoing the calendar, I would like to add an extra week in the calendar so that you can get us the packets two days.

I mean, two weeks, ten days before the meeting, and if we can make sure that it's published, then we can get public comment so that it's not coming in at Monday morning.

So two notes on that.

Um I think similar to the end times, we should be consistent with how we receive public comment across the city.

I don't think it's fair to have different rules.

I think it can be confusing, right?

Someone needs submits comment for HPC, they have right up until the meeting, and then they submit to me right before the meeting, and we say, Oh no, we can't accept planning commission comment.

So I think that that's probably another kind of broad, you know, for the greater good across the CBA planning commission council, um, the whole the whole gamut.

So I think that would be a good conversation to have holistically along with this the end times.

We can look at the calendar, um, just uh to as a point of reference.

That calendar is tied into submittal deadlines and submit.

That's why we want to reach, I mean, to change the deadlines.

Correct.

I'm just saying, so that will be a broader policy discussion as well because it will have probably practically have the effect of elongating the process overall.

Um it's not just time that the planning commission, right?

It it's the time that we've if we just give the week to you from the review, we're cutting out a review, so it's got to come from somewhere, so it probably will need to elongate the calendar more broadly.

That's why I mentioned it now, so you can change the calendar.

Well, uh and I'm just saying there may be there may be other considerations to that, not just limited to the planning commission, but we would want to solicit feedback from the land use council from the executive branch, um, kind of holistically, because it's it's not just um not just affecting this.

So when will you get back to us on that?

Um because you're saying that it's you know just more the like she's saying what she's saying, which I agree with, but when can we expect to hear from you on that, you know, on the public comment component?

Yes.

Um, I I would like to um Scott, unfortunately left the room.

I think it's part of that conversation that we need to talk with the city attorney about.

Um sorry, I can't provide you.

I don't want to commit to a specific date.

Um if the commission is not ready to put these rules back on the agenda for a vote, then we can do this again at the workshop and maybe have the feedback for you at the October workshop.

Um I think that's probably realistic.

Yeah, we won't be voting today.

I mean, it's yeah, well, no, we don't vote on Mondays.

I mean workshops anyway.

Well, this, yeah, be back.

At the I mean, at the very least we need to make it clear.

I mean, and I know you guys have said many times that it's not necessarily the applicant, it's somewhere in the city.

But this getting the packet two days before the pre-hearing is completely unacceptable.

And somebody needs to know that if we haven't gotten the packet in time to discuss it, we're not gonna be willing to discuss it at the hearing.

It's gonna come off the agenda.

I agree with that because I have to take personal rearrange my own personal schedule because someone provided something late, you know, just to make sure that I meet the requirement and be able to respond to the meetings, but I'm not gonna be doing that anymore.

Yeah.

So if I'm not able to speak to it and won't be able to vote on it, then I just won't.

So I mean, I don't know if if it's that you guys don't have the the weight to pull with other city departments to get them to respond.

Um, but you know there has to be consequences.

Yeah.

So if somebody doesn't do something, eventually the applicants are gonna kick and scream, and then people will start to respond.

And I'm I'm like you said, I'm tired of putting myself out and not doing things at the last minute because somebody somewhere decided that they didn't have time to review a packet so that it could get to us before the meeting.

Thank you.

I'm as you know, our staff has been um working half staff since December of 2021.

So I think there are just some logistical challenges that I understand the frustration we share it.

But the the idea is yes, you're overworked, everybody's overworked, we're overworked.

But we're volunteers.

But but the the the concept the con but there still needs to be consequences.

Yeah, somebody still needs to say to somebody this isn't gonna go to the meeting if we don't have it.

Agreed.

So is that it's a good idea?

Because I have things to say.

Yes.

So on page two, I just want to confirm a couple of things.

So 2.6.

Um the language is as is.

I'm assuming it's not going to change because of the fact that it's adopted by the state of Maryland, correct?

Oh, the attendance.

2.56 membership familiarize themselves, that language.

Oh, wait a minute.

Am I looking to write?

Are we on the revision or the new?

Or are the old people.

I apologize.

I'm looking at something totally different.

Um am I looking at something totally different?

I am.

I apologize.

Yeah, no, 2.5.

Um thank you, Natasha.

They're advised or the original.

For saying that, yeah.

It's the one that it's revised.

Okay.

Um, thank you for pointing that out.

I appreciate it.

So it's 2.5.

Commissions must have um must have a duty to attend all meetings.

A commission member who fails to attend.

So that 50% is gonna stay as is.

The 2.5 regarding attendance, correct.

Um we it's not as it is in the current rules of procedure.

This language is new, but the same content essentially.

The attendance procedure procedures in your your rules currently just reference the state requirement and don't have that 50%, so someone would have to chase back, you know, through the code.

So we've added that to be explicit to what the requirement is, and then um there was an interest in making sure that the attendance record was accountable.

Yes.

So we added that second paragraph that we maintain that record, and it's also noted on your meeting your meeting minutes.

And and actually most of the other jurisdictions that you gave us to review have exactly that same language and requirement because it's a state requirement.

Um, and then the second thing was the alternate position.

I had mentioned, but I didn't see it in here, and I could be missing it.

Um, explaining the importance of the alternate position um and responsibilities because someone could assume that I'm an alternate, so I'm not important, so I don't have to always be here.

So I'm just trying to understand if the language has explained, you know, that the alternate is is even more important than the full position commissioner because at any point in time they could have to fill in, just like you know, with you know, emergency personnel, you have like what's that thing called when you um um state of emergency where you have the the coop the coup plans where everybody has different roles and responsibilities.

Yeah, you you want the alternative to make sure that they're they're coming in clutch.

So we added we added section 1.3, which is new, that says um, and so this is where we section one has kind of been rebranded because now we're talking about with the kind of the composition of the commission, and we've said that the alternate member, this is one point three.

Um the council can designate an alternate, the alternate is subject to section two, which is the rules of con or the code of conduct essentially, and added that they participate in discussions of items at all the meetings, but are only required.

Um, so the intent is there that they're subject, that they're they're participating, they're not just sitting idle, and then they're also subject to the conduct provisions where we have the new language in 2.6 that says members shall familiarize themselves with projects and properties, including site visits.

So I think those two things together are saying you're the alternate, you participate, you're bound by the same rules of conduct, including knowing what's happening.

That's great, thank you.

And um page three.

So page three, I just wanted to make sure I understood it.

Um in connection with the other page 7.2, but I'll get to that workshop in a minute.

Um, the 3.0, I'm just trying to understand it.

So this is about informational sessions as an example.

So uh commission meeting schedule, a pre-planning commission meeting will be held at 3 p.m.

on Friday of the week prior to regularly monthly meetings for planning division staff to brief the commission on updates to pre on projects, updates to projects on the hearing agenda that have happened after the workshop was held.

General information related to roles and responsibilities in chapter two, blah blah blah code.

Also may be presented by staff to the commission at the pre-planning commission meeting.

General discussion items will be advertised on a published agenda for the pre-planning commission meeting.

Public comment is not permitted at the pre-planning commission meeting unless otherwise directed.

Is this where you're talking about like I'm I'm a little confused with the workshop and pre is the informational session gonna be and where is the training gonna be?

It's not clear to me.

The section on the workshop is establishing if the commission wanted to bring forward a topic.

Um we've discussed you know different policy things that the commission might want to discuss.

That would be something that you would make a request to add that to a workshop.

What we're doing in 3.3 is saying kind of opening the door for general discussions, informational sessions that hey, at the pre-planning commission meeting, we may also discuss general topics that will be put on an agenda to make sure the public is aware that aren't associated with other applications with the intent that if the commission's interested in having informational kind of brief 20 minute training sessions, they would be applicable to the pre-planning commission.

Okay, so just so I'm clear.

So what you're saying is that you know, um, this would be where the training would occur, and the workshop would be where the informational sessions would occur.

For example, if I want to understand better the text amendment procedures as it relates to my role, that's an informational session because I just have questions that would be on a workshop if I wanted to get I don't know, um the latest training.

I don't know, I'm just making this up on um resilience and you know, planning, uh just as an example, not real training um subject.

Um, that would be on a Friday.

So I think the intent would be for on a Friday and Christina and I've discussed a general outline, kind of a year's worth of topics from you know, this is a master plan, there's a comp plan, this is what you're doing here, as brief informational trainings, 20 minutes or so on a Friday afternoon.

So that would be like pre-planning commission.

If the planning commission decided if one of the members said, you know what, I really think we need to discuss a resiliency, you know, whatever, um, and wanted to add that as a workshop topic, something that's going to take an investment of time both on the planning commission's behalf on our behalf to be able to prepare for and accommodate.

That would be more of a workshop item, I think.

If um okay.

I just wanted to be clear in my head what is what and where it's going to be.

So just to so that I understand the informational sessions would happen on the workshop, and then the 20-minute, you know, um training blurbs would happen on a Friday.

Correct.

Okay, I just had to make sure.

Thank you.

Um, and I think that's it.

But while we're at it, I'll just say that you know, it would be helpful.

I see this book right here, it would be helpful.

Um, um, just just more admin stuff, um, in terms of text amendments.

Like, it's clear to me that there's a piece of it missing in terms of procedurally, like new work commissioners may not be aware, and the new one who's coming might be aware that once a decision is made up here, even though it's in the land management code, but I don't think that that some people are aware that um then it goes into a letter that is sent to the city council.

Um, that's number one.

Number two, when you were gone, there was some confusion about whether we could speak to the applicant or not, you know, um, as it relates to the text amendment and the language, which we had done many times before, but we were told we were not able to do it.

I just think that that kind of stuff needs to be discussed so that we know the full process and then probably entered in this binder, like this is the process, not anything fancy, but step one, step two, like we're allowed to speak to the applicant, you know.

You know, I don't want there because it created confusion, you know, in the discussion.

It's we all need to know what the process is.

That's it.

Thank you.

Do you anything, Ed?

Thank you.

I think we're done.

All right, so we will readjourn the meeting.