It's a time on the agenda that allows me members of the public to address the commission on items that are not on today's agenda as a public hearing.

If there is anyone here or uh listening that would like to address the commission, please do so at this time.

Do we have anyone online?

Okay.

In that case, I will now move on to the next item and call the meeting to order and take roll.

Commissioner Ross.

Here.

Commissioner Aishan.

Here.

Commissioner Klein.

Here.

Commissioner Krull.

Here.

Commissioner Yoast.

Here.

Commissioner Andrist.

Here.

Commissioner Ahmed.

Here.

Commissioner Boyam is absent.

And I'm Commissioner Gupta.

Present.

Setting the order of agenda.

Are there any changes required for tonight's agenda?

From the Commission from staff.

If not, then I will ask for a motion to approve.

I'll move we approve the order of the agenda.

Second.

Motion made by Commissioner Krull and seconded by Commissioner Yoast.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Abstains.

Motion passes unanimously.

Going on to the consent agenda.

We will now review the consent agenda items.

Item 4A is the minutes from the June 10th, 2026 commission meeting.

Has everyone had a chance to review the meeting minutes?

Are there any questions, comments, or concerns?

Commission.

Any questions?

Staff, any anything from the in that case, I will take a motion to approve the minutes.

I'll second the motion made by Commissioner Amed and seconded by Commissioner Krull.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstains.

Motion passes unanimously.

Moving on to reports and recommendations.

Tonight I understand we have one report and recommendation on the agenda.

Item 5A is major land subdivision.

Number CD 2026 009 plat by Roger Payne to be known as Century Valley Fifth, subdividing 17.62 acres into 16 residential lots.

Staff, can we have a report?

Yeah, we can do this file.

The site is uh generally located on the far east side of town.

Um in the Century Valley project.

Um Bella Pistol Lane and north of Silver Creek Road, uh just south of the fourth phase of uh Century Valley.

This is uh request for a major land subdivision of 17.62 acres on our M216 single family residential lots.

Uh the uh approval body would be the city council and staff's recommendation is for uh approval.

Major land subdivision of the document that creates uh the set uh subdivision of a lot.

Um lot development should be reviewed for performance with the standards set by the EVC, such as lot size, digital access, and public utility needs.

We don't look at items such as local location or structural design heights and tax uh in the preliminary plan major land subdivision.

Uh in terms of the development process, uh initially the developer would have had a neighborhood meeting before their GDP, uh, and then they have a submission on their GDP.

Uh the GDP was also uh amended back in 2023.

Um, so somewhat fairly recently.

Uh after that, there would have been a development agreement, which is general quasi judicial and approved by the city council.

Uh, and then uh for this particular application, they had to follow up neighborhood meeting uh or the land subdivision, and then uh they have submitted for your consideration should it be approved?

Uh then we would uh proceed forward with civil plan reviews that's an administrative uh process, uh, and then come back to the final plan that is a quasi quasi judicial quasi judicial um application uh that is uh decided by the city council um afterwards they can pull permits for the subdivision.

Quasi-judicial application that is decided by the city council afterwards.

They can pull permits for the subdivision.

Terms of the site background, this is in a R2 zone property, which is low density residential small lot.

The GDP amendment approval for the amendment was in June of 2023.

This is the fifth phase of Century Valley GDP.

This subdivision is a total of 16 units.

Generally, the lots are about 90 feet in width with various depth lot sizes range from 0.34 acres in size to 1.91 acres in size.

This is the PT P2S land use plan.

You can see the subject site here is identified as low density residential, as is the property immediately to the to the west.

And then we have some parks in open space down to the south.

This is our zoning map.

The subject site is zoned R2, and as are the properties that immediately surround it to the southwest, southeast, and to the north.

And then there's some areas of county agricultural A4 zoning within that area.

And then some agricultural areas further out on Silver Creek Road.

Again, there's the site.

Further to the west, we have a future park site as part of their GDP.

We have single family residential development to the north and to the northeast.

And to the south and southeast, we got agricultural zoning or agricultural uses.

I apologize.

We have Shannon Oaks further up here and some other subdivisions.

But this is the specific border for Century Valley.

This is our subject site for the Century Valley 5th major land subdivision.

This is the preliminary plat for the development.

We have Bell of Lane and Bella Strata, both uh terminate in a cul-de-sac configuration.

Uh we have a looped water line for the development, and uh the sewer follows closely next to it.

And then we have an 18-inch stormwater um pipe that runs under and next to the streets, and then ultimately uh down to this retention basin right here uh through through that 18-inch pipe.

Uh this is the FEMA flood zone map, uh, the ghosted out area.

That's actually a city-owned parcel there.

Um, but we have floodway, which is an area that you generally can't develop, and we have areas that are considered zone X, um, which is 0.2% chance of annual flood, or what they used to call uh the 100-year flood event.

And um, although developer is not proposing any development in these in these areas, they're staying far far away from these features.

Uh conditions of approval.

The first one is just our standard uh requirement that stormwater management plan and civil plans have to be approved by public works.

Uh, prior to the submittal of the final plat, the applicant needs to address the wetland replacement order issued in March of 2026.

That is currently ongoing uh and is nearing completion.

Um I talked with uh the LGU and they have indicated that uh they anticipate this will be completed by next week uh with a with a credit transfer uh for wetland mitigation.

Um the applicant shall provide uh major land subdivision updated plat to community development that identifies the floodway and flood fringe within the plat boundaries, uh which was at the bottom of that slope, but they do need to be shown.

And then the final plat submission will shall provide additional public utility easement required for RPU electrical facilities parallel to the water and sewer easement off the COLISAC, subject to review of RPU.

Those four conditions.

And our motion is that the Planning Commission motion that the commission forward a recommendation of approval, subject to four conditions to the city council on major land subdivision 26009 plat with the findings and support outlined in the community development memo dated June 24, 2026.

And I think I was wrapping up there.

Sorry.

Yes, I was on my question slide.

So I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time or after the applicant has spoken.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would like to invite the applicant to come up.

Do we have the applicant here?

Please come up.

Would you like to tell us?

Yeah.

Um any questions for the applicant or for staff.

Okay.

Um, I just have one like academic question.

Uh the lot, the lots that have been cut out, um, these are R shaped lots for sure.

That's okay, but they a lot of them incorporate that decora edge on the on the 18% slope.

What is the um what is the downside to not cutting those lots to cut those lots to exclude the slope and the decora edge and only selling that part of the of the lot that you know can actually build and have a yard.

So and the rest of it can be I don't know, something else.

What uh why were the lots in why are lots including the decorate?

Well, the there was a decora edge study previously under the original phase one or case.

Century Valley 4, I guess that was phase one back then.

Um there was already a study done and um where we could put the lots where we couldn't put the lots.

So um these lots currently right now um do not impact that.

That would have been a requirement um previously.

So um what we show here, um, there'll be no impact to the engine.

That's been verified.

The homestead county previously too um this new new phase uh buying stuff in.

Okay.

And uh well I guess this question is for city because uh once they once a uh somebody owns a plot of land and uh some part of it sits on a decora edge and they go ahead and do something.

They they can't, right?

Uh it's not that they can't.

Usually they have to uh look at a and hiring a soils consultant uh to do a study, um, and they would present their findings to the LGU.

Sometimes they find out that there really wasn't any uh decora soils in the area that is sort of generally outlined as as the decora edge area as you would see it on the county uh uh GIS map.

So um we also have areas in that uh layer that show like sort of a red hatched area, and those are areas where there have been delineations and decor edge is known, is soils are present there, and there are certain restrictions on how you can build in those areas.

Um I'm not that familiar with with the building requirements, but I know there um you know there are certain things that I don't believe you can have basements, things of that nature.

Okay.

So uh if you're sitting on a property that is including some decora edge or you know, some restrictions, any construction they do on their property would need to go through LGU or uh if there is decora edge identified, yes, at least initially they have to to run it through um R L LGU Don Van Cool.

Okay, I get it.

Thank you.

That that was my questions.

Any other questions?

Yes.

I've got a couple.

Okay.

Uh okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner.

Uh got two questions.

One is on the wetland floodplain clarity, and this probably goes to actually uh Desmond.

So on that, it's noted on the record, but can you give me a little bit more clarity on specifically on the floodway uh fringe condition?

What must be completed prior to the final plot?

That way we've got it on the record in time.

Right.

We are requesting the resubmittal of a major land subdivision plat or to the community development department that shows the floodplain, both the floodway and also the zone X 100 year storm event at the bottom of that slope.

That wouldn't have to go through any other process, just other than evidencing that they've that they've identified it on their property that they're working with.

And that would need to be done, you know, before a final plat, but uh I don't think it would be too difficult to achieve.

Uh thank you.

And then the second question was on the traffic waiver.

Um, as I'm looking at that, the waiver is required, even though there's an existing traffic study for it on the overall development.

So can you confirm that either an approved test waiver or traffic determination will be required prior to the final plat or construction?

That way just seems a little odd in that gap.

Right.

Not a no uh not a subsequent um traffic study to my knowledge.

Uh there was a study that was done probably with the very first GDP.

Um, it may have even been updated since then with future, you know, as they amended their general development plan.

So usually before you submit a general development plan, um, you know, staff public works, they're initially going to look over uh the anticipated volumes and they make a decision on whether or not um a full-blown traffic study is required then.

Um and um yeah, so at this point though, I believe they have a valid um traffic study that would would address their that requirement.

Okay.

Do you want to add to it?

Feel free.

Yeah, I'll actually um have the previous traffic study done.

Um, and it encompassed to allow for um additional additional 16 lots already.

So that waiver was already signed.

We plan on just resubmit that again with the final plan.

So something's already been signed for this development.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions?

All right.

There are no other questions.

I will take a motion.

I'll move forward like a recommendation of approval subject to the four conditions identified in the staff report to the city council on major land subdivision C D 2026-009 plat with the findings and support outlined in the community development memo dated June 24, 2026.

Second.

Okay, any other discussions before we take a vote.

All right.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Abstains.

Motion passes unanimously.

Moving on to our public hearings for today.

We have one public hearing on tonight's agenda.

After staff have given their report on an item, after that, each member of the public wishing to speak on the item will have five minutes to address the planning commission.

Item 6A is major modification number CD 2026 005 mod granting relief from section 60.400.020 F6 and 7 regarding reduction of neighborhood protection standard, buffer yard plantings, and parking lot drive setback from property line and request for relief from section 60.400.070E8.

Usable recruit uh recreation area for the development of a 19-unit two building townhouse style apartment development.

Staff, can we have a report?

Yes, Chair Gupta.

I am working on pulling this up right now.

Thank you.

There we go.

All right, thank you.

Uh again.

Uh my name's Desmond McGill.

I'm commute with community development.

I'll be bringing you this application tonight.

Uh thank you very much.

This is a major modification for the tiny giant uh project uh in um near uh the Elton Hills slash Kellogg uh area of uh of town.

Um just wanted to go over a few things first though before uh we get into this particular application, just because we don't do a lot of design modifications.

I think this is probably our third one that we've done.

Um this was a new process established by the UDC uh in 2023 in the flexibility and relief section, section 60.500.070.

This is intended to allow for some adjustments for dimensional numeric and other specific standards without requiring the same criteria threshold as a variance would.

So we'll be going over that in a minute.

Modification can be approved if the commission finds that it addresses an unusual site condition or an unusual requirement that is not common to other lots in the area, or generally consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The second part of this would be that it creates no material adverse on uh abutting lots or place conditions will be provided to uh address that impact.

Uh and then the third would be it does not violate existing development conditions.

Uh fourth one, uh it has to meet one of these three criteria, which is uh resulting in a more connected neighborhood with better multimodal uh activity, uh results in equal or better screening or buffering, or results in no material increase of street parking or congestion on local streets within 200 feet.

And then there is a fifth one that it cannot do uh an approval of a modification cannot result in any of these things, which is you know, allow for a use that is not under otherwise allowed in the uh um zoning district, or uh against the use specific standards, it can't deviate from the building or fire code or engineering standards, public uh cannot allow changes uh to the requirements for public roadways, uh utilities or other infrastructure.

Uh also um uh it can't further change to a development standard that has already been modified, and uh it cannot change the uh historic preservation uh flood flood uh plane permit or shoreland uh permit uh standards or criteria.

So um, and we will get into the specifics of this particular application on that.

So our applicant is tiny giant LLC.

Uh generally, this site is located in the northeast side of town at the northwest corner of Third Avenue uh northeast and uh 17th Street Northeast.

It is a design modification for relief from Section 60.400.020 F 6 and 7 regarding reduction in neighborhood protection standard, bumper yard standards, and parking lot drive setback from new from a low density residential property line.

And then the second part of this is that it is a request for relief from section 60.400.070E8, which is pertains to our uh requirements for usable open space.

Um the recommendation for this is approval subject to conditions, and the planning commission is the deciding body on this particular application.

This is the comprehensive plan.

The site is highlighted in the green dashed line there.

It is mixed use transportation oriented centered, is is the title of that particular land use designation.

The property immediately to the east has or west has the exact same uh uh designation.

And then we also have uh low density residential uh to the north and to the east and to the south.

This is the zoning map for the city, again highlighted in the green there.

It is identified as MXT node uh as is the property immediately to the west, and then we have R1 zoning to the north, east and south of the subject site.

Uh surrounding land uses, you can see the site is currently vacant.

Uh it's been that way from for many years.

Um, there is an office that is immediately adjacent to the west.

Uh we have single family residential uh immediately to the north and to the east and south.

Um mixed use transit oriented uh transit oriented centers.

So as far as criterion A is concerned, there's nothing particularly uh unusual about this site.

But it doesn't address a certain feature or issue that natural condition that causes issues with the development of the site.

But it does this application does provide consistency with the P2S comprehensive plan.

Just wanted to note just the general characteristics of the of the mixed-use transportation oriented center land use, which is intended to provide a wide range of medium to high density housing, along with a broad mix of employment, shopping, and civic uses in a distinctive urban center.

It's located at nodes along the primary transit network, which it is.

Such locations benefit from a combination of good accessibility, access to open space or public amenities and capacity for increased development and development is pedestrian-oriented with a strong emphasis in design street level activity and range of scale from low to mid-rise.

So in terms of the compatibility with the with the comprehensive plan land use, this is exactly the kind of development that I believe was the P2S plan was trying to encourage for properties such as this.

It enhances the existing neighborhood, the proposed development of an infill site, which has remained vacant for many, many years.

I'm not sure if it's ever been developed.

Ideally, it is also an ideal transitional land use between higher intensity uses to the west and lower single family uses to the uh north, east, and south.

Uh and it also integrates transportation and land use.

It provides a moderate level of residential density near uh the future transit systems on the primary transit network, that being on Broadway Road, uh providing convenient transit access to the most significant employment center of the city, that being uh downtown Rochester.

Uh and then it also emphasizes physical uh sustainability.

It adds residential units near the recently completed Broadway Avenue infrastructure improvements intended to support multimodal transportation choices and will assist and support a future investments in the transit system.

So those are all objectives that this particular application address.

Um you can't have any adverse impact on adjoining uh neighborhoods.

This is criterion B.

The subject neighborhood protection standards triggered by the single family home on the north side are generally met by the subject application, and and and I'll go over the reasons why we believe that.

Um the buildings comply with the maximum height permitted in the adjoining uh R1 zoning district, which is 35 feet.

Um, so it complies with those those standards uh due to the placement of the recreation space next to the buffer yard, uh the building mass and spacing separation, uh, the setback from single family unit is addressed, similar to as if there was no uh buffer yard request uh for reduction.

Staff believes the same level of screening is being provided uh with the fence and the adjoining garage.

Uh and then um uh although we are recommending that a uh an additional four canopy trees uh be planted to make sure that uh the adjoining use uh the new apartment buildings are are fully screened from the adjoining north uh single family home.

Uh there are no second or third story windows, so you don't have direct observation from those uh buildings to into uh the uh the backyards of those homes and um approval of the modification in the reduced area buffer yard with the recreational area combined results in approximately four additional units.

And the four units do not materially impact traffic in the area or on-street parking in the area.

Um recreational area designated for this development does not impact the surrounding neighborhood what's whatsoever.

This you know, it's it's for the residents of this community, and uh the reduction doesn't impact them in that way.

However, there's also other uh uh reasons why uh we feel that this is addressed.

The applicant has proposed 6.79% of the gross building square footage to be designed for recreational area.

Uh the request to deviate from the required 10% of the gross floor area to 6.79% is relatively minor, uh, subject to commission decision requiring a one-way drive per staff recommendation.

That area would then increase up to 7.67.

Uh each unit has their own patio.

And then when you look at the 523 square feet of uh patio space that uh is offered uh to each one of their units, um we cannot count that as contributing towards active recreation space.

But if it we did, it would we would now be approaching that 10% mark.

So um we're very comfortable with the amount of open space that's being provided and where it's being provided, um, and we think that that's a good approach to um uh getting uh uh the the required amount um to to the residents in the area.

Uh C, we cannot violate previous conditions of approval.

There were no commission or council approvals in the past.

Um does not result in material increase in traffic congestion on local streets, and we do not believe that would occur with the four additional units that could be built, and it does not result in permitted or conditional uses uh deviation from building uh so like extra, or it's not addressed as something you could do in the zoning district, either as a permitted or conditional use.

This is a permitted use in this zoning district.

Um the deviation from building and fire codes, engineering standards, public roadway utility or infrastructure requirements.

Uh, you can't make make changes to those, and then uh further change to a development standard that was previously modified, as I noted.

Uh, this has not been um, you know, there hasn't been a a decision on this uh particular property from the commission or council as far as I know at any time.

Um, or a change to the heritage preservation overlay standards.

Um so it doesn't do that either.

There, there's no historic site here, so it isn't clear of that.

So here's the concept plan.

Uh in total, there's 19 units.

Um this end unit is just sort of like a single floor, and then there's two units above that one.

So if you um it is 19, even though you may only count, you know, uh 17 spaces down here.

Um as noted, uh, the the recreational space is uh adjacent to the uh proposed 10 foot wide buffer yard over here.

Um so um, which provides, like I said, the same amount of separation of these buildings to that property owner to the north.

Uh these are concept elevations, and these are just for your information, uh, just so you can see the uh the kind of project uh they're looking at building here at their um you know individual townhome style apartment dwelling units.

Um this is uh see the first one is the West Building by the office, and then this would be facing out towards uh Third Street or Third Avenue.

I apologize.

So the the planning team has provided detailed findings in the report um of how we feel that it meets the criteria of the major modification.

Um we believe that they have been met uh by this application.

Uh the applicant uh we do have two conditions of approval.

One that would be reducing the width of the common driveway uh to uh 20 feet from 24 feet, making it a one-way.

Um this would uh provide uh a little bit more extra space of recreational area, uh, and then um perhaps some areas in between the units for uh maybe a small area for landscape uh foundation plantings and things of that nature, or perhaps even on a level stoop that where you could put a chair out.

Uh the applicant um we also have that four additional canopy trees be provided in the buffer yard, so to provide the um necessary coverage to make sure that you really can't see uh from that adjoining lot, the new new development.

So we are recommending that the commission approve with conditions application CD 2026, 005 mod with staff findings of two conditions of approval.

Um, and our recommendation follows below.

Uh motion it's a motion that the commission approve application number CD 2026-005 mod, subject to two conditions of approval based on the findings and recommendations uh provided in the staff report dated July 24th, 2026.

Uh as far as direction, um after after the applicant um makes their presentation, you would hold a public hearing uh for um people to speak on this uh if there is anyone here to do so.

And then the planning uh must take a motion to either approve the design modification subject to the staff conditions, approve it uh as submitted by the applicant or approve it subject to conditions deemed appropriate by the planning commission.

Um again, you're the deciding body on this application.

So um that's all I have on on this.

Um I'd be happy to answer any questions now or after the public hearing.

Um okay, let's have the applicant come up, please.

Okay, thank you.

This is a public hearing, so if there is anyone in the public or um online to speak to this item, please do so now.

Do we have anyone?

Right.

If we have no one, then I will close the public hearing at this time and ask the applicant back up to see if they have anything else to add.

Right?

If nothing, then uh Commissioner Ross.

I just want to clarify this is over by this is just west of Kellogg Junior High School, correct?

The other property that's owned by Tiny Gina is over by John Adams.

Is that correct?

So this would be the only second property.

Is the only one?

Okay, you're listed as having one on over by John Adams too, just so you know.

Uh 32 3209 15th Avenue Northwest.

And I think are you and I just just want to clarify 3209 15th Avenue Northwest.

Oh nine.

And also I want to Adams or John Marshall?

John Adams, my John Adams.

And also to clarify, I worked in the 1700 building that's on the corner of this for about 12 years, and it's always been vacant back there.

So I will say that would be an improvement from what I've seen over those years.

Okay, correct.

And we normally use it to set it for parades.

Normally, so okay.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Any other questions?

Commissioner Ash.

Not necessarily for the developer, but the applicant, but city, I think.

Say that again.

I have a question for the staff.

Please go ahead.

Um, so the relief part of this application got me started down a road I went down.

So when I went to the UDC, the general requirements for the usable recreation area state.

The usable recreation area provided shall be designed primarily for the use of the residents of the development provided in the usable recreation land.

So to me, that reads like we are requiring them to dedicate parkland to their site.

So my question is when we're talking about relief, do they get relief or a credit to their parkland education requirement?

And why not?

Oh, yeah.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

That explains that one.

Then I have nothing more.

Any other questions?

Um, I have one question, and uh that is about the house that the the house that is right north of this property, house number 1719.

Did they have any issues with the with this development?

Okay, and and they're okay with the eight trees and uh and no windows on the side of the building, and that's adequate for them.

Okay.

Great.

Sounds good.

So it's going to back, but then I'll say you phone.

Okay, that's good.

All right.

Any other questions?

Commissioner, I've been thank you for being proactive with your neighbors.

Yeah.

Yes.

That's that's proactive right there.

We started back in December sending raft of the questions and for review of it.

Okay.

And so it was kind of a development.

So very happy about that on the screen.

Okay.

Great.

If there are no other questions, then I will entertain a motion.

I move that we approve application number CD 2026-005 MOD, subject to the two conditions of approval based on the findings and recommendations provided in the staff report dated July.

June 24th, 2026.

June 24th, my point.

June 24th, 2026.

Motion made by Commissioner Krell and seconded by Commissioner Emma.

Any other discussions before we take a vote?

Questions.

All right.

So all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Abstains.

Motion passes unanimously.

And now we can move on to other business.

Can we have our city council recap?

Oh thank you, Chair Goku.

Last city council meeting was on June 15th, and we did not have any items on that particular agenda.

So I have no council.

When is that one going up?

The uh the the quarry and at the airport.

That will be going on June 6th.

Or July.

July 6th, okay.

July 6th.

Okay.

Any other items brought up by staff or by commission.

Okay, first Commissioner Ashen.

I just want to go back to the general requirement for the dedicated parkland on site.

If the units, if it was that requirement is there, whether it's subdivided or not, subdive subdivided, correct?

Or the for the usable recreation area and multi-family that exists no matter what, right?

So if it is a subdivided where they are required to have some sort of parkland dedication fee or um what have you, do they get credit for that portion that they've already dedicated as parkland on the site?

Um that is not my understanding of how you know that I think there would still be the requirement to dedicate uh yeah, you'd still have that, but do you get credit for that part towards your parkland dedication?

Uh I'd have to speak with our parks department to get further information on that.

Okay.

So parkland is necessarily for parks, uh developed parks, or can it also be incorporated into like wildlife habitat, etc.?

It can be okay.

That's good to know.

Okay.

Commissioner Klein.

Not asking critically, but uh how what is the situation with staffing?

With some people leaving, probably good.

I can answer that question.

So today we are fully staffed with planners.

We have four planners.

Our supervisor position uh is vacant, hence why uh I am sitting here uh in the in in that place.

Anyone else questions?

All right, in that case, I have a it did have a staff follow-up from from the last meeting if you're ready for that, Chair.

Okay, wonderful.

Uh last meeting you had asked essentially if the body can make recommendations regarding code changes in the UDC to council.

Uh so I do have some follow-up points prepared based on what was discussed.

Uh as I said I would do that.

Um I do want to remind you that it is not within your authority to make formal recommendations.

Um essentially, what we would recommend uh you have options to share with staff on the record, which you have, and we would recommend that alternatively.

Uh you can refer to committee.

There are ways to do that, either verbally.

The f individuals can choose to do that on their own.

The board the body could vote for that, or you could uh memorialize something as well.

So if you'd like, I'm prepared to respond to those three items that were essentially brought up last time.

Um I'm happy to share sort of where those things are captured in our UDC today, what our thoughts would be on incorporating those or not.

Um and just sort of answering that question.

So just as a reminder, we essentially uh update our UDC annually.

Uh this year we're primarily looking at a technical update.

We did a small one uh already that was required to meet FEMA requirements.

Uh we were likely to do another one in the fall.

Uh, but we sort of weigh a number of things when we're considering large policy recommendations.

Uh so I did want to say that, and some of the items that were brought forward, I would consider policy recommendations, which we usually um want to vet more thoroughly.

So that's sort of my first response that perhaps isn't a surprise that I would say we generally wouldn't recommend making policy considerations at this time or vetting them a bit more thoroughly.

But I have a couple of things I can quickly share if helpful.

Let's see if I can swiftly share my screen as uh Desmond has one moment, apologies.

All right.

Essentially, I'll just remind you that you brought up sort of three requirements or three asks.

The first, as you just sort of alluded to, was the requirement of a portion of development to be dedicated to wildlife habitat.

So in a nutshell, what I would say is we have different ways of considering that, and there are additional considerations that should be contemplated and vetted when considering a recommendation like that.

Um, what I would also say is you'd uh generally our our uh kind of guiding rule for the UDC is we're trying to balance both uh minimum development requirements.

Um so we want to uphold certain standards that are aligned with our processes.

We also don't want to be a barrier for development.

So it's an interesting uh needle uh that we're always trying to thread, right?

So what I would say as it relates to um development of wildlife, I would just say there are ways we sort of get at this today.

Uh we do have minimum landscaping requirements for lots.

We have buffering requirements that you saw that require certain sorts of landscaping.

Um, as a previous planner had has shared, the state has its own requirements when protected species are involved.

So a lot of our code today is really around, I would say protection and conservation specifically.

Uh so those are things to keep in mind in their different activities that trigger those higher requirements for protection of species.

Uh there is additionally language around sensitive lands and considering adequate land for wildlife where appropriate.

Um I think we can pass through this, but just wanted to point out that when we do require landscaping, we're relatively flexible in what we require.

Uh, but there is some guidance on that.

Um that's what I talk about here.

Let's see.

Parkland dedication.

I wanted to talk about since you just mentioned that, but you really just addressed it with your comment.

So this is really our best way to consider proactively designated land for this purpose.

So that would be a question, frankly, for parks and recreation team.

There are certain considerations as far as sizing and what would be needed to adequately support uh wildlife.

So that's our best sort of approach to doing that proactively.

Um so I wanted to say that.

So at this time, we wouldn't recommend necessarily bringing that forward for all those reasons.

The other item you brought up was requiring transit connection at a future development.

So what you'll find in our UDC, uh, and as we sort of responded in the moment, we would say we don't necessarily recommend or find it feasible to direct where those transit lines go in reaction to development, if that makes sense.

There's thorough planning that goes into transit planning and it does align with our comprehensive plan.

So we would not recommend uh uh um transit lines being installed based on where development happens.

Does that make sense?

We're thinking about proactively, not reactively.

So today our code largely can contemplates language where existing lines exist, where lines exist today.

Uh, and when those happen, there's language that says essentially you have to show connection to those transit stops.

You have to provide facilities for a transit stop.

So we do have requirements today when those lines are existing.

So for those reasons, just as well, we wouldn't recommend a policy change at this time, but wanted to share more information on that.

So I have a lot of that here, and we have a a lot of language.

So I'm just gonna go through it.

But in a nutshell, that's essentially what it says is you have to make sure uh that you that access is available when the transit stop or line is in close proximity uh to the development.

We contemplate this in larger developments, too, particularly those subdivisions and site plans, same thing.

Uh they've got to consider how they're meeting certain connectivity standards and whatnot.

And then I think if I captured the last ask that was mentioned at the meeting, it was essentially, you know, can you consider how you show alignment with um the active transportation plan or multimodal goals as a criteria when reviewing development?

I would say that's a uh reasonable ask, and we sort of already do that, as you heard today, with Desmond recognizing that is one of the principles of the comprehensive plan.

So certainly we're up for more um thoughts on that, but that one does seem reasonable, frankly, and we're sort of doing that in some ways.

Um I think in a nutshell, that's one I wanted to share.

So I'll pause for any comments or questions.

Thank you very much.

It's it was a lot of information, and I'd still still be thinking about it later.

So thank you.

Any other any questions about this?

Commissioner I should.

So Terren, I understand that if we have questions about aspects of the UVC, we can ask staff to research our questions and then come back and report.

Is that kind of what I'm hearing?

I think that's fair.

I think I'm hesitant to commit to that all the time, certainly, but you had specific asks, wanted to ask if there's others in that moment.

I said we could do that.

So I think within reason we can consider answering those questions, and that's fair.

So that'd be like if we sorry, if if the rest of the commission agreed with that question, then it would be something that staff would look at versus individual questions.

We'd want feedback from like a not necessarily a formal, but kind of a yes, we'd like to know that kind of thing before it becomes something on your plate to that would be ideal.

Okay, if there was consensus around more information on a particular topic.

Okay, so uh anytime we want to bring up something that uh we want reviewed, we can kind of discuss it in another business and then think about handing it over for further research.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Right.

If not, then motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second.

Moved by Commissioner Andrist and seconded by Commissioner Kerl.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

Motion passes.

We are adjourned.