Astoria Planning Commission
Meeting – April 24, 2018
Youtube Auto-Generated Transcript – see https://youtu.be/C7U1HIhqsXA 

Call to Order, Roll Call, Minutes
Public Hearings
Amendment Request (A17-03)
Conditional Use (CU18-02) Terry’s Plumbing
Work Session on Proposal of Code Amendments to Address Emergency Shelters
Letter from Commissioner Mitchell
Public Comments: Rick Bowers
Public Comments: Dan Parkenson

Call to Order, Roll Call, Minutes
hour:minute:second
0:00:18	it's now 6 31
0:00:20	and we will
0:00:23	call to call to order the astoria
0:00:25	planning commission
0:00:28	roll call please mr herman here
0:00:31	commissioner moore
0:00:32	here commissioner here chair if it's
0:00:35	patrick
0:00:36	here okay
0:00:39	we have the march 27 2018 minutes for
0:00:42	approval
0:00:46	i have one change
0:00:48	[Music]
0:00:50	on page 10 of the minutes
0:00:54	after the large paragraph
0:00:58	there are comments attributed to myself
0:01:00	and to commissioner henry and i think
0:01:02	that our names are just reversed
0:01:04	i believe that she said that first part
0:01:06	and then i said the second part
0:01:08	so she was uncomfortable approving uh
0:01:10	right commissioner henry was
0:01:11	uncomfortable approving the s2a
0:01:13	zone because the outright uses and would
0:01:16	be more willing to
0:01:17	discuss the s2 and commissioner and then
0:01:19	i was
0:01:20	i talked about the advance of stories so
0:01:22	commissioner cameron ladduck for the
0:01:23	record
0:01:24	said she was sympathetic to the problems
0:01:25	with trying to do something with lamps
0:01:27	that is zoned for market that does not
0:01:28	exist
0:01:29	okay so um since we are
0:01:33	on that subject we will note for the
0:01:34	record that commissioner henry
0:01:36	has joined us and would you agree with
0:01:39	with commissioner cameron
0:01:41	yes okay any other changes
0:01:47	okay i move that way through the minutes
0:01:49	as corrected
0:01:53	all those in favor aye aye opposed
0:01:56	motion carries
Public Hearings
https://youtu.be/C7U1HIhqsXA?t=121 
0:02:01	the estoria planning commission will
0:02:03	handle several matters tonight with a
0:02:05	public hearing
0:02:06	actually one matter tonight with a
0:02:09	public hearing
0:02:10	the order i'm going to follow is
0:02:12	outlined in a handout called procedures
0:02:14	for conduct of public
0:02:15	public hearings available from staff
0:02:18	scheduled public hearings are
0:02:19	itemized on the agenda in each case i
0:02:22	will identify the subject
0:02:23	announce when the public hearing is open
0:02:25	and ask anyone interested to testify
0:02:27	regarding the matter
0:02:28	if you wish to speak please be sure to
0:02:30	sign the hearing
0:02:32	sign in sheet located on the side tables
0:02:35	do we have a sign-in sheet and side
0:02:36	tables yes
0:02:38	we do adjacent to
0:02:41	planner ferber
0:02:45	you should address your mark your
0:02:47	remarks to whether or not the
0:02:48	application in question meets the
0:02:50	necessary criteria
0:02:51	the significant criteria that apply to
0:02:53	each issue are listed on
0:02:55	in the staff report which staff has
0:02:57	available if you fail to raise an issue
0:02:59	in person or by letter to the australia
0:03:01	planning commission or city council
0:03:03	an appeal of that issue would not be
0:03:05	permitted
Amendment Request (A17-03)
https://youtu.be/C7U1HIhqsXA?t=188 
0:03:08	and what was going to be our first
0:03:10	public hearing which would be an
0:03:12	amendment request by kevin
0:03:14	cronin for
0:03:18	a change in zoning from s1 to s2 s1
0:03:22	marine industrial to s2
0:03:23	general shoreland has been to my
0:03:26	knowledge withdrawn
0:03:27	correct and so that will not be heard
0:03:30	tonight
Conditional Use (CU18-02) Terry’s Plumbing
https://youtu.be/C7U1HIhqsXA?t=213 
0:03:33	and we will move on to
0:03:39	our public hearing tonight is
0:03:41	conditional use
0:03:43	18-02 by mike oyen
0:03:45	is that correct and that's spelled
0:03:48	o-i-e-n for the record
0:03:50	in dba teres plumbing to locate a
0:03:53	plumbing shop
0:03:54	construction contract construction
0:03:56	service
0:03:57	in an existing building at 415 gateway
0:04:00	street
0:04:01	does anyone object to the jurisdiction
0:04:03	of the astoria planning commission to
0:04:04	hear this matter at this time
0:04:08	does any member of the astoria planning
0:04:10	commission feel here
0:04:12	she has a conflict of interest or any ex
0:04:14	parte contacts to declare
0:04:17	i found out for the record that i
0:04:19	happened to drive by the location
0:04:21	uh by coincidence today and did
0:04:24	look at it again
0:04:27	anyone else thank you mr moore
0:04:32	could we have a presentation of the
0:04:33	staff report and recommendation
0:04:35	yes i printed off some photos because
0:04:38	they don't have
0:04:40	visuals tonight and i know photos are
0:04:42	helpful so those are in front of you
0:04:44	of the site mike morgan actually wrote
0:04:46	up this report it's a pretty
0:04:47	straightforward request for
0:04:49	contract construction services i did
0:04:51	want to note that that definition is not
0:04:53	actually defined in our development code
0:04:55	which makes it a little tricky
0:04:56	but it's also pretty self-explanatory so
0:04:59	it's kind of subjective
0:05:00	of what falls under that category but i
0:05:02	think a plumbing shop
0:05:04	is pretty much key for what this is
0:05:08	the site should be familiar because we
0:05:09	looked at a similar commissional use
0:05:11	for the education day care services
0:05:13	adjacent to this property
0:05:15	a while back which was approved and it's
0:05:17	right next door
0:05:20	there is an applicant here who can
0:05:21	better answer kind of
0:05:23	the site plan and layout but it's all
0:05:25	included in the staff report and there
0:05:27	are only a few recommendations that
0:05:29	signage should be included
0:05:31	we need a copy of the lease especially
0:05:32	from the port
0:05:34	and if there are any plans to delineate
0:05:37	sidewalks and parking um that the port
0:05:39	would be responsible for the timing and
0:05:41	funding of that
0:05:43	and then we also needed a plan for
0:05:45	enclosing any sort of garbage or
0:05:46	recycling i didn't see that one in there
0:05:48	but
0:05:48	those are pretty minor and can be
0:05:49	submitted later on great
0:05:53	are there any questions for staff from
0:05:55	commissioners
0:06:00	okay public testimony is now open
0:06:05	if you wish to speak please come to the
0:06:07	front of the room
0:06:09	uh state your name and address for the
0:06:10	record is there a presentation by the
0:06:12	applicant
0:06:16	do commissioners have questions of the
0:06:18	applicant
0:06:23	is there a presentation by persons in
0:06:25	favor of the application
0:06:30	is there a presentation by persons who
0:06:32	would speak impartial to the application
0:06:36	is there a presentation by persons who
0:06:37	would speak against the application
0:06:41	is the rebuttal testimony from the
0:06:46	applicant for the record
0:06:48	the silence deems that nobody had
0:06:51	anything to say
0:06:52	are there closing remarks from staff
0:06:55	public hearing is now closed the
0:06:58	commission
0:06:58	will now discuss the issue deliberate
0:07:01	and come to a decision
0:07:07	seems like a good spot for a plumbing
0:07:09	business okay
0:07:11	i don't have any issue with it
0:07:14	i'm satisfied that the criteria is met
0:07:18	i'm also comfortable with the staff
0:07:19	report findings great
0:07:21	same great and those comments were from
0:07:24	commissioner hermann commissioner moore
0:07:26	commissioner cameron ladduck and
0:07:27	commissioner henry
0:07:28	in that order i would agree it seems to
0:07:32	be
0:07:32	an appropriate location for that use
0:07:36	so do we have a motion
0:07:44	will move that the astoria planning
0:07:47	commission adopt the findings and
0:07:51	conclusions contained in the staff
0:07:52	report
0:07:53	cu 18-02
0:07:56	with the um
0:08:01	and approve the conditional use request
0:08:04	by
0:08:05	mike owen oh and
0:08:08	dba terry's planner i'll second that
0:08:11	motion
0:08:13	moved by commissioner moore seconded by
0:08:17	commissioner herman all those in favor
0:08:20	aye aye
0:08:21	opposed motion carries
0:08:26	the astoria planning commission's ruling
0:08:28	may be appealed by any person with
0:08:30	standing to the city council within 15
0:08:32	days of the mailing of the astoria
0:08:34	planning commission order
0:08:35	appeals shall be in writing and shall be
0:08:37	filed with the community development
0:08:39	director
0:08:40	if an appeal is not filed with the city
0:08:42	within the 15-day period
0:08:43	the decision of the australia planning
0:08:45	commission shall be final
0:08:47	the permit will be void after two years
0:08:49	unless substantial construction has
0:08:50	taken place or use has begun
0:08:53	however the australia planning
0:08:54	commission may extend the permit for an
0:08:56	additional one year
0:08:57	upon request by the applicant
0:09:00	thank you for coming
Work Session on Proposal of Code Amendments to Address Emergency Shelters
https://youtu.be/C7U1HIhqsXA?t=546 
0:09:06	okay next item on the agenda is our work
0:09:08	session
0:09:09	and that would be a review proposal of
0:09:12	code amendments to address emergency
0:09:21	so i included shelters very brief memo
0:09:23	because i actually missed the previous
0:09:24	sessions that mike took you through um
0:09:26	but basically we've included the
0:09:28	language that we reviewed the first time
0:09:30	and then some edits from
0:09:32	commissioner moore i also sent around an
0:09:35	email received from dan
0:09:36	parkerson and i believe commissioner
0:09:40	um mitchell thank you sent a letter
0:09:43	which johnny read and
0:09:46	i also passed it at the test around um
0:09:49	just so we have it on record
0:09:54	all right joan did you want to go ahead
0:09:56	and read that or go ahead and read that
0:09:57	right now
Letter from Commissioner Mitchell 
https://youtu.be/C7U1HIhqsXA?t=619 
0:10:19	fellow commissioners i am unable to be
0:10:22	in astoria and voting on the proposed
0:10:24	ordinance
0:10:25	i have asked if the following comments
0:10:27	be read for me
0:10:29	the proposed emergency shelter code
0:10:31	amendment as
0:10:32	written would eliminate all the downtown
0:10:34	churches
0:10:35	for the location and capacity to serve
0:10:38	as a temporary homeless shelter
0:10:40	first methodist r3 first presbyterian
0:10:44	r3 first baptist c4
0:10:48	and peace lutheran c4
0:10:51	our older churches are the entities with
0:10:53	the mission
0:10:54	building capacity congregations and
0:10:57	continuity
0:10:58	to take on this challenge no community
0:11:01	organization
0:11:02	or commercial enterprise carries these
0:11:05	same traits
0:11:06	there is no public a claim or profit to
0:11:08	be made
0:11:09	by serving the homeless population it
0:11:12	requires a large
0:11:14	number of volunteers willing to give
0:11:16	their time
0:11:17	during difficult hours significant
0:11:20	investment has been made at first
0:11:22	memphis including laundry facilities and
0:11:25	a shower
0:11:26	allowing those who are able to seek
0:11:28	employment and maintain their physical
0:11:30	health
0:11:31	to do so local restaurants and the food
0:11:34	web
0:11:35	help with food often that which might
0:11:37	otherwise be thrown away
0:11:39	the building works for the shelter and
0:11:42	controls
0:11:42	requested by the neighborhood have been
0:11:45	put in place
0:11:47	so i have to wonder is that the intent
0:11:50	of the proposal if the commission
0:11:53	and the astoria city council want to
0:11:55	provide a working
0:11:57	ordinance which sets boundaries but
0:11:59	allows
0:12:00	a temporary shelting shelter during the
0:12:02	winter months
0:12:03	this proposed ordinance must be changed
0:12:07	to include the following altering the
0:12:10	proposal
0:12:11	to use the oregon fire code technical
0:12:13	advisory
0:12:15	as provided by mr parkerson and
0:12:17	supported by our fire department and
0:12:19	building officials
0:12:21	including temporary warming shelter as
0:12:24	conditional use
0:12:26	in zone districts r3 and c4
0:12:30	using the occupant load ratio a person
0:12:34	served two square feet of room area
0:12:37	as suggested rather than an arbitrary
0:12:40	number
0:12:42	it is my perception that such changes
0:12:44	would allow
0:12:45	a continuation of the service and
0:12:47	protection of surrounding neighborhoods
0:12:50	it speaks to who we wish to be as a
0:12:52	community
0:12:53	i request your assistance in making
0:12:56	these changes
0:12:58	the churches i have called out each
0:12:59	serve a community
0:13:01	outreach function which may impinge on
0:13:04	the surrounding neighborhood
0:13:06	meals and activities for a younger
0:13:07	population
0:13:09	child care the warming center and a
0:13:11	meeting hall used by local groups
0:13:14	for performances and holiday sales they
0:13:17	add to our livability
0:13:18	and provides service to broader
0:13:20	populations
0:13:22	i am very sorry that i am unable to be
0:13:24	at this commission meeting
0:13:25	or able to vote on the ordinance i hope
0:13:28	that you will consider my requests
0:13:32	thank you commissioner herman
0:13:35	[Applause]
0:13:40	okay um so to move forward
0:13:43	with these code amendments we would need
0:13:46	a
0:13:46	kind of final deliberation and direction
0:13:48	to staff and then we come back at the
0:13:50	following
0:13:51	planning commission meeting with the
0:13:52	actual code to adopt to recommend ascend
0:13:55	to council so that's sort of where we
0:13:56	are
0:13:57	process wise but i am happy to take
0:13:59	notes or
0:14:00	i'm not sure if you want to open it up
0:14:02	to the public or public input
0:14:04	at this point sure well i want to do
0:14:07	two things um i wanted to clarify that
0:14:10	i don't think we're voting on anything
0:14:11	tonight although we will be discussing
0:14:14	and again this is just from from
0:14:17	the letter that was just read she i hope
0:14:20	that gian will be able to attend the
0:14:22	meeting
0:14:23	when we do have a vote yeah um we would
0:14:25	only be making a motion tonight to
0:14:27	direct staff to bring back the actual
0:14:29	amendment and then jan could vote
0:14:31	right next time right yeah so um
0:14:35	i i would remind the people in the
0:14:36	audience if you're here for this
0:14:38	that it is not a public hearing this
0:14:41	evening but we are happy to take
0:14:43	input from those attending
0:14:47	and so i would be happy to
0:14:50	have anyone speak what we would ask is
0:14:52	that you
0:14:53	give your name an address for the record
0:14:55	and
0:14:57	usually we try to limit comments to
0:14:59	three minutes but
0:15:00	since we have a very short agenda
0:15:02	tonight and
0:15:03	uh very few people in the audience i'm
0:15:05	i'm happy to
0:15:07	to allow greater input than just the
0:15:10	three minutes so
0:15:11	is there anyone interested in in
0:15:13	speaking about this this evening
0:15:17	i suppose so rick if you don't mind
0:15:21	standing i guess and then
0:15:25	stating your name and
Public Comments: Rick Bowers
https://youtu.be/C7U1HIhqsXA?t=929 
0:15:29	rick bowers richard bowers 357
0:15:32	commercial
0:15:34	just from the way i read it i think it's
0:15:37	talking about
0:15:39	mormon centers or temporary shelters
0:15:41	that are greater than
0:15:43	or equal to i don't remember 10 was the
0:15:46	magic number
0:15:47	and i just like some clarity somewhere
0:15:50	uh what happens to if a church or some
0:15:53	group
0:15:54	wants to do less than that magic number
0:15:57	are they not allowed are they allowed
0:16:00	that's my own
0:16:01	so your question is if someone wants to
0:16:03	do eight or
0:16:04	limited at six or something correct okay
0:16:07	would they be excluded from doing that
0:16:09	so so these amendments would would
0:16:12	regulate
0:16:13	a warming shelter that
0:16:16	had that served 10 or more so
0:16:20	a shelter that served fewer than 10 you
0:16:23	you could you would do it however it's
0:16:25	done now
0:16:26	which would be you can probably just do
0:16:28	it unless there's complaints and then
0:16:31	the city might get involved
0:16:34	is that generally how it happens so a
0:16:37	church
0:16:38	could operate a temporary shelter like
0:16:40	that on just
0:16:41	on their own okay so that's not explicit
0:16:44	in the code is that
0:16:45	that that would be allowed or not
0:16:47	allowed no what
0:16:49	what it would be explicit is if you
0:16:51	serve 10 or more
0:16:52	then it would fall under these
0:16:54	regulations okay
0:16:57	great thank you rick
0:17:00	sean is it possible to comment after you
0:17:02	have a bit of discussion
0:17:04	to uh comment on various points well
0:17:06	it's
0:17:07	it's it's possible i i have that option
0:17:10	like
0:17:10	i would i would be willing to consider
0:17:12	that yes would you like to comment now
0:17:15	mr haker
0:17:16	i would like to hear some of the
0:17:18	discussion and some of the points that
0:17:19	get brought up
0:17:20	and then maybe add to that towards the
0:17:22	end of the discussion
0:17:24	okay i'd like to do that too same okay
Public Comments: Dan Parkenson
https://youtu.be/C7U1HIhqsXA?t=1048 
0:17:28	mr parkerson hi um
0:17:32	i'm sorry i'm late i uh my plane
0:17:35	i was out of i was in california and
0:17:38	just flew back
0:17:39	and got delayed so so the question is
0:17:43	would you like to
0:17:44	to comment at this time
0:17:49	was the discussion opened up about the
0:17:52	different zonings that this
0:17:54	may
0:17:57	that that daryl's proposal may
0:18:01	would apply to
0:18:05	we have just opened the discussion we
0:18:08	have we have just
0:18:09	opened this portion of the meeting and
0:18:12	there has been
0:18:13	virtually no discussion there was a
0:18:14	letter read
0:18:16	a letter by jan mitchell read by
0:18:19	commissioner herman
0:18:20	okay um yeah
0:18:24	it's possible for me to speak
0:18:27	you have the opportunity right now if
0:18:28	you would like to um
0:18:31	so so as i have stated you would state
0:18:34	your name
0:18:34	and address for the record
0:18:38	dan parkerson 550 state route 401
0:18:42	nacelle washington 98638
0:18:46	i live straight across from safeway
0:18:50	okay plantar fervor
0:18:54	do you think the machine is picking it
0:18:56	up from that
0:18:57	distance do you want to come up and chat
0:19:00	up in the front row just so we can
0:19:02	capture we're recording for the record
0:19:03	mr parker and so
0:19:05	it's important that anyone who speaks is
0:19:09	in the recording okay so if you don't
0:19:11	mind saying your name and address again
0:19:13	just
0:19:14	daniel parkerson uh 550 state
0:19:17	route 401 nacelle washington
0:19:20	i don't live in asl i live just three
0:19:22	miles up river from the edge of the
0:19:24	bridge
0:19:28	so when i read the proposal
0:19:32	um
0:19:37	all right the discussion that i want to
0:19:39	have is on two things
0:19:41	one is a warming center
0:19:45	by fire code most buildings in the city
0:19:49	that aren't either a dormitory or
0:19:53	a hotel would not have been constructed
0:19:56	to what's called an r
0:20:00	code
0:20:04	and our code is very specific
0:20:07	on exiting it's very specific on double
0:20:11	sheetrock
0:20:12	the floor system the ceiling system
0:20:17	not necessarily sprinklers depending on
0:20:20	on
0:20:20	the number of people but it is
0:20:24	it's a tough code for a developer
0:20:27	contractor
0:20:28	to meet there's fire caulking there's a
0:20:31	lot of work that goes in
0:20:33	and because of that the state fire
0:20:35	marshal
0:20:37	recognized that and if warming centers
0:20:40	were going to be allowed
0:20:41	to operate he needed to
0:20:45	waive the requirements of the r
0:20:48	code and the fire in the fire code
0:20:52	which he he did on in the technical
0:20:55	advisory that he issued i have a copy of
0:20:57	it and
0:20:58	daryl used a lot of it in his
0:21:02	work up of this of the code of this
0:21:06	change to the development code
0:21:09	so any typical building
0:21:13	they're not dormitories and so a
0:21:16	downtown
0:21:18	the buildings that are in the zones that
0:21:20	have so far
0:21:21	been discussed in in his proposal
0:21:26	a quick review of them and will do a
0:21:28	detailed review but a quick review
0:21:31	um shows that those are not
0:21:34	are our code design
0:21:38	but because the fire marshal issued a
0:21:42	technical
0:21:45	advisory i've got a copy of it i'm not
0:21:47	sure it's called that
0:21:49	he said he would waive those
0:21:51	requirements
0:21:52	for a maximum of 90 days
0:21:56	and that's what the existing asteroid
0:21:58	warming center was operating
0:22:00	in that's a church it wasn't built like
0:22:02	a hotel
0:22:04	it's okay if we operate for 90 days any
0:22:06	building
0:22:08	that would be a warming center
0:22:12	would need almost any building would
0:22:14	need that waiver but that waiver exists
0:22:17	not only for astoria it's statewide
0:22:20	the city of portland has
0:22:24	its own fire code
0:22:28	they don't fall under the state they
0:22:30	fall under the city of portland
0:22:33	fire marshall
0:22:36	they do whatever they want there that's
0:22:38	different everybody else all the small
0:22:41	warming centers that are spread out
0:22:43	through the state
0:22:45	operate under the state fire code
0:22:48	so that consideration is real important
0:22:53	to the location of any
0:22:56	building and daryl's
0:23:00	proposal spells out what
0:23:03	was in the fire code
0:23:07	my concern is that
0:23:10	i think it would be clearer if
0:23:15	the state if that was referenced in the
0:23:18	in the
0:23:19	code and made that the guiding document
0:23:23	because that may change
0:23:28	the fire marshal may have you know with
0:23:31	experience he may get stricter
0:23:34	there may be other systems that come out
0:23:37	and i i think that any building
0:23:42	i think the astoria should kind of hook
0:23:45	their horse
0:23:46	to the state fire marshal um
0:23:50	i think it's a good idea rather than
0:23:53	this code spelling out a way that is
0:23:57	inexistent now but may not be
0:24:01	how the fire marshal feels three years
0:24:03	down the road
0:24:04	he could get tougher there could be
0:24:06	another system out there
0:24:09	so that was the first point i wanted to
0:24:10	make and then the second point i wanted
0:24:13	to make
0:24:14	was on churches specifically
0:24:19	there's churches in multiple zones in
0:24:21	this city
0:24:23	and one of the goals of
0:24:27	land use planning i've always understood
0:24:30	it to be
0:24:31	to take the highest and best use of a
0:24:33	piece of property
0:24:35	and allow what is the highest and best
0:24:37	use
0:24:38	of it as as good planning
0:24:42	i think you know the waterfront has
0:24:46	specific highest and best uses
0:24:50	downtown central court is that
0:24:53	churches a warming center
0:24:57	only ties up the nighttime
0:25:01	part-time of a structure
0:25:04	it but by tying it up in the nighttime
0:25:08	part-time it pretty much prevents
0:25:12	that building from being used any other
0:25:15	way
0:25:16	like you can't really say well we're
0:25:18	going to have it be an office building
0:25:20	during the day
0:25:21	and a warming center at night
0:25:25	churches are unique and most warming
0:25:28	centers are located in churches
0:25:31	because most of them have some kind of
0:25:34	meeting hall
0:25:35	uh warrenton's warming center is located
0:25:38	in his church
0:25:40	salem silverton eastern oregon
0:25:45	dozens of warming centers are located in
0:25:48	churches and the reason why they are
0:25:50	is because it uses those facilities well
0:25:54	the church has its activities on the
0:25:56	weekends it has
0:25:58	choir practice at night it has stuff
0:26:00	going on
0:26:01	during the day but usually there's a
0:26:03	facility like a gym
0:26:05	or or a meeting hall a lot of times it's
0:26:08	got a kitchen
0:26:09	it's got bathrooms that are already
0:26:11	built
0:26:13	and so the uniqueness of the church
0:26:17	this facility makes it uniquely capable
0:26:20	to use a warming center
0:26:25	summer school can still go on that works
0:26:28	when the kids you know
0:26:29	they have summer activities but the
0:26:31	winter time that facility
0:26:33	is usually not used that much
0:26:36	and i and i i really think there's a
0:26:39	synergy there
0:26:40	and then also the
0:26:45	the church's idea of serving the poor
0:26:48	that is a core part of their mission
0:26:52	that's a core part of christianity
0:26:57	and having talked to multiple
0:27:00	ministers here all of them
0:27:04	support the awc
0:27:08	and the idea of a warming center i don't
0:27:10	want to bring awc into this conversation
0:27:12	they support the idea of a warming
0:27:14	center they feel like
0:27:16	it that each one of the churches that
0:27:18	doesn't have a warming center in there
0:27:21	has said that if we didn't have daycare
0:27:24	here
0:27:25	full time we would do it or if we didn't
0:27:28	have
0:27:28	aa and n a meetings around the clock
0:27:33	the baptist church would be perfect but
0:27:35	they have meetings that start at seven
0:27:37	o'clock in the morning
0:27:39	and they run till
0:27:42	10 30 at night and
0:27:47	they also have kraut's people around and
0:27:49	that's just kind of the
0:27:50	function of what goes on
0:27:53	so between to take and
0:27:57	limit the
0:28:00	the i would open up the zoning
0:28:05	the idea here of what zone it's allowed
0:28:08	in
0:28:10	um to any zone that a church is in
0:28:15	because things may change for the
0:28:17	baptist church
0:28:18	it may become the ideal place
0:28:21	things may change for some of the other
0:28:23	churches if if you know like if somebody
0:28:25	builds a daycare facility
0:28:28	the lutheran church if they build a
0:28:30	daycare facility
0:28:32	then they're going to have a facility
0:28:34	that could
0:28:35	do that could could take a warming
0:28:37	center
0:28:39	and i think i think that
0:28:42	to limit it um
0:28:46	to the kind of industrial area and the
0:28:50	um uh
0:28:53	the other zones i i don't know the names
0:28:55	of them but i saw them on the map
0:28:58	to limit them to those particular zones
0:29:02	many of them are right next to
0:29:06	a residential zone i just think it's
0:29:10	short-sighted
0:29:12	because it's still going to need to go
0:29:13	through
0:29:15	um an approval process if i'm not
0:29:17	mistaken
0:29:19	so again we're making a recommendation
0:29:21	we're not we're not
0:29:23	doing an approval so it's an outright
0:29:25	use no
0:29:26	we are making a recommendation to the
0:29:27	city council we aren't
0:29:29	the ones that make the final decision no
0:29:31	no i mean
0:29:33	yeah it would be a condition it would be
0:29:36	a condition
0:29:37	right so i i would urge this
0:29:41	this commission here to consider
0:29:45	all the zones that have the types of
0:29:47	structures
0:29:48	that are uniquely compatible i think the
0:29:52	churches the lutheran or the baptist
0:29:55	church
0:29:56	is in a commercial zone i think
0:30:00	you know i know we're in an r3 zone
0:30:03	and i just i can't see limiting it
0:30:07	because that's where those facilities
0:30:09	are
0:30:12	and specifically on the r3 zone
0:30:16	there is in the conditional uses in the
0:30:19	r3 zone it talks about
0:30:22	um allowing
0:30:25	a boarding house a rooming house i
0:30:28	brought the
0:30:30	yeah as already conditional uses um
0:30:33	congregate care um see
0:30:36	you know there's there's a lot like an
0:30:39	oxford house
0:30:40	for instance probably a conditional use
0:30:43	even though it's not exactly spelled
0:30:45	spelled out that a rehab could facility
0:30:48	you know where people that were in
0:30:50	recovery could stay
0:30:52	um typical oxford houses have eight to
0:30:54	ten people
0:30:55	in them um some of the other ones have
0:30:59	a lot more like a a congregate care
0:31:03	i've built dozens of those and they
0:31:06	typically run
0:31:06	30 to 100 clients
0:31:10	in the facility and that's a conditional
0:31:12	use in an r3
0:31:14	so i you know i just really urge you
0:31:17	guys to take a look at that it's all
0:31:19	that's pretty much my comments great
0:31:22	thank you mr parkerson
0:31:24	did anyone have did any of the
0:31:26	commissioners have any questions
0:31:27	or great
0:31:30	thank you
0:31:37	okay planner fervor is this something
0:31:39	that you would like to lead or should mr
0:31:42	moore take this or ken i had a quick
0:31:44	comment about
0:31:46	allowing um
0:31:49	allowing uses in churches gets a little
0:31:52	messy if a church is already
0:31:54	existing non-conforming in a residential
0:31:56	area and i'd have to double check
0:31:58	churches fall under semi-public use
0:32:00	which might be allowed in r3
0:32:02	um but if you're allowing accessory uses
0:32:04	to it then you're expanding a
0:32:06	non-conforming use
0:32:07	so it's tricky to capture that under the
0:32:09	term churches
0:32:10	we might have to dig into it when we
0:32:12	actually write out the code but it might
0:32:13	be worth discussing how you want to
0:32:15	capture
0:32:15	churches or semi-public use in existing
0:32:19	areas or in r3s or in
0:32:21	new areas and figure out how you want to
0:32:23	parse that out but planning wise that's
0:32:25	kind of
0:32:26	going to be the issue is how to capture
0:32:28	an existing non-conforming use if you
0:32:30	want to add on this accessory use
0:32:32	to it okay thank you actually that
0:32:36	that doesn't totally make sense to me um
0:32:38	would because
0:32:40	this language doesn't specify that a
0:32:42	church
0:32:44	that it would be i mean do we it depends
0:32:46	where it is that's the tricky part
0:32:48	so if if a semi public use is allowed in
0:32:51	r3
0:32:52	and you're saying it's okay in the
0:32:53	church then you wouldn't have to change
0:32:54	anything but if
0:32:55	it's happening in a church now
0:32:59	and you don't want it to happen in the
0:33:01	future then we'd have to figure out how
0:33:02	to
0:33:03	you know limit that non-concept yeah
0:33:06	because the church is
0:33:07	not spelled out as allowed you know r3
0:33:11	okay it was that's the turning point
0:33:14	okay so if the semi-public use is
0:33:15	allowed in a c4
0:33:17	it's no problem but the
0:33:20	conditional uses right now i should have
0:33:23	brought this
0:33:24	up a boarding rooming house or other
0:33:26	group housing
0:33:27	not mentioned above a bed and breakfast
0:33:30	a congregate care
0:33:31	a daycare center a nursing home
0:33:34	a restaurant as an accessory used to an
0:33:37	end
0:33:38	or public or semicolonic abuse those are
0:33:40	already
0:33:41	all allowed in an r3
0:33:44	as as conditional
0:33:48	and there's no definition there's
0:33:52	i didn't see where church was allowed
0:33:54	anywhere
0:33:56	so churches fall under semi-public use
0:33:59	that's how we
0:34:00	recap but there's a couple options you
0:34:04	could
0:34:04	create a definition for a church which
0:34:06	is messy
0:34:07	or um or add some sort of language for
0:34:11	accessory uses
0:34:12	to semi-public use i think it would be a
0:34:15	way to caption them
0:34:17	and i'm happy to write this out when we
0:34:19	get to the actual code stage because
0:34:21	if you could that would be great thank
0:34:22	you nancy oh mrs ferber
0:34:27	[Music]
0:34:29	so i have comments thoughts
0:34:32	i would love to start them uh
0:34:37	i'd like to comment on commissioner
0:34:39	mitchell's
0:34:40	letter um
0:34:44	you know the goal is not
0:34:48	to go back to the beginning the
0:34:50	motivation for this code language was
0:34:53	that when we considered the temporary
0:34:57	use
0:34:58	that the asteroid warming center came to
0:35:00	us and asked for
0:35:02	we had no guidance in our development
0:35:04	code
0:35:06	and so that was one motivating factor
0:35:09	was to create some guidance
0:35:10	for a use like this in the development
0:35:13	code
0:35:13	and then secondly was public feedback
0:35:18	from of the previous season
0:35:22	when that particular warming center
0:35:25	operated and the guidance from the
0:35:28	public was that they felt like
0:35:30	it was a negative impact on the
0:35:33	neighborhood and the one thing that the
0:35:34	comprehensive plan
0:35:37	suggested we use as criteria was to
0:35:40	prevent that very thing from happening
0:35:44	so with that two-pronged motivation
0:35:48	i constructed this code and introduced
0:35:50	it and we agreed to talk about it here
0:35:53	so the goal is not to make it impossible
0:35:56	to have a warming center
0:35:58	it's not to prevent any existing warming
0:36:01	centers from
0:36:02	operating it is
0:36:05	to address the missing parts of our code
0:36:10	and to address neighborhoods
0:36:14	in general that may be impacted
0:36:18	from this use so
0:36:24	since we've been talking about it and
0:36:26	that's to address
0:36:27	commissioner mitchell's um first
0:36:30	comments about the um trying to
0:36:32	eliminate churches as
0:36:34	a place to operate a warming center
0:36:36	that's not a goal
0:36:38	the second thing she addressed was a
0:36:40	technical advisory and i'll address
0:36:42	miss mr parkinson's uh comments too i
0:36:45	i actually like
0:36:50	referencing the technical advisory for
0:36:52	so
0:36:53	the code that i constructed is quite
0:36:56	literally
0:36:56	verbatim from the technical advisory all
0:36:59	the exiting
0:37:00	uh all the fire safety everything is
0:37:03	word for word
0:37:04	from that technical advisory so it makes
0:37:06	sense to refer to it
0:37:09	uh as opposed to duplicating it i don't
0:37:11	know if there's any
0:37:12	there's are there issues
0:37:15	so if it's possible to do that then
0:37:17	great if not then
0:37:18	we may have to duplicate it and just
0:37:20	modify it if the
0:37:22	fire marshal changes his mind or her
0:37:24	mind
0:37:28	so
0:37:31	now in addition to the
0:37:34	11-14 technical advisory
0:37:38	there were other things added and that
0:37:40	was to address the concerns
0:37:42	of the neighborhood and that was the
0:37:45	minimum
0:37:47	the minimum threshold which would
0:37:50	trigger the conditional use
0:37:51	and so that would give
0:37:55	community development an opportunity to
0:37:59	to deal with a warming center that
0:38:04	is disrupting the neighborhood so that's
0:38:05	the goal of the specific conditional use
0:38:13	so since our last discussion we kind of
0:38:15	left it
0:38:18	talking about actually why don't we can
0:38:21	we step through the comments
0:38:22	that from our previous meeting um
0:38:26	should be in our what am i looking at
0:38:31	so the word document with the comments
0:38:33	on the side
0:38:34	do you want to just step through that
0:38:36	document yeah from from the top
0:38:40	this is the one that says definitions at
0:38:42	the top
0:38:46	so it has there hasn't been any um
0:38:49	movement
0:38:49	from the homelessness task force and
0:38:52	creating a formal definition or anything
0:38:53	so
0:38:55	we can just continue working with these
0:38:58	definitions
0:39:01	we did i did change all the language to
0:39:03	a temporary
0:39:04	warming shelter and that was to remove
0:39:06	the emergency
0:39:09	so it didn't conflict with if we ever
0:39:11	come up with
0:39:12	you know emergency code for emergencies
0:39:15	like earthquakes
0:39:26	i'm still comfortable with 10 being the
0:39:28	number
0:39:30	that would trigger a conditional use
0:39:33	because does anybody else have any
0:39:35	thought on that minimum number
0:39:39	that would again allow a church or
0:39:41	really any group to operate
0:39:43	and you know house up to nine people
0:39:48	without any needing to cover right okay
0:39:52	so the question is okay that means that
0:39:56	if a church was doing a very small scale
0:40:00	under 10 they
0:40:05	so sad they would not be regulated but
0:40:07	it would not be regulated it's not like
0:40:08	it's an accessory used it's just not
0:40:11	all right that's just up to the city and
0:40:13	and
0:40:14	it would be done how it is done now
0:40:16	where if if there's
0:40:18	complaints you would probably be driven
0:40:21	to get a temporary use
0:40:22	ah yeah has it i think it'd be good to
0:40:26	note
0:40:26	that they might be regulated by fire
0:40:28	life safety issues but it wouldn't be
0:40:30	regulated by the zoning code because it
0:40:32	wouldn't be a blanket thing of yes you
0:40:34	can house 10 people in your living room
0:40:35	kind of
0:40:36	deal but um but that might be good
0:40:39	language to include
0:40:41	that may require to conform to occupancy
0:40:44	and fire life safety issues or however
0:40:46	you want okay
0:40:48	and plantar fervor is is
0:40:52	distinguishing between zoning code and
0:40:53	building code so it
0:40:55	something can be allowed under the
0:40:57	planning code but not
0:40:58	under the building code so
0:41:02	and vice versa
0:41:11	you have a lot of notes written down
0:41:12	over there did you have any comments on
0:41:14	um no not on this i was kind of just
0:41:16	taking notes at some of the points that
0:41:17	were made as well
0:41:18	yeah so then the last comment was the
0:41:21	zones that would be listed as a
0:41:24	conditional using
0:41:26	and i think we left left that after
0:41:29	uh we started discussing
0:41:33	r3 as a possibility
0:41:37	now i'm i'm leaning toward now
0:41:41	adding r3 but with special
0:41:45	conditions for r3 and that is that
0:41:48	there's a maximum number
0:41:50	that's not set by the square footage
0:41:53	it's merely a density a maximum
0:41:55	occupancy if you will
0:41:59	i think we saw and this is kind of based
0:42:02	on
0:42:02	you can call it anecdotal evidence that
0:42:05	since we don't have
0:42:07	a lot of real solid studies or anything
0:42:09	to base this on but
0:42:11	the warming center that did opera that
0:42:13	has operated for four years
0:42:15	the third year seemed to be the most
0:42:17	populous and that was the one that
0:42:19	generated the most response from the
0:42:20	neighborhoods
0:42:22	and this year i believe mr parkerson
0:42:25	said that they
0:42:25	they do you say average 25 or so
0:42:28	approximately
0:42:30	and there were as i understand it much
0:42:33	much fewer uh if any
0:42:37	negative impacts or reported negative
0:42:38	impacts on the neighborhood in which
0:42:41	they operated which was an r3
0:42:43	so i'm not against
0:42:47	adding an r3 as long as we have a
0:42:48	reasonable maximum
0:42:52	again the suggestion is that the more
0:42:56	the larger the volume the greater the
0:42:57	chance for impact on the neighborhood
0:43:01	um so
0:43:04	i'll leave it there does anybody have
0:43:08	thoughts are you suggesting it a max
0:43:11	of something like 35 is that what you
0:43:12	were thinking or i would say more like
0:43:15	25 25
0:43:21	i'd like to object to 25. oh mr
0:43:24	parkerson if you don't mind
0:43:26	allowing the commission to discuss and
0:43:28	then we would be happy to
0:43:29	to reopen for comments after that thank
0:43:32	you
0:43:34	so darryl that would be per building per
0:43:37	facility
0:43:38	correct for use
0:43:42	and that would apply only in in the r3
0:43:45	though
0:43:47	commissioner herman how do you arrive at
0:43:49	25
0:43:50	commissioner moore again it's just based
0:43:53	on uh
0:43:54	the public feedback where more than that
0:43:57	we got more negative feedback
0:44:00	we don't have lots of science to back it
0:44:03	up
0:44:03	and anything that we would recommend i
0:44:07	would hope would be reviewed
0:44:09	you know in a year or two and maybe
0:44:12	and those numbers would certainly be up
0:44:13	for a review
0:44:16	i think that i like the um
0:44:20	i'm glad to hear that you're open to um
0:44:23	to considering including r3 in here um
0:44:26	and i i also like jan's uh commissioner
0:44:29	mitchell's suggestion of
0:44:31	um of bringing in c4 because there are
0:44:34	churches in that area that are
0:44:36	buildings where a use like this would
0:44:38	actually be practical
0:44:40	um i think that it's been hard to
0:44:44	disentangle this this kind of code
0:44:45	discussion from the experience of
0:44:47	one particular um
0:44:50	instance and i then wonder whether you
0:44:53	know if that 25 number is coming very
0:44:55	specifically from the experience of
0:44:56	you know kind of two pretty different
0:44:58	years or two or three different years
0:45:00	in one particular location um what that
0:45:03	kind of you know that we should
0:45:05	at least weigh that with open eyes that
0:45:07	we're really kind of taking that number
0:45:08	from that experience
0:45:09	um i'm comfortable with with just the
0:45:12	fact that this would be a conditional
0:45:13	use that we would have
0:45:14	i think that gives us a lot of control
0:45:16	out of opportunity for feedback
0:45:18	from from specific communities specific
0:45:22	neighborhoods where
0:45:23	one of these uses might come into effect
0:45:27	i think not including r3 kind of makes
0:45:30	this reflect maybe what just one side of
0:45:31	the public comment that we got because
0:45:32	there were definitely plenty of people
0:45:34	that were
0:45:34	you know in favor of having it in our
0:45:36	three zone when we originally had that
0:45:37	conversation
0:45:38	um and so this so putting the option of
0:45:41	r3 and possibly also c4 in this i think
0:45:43	more
0:45:44	does reflect the discussions that we had
0:45:46	um
0:45:47	and yeah um i think that also gives us
0:45:50	the opportunity to kind of view
0:45:52	you know these decisions as they come up
0:45:54	because they will be conditional uses
0:45:56	in the context of what we know will be
0:45:58	our um
0:45:59	the involving environment of services
0:46:01	for homeless that we have here and these
0:46:02	kind of
0:46:03	facilities are really just one you know
0:46:05	are really designed to be just one small
0:46:07	part of what
0:46:08	you know facilities um and services we
0:46:10	we offer to help get these people out of
0:46:12	the situation that they're in
0:46:14	so i think that really kind of that yeah
0:46:16	that public comment process part of a
0:46:18	conditional use is what makes me
0:46:20	comfortable having
0:46:21	r3 and c4 be in this
0:46:25	[Music]
0:46:27	just thinking about the the number 25
0:46:31	there were far fewer problems this year
0:46:34	but that also is the same year when
0:46:38	um the warming center was required to
0:46:41	follow through with a number of
0:46:44	neighborhood agreement requests or not
0:46:47	requests but requirements
0:46:49	so it's hard to know were the fewer
0:46:52	problems because of neighborhood
0:46:53	agreement or
0:46:54	fewer problems because there weren't
0:46:56	quite as many people so
0:46:59	that's something to consider it's i have
0:47:02	considered it yeah whether it's
0:47:03	uh i i assume it's management and
0:47:07	volume or combined right
0:47:11	and so this this would you know
0:47:14	would provide a management framework and
0:47:16	limit the volume so it
0:47:18	seems like a recipe for success so if
0:47:21	we're going to allow r3
0:47:23	i would question why not r1 and r2 as
0:47:26	well
0:47:29	that's certainly a question i would i
0:47:31	would
0:47:32	reply with uh densities so
0:47:36	r1 and r2 are designed to be
0:47:39	less dense and this is a density use
0:47:43	so putting a large number of people in a
0:47:46	small space is a
0:47:48	high density thing and that's what r3 is
0:47:50	built more built to
0:47:53	to handle
0:47:56	people who live in r3 are packed in a
0:47:59	little tighter than those in r2 and r1
0:48:02	so just along the lines of of
0:48:06	sheer density i would say r3 is
0:48:10	well it may not you can argue whether
0:48:12	it's appropriate it's more appropriate
0:48:13	than r2 or r1
0:48:15	in my opinion so we could have we could
0:48:18	have this as a condition conditional use
0:48:21	or an outright use in our one or r2
0:48:24	with a lower number
0:48:27	and shelter you know it can occur in r1
0:48:29	and r2 if it's 10 or fewer
0:48:31	so we wouldn't be restricting
0:48:34	r1 and r2 from a smaller number they can
0:48:37	operate
0:48:39	outside of the bounds of this regulation
0:48:43	so should we allow larger numbers as a
0:48:46	conditional use in r1 and r2
0:48:50	i wouldn't because
0:48:55	because they can operate a warming
0:48:57	center would be able to operate in r1
0:48:59	and r2 with
0:49:00	a small a number that seems more
0:49:02	appropriate for those lower densities
0:49:05	which would be under 10.
0:49:12	how does anyone else feel um yeah i
0:49:14	agree that r3 seems
0:49:16	more appropriate part of that is because
0:49:21	just because of of land use and part of
0:49:24	it is
0:49:25	when we think of of facilities like this
0:49:28	serving the community
0:49:29	a lot of the feedback we got during the
0:49:31	public testimony for the last
0:49:34	permanent application was that
0:49:37	the current location aside from being
0:49:39	kind of retrofitted for
0:49:40	a use like this it's also close to
0:49:43	services
0:49:44	and had you know it's close to
0:49:46	transportation services and
0:49:48	other public services so when you get
0:49:52	out into
0:49:52	r2 or r3 first of all lower density
0:49:57	i think people who live out in lower
0:50:00	density expect
0:50:01	lighter use lighter traffic
0:50:07	i mean to be worth a discussion with r2
0:50:09	what might be the
0:50:12	the limit that would trigger conditional
0:50:14	use if it's
0:50:16	if we want to allow more than 10 people
0:50:18	um
0:50:19	but i mean my initial hunch is that 10
0:50:21	people is enough
0:50:23	for art to an r1
0:50:27	but that's i haven't had much time to
0:50:29	think about it and again where those
0:50:31	numbers really come
0:50:32	from uh you need to think about that too
0:50:34	without a whole lot of
0:50:35	input um i'm i'm concerned though
0:50:39	because
0:50:41	density and income
0:50:46	generally have an inverse relationship
0:50:48	so
0:50:49	people in with lower income live in
0:50:52	higher density areas and it's almost as
0:50:55	though you're saying
0:50:56	that people who live in higher denser
0:50:58	areas
0:50:59	higher density areas and have lower
0:51:02	income
0:51:04	shouldn't be concerned about the impact
0:51:07	of a
0:51:08	larger warming center
0:51:11	but people in r1 or r2 who have the
0:51:14	higher income
0:51:15	and a lower density than have the right
0:51:18	not to have
0:51:19	a larger
0:51:22	larger population warming center in
0:51:25	in their neighborhood and i'm i'm not
0:51:27	sure that that's
0:51:30	again i'm i'm throwing it out there and
0:51:31	i would love to hear
0:51:33	i was thinking more of the impact on a
0:51:36	neighborhood
0:51:36	someone who moves into hideous density
0:51:38	residential is kind of expecting a
0:51:40	lively neighborhood with
0:51:41	foot traffic and things happening in the
0:51:43	evenings and
0:51:44	medium density residential i don't know
0:51:46	i mean that's kind of a gray area but
0:51:48	the low density um
0:51:51	[Music]
0:51:52	people have moved there because they
0:51:54	want it to be quieter they want it to be
0:51:56	less trafficked and so just kind of
0:52:00	serving that community and what their
0:52:01	expectations were when they bought
0:52:03	property there if they're
0:52:04	property owners the other thing is if
0:52:08	if the warming center is serving a
0:52:11	houseless population
0:52:13	then then their vicinity to
0:52:16	to services to public services is is
0:52:19	more important and
0:52:22	therefore it just seems like that denser
0:52:24	use would be in those
0:52:26	high-density areas again you know i
0:52:29	don't feel really strongly about
0:52:31	the r1 and the r2 at this point and
0:52:33	having not had a whole lot of time to
0:52:35	to analyze that or do any research but
0:52:40	i'm i could be convinced either way just
0:52:42	i'm just leaning more toward focusing on
0:52:44	r3 i guess
0:52:50	i'm in agreement with commissioner henry
0:52:52	about that
0:52:55	i yeah i wouldn't want higher numbers in
0:52:57	the r1 or r2
0:52:59	i'm sorry i i agree with commissioner
0:53:01	henry
0:53:02	i think it makes sense most sense in an
0:53:05	r3 zone because of the proximity
0:53:07	or likely proximity to services
0:53:11	that people without a home would need so
0:53:15	so i'm i'm thinking and mr moore has
0:53:19	a map up and he might may need to scroll
0:53:22	in
0:53:22	but i'm thinking about the church on the
0:53:25	top of the hill
0:53:26	um 7th street
0:53:30	in niagara and then there's another
0:53:32	church further down 7th street
0:53:34	what are the what is the zoning in those
0:53:37	areas
0:53:39	i think niagara's niagara is the
0:53:42	is a border isn't it
0:53:48	that must be one niagara
0:53:51	yeah it's r2 so that's an r2 niagara's
0:53:55	niagara there's r1 north of niagara and
0:53:58	r2
0:53:59	south of it on the hill there okay so
0:54:03	heading down the hill then
0:54:04	so those two churches there well then
0:54:06	there's there's a few other churches
0:54:09	the church at 12th the nerving
0:54:12	right right which is
0:54:15	r2 i'm not sure where that where the
0:54:19	line
0:54:19	is between r1 and r2 it's on irving
0:54:22	except for that except for the one block
0:54:26	so we would be depriving these churches
0:54:29	of the opportunity to host a larger
0:54:33	warming center
0:54:38	where's the church on is it on which
0:54:40	side of irving is the church on
0:54:41	it's on the south side
0:54:44	southwest corner of 12th and irving
0:54:50	it is r3 i believe
0:54:53	and i don't think so if it's on the
0:54:56	south side of urban it's
0:54:57	it's r1
0:55:03	i just wanted 10th irving as well but on
0:55:06	the north side
0:55:07	yeah that's an r1
0:55:11	across the street is r3
0:55:14	would it be helpful to have a map with
0:55:16	churches in the zoning
0:55:18	that would be great yeah yeah and again
0:55:20	i would i would point out that
0:55:23	that churches aren't the only place they
0:55:26	can have these
0:55:27	and and the the
0:55:31	the um traditional
0:55:34	um use of the of a church makes sense in
0:55:38	a lot of ways
0:55:39	um my experience in other areas is that
0:55:43	the churches
0:55:44	rotated the use and they had 10 a
0:55:47	maximum of
0:55:48	10 so that there wouldn't be impact on
0:55:49	the neighborhoods and and these
0:55:51	churches were throughout the city
0:55:54	the the actual homeless shelter
0:55:59	that was a high barrier was in an
0:56:01	industrial area
0:56:02	but the churches throughout the city in
0:56:04	in all sorts of different zonings
0:56:06	had warming centers and people would go
0:56:09	into and out of those neighborhoods
0:56:10	without any trouble well
0:56:12	um yeah i'm glad we have this discussion
0:56:14	because the fact that there's
0:56:16	you know r three on one side of having
0:56:18	an r one on the other that's
0:56:20	that's a little bit surprising i i kind
0:56:22	of
0:56:23	figured that it would transition to r2
0:56:25	and then r3 and that was generally how
0:56:26	it went um
0:56:27	and then your point about some of the
0:56:29	churches that are in the r2 zone i mean
0:56:31	that's still
0:56:32	really close to downtown and there is
0:56:34	bus service on niagara
0:56:36	um so you know
0:56:39	maybe how do we feel about r3 though are
0:56:41	we still sort of
0:56:43	toss out r3 or bring that in too i mean
0:56:46	i could see having different
0:56:48	thresholds between r2 and r3 sorry r1 i
0:56:51	meant
0:56:52	do we want to say r1 is just 10
0:56:56	and don't worry about it or i'll try to
0:56:59	bring nr1 if we're comfortable with 25
0:57:03	and r3
0:57:04	i think stepping down r2 and r1 is
0:57:08	i just go with 10. i mean
0:57:12	i i don't know that i'm comfortable with
0:57:14	25 in
0:57:16	in r3 but i think it's discriminatory to
0:57:19	to exclude other residential zonings
0:57:23	um again we're not excluding them
0:57:28	we're we're setting a threshold at which
0:57:31	a use will be regulated i guess we're
0:57:33	just deciding if the threshold would be
0:57:35	greater than 10 people
0:57:39	it seems like pretty easy code language
0:57:42	to specify
0:57:43	a threshold for each residential zone
0:57:47	if we want to include all of them
0:57:50	if you could you could also include them
0:57:52	just throw this out here you could
0:57:54	include it as
0:57:56	a semi-public use so anywhere where a
0:57:58	church is they could still
0:57:59	operate and then tack on a limit of
0:58:03	that have a thousand foot buffer between
0:58:04	them so you don't have two in the same
0:58:06	area there's ways besides just the
0:58:08	zoning that you could limit
0:58:11	i see so you're saying that this that a
0:58:15	a temporary warming shelter would be
0:58:16	part of us by public use
0:58:18	rather than delineating the zones in
0:58:20	which a temporary warming structure is
0:58:22	allowed
0:58:23	okay i think that i didn't understand
0:58:25	the first time
0:58:28	you don't have to it's just not yeah
0:58:30	because then that would capture
0:58:32	i mean it makes it messier i have all
0:58:33	the messy ideas
0:58:35	it captures the churches in existing or
0:58:38	one or two or three
0:58:39	zones um
0:58:43	but i would recommend putting some sort
0:58:45	of cap
0:58:46	i think and 25 i have concerns with
0:58:48	because what happens with that 26
0:58:50	person who comes in the door but if
0:58:52	there's not another shelter within
0:58:54	511 feet i don't know what to me it
0:58:56	makes more sense to limit it by distance
0:58:59	and impacts to the neighborhood than the
0:59:00	number of people at that
0:59:02	site because the number of people at the
0:59:04	site would already be limited by
0:59:06	all this fire life safety stuff that's
0:59:08	kind of
0:59:09	where i think i was starting along those
0:59:11	lines too that you know if you have
0:59:14	several buildings in a small area and
0:59:16	they're all allowed a certain number of
0:59:18	people it could have a pretty big impact
0:59:19	on the neighborhood
0:59:20	compared to forcefully spreading it out
0:59:26	so so how do we feel about time limits
0:59:30	for these as far as
0:59:34	allowing a
0:59:37	shelter to operate for a number of days
0:59:39	before it has to be moved to
0:59:41	a different location so there's sharing
0:59:44	between the
0:59:47	between the well part of the motivations
0:59:50	for
0:59:50	creating this as i stated before was
0:59:54	was really to allow a single location to
0:59:57	become
0:59:58	more established so that would
1:00:01	that would be con contrary to that um
1:00:05	to allow investment in a location
1:00:09	um because it's expensive to to
1:00:14	operate a shelter
1:00:17	and presumably a lot of money comes from
1:00:20	grants
1:00:21	or donations and
1:00:24	it's hard it seems to me it would be
1:00:26	harder
1:00:27	to generate grant money or donation
1:00:30	money if
1:00:31	to improve a building if they're not
1:00:34	going to be there in
1:00:35	six months so is the intention of
1:00:38	this code to protect neighborhoods or to
1:00:41	make it easier for a warming center to
1:00:42	be
1:00:43	established somewhere well it's both
1:00:47	i mean originally it was intended to
1:00:50	allow a warming center to
1:00:52	be established outside of neighborhoods
1:00:56	with the intention of protecting
1:00:57	neighborhoods but now we're talking
1:00:58	about
1:00:59	adding r3 which would be in
1:01:02	neighborhoods
1:01:03	which is um why i want i i think a
1:01:08	capacity limit is important
1:01:11	to make sure we're still addressing the
1:01:14	neighborhood
1:01:15	issue or protecting impact from the
1:01:17	neighborhoods
1:01:19	so both okay the
1:01:22	requirement for a re-application that
1:01:25	could help with the
1:01:26	time limit issue right if it's not i'm
1:01:29	sorry the
1:01:30	the requirement for a reapplication for
1:01:33	for a conditional use could
1:01:36	theoretically help with the time limit
1:01:38	problem do you have expiring conditional
1:01:40	uses are they perpetual
1:01:42	conditional uses stay with the site but
1:01:44	that's a good question of
1:01:46	you could have a like a temporary use
1:01:48	you require an annual renewal
1:01:49	i don't know if you can require it for a
1:01:51	specific use but i can look into it
1:01:53	i know that there were some of us who
1:01:55	wanted to avoid that
1:01:56	process happening every year i don't
1:01:59	know if it could be
1:02:00	by yearly or something but it gives the
1:02:02	neighborhood the opportunity to come and
1:02:04	give
1:02:04	public testimony and to speak against
1:02:07	the
1:02:07	renewal of the permit if things start
1:02:10	going south
1:02:12	or neighborhoods if we have multiple
1:02:14	warming centers
1:02:15	yep thank you yeah all right where our
1:02:17	hope is that
1:02:19	the conditional use process like it like
1:02:21	it does everywhere else
1:02:24	you make that determination early on and
1:02:25	then if they violate
1:02:28	the specific use standard then there's
1:02:31	ways to enforce it so like any
1:02:34	conditional use if
1:02:35	if they don't follow the rules of the
1:02:37	conditional use
1:02:38	they can lose the use or they can be
1:02:40	fined or whatever however the city wants
1:02:42	to address it but the use isn't is
1:02:44	the the definition of the use
1:02:48	is not as stringent or extensive or
1:02:50	detailed as
1:02:51	the good neighbor agreement commitment
1:02:56	yeah you know i mean that was their um
1:02:58	should include
1:02:59	it should have captured most of that
1:03:02	okay
1:03:03	well again we kind of keep going back
1:03:04	and forth between trying to write code
1:03:07	for the entire city that's supposed to
1:03:08	benefit the residents
1:03:10	and trying to work an existing entity in
1:03:14	which we all agreed up front
1:03:15	isn't supposed to be the intent of this
1:03:17	exercise
1:03:21	so that's our challenge yeah
1:03:28	i'm i'm not trying to work any
1:03:31	existing entity in or exclude any
1:03:34	existing entities i'm
1:03:36	trying to come up with a standard that
1:03:38	would apply to any that wants to operate
1:03:41	that allows them
1:03:44	to allows the use to
1:03:47	serve the goal of the use which is to
1:03:50	help the people that need the help
1:03:52	without impacting the neighborhoods that
1:03:54	they're in
1:03:55	that's my goal and and i agree with that
1:03:58	i'm saying that
1:03:59	that there is an existing warming center
1:04:02	that
1:04:02	has been operating and we can learn from
1:04:04	that but we can't write
1:04:06	this code specifically to fit that in
1:04:10	and we've had this conversation on a lot
1:04:11	of different subjects not just warming
1:04:14	center but
1:04:15	but um other
1:04:18	entities um or or
1:04:21	proposed businesses so we do but i do
1:04:24	think the discussion of residential i
1:04:26	wasn't finished but i apologize
1:04:27	um because we have had people in here
1:04:31	state
1:04:33	there's the potential that the something
1:04:36	that's existing might work
1:04:37	but when it changes ownership or changes
1:04:41	management
1:04:42	then it's a different situation so
1:04:45	we we do have to be careful that we are
1:04:48	whatever we are recommending here has to
1:04:51	do
1:04:52	with a general and generic and not
1:04:55	something
1:04:56	specifically yeah and i think that's
1:04:59	actually
1:05:00	kind of where it's hard to find the
1:05:03	balance is
1:05:05	i actually i actually daryl
1:05:09	commissioner omar i do understand the
1:05:11	desire to separate
1:05:12	the facilities from the neighborhoods um
1:05:16	but i think what would make me
1:05:18	comfortable with it i also have a desire
1:05:20	to
1:05:21	to to allow it but what would make me
1:05:23	more comfortable with it is
1:05:25	not an outright conditional use that
1:05:26	stays with the facility
1:05:28	indefinitely
1:05:32	if there are way to a way to address
1:05:34	that
1:05:37	because kind of the whole management i
1:05:39	think it's called a temporary use permit
1:05:42	yeah we already have that
1:05:48	can it stay with the operator the
1:05:50	organization
1:05:52	operating the center
1:05:55	you you can have a change of management
1:05:58	you know i mean what
1:05:58	what we've seen is that under 10 isn't a
1:06:01	problem
1:06:02	um or our experience
1:06:06	here was that under 10 wasn't a real
1:06:09	problem
1:06:10	35 was
1:06:13	and it was the same entity but there was
1:06:16	a very different management from year
1:06:19	one and two
1:06:20	to year three okay and then a change in
1:06:23	how management operated between year
1:06:25	three and year four
1:06:26	so again we we we can look at that
1:06:30	and recognize you know again we can use
1:06:34	that experience
1:06:35	to to make decisions but we have to
1:06:37	remember that
1:06:39	everything can change within that
1:06:44	organization
1:06:48	well i guess as long as the um kind of
1:06:51	the
1:06:52	the rules if we just
1:06:55	double check and
1:06:58	and commissioner moore i trust you if
1:07:00	you said that you captured everything
1:07:02	but
1:07:02	if the requirements are strict enough
1:07:04	that
1:07:06	uh non-conformance or non-compliance can
1:07:09	be
1:07:09	enforced then that's a powerful tool as
1:07:12	long as it's
1:07:14	not too difficult
1:07:21	nancy do you have any thoughts on how
1:07:22	that could be done or i don't know
1:07:24	legally i mean card enforcement-wise yes
1:07:27	if there are issues
1:07:28	we'll follow up on them and i think that
1:07:30	good neighbor agreement worked pretty
1:07:32	well with the existing
1:07:34	warming centers as a model it was a good
1:07:36	neighbor commitment
1:07:39	commitment um i'm wondering if there's a
1:07:42	way to require administrative review for
1:07:45	something that gets the like a
1:07:47	warming center goes in and requires
1:07:50	staff review it a year later instead of
1:07:52	sending it back to
1:07:53	planning commission like a whole
1:07:54	temporary use permit but somehow have a
1:07:56	report required or somehow capture
1:07:59	impacts of the neighborhood without just
1:08:02	giving a blanket yes you're good for
1:08:03	forever conditional use permit
1:08:05	it's kind of like what and i don't know
1:08:06	if that's legally required but
1:08:08	given the nature of it i'd like to see
1:08:11	the neighborhood having
1:08:12	the opportunity for public input and if
1:08:15	it was an
1:08:16	administrative review it would go out
1:08:18	for public notice
1:08:19	we'd write a report we'd allow people to
1:08:22	comment but it wouldn't have to go
1:08:24	through a whole
1:08:25	planning commission process it'd be a
1:08:26	shorter notice but still with
1:08:28	it would be a shorter process but still
1:08:30	with public input involved how does the
1:08:32	public input work in something like that
1:08:34	um good question like what we do for
1:08:37	administrative
1:08:38	various requests so variances that are
1:08:40	really big over 10
1:08:41	i take to you guys something like a side
1:08:43	yard setback is in our code that is
1:08:45	processed administratively so if i get a
1:08:48	lot of pushback from neighbors i could
1:08:49	always pop it up
1:08:50	to planning commission or deny the
1:08:54	for this example deny a variance for
1:08:56	staggered setback
1:08:58	but if it's not a problem it's a foot
1:08:59	and they have 20 feet kind of thing
1:09:01	it's the type of thing we specifically
1:09:03	want to keep out of planning commission
1:09:04	because it doesn't require that little
1:09:06	review
1:09:07	so there's technically three levels of
1:09:08	reverb land use processes you guys see
1:09:11	the level
1:09:11	three and four but one and two happen at
1:09:13	the staff level
1:09:14	so for the for two what i'm describing
1:09:17	not
1:09:17	describing as well sorry for something
1:09:20	like a side yard setback
1:09:21	we send out public notice to the um
1:09:24	to the property owners within a certain
1:09:26	buffer and they can
1:09:28	write or call in and if they have
1:09:29	concerns then it's logged
1:09:32	and i include it in the staff report and
1:09:33	if they don't have concerns we just
1:09:35	process it
1:09:36	okay but but then is there a public
1:09:38	hearing
1:09:40	not unless it gets escalated up for some
1:09:42	reason or
1:09:44	they appeal it it's also appealable so
1:09:46	if
1:09:47	they disagree with a staff decision they
1:09:48	could appeal it to planet commission
1:09:50	okay i i would still like to see an
1:09:53	annual review
1:09:55	like administrative like this or through
1:09:57	the planning commission
1:09:58	through through a public hearing so that
1:10:00	the
1:10:02	again both sides have an opportunity to
1:10:06	i agree with you on that so conditional
1:10:09	use wouldn't
1:10:10	give you that i'm sorry unconditional
1:10:13	use
1:10:14	wouldn't come back every year but a
1:10:16	temporary
1:10:17	you could require it in a conditional
1:10:19	use and we see
1:10:22	we see lisa nelson every year that's
1:10:24	well
1:10:25	used so much but
1:10:28	it's a good legal question if you could
1:10:29	require
1:10:31	them to come back with just a report
1:10:33	every year instead of renewal for the
1:10:34	whole conditional use permit
1:10:36	just report back on something i don't
1:10:38	know it's a legal landing's issue i
1:10:40	don't know
1:10:40	enough right now about so what about an
1:10:44	annual uh administrative
1:10:47	review where this instead of a
1:10:50	conditional use
1:10:51	is appended to
1:10:56	semi-public use in all zones except
1:11:00	in residential it's conditional use say
1:11:03	that again
1:11:04	i didn't say that very well um
1:11:09	i'm very interested in a public hearing
1:11:12	in residential neighborhoods so
1:11:16	anything that that would occur in a
1:11:18	residential neighborhood i would want to
1:11:20	come to planning commission but in the
1:11:22	other zones listed
1:11:24	can i just be administrative
1:11:27	are you talking about the initial
1:11:28	decision process or a year
1:11:30	review okay and and annual
1:11:33	and reviews if if we decide reviews are
1:11:36	necessary
1:11:37	it's a good idea um
1:11:42	it's possible okay i mean it would be
1:11:43	out we would be making it outright use
1:11:45	in the
1:11:46	other zones right i'm looking for
1:11:47	example in art are you talking about r2
1:11:50	not just r3 for residential just start
1:11:52	three is
1:11:53	my interest but i'm only one person
1:11:56	um if we tied it to summer public uses
1:12:01	they're already conditional in r2 and r3
1:12:04	so those would automatically be going to
1:12:06	playing commission
1:12:08	anyway um
1:12:12	so you have that public input i'm not
1:12:14	sure if that answers your question
1:12:19	so this raises another question if um
1:12:24	you can't have two conditional uses on
1:12:26	the same
1:12:29	so if thank you public use is
1:12:31	conditional yes
1:12:32	you might be able to tackle it on as an
1:12:34	accessory use accessories
1:12:37	messier accessories
1:12:40	well an accessory too so let's say
1:12:43	you're
1:12:44	you have a conditional use permit for a
1:12:46	semi-public use in an r2 your church or
1:12:48	there already
1:12:50	or you have a conditional use permit for
1:12:52	it you can tack on
1:12:54	an accessories for it and require that
1:12:57	the review
1:13:00	okay i'm going to point out that it is
1:13:02	currently 7
1:13:04	44 and these chairs
1:13:08	are considerably more uncomfortable than
1:13:10	at city hall
1:13:12	and i have a hard time spending an hour
1:13:14	sitting in those chairs so
1:13:15	we're going to take a five minute recess
1:13:18	and we will
1:13:18	reconvene at somewhere between 749 and
1:13:22	750
1:13:23	there's not a lot of space between ow my
1:13:30	butt
1:13:41	say that again did you look at some
1:13:43	public uses
1:13:49	um
1:13:57	it's a formula of humidity
1:14:00	i kind of like that sometimes so then
1:14:03	yeah and they there's the how would that
1:14:06	work
1:14:08	that's sort of where i'm thinking
1:14:20	which i think would be interesting to
1:14:21	bring back in your church you know have
1:14:22	a zoning out
1:14:23	where the churches are i mean like
1:14:26	charter where someone
1:14:38	like a lot of churches have conditional
1:14:40	uses because
1:14:46	so you would apply for a conditional use
1:14:49	if that yes congratulations left and a
1:14:52	new congregation want to go into that
1:15:17	so the semi public use dies
1:15:21	with the church so example
1:15:36	is
1:15:48	like why can't you put it in studio in a
1:15:50	church
1:15:51	and we're gonna say the dance studio is
1:15:53	non-profit obviously
1:15:55	there's it's a non-non-uh conforming
1:15:58	building
1:15:59	and now you're in the pickle i mean this
1:16:01	is the whole problem yeah this is
1:16:03	another repurposing of the oceans
1:16:32	um
1:16:42	i mean why don't i if i turn myself into
1:16:45	a non-profit
1:17:22	good neighbor commitment
1:18:08	outright in c4
1:18:16	okay we're reconvening at 7 49 p.m
1:18:20	is this still on yeah so someone had
1:18:23	five minutes of
1:18:24	dinner okay
1:18:27	we could go back and tell them it takes
1:18:29	a five minute break
1:18:31	four minutes and 30 seconds and they
1:18:33	should be should be good
1:18:39	okay we are back and where were we
1:18:45	so i'm less interested in that plan
1:18:48	for the semi-public use because it's all
1:18:51	over the city
1:18:56	so we are on the record and we could all
1:18:58	speak so that the
1:19:00	tape can since we don't have microphones
1:19:02	this evening if we can all speak
1:19:04	so the tape can pick it up and then so
1:19:06	that your hearing impaired
1:19:08	chair can hear what you've said
1:19:11	so we talked briefly about somehow
1:19:14	stapling it to a semi-public
1:19:16	use because but
1:19:21	the problem we might encounter doing
1:19:22	that is that semi-public use is
1:19:24	conditional in almost every zone so
1:19:27	there would it would be
1:19:30	we'd have to um make the same kinds of
1:19:35	we have to do the same amount of work
1:19:38	code language-wise if we just created a
1:19:41	new one and put it in
1:19:42	in the zones as opposed to selecting
1:19:46	the zones where semi-public use already
1:19:48	is conditional and eliminating ones that
1:19:50	we didn't think were appropriate
1:19:51	etc etc so
1:19:55	i'm kind of leaning back towards toward
1:19:58	a specific conditional use
1:20:03	i will standard i was somewhat
1:20:04	interested in the idea of
1:20:08	the outright use that could or the
1:20:10	traditional use
1:20:12	which doesn't undergo yearly review
1:20:17	unless except for the administrative
1:20:20	review and it only goes before the
1:20:22	planning commission if it gets elevated
1:20:24	any commission because that sort of
1:20:25	solves the goal of not having to go
1:20:27	through planning commission yearly but
1:20:30	it still allows for it to go through the
1:20:32	climate and commission nearly if it gets
1:20:33	elevated to that level because of
1:20:35	problems i'm not 100
1:20:39	sure my plan is legal but i think that
1:20:41	would be an interesting thing to
1:20:43	at least pursue or let me talk to claire
1:20:45	about
1:20:46	i i like the temporary
1:20:49	use again going back to
1:20:54	our experience is that when there is not
1:20:56	a problem with the use
1:20:59	it takes about three minutes yeah that's
1:21:01	a good thing that's true if it's not
1:21:02	highly controversial you don't
1:21:04	sit there for hours listen right and if
1:21:05	it is highly controversial and needs to
1:21:07	have
1:21:08	public input then then that should be
1:21:10	allowed so
1:21:12	um excuse me but the problem with
1:21:14	temporary use is that it
1:21:18	there's no enforceable language
1:21:21	specific pardon me i got an ice cube
1:21:24	that's specific to this particular use
1:21:27	in the temporary use so
1:21:28	enforcement of problems once the
1:21:31	temporary use
1:21:32	has been granted becomes a lot more
1:21:34	difficult
1:21:37	except that it gets reviewed every year
1:21:39	it does get reviewed every year
1:21:41	yeah so we have that opportunity to
1:21:43	address problems
1:21:45	every year would it make it more
1:21:47	difficult for an organization to seek
1:21:49	grants or
1:21:51	if they aren't certain whether they'll
1:21:53	be able to stay in a certain place
1:21:54	from one year to the next i think that's
1:21:57	a fair assumption
1:21:58	i don't know if that's true or not but
1:22:00	i'm working on that assumption
1:22:02	but we're back to should that be
1:22:06	a consideration for how we write the
1:22:08	code or how we
1:22:09	recommend that the code be written i
1:22:12	wouldn't want to write code that
1:22:16	makes it difficult for makes it
1:22:19	difficult for the use that we're writing
1:22:20	code for
1:22:21	i mean the goal is to enable a use we
1:22:24	should
1:22:25	consider potentially consider
1:22:28	uh thought lines of thought like that
1:22:34	for renewable language i'm sorry know
1:22:38	that what commissioner herman was
1:22:39	talking about yeah
1:22:52	i'm not sure if i'm following
1:22:55	we're bouncing around i know so so but
1:22:57	the my understanding if it's
1:22:58	uh a temporary use um
1:23:02	would be so if we decided that we wanted
1:23:04	to continue to
1:23:08	consider warming temporary warming
1:23:11	shelters
1:23:12	as a temporary use as the sra warming
1:23:15	center is
1:23:16	then we would not have any need any code
1:23:18	language is that correct
1:23:20	or they're currently operating under a
1:23:23	temporary use permit
1:23:25	right which lasts for a year right
1:23:28	and then they have to come back and get
1:23:30	another one as an example the asteroid
1:23:32	warming center is operating that way
1:23:34	right
1:23:35	and any other warming center that wanted
1:23:37	to operate
1:23:38	that was potentially at the scale
1:23:41	where the city thought they should get a
1:23:43	temporary use permit
1:23:45	they would have to do the same thing
1:23:47	right but the point of
1:23:48	of or there's no way to have
1:23:51	because any language like this in the
1:23:53	development code would be tied to
1:23:55	a conditional use or an accessory use
1:23:57	and thus
1:23:59	if we have language like this it could
1:24:01	not be a temporary use because
1:24:03	because temporary uses are four things
1:24:04	that aren't already classified in our
1:24:06	development code
1:24:07	is that right pretty much so it's one or
1:24:09	the other
1:24:10	one and i assume we're working on long
1:24:13	histories of we can't just create a
1:24:14	whole new
1:24:15	category of use like between
1:24:18	temporary conditional use
1:24:19	[Laughter]
1:24:22	i mean i assume we aren't we can um
1:24:25	that was sort of my idea of adding some
1:24:27	level uh
1:24:29	conditional use which i'm not i'm not
1:24:31	sure i'd have to double check
1:24:34	yeah i haven't heard of that but
1:24:37	i wouldn't right so conditional use
1:24:40	would be permanent
1:24:41	right with the use and the
1:24:48	so as yeah commissioner hermann was
1:24:49	pointing out the advantage to someone
1:24:51	who wanted to run
1:24:52	a warming center would be that a
1:24:54	conditional use would allow them to
1:24:56	plan for the future we do have as we've
1:25:00	all noted temporary uses that have
1:25:02	renewed year after year
1:25:04	and have been just fine um but i suppose
1:25:07	that
1:25:07	is something that can only be relied
1:25:09	upon after a certain
1:25:11	number of renewals for an organization
1:25:15	so the question of the grants is if
1:25:17	someone operates
1:25:19	in an area where it's an outright
1:25:22	allowed use
1:25:24	then they don't have to worry about
1:25:26	getting the the
1:25:28	temporary and they can get their grants
1:25:32	so
1:25:35	it's not as though a shelter can't
1:25:37	operate or can't
1:25:38	get grants
1:25:40	[Music]
1:25:41	they still have that opportunity if
1:25:43	they're going to be in a permanent
1:25:45	location
1:25:46	[Music]
1:25:48	in zoning that would allow it as an
1:25:50	outright use
1:25:53	right
1:25:58	which is what we're considering now
1:26:01	but we aren't considering any outright
1:26:02	uses right well our conditional use
1:26:04	right
1:26:04	okay right that's yes again i was like
1:26:06	wait because there were no outright
1:26:08	users there's no outright it's not
1:26:09	outright it's just
1:26:10	it's not proposed to be an outright use
1:26:12	anywhere got it
1:26:14	proposed to be a conditional use unless
1:26:16	it's under 10
1:26:17	right well then then there's none of our
1:26:21	business
1:26:21	[Laughter]
1:26:26	okay where would we like to go um
1:26:30	with what we have and where would we
1:26:31	like to go with
1:26:33	the rest of the meeting tonight
1:26:38	should we request more information about
1:26:41	our options do you want to hear from the
1:26:44	public
1:26:44	too sure sure and
1:26:48	prior to mr parkerson arriving i did
1:26:52	point out that this is a workshop i'm
1:26:55	not required to do
1:26:56	public hearing but i'm happy to get
1:27:00	public input and i would just ask again
1:27:03	that people
1:27:04	keep their remarks um
1:27:07	we generally ask for three minute but
1:27:09	i'm happy to go beyond that this evening
1:27:16	so
1:27:20	if you don't mind coming back stating
1:27:22	your name for the record
1:27:27	dan parkerson um
1:27:32	and i live over on the other side or do
1:27:35	you want the same ad
1:27:36	could you please 550 state route 401
1:27:39	nacelle washington the
1:27:43	couple of comments things that i had out
1:27:45	of
1:27:46	that were brought up here and i thought
1:27:48	there were some good ideas
1:27:50	um i think a thousand foot separation
1:27:54	might be a really good thing because
1:27:57	you're if if the population grows here
1:28:02	you're encouraging other neighborhoods
1:28:04	to share
1:28:05	the burden for instance you
1:28:09	i think there's a need down towards
1:28:11	safeway
1:28:13	and i think there's a need towards dutch
1:28:15	brothers coffee
1:28:17	and i think that rather than having
1:28:20	things
1:28:20	concentrated i think that puts an undue
1:28:23	burden
1:28:24	on any one neighborhood and i think if
1:28:26	that was written in the code i think
1:28:28	that would
1:28:28	i think that would help separate it
1:28:31	would support
1:28:32	the need in other areas
1:28:37	i don't know how to the code would deal
1:28:39	with this
1:28:40	but the typical operation of a warming
1:28:43	center
1:28:43	spans two years because it goes from
1:28:46	november
1:28:47	to march so
1:28:50	um i don't you know if you take out a
1:28:53	permit
1:28:54	and it's to january 1
1:28:58	i'm not sure how that works
1:29:01	i think in this case we would consider
1:29:03	it a season okay not not a calendar year
1:29:05	but a season
1:29:09	if there was a way to
1:29:13	have different levels of review
1:29:18	if the city's intention is to to have
1:29:20	these things
1:29:21	more likely located in seas and
1:29:24	eyes and some of the other zones besides
1:29:27	residential zones
1:29:28	if you had a different review criteria
1:29:32	kind of like nancy was
1:29:35	suggesting it would influence them
1:29:39	to go to the area that
1:29:42	would of least resistance so in the r3
1:29:45	it's a heavier
1:29:46	in the residential zones it's a heavier
1:29:49	burden and an industrial zone
1:29:53	is a lighter birder for instance behind
1:29:57	dutch brothers down
1:29:59	in that area there's a concert hunt
1:30:01	building down in there
1:30:03	i don't know what size it is and just
1:30:06	you know if that wasn't less burden
1:30:08	it would more likely locate there for a
1:30:11	whole variety of reasons
1:30:12	including funding and neighborhood
1:30:14	resistance and things like that
1:30:18	um
1:30:21	as far as problems last as far as
1:30:24	i think it's important that a warming
1:30:26	center
1:30:28	not use the model that was used last
1:30:30	year
1:30:31	which was that board and that
1:30:34	decisions was that we were going to open
1:30:36	for 120 days which is a violation of
1:30:38	state fire code
1:30:40	and basically come on move in you live
1:30:43	here
1:30:44	because it wasn't weather dependent and
1:30:46	i think it's important to continue to
1:30:48	keep the weather dependent
1:30:50	the operation this year was completely
1:30:52	different than last year
1:30:54	based on that neighborhood commitment
1:30:57	and defining
1:30:58	the weather dependent 90 days because
1:31:01	nobody moves in
1:31:03	when you don't even know if you can come
1:31:04	back tomorrow
1:31:07	and i think the neighborhood experience
1:31:09	was substantially different
1:31:11	this year from last year mr parkinson
1:31:14	i'm sorry to interrupt but uh to to
1:31:17	clarify for the record and and for those
1:31:19	speaking will
1:31:21	would it be okay if we called it year
1:31:22	three and year four yes
1:31:24	so so year three was the year year three
1:31:26	was com
1:31:27	it was against fire code it was against
1:31:29	the definition of a warming center
1:31:32	it should not happen again and and year
1:31:35	four is the year the the season
1:31:37	that you just completed season four
1:31:39	however we want it but
1:31:41	now as far as the 25 and i think this is
1:31:43	a really key point
1:31:45	if you take four nights a 30
1:31:49	a 30 a 30 and a 10
1:31:53	i it adds up to 100 divided by four
1:31:55	that's 25.
1:31:57	that was our experience this year what
1:31:59	would happen
1:32:00	is we would be at capacity be at
1:32:04	capacity be at capacity
1:32:06	the next night there was a big storm
1:32:08	coming in the weather model said we
1:32:10	could open
1:32:10	but it turned out to be a sunny day 55
1:32:14	the storm didn't hit nobody showed up
1:32:18	and so it was 30 30 30 10.
1:32:22	and i think the neighborhood experience
1:32:24	with with
1:32:26	the staffing at at a warming center
1:32:31	excuse me i'm sorry
1:32:35	the staffing at a warming center the
1:32:37	state
1:32:38	fire code will make the staffing
1:32:41	be at the level that
1:32:44	this current year was operated at
1:32:47	because you have to have a firewatch end
1:32:49	of
1:32:49	two people on throughout the whole time
1:32:52	period
1:32:56	and i think that the 30 number
1:33:00	was well managed as just as well managed
1:33:04	as the 10
1:33:05	number i'm concerned someone mentioned
1:33:08	at 25 people you know you're you're
1:33:12	on the the only time you need 30 people
1:33:15	is one answer
1:33:16	or a larger number is when it's really
1:33:19	bad nights
1:33:21	and so to take an average
1:33:26	on the warm weather nights that are
1:33:29	unexpectedly warm
1:33:31	you don't need 25 but on the bad weather
1:33:34	nights
1:33:35	you're cutting people off that that
1:33:38	really do need the services
1:33:40	and i just think that 25 number is a
1:33:42	little low
1:33:46	so i think we covered last year more
1:33:50	than one year
1:33:51	the r3 the residential review versus the
1:33:55	the industrial or commercial use and the
1:33:58	thousand percent version i think that's
1:34:00	that's all my confidence great thank you
1:34:06	any other comments
1:34:13	no um
1:34:17	chris if if you could come up to the
1:34:19	front state your name and address for
1:34:21	the record
1:34:24	uh chris 687
1:34:27	mr hayford we are on the referee and it
1:34:29	does need to be seven
1:34:30	twelve stream um so it's
1:34:34	a little confusing about all of the um
1:34:36	conditional use
1:34:38	and temporary use and um
1:34:41	repurposing buildings in the r3 zone
1:34:45	which is specifically what i want to
1:34:48	kind of get a little more clarity on so
1:34:51	a lot of some of the churches that were
1:34:53	mentioned
1:34:54	are non-conforming and most of their
1:34:57	non-conforming has to do with
1:35:01	parking probably probably parking
1:35:04	so if we take parking out of the
1:35:08	equation for
1:35:09	one business model is it
1:35:13	and i understand the need for
1:35:16	the warming shelter and all but
1:35:19	are we going to take parking away from
1:35:22	other business models
1:35:23	too just to make it fair because
1:35:26	housing is the main issue here
1:35:30	and parking is the main issue that's
1:35:33	really hindering expanding some of our
1:35:37	housing so you know i would like to see
1:35:40	that worked in
1:35:43	and discussed along with lot size you
1:35:46	should probably
1:35:46	consider changing so you're concerned
1:35:49	about a precedent being set by
1:35:51	correct okay also
1:35:54	i'm kind of wondering about how the
1:35:57	shelters are defined
1:35:59	and are there different types of
1:36:00	shelters that give different services
1:36:03	and are all of them going to be in
1:36:07	recommended for the r3 zone or are we
1:36:10	going to
1:36:11	define them a little bit on
1:36:14	how they're functioning
1:36:17	and also getting back to whether or not
1:36:22	a shelter can be in other neighborhoods
1:36:25	um astoria is not very big so
1:36:29	i kind of have a hard time accepting the
1:36:32	fact that
1:36:33	things are very far away because astoria
1:36:36	is very small
1:36:38	you look at the ebba wicks church which
1:36:41	is
1:36:41	the r1 zone just up off of glasgow
1:36:46	it could be a great facility
1:36:49	for a warming center because it's on
1:36:51	five lots
1:36:53	they have parking and it needs some
1:36:56	fixing up
1:36:58	so i could see that as being a potential
1:37:01	location for this use
1:37:04	and yeah i think that's about
1:37:09	all i have i think uh one thing that i
1:37:12	noticed
1:37:13	with all transient housing this year
1:37:16	is that uh compared to last year is
1:37:19	it was weather-related and this last
1:37:22	year we had a slightly milder winter
1:37:25	and the year before it was much harsher
1:37:28	and i think that's shown up
1:37:29	also in our tourism and possibly
1:37:32	shuttle groups i don't know i don't have
1:37:34	that data but it's something to
1:37:36	think about thanks
1:37:41	thank you mr haver i i
1:37:44	you make a very good point about the
1:37:47	definition
1:37:48	of services that they're going to offer
1:37:52	we do i was going to point out to you
1:37:54	well we have a definition here
1:37:56	but the the definition um
1:38:03	is is i was gonna vague or brought right
1:38:07	it just has a shelter that accommodates
1:38:09	more than 10 homeless per operating day
1:38:11	and
1:38:12	meeting specific conditional use
1:38:13	standards
1:38:15	which which is the three pages of
1:38:17	explanation
1:38:18	right but it doesn't define i mean is it
1:38:22	low barrier is it men's shelter women's
1:38:25	shelter
1:38:26	family shelter what services homeless
1:38:29	group
1:38:30	i mean there are many different
1:38:31	non-profit models
1:38:33	for catering to the homeless and um
1:38:37	you know that might also need to be
1:38:41	to support maybe you want to touch base
1:38:43	on it
1:38:45	which it's a good point the the warming
1:38:48	centers that
1:38:49	i was familiar with in a different life
1:38:52	um provided basically just
1:38:56	a warm place coffee and broth and i
1:39:00	jan isn't here this evening but she has
1:39:02	made it clear that she
1:39:03	is disturbed by the my
1:39:07	suggestion of broth that was in the red
1:39:10	cross code and that was in the
1:39:12	that that was shown to the neighborhood
1:39:15	and before season one uh we were told
1:39:18	that
1:39:18	that there would not be meal served that
1:39:21	it would be coffee and broth and it was
1:39:23	just to provide
1:39:24	a place for the people to get out of the
1:39:26	weather um
1:39:28	and the again the the warming centers
1:39:31	that i was familiar with before
1:39:33	the same thing that it was coffee and
1:39:35	broth and and just
1:39:36	a shelter to get out of the weather and
1:39:39	again those were
1:39:40	warming centers that were capped at 10
1:39:43	and moved from place to place throughout
1:39:45	the throughout the
1:39:48	the season and open only as necessary
1:39:51	the weather dependent
1:39:52	um so i appreciate
1:39:56	your comment on that mr haker
1:39:59	and then i would also agree about the
1:40:02	transportation
1:40:05	i may have missed that edit i think we
1:40:08	talked about eliminating the parking
1:40:09	requirement
1:40:11	last meeting we did talk about it at the
1:40:13	last meeting
1:40:15	um because it was it's still in here
1:40:18	that it
1:40:19	yeah the parking okay would be required
1:40:25	very last thing before the zone changes
1:40:29	and i think i'm fine striking that all
1:40:31	together
1:40:33	but getting back to the transportation i
1:40:35	i would say that
1:40:37	in my day i
1:40:41	in my workday business day however you
1:40:43	want to define it
1:40:45	i'm generally walking and i do see
1:40:47	different people in different places but
1:40:48	at on those days when i do
1:40:51	drive to our sober living facility on
1:40:55	the south slope or
1:40:56	my other properties that are not
1:40:58	necessarily in walking distance
1:41:00	it's amazing the number of people that i
1:41:02	will see three miles from where i saw
1:41:04	them earlier i'll see someone at safeway
1:41:06	and then i'll see them on the south
1:41:07	slope
1:41:09	so i don't know that transportation for
1:41:14	most is that big of an issue because we
1:41:17	really are a small town
1:41:18	and then it's not just um
1:41:22	i i see my resident my neighbors and
1:41:25	and so on from one end of town to
1:41:28	another i have a friend that walks about
1:41:30	seven miles a day and and goes past
1:41:33	my property on the south slope that i
1:41:34	don't want to walk to but he does
1:41:37	as part of his morning routine so i i
1:41:39	think that
1:41:41	transportation in the town
1:41:44	in a town of this size um
1:41:48	isn't as big of a concern
1:41:54	as it might be of the town we're a lot
1:41:58	larger
1:42:02	so we are back to oh i'm sorry
1:42:06	rick did you have anything that you
1:42:07	wanted to add okay
1:42:09	thank you um
1:42:15	so mr moore where would you like to go
1:42:17	with this um
1:42:18	so i i agree an annual review if we can
1:42:21	somehow
1:42:23	get that in uh reporting on um
1:42:29	you know opening it up to public comment
1:42:33	and getting a report on the numbers that
1:42:36	were served in the season
1:42:38	like a general report you can come up
1:42:40	with some format from
1:42:41	from whatever warming center is
1:42:45	being reviewed
1:42:48	i can tweak this language and yank out
1:42:52	all of the duplicate text
1:42:54	or isolate it better a text that was
1:42:57	duplicated from the technical advisory
1:42:58	and we can refer to that technical
1:43:00	advisory
1:43:02	um and include it or however we can
1:43:05	legally put that together we might have
1:43:08	to duplicate it anyway
1:43:10	i like the idea of a buffer i don't know
1:43:13	that we actually
1:43:14	specifically talked about it but um it
1:43:16	was mentioned
1:43:18	but if one is operating in this location
1:43:22	and there's we don't want another one
1:43:26	across the street because that kind of
1:43:32	negates our neighborhood impact goals
1:43:36	so if we have a buffer so that they're
1:43:37	more spread out do you have a number
1:43:42	is there bend has a thousand feet but i
1:43:45	don't know if that makes sense for
1:43:46	our size how many feet is the city block
1:43:50	it was a good question joan so trying to
1:43:53	get a sense of that
1:43:54	so in the in the grid um
1:43:57	say between 8th and 11th
1:44:00	we are 200 feet per block per block and
1:44:04	i believe a 60 foot right away
1:44:06	you say between the property line and
1:44:08	property line with curb gutter sidewalk
1:44:10	and
1:44:11	so so so those are short blocks and
1:44:14	that's an unusual
1:44:15	usually they're a lot longer and then
1:44:19	you get into some neighborhoods at the
1:44:21	couplet there where we are
1:44:23	um they're a little bit longer because
1:44:25	they kind of put them together and then
1:44:27	there are neighborhoods
1:44:28	alameda is a really unusual block
1:44:31	because it starts
1:44:32	you know down at the doughboy and the
1:44:35	300 block you know
1:44:37	you're driving what would normally be
1:44:39	six or seven blocks and you're in the
1:44:40	300 block and you keep on driving and
1:44:42	driving and driving and by the time you
1:44:43	get to the 600 block you've gone
1:44:45	a long distance where the difference
1:44:48	between
1:44:50	first and sixth downtown is is very
1:44:53	short
1:44:54	1000 feet fine
1:44:56	[Laughter]
1:45:00	so so it would be it would be
1:45:02	approximately five blocks or four blocks
1:45:04	i guess when you consider the
1:45:06	the right-of-way yeah it's over a third
1:45:08	of a mile and a third of a mile thank
1:45:09	you like
1:45:10	a third of a mile is like what a
1:45:12	five-minute walk seven minute walk
1:45:14	eight minute walk or something like that
1:45:16	just give it
1:45:17	a thousand feet is a little under 20
1:45:19	percent of a mile
1:45:20	oh sorry i
1:45:24	i would feel comfortable with a thousand
1:45:25	thousand yards would be over
1:45:28	over a third of a mile um so then
1:45:32	uh i still a proponent of a limit in r3
1:45:36	if we're going to include r3 i
1:45:40	this hasn't been mentioned but actually
1:45:43	mr parkinson suggested
1:45:46	the the zones that were originally
1:45:48	listed the ahc
1:45:50	c3 hr ls and s2
1:45:54	if we consider those zones the most
1:45:57	appropriate for
1:45:59	a warming center or warming shelter
1:46:03	could we just make those outright uses
1:46:06	make it an outright use
1:46:07	in those zones and conditional use in
1:46:11	um c3 and r3
1:46:16	i also would like a little bit more time
1:46:17	to think about that because i like that
1:46:18	idea as well
1:46:19	i like the idea of making some kind of
1:46:22	um
1:46:24	yeah code incentive to put things where
1:46:26	we think they're most appropriate
1:46:28	i would concur with them that makes
1:46:30	sense
1:46:31	is there no outright use category for a
1:46:34	shelter
1:46:35	this a temporary warming shelter doesn't
1:46:37	exist in the code right now
1:46:38	that's one of the issues we're trying to
1:46:40	address and we're not proposing an
1:46:41	outright use
1:46:43	so far except for unregulated under 10
1:46:46	people
1:46:47	i'm just curious while we're on the
1:46:48	topic of zones
1:46:51	so for conditional use versus
1:46:55	temporary use where where do we
1:46:59	want to put c4 do we want to talk about
1:47:02	c4
1:47:02	which is currently not on the list for
1:47:05	conditional use in the in the five zones
1:47:08	that were listed at the end
1:47:10	i would i would include that in the
1:47:11	outright column
1:47:13	so it would be it would be number six
1:47:15	would be c4 yeah and then it's really
1:47:17	just
1:47:17	our the r zones that we're trying to
1:47:19	figure out well r3 and c3 and
1:47:21	unconditional
1:47:24	hang on so are you saying one through
1:47:26	five is
1:47:27	outright plus c4 for outright and then
1:47:29	conditional and
1:47:31	are conditional in r3 and c3
1:47:36	and i can i can update all this thing
1:47:39	i would still be interested in seeing
1:47:41	that in other residential zones
1:47:43	at least our two
1:47:47	the same maximum capacity and are we
1:47:50	still
1:47:50	on board with 25 or do we i think 25 is
1:47:54	a little high
1:47:54	but i've seen it work
1:48:00	and what about nr2 what would you have
1:48:02	in r2
1:48:05	what is the the density difference
1:48:07	between r2 and r3 is it
1:48:09	is it two-thirds three
1:48:12	units i think it's 26 and r3 and
1:48:16	sixty
1:48:23	16 units per net acre in r2
1:48:27	and 26 in r3 so approximately
1:48:31	thirds
1:48:34	fifteen forty point four percent you're
1:48:37	right darryl but
1:48:43	so 15 or two
1:48:50	i'm thinking about it and what is the
1:48:52	density
1:48:54	in r1
1:49:00	is that six units per acre eight
1:49:03	eight so we're already
1:49:07	below 10 at that point so
1:49:15	but that's the units
1:49:23	it's different here yeah
1:49:30	is that a yes or no for r2
1:49:33	i would say a 15 for r2
1:49:37	let's that's new to the let's can we
1:49:40	have everyone comment on that
1:49:42	sure
1:49:45	i'm comfortable with that i had kind of
1:49:46	been thinking along those lines earlier
1:49:48	when we were
1:49:48	trying to think about what the threshold
1:49:51	would be if we included
1:49:53	r2 so again we don't have to make a
1:49:56	decision tonight but we can
1:49:58	and we can review that have some time to
1:50:00	think about it
1:50:02	yeah i'm fine with using that for for
1:50:03	now and spending some time to think
1:50:05	about it
1:50:05	okay i will include that in the edits
1:50:12	do we have anything else
1:50:17	i just want to say one thing i do
1:50:21	personally feel like the definition of
1:50:24	of
1:50:24	homeless at the top of the code and then
1:50:27	the the definition of a temporary
1:50:29	warming shelter and then you get into
1:50:31	the
1:50:31	purpose description operation i i think
1:50:34	that's sufficient i think that
1:50:36	this is a good language
1:50:40	i think it's pretty specific shelter
1:50:43	also
1:50:44	and i like how i actually like how it
1:50:46	doesn't discuss
1:50:48	that it doesn't need to discuss you know
1:50:51	the genders
1:50:52	or um different family arrangements i
1:50:55	mean it
1:50:56	defines an adult and a family and
1:50:59	i think that's i think that's good
1:51:06	okay thank you commissioner henry
1:51:09	if if no one else has anything we will
1:51:13	end the work session and go to reports
1:51:16	of officers
1:51:22	i have nothing to report sir i have
1:51:24	nothing to report
1:51:25	thank you nothing nothing
1:51:29	okay new business um
1:51:33	does anyone have anything that they
1:51:34	wanted to bring up on new business
1:51:36	i wanted to say thank you to the senior
1:51:37	center yes we will
1:51:40	we'll have to
1:51:44	maybe invest in some new chairs
1:51:50	the um one thing i wanted to bring up
1:51:54	while we were talking here and and
1:51:58	i want to thank each of the individuals
1:52:00	that spoke this evening from the
1:52:02	audience
1:52:03	mr parkerson brought up the
1:52:07	quonset hut down closer to the point
1:52:10	there
1:52:14	we have
1:52:17	there are a lot of layers to the housing
1:52:20	crisis as it were
1:52:21	in our area during the winter
1:52:25	and the very bad months we need
1:52:29	housing for people who might not
1:52:31	otherwise
1:52:32	survive and during the summer we need
1:52:35	housing for people that
1:52:36	do the seasonal jobs that that come
1:52:39	in the the hard part is
1:52:43	that as a as a housing provider
1:52:49	between april 1st and and june
1:52:52	30th i get constant calls for people who
1:52:54	need something just for a few months
1:52:57	and then they're gone and it's hard to
1:53:01	to then try to figure out if we should
1:53:03	hold something open for someone that
1:53:05	might need
1:53:06	seasonal housing after that and and
1:53:09	sometimes we do
1:53:11	and sometimes we don't and so it's
1:53:13	always a question of
1:53:14	okay where do we house the people who
1:53:16	come in to do the seasonal work
1:53:18	namely the the fishing fish processing
1:53:22	plants
1:53:24	um and again sometimes those seasons are
1:53:27	are a little unusual as well not just
1:53:30	in the summer but but um
1:53:34	so i'm wondering if there's the
1:53:36	potential
1:53:37	for a warming center
1:53:42	one that exists or or doesn't yet to
1:53:45	work
1:53:45	with the people who employ
1:53:49	the seasonal workers to have a location
1:53:53	where they could share
1:53:56	and for part of the year it could be the
1:53:58	warming center and for part of the year
1:53:59	it could be
1:54:00	a dormitory type the the
1:54:03	the seasonal workers that we get that we
1:54:06	rent
1:54:07	to um go from
1:54:10	engineers and and uh people higher up
1:54:13	the
1:54:14	the pay grade that want and expect
1:54:18	their own place and a nice place and and
1:54:21	so on
1:54:22	and their employers will provide that
1:54:23	because they need them on the job
1:54:26	and then the seasonal workers that we
1:54:27	get they ask how many they can cram
1:54:30	into a unit because all they need is is
1:54:31	a bed
1:54:33	they work extremely long hours and then
1:54:35	they just come home in
1:54:36	extremely long hours and sometimes not
1:54:39	on a fixed
1:54:40	schedule they just need a bed to crash
1:54:42	in and then they go back
1:54:43	to work um so it
1:54:46	it would seem that there are
1:54:50	some seasonal workers
1:54:53	that are the hardest to get the housing
1:54:54	for uh
1:54:56	that would fit well into
1:55:01	the type of facility that a warming
1:55:03	center would provide
1:55:05	and i just wonder if there's the
1:55:07	possibility of having some sort of
1:55:10	agreement between them for
1:55:13	places that that would provide that
1:55:16	level of housing that's that's
1:55:18	a thought that i had so that's a great
1:55:21	idea
1:55:22	um that's really interesting
1:55:26	so you're gonna write a specific use
1:55:29	conditional use standard for
1:55:30	seasonal housing i um i would love to
1:55:33	have
1:55:34	the time and the skill to do that
1:55:37	um mr moore you seem to have a higher
1:55:40	level of skill
1:55:41	along those lines than i do i don't know
1:55:42	about how much time you have
1:55:44	in your schedule i know that i don't but
1:55:48	it's it's just a thought to put out
1:55:50	there uh something to consider
1:55:52	can i clarify one thing do you want to
1:55:55	have another work session before we
1:55:57	put this out as a code amendment or move
1:56:00	forward with
1:56:01	actual code amendment language which is
1:56:03	discussed tonight
1:56:04	i how do the
1:56:07	commissioners feel want one more meeting
1:56:10	yeah
1:56:10	maybe a little a little work session i
1:56:12	don't feel like really solved anything
1:56:13	and
1:56:14	abbreviated i'm sorry i don't feel like
1:56:16	we really solved anything i mean we got
1:56:17	closer
1:56:18	i do and we um okay we solved some
1:56:21	things we i don't think we solved it
1:56:23	but you know if you if
1:56:27	i think we made a lot of progress
1:56:30	answers to the questions we had
1:56:32	yeah yeah just process wise we have to
1:56:34	notice it differently so
1:56:35	i'm fine with that okay so another
1:56:38	another work session then
1:56:40	great okay
1:56:44	staff updates um
1:56:47	mel we have our usual meetings scheduled
1:56:50	next month i think we just have a
1:56:51	conditional use permit and then the work
1:56:53	session on that one unless you want to
1:56:55	bump it to another month i think i can
1:56:58	pull it together by then
1:57:00	i heard a rumor that city council is
1:57:02	direct to the planning commission to
1:57:03	review potential changes to the adu
1:57:05	policy
1:57:06	is that accurate yes sorry about that
1:57:08	one um
1:57:09	yes so the adu policy had a clause in it
1:57:12	that needed to be reviewed by a council
1:57:13	one year later that rolled around in
1:57:15	april
1:57:16	and then council reviewed it and had
1:57:18	some notes um
1:57:19	and then sending it back down to
1:57:21	planning commission so that will be in
1:57:23	the next
1:57:24	few months we're pretty busy in the
1:57:26	planning office right now
1:57:28	um but any codes or changes then we'll
1:57:31	get ported back up to
1:57:33	council for adoption great any other
1:57:35	public comments
1:57:37	not related to the agenda all right
1:57:40	we will find ourselves adjourned at 8
1:57:46	29