This transcript is from a meeting of the **Minneapolis City Planning Commission**. Based on the context of the dialogue and the names provided, here is the transcript with speaker names added. Note: **Bill Baxley** (Vice President) is the acting Chair. **Ken Dahler** is the Clerk. **Andrew Liska** is the City Planner presenting. **Kimberly Holien** is the Planning Manager/Staff lead. *** [35:21] **Bill Baxley**: All right. Welcome to the regular meeting of the city planning commission for March 4, 2024. My name is bill Baxley and I'm chairing today's meeting, I'm the vice president of the planning commission. The city will be recording and posting this meeting to the city's website and YouTube channel as a means of increasing public access and transparency. This meeting is public and subject to the Minnesota open meeting law. At this time I'll ask the clerk to call the roll so we can verify quorum for this meeting. [35:56] **Ken Dahler (Clerk)**: Commissioner Campbell. **Commissioner Campbell**: Here. **Ken Dahler**: Chowdhury. **Commissioner Chowdhury**: Here. **Ken Dahler**: Conley. **Commissioner Conley**: Here. **Ken Dahler**: Emerick is absent. Jones is absent. Meyer. **Commissioner Meyer**: Here. **Ken Dahler**: Thompson is absent. Wagner is absent. **Commissioner Wagner**: Here. [36:12] **Ken Dahler**: I'm so sorry. Just on a roll. President Olson is absent. Vice president Baxley. **Bill Baxley**: Here. **Ken Dahler**: Six members present. **Bill Baxley**: Let the record reflect. We'll proceed to the agenda which was posted to the information management system available at LIMS.MinneapolisMN.gov. We'll begin with the acceptance of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 20, 2024. We have a motion to accept those minutes? [36:48] **Commissioner Meyer**: So moved. **Commissioner Campbell**: Second. **Bill Baxley**: Thank you. Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. **Commissioners**: Aye. **Bill Baxley**: All opposed. Any abstentions? Motion passes. All right. So, we have a short agenda tonight. Instead of going right to the consent agenda I think we'll -- we do have a discussion item. So I think you can just skip all this and go to the discussion item. We have one public hearing item, item number 4, 4845 James avenue. I know there are a few folks here to speak on that item tonight. So I think we'll have to approve an agenda for consent we can go right into the discussion. [37:35] **Ken Dahler**: Mr. Vice president you should a motion to adopt the agenda with item number 4 under discussion. **Bill Baxley**: Thank you, Ken. All right. Do I have a motion to adopt the agenda with item 4 for discussion? **Commissioner Meyer**: So moved. [37:52] **Commissioner Campbell**: Second. **Bill Baxley**: Approved and seconded. All right. So, the motion passed, the agenda has been approved. So item number 4. And we have Andrew Liska here from the city to present the item. Andrew, you want to come up and share 4845 James avenue south. [38:10] **Andrew Liska**: This application is located at 4845 James avenue south. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow for construction of a building addition to an existing single family home located in the floodplain overlay. The subject property is a double lot, totaling just under is 1,000 square feet. Located two blocks south of lake Harriet, two blocks west of Creek and just north of Lynnhurst park. The grade on the western side along James is 844 feet in elevation. As you move east towards the rear of the property, the grade decreases down to 839. A split level single family home exists on-site. The main entry is at 845.76 feet in elevation. There is the space below and the space above. The space above we'll call it the main floor. [39:30] **Andrew Liska**: Both the overlay and floodplain exist in this area and both cover this parcel. And the floodway zone AE exists on-site with a base flood elevation of 845. The applicant is seeking additions to the single family home. Can you guys see the image? **Bill Baxley**: We haven't been able to see it. [40:04] **Andrew Liska**: Are you able to assist with that? There we go. Thank you. Great. So, here we have the existing single family home with the additions to the south and east side. The proposed addition on the south side is proposed at just over 850 feet in elevation. The elevation to the east tapers down to just under 847, just above 847. 847.76 feet. [40:35] **Andrew Liska**: Both of the proposed additions are above that base flood elevation of 845. The zoning code regulates development in the floodplain. This addition would be allowed as a right if it was constructed on fill. Code says that if it's not constructed on-field they need a conditional use permit. The applicant is seeking that conditional use permit to construct. They intend on constructing on pilings to preserve the existing grade topography of the site and not change the floodway, the elevations of the associated floodway. [41:15] **Andrew Liska**: The DNR reviewed the proposed plans and has no comment. There is some additional correspondence from neighbors in your packet, I believe. Issuing a conditional use permit several findings must be met. Staff is able to make those necessary findings and recommends approval of this conditional use permit request. I'll be here for specific questions. The applicant is present as well as some neighbors. [41:50] **Bill Baxley**: Any comments from commissioners? Questions at this time? Seeing none, all right, let's open up the public forum. Is there anybody here to speak to this item? If so, please come forward. You'll have two minutes. Please state where you're from; your neighborhood is fine, your name and where you're from. That would be great. [42:08] **Karen Coy**: Good evening. I'm Karen coy, I live next door. And I do have concerns. And my concerns are first of all, the gentleman talked about proposed construction, but I can tell you this construction is almost done. And I'm not sure why we're just having this public hearing now instead of before construction began. So, that's a question. And given the short time, my neighbors who know a lot more about it, I'll just say that I do have concerns about the floodplain. I've lived there with what my husband and I used to call the duck pond for over 30 years, because ducks would really come and swim in it. And anyway, I did go through the paperwork that was made available, and I saw that, unless something new was added, that from the DNR, he said that he might want to comment. [43:28] **Karen Coy**: Well, I would be very interested in what his comments would be, because this has been a problem water area for years, and I will go now because my neighbors even know about past floods beyond the duck pond issues. So anyway, thank you for listening and taking our concerns seriously, because a floodplain is so much more than checking a box on a disclosure form. Thank you. [44:04] **Bill Baxley**: Thank you very much. Anybody else here to speak to this issue? **Karen Keljik**: Hi. My name is Karen Keljik and our property is on Irving avenue so our backyards meet. And I also want to reiterate that the proposed addition is an almost-complete addition. So it's perplexing why this hearing is happening right now. But I look through the application that was submitted on this conditional use permit, and right in the very beginning, numbers 1 and 2, the information that this is all based on is just not correct. Right here it says that this area is not prone to flooding. That's not correct. It says that there is no signs of water that there has been no flooding in 60 years. [45:10] **Karen Keljik**: That's incorrect. In 1987, there was a flood. There's a neighbor who has a 15-inch water mark on his house of where the water raised to. 15 inches. It's still there. You can see it. In 2011, KSTP has a video clip they did on the news. They are standing on the corner of 49th and James, and they're talking about the flooding in the area. [45:41] **Karen Keljik**: And you know who they're talking to? The previous owner of this property on James avenue who admits that there's water, that there has been flooding in the area. So, I don't understand that the premise that this is based on that there's no flooding is just not right. And so this permit has already been granted even know it's not officially granted and that construction is almost done. So, we have a concern. We've had -- we also have experienced the least of our problems is the lake with ducks because so much water is standing that ducks are swimming around. And of course there's a huge mosquito problem in the area when there's standing water also, which is a concern. Not nearly as big a concern as our home as when it's flooding. And we're wondering why homes are required to have flood insurance if there's not a flooding issue in this neighborhood. [46:43] **Karen Keljik**: And we want to know who's going to be responsible when there's increased flooding because of this new construction. **Bill Baxley**: I think you're at time. Thank you. Anybody else? Sure. Come on up. [46:58] **Mark Keljik**: Mark Keljik, same address as Karen. And one of the real concerns now, we don't know if they're going to tear this down. I guess probably not. But we still have issues about whether they're going to landscape and change the grade, whether they're going to pull out shrubs, whether they're going to pump water out. Because right now we are pumping water out of the yard every summer. We have a sump pump that goes basement, we pump it out. [47:40] **Mark Keljik**: But we have regular sump pump. It's not going to be enough to pump flooding water out of there. So, the question is what can be done at this point to further help the flooding problem? Because we're sure there's going to be more flooding. They've doubled roof size. And there's going to be run-off. We want to make sure as I said that the grade and also the pumping and also the remaining shrubbery, that they're not going to include the hard pavements asphalts concrete, paving stones on a patio, all of this will limit the amount of absorption in the ground, increase the run-off, increase the flooding. Those are our concerns and what we'd like to see done at this point. [48:26] **Bill Baxley**: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? Yeah. Thank you. **Carol Becker**: I think I'm 4 of 4 on your list. Correct? My name is carol Becker and I have been opposing many of the things that have been done by the planning commission for the last several years. The idea that we're approving new construction on a floodplain without thinking through what the impact is on surrounding buildings does not surprise me. What I would like to propose today to you is that we have a real community conversation about the changes that the planning commission is making to the city. I write pieces in the Star Tribune, I get people emailing me all the time about the problems being created by the way the city is developing. And we need instead of sitting there, because [49:27] **Carol Becker**: this is what happens, we got the activist and they're going to get online and Twitter bombs back and forth, get online and crap on people like me and we never have a conversation. We never have a conversation. We never have a conversation. Except in the hallway, Chris, where I got you for about three minutes. We need to start having a conversation in this city. Not just these poor people whose house is going to flood but all over the city. And what I'm asking of the planning commission today is to help us, sit down with us, I'll sit down with any of you. I'll buy the beer, people, or if you don't drink, I'll buy the coffee. So we can start talking about what this is actually doing to our city. I'm carol Becker. I'm really easy to find. I suspect many of you have my phone number already. We'd [50:13] **Carol Becker**: like to have a conversation rather than two hardened sides that never communicate. Please give me a call. I'll buy the beer, I'll buy the coffee. I don't care where it is. But we need to start having a conversation instead of just shooting at each other. Thank you very much. [50:28] **Bill Baxley**: Thank you, carol. Anybody else want to speak against this before I close the public hearing? All right. I'm going to close the public hearing. Commissioners. **Kimberly Holien (Staff)**: Hold on a second. [off mic] Vice president Baxley, I believe the applicant is here and wasn't sure when to jump into the public hearing. [51:02] **Bill Baxley**: That's probably my fault. I apologize. I should've called you first up after the city. So if you'd like to come speak as the applicant that would be wonderful. Please do so. **Al Tyson**: My name is Al Tyson. This is my brother Neil. I don't know for sure how much we need to disclose about what's happening here, but I would like to address the neighbors to ease some of their concerns about the project. We're pretty available on-site and whatnot there too to have conversations with people, but I actually live a couple blocks from there myself, and we pride ourselves on really considering the neighborhood and how we construct before endeavoring on such a project. [51:48] **Al Tyson**: So, we understand the concerns about the floodplain and whatnot. But we actually constructed in a way to ensure that water flow would not be impacted by the construction. And the mere fact of having more of a roof does not increase the amount of water that goes into that lot. It's just going to be disbursed, maybe in a different way. We're not going to be adding grade to the backyard. We're not going to be removing shrubs or vegetation or anything like that so those things will all be pretty much left as-is. [52:23] **Al Tyson**: Other than that we've constructed above the floodplain to ensure water flow would be maintained as it has been for the past decades. There also has been a, after the flood of '86 or '87 there was a sewer line added to that back area where the floodplain is. And I was told by the neighbor to the south that there has not been flooding back there since the sewer pipe was put in. I believe that was '86 or '87 as confirmed by the communication with us. [52:56] **Al Tyson**: So yeah, been very supportive of the project as well, the neighbor that's directly to the south. But would like to make myself available to any of the neighbors, any concerns. The new owners of the property also share those concerns and are very aware of all of those things and are always open to conversations. That's all I have to say. If my brother Neil has something more to add I would let him do that. [53:24] **Neil Tyson**: Yeah. I just wanted to keep it real simple, here, as I don't have a ton to add, other than what Al said, the house was built above floodplain, and the design of the house and how it is affected or affects floodplain was actually followed along step by step with the city before we even had final plans. The house is actually designed in conjunction and communication with the city. So we just wanted people to know that there wasn't any shortcuts on our behalf. This hearing was as much a surprise to me as it was to the neighbors over there too. [54:06] **Neil Tyson**: And but yeah, as Al was saying, it is in our -- we have every intention to make sure the grade is as it was or improved. And we are absolutely 100% willing to work with all the neighbors, any concerns they have there to make sure that we're following all of their requirements and expectations along the way. So, no intentional disdeeds, here, just going through to make sure that everything is done in the best possible way. [54:39] **Bill Baxley**: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Meyer. **Commissioner Meyer**: I think an important detail to read from the staff report under related approvals, it said building permits were applied for and were approved in error by staff. If the conditional use permit is request is granted the project would comply with all applicable codes and ordinances. Can staff explain what the error was and what the situation is? [55:16] **Andrew Liska**: Commissioner. Again, when it's in the floodplain, it needs to either be constructed on fill and that would be allowed or if it's constructed on pilings it would need that conditional use permit. So there was -- the applicant apply for the a permit and received approval of that in error, because they are using those pilings, this conditional use permit would've been needed prior to the sign-off. [55:42] **Commissioner Meyer**: Okay. So I think that error is worth pointing out, because it is an unusual situation to see a project already under construction here. So I think that's a valid concern, the neighbors have. I think it's valid to be concerned about building on a floodplain. To respond to carol Becker's testimony, is there anything new that was done by the city, like that would've allowed this that wouldn't have previously been allowed? My assumption is it's a single family home and an addition and would have been -- whatever is allowed now is probably allowed before the 2040 plan. Is that correct? [56:25] **Andrew Liska**: That's my understand. I don't think we've changed any floodplain ordinance since 2018. So there would be no new change to the zoning code other than just rearranging those chapters of code within the updated zoning code. **Commissioner Meyer**: So Andrew, the conditional use doesn't kick in different kinds of reviews that would have happened or made more public that the permitting process did? [56:51] **Andrew Liska**: No. I mean obviously staff doesn't like going about this out of order either. But no, that's why I presented as though they are proposing, because for all intents and purposes this doesn't have approval to what they've done. That is why they are seeking this conditional use permit. So, they've received building code blessings, they're working with the Minnehaha water shed district in getting further permits through them, once the city permit side is done but yeah, a little out of order, but we're going through all the necessary public hearings, reviews. [57:32] **Commissioner Meyer**: Is the city allowing construction to continue through that approval process? Or what's their stance on that? **Andrew Liska**: I'm not sure if the staff work order has been issued. It's my understanding that the exterior of the building was done. **Al Tyson**: I can speak to that. We pretty much have carpet and a little bit of siding. So we're not going to stop much work at this point. But I hope that's helpful. **Commissioner Meyer**: I understand the situation. I don't know if it's helpful but sure, yeah. [58:07] **Bill Baxley**: I did have one quick addition too. Just wanting to follow up. Sir, please come to the microphone. Thank you. **Neil Tyson**: Saying the house is on pilings is a little incomplete. It's also on posts to elevate the entirety of the building well above the floodplain. So the ground is still entirely intact under all the additions. There's no basement or foundation or anything to stop where the water can flow or settle. It can flow continuously through the yard, as it always has. [58:37] **Neil Tyson**: So, there's really no consequences to the house being there, other than what my brother stated. And we can direct water with any downspouts or anything like that to the low-lying area that follows to the storm drain that's been added. So if anything it's actually going to alleviate water in a more direct path to where it should go, but if that area was ever to flood, it's not going to affect the yard, the neighbors or anything else any differently than it has in the past. I do have a picture of the house if you would be interested to see what it actually looks like or the plans, to see what. [59:19] **Bill Baxley**: I've been by the site. Unless any commissioners... I think we're okay with that. I think the concern is that we're in a position where there's a review process that brings -- I'm assuming you guys are going to do everything by the book that brings everything forward to the public, allows the neighbors to participate in that review process that we short circuited. So we're trying to find a way through that. Because they have a right to understand. I take your word for it but they have a right to understand the processes, understand the Minnehaha creek water shed process, which is extensive. I get it. But that's part of the review. So we want to somehow they have to get ahold around the fact that that skipped step has removed some information trail that they should be privy too. [59:44] **Al Tyson**: And for myself as well. **Bill Baxley**: Yeah. Right. Okay. [1:00:07] **Kimberly Holien**: Vice president Baxley, if I could just clarify. So, I believe the error here was on the part of staff, and it was the applicant's intent to follow all necessary procedures. **Bill Baxley**: Totally. Right. **Kimberly Holien**: So just to clear that up. I'm also not seeing a staff work order since you did with this that would come from our construction code services team and given -- can't speak to why or why not there would be a stop work order of something like this. But there was a zoning review on the building permit. I think -- I can't say exactly how that process went but looking at elevation versus proposed elevation of the house and seeing that it was higher and missing the portion and the code that required a conditional use permit for this is what led to the building permit being issued and then unfortunately being caught off after the fact and bringing us here. [1:01:08] **Bill Baxley**: Thank you, Kimberly. Commissioners. Commissioner Campbell. **Commissioner Campbell**: So, I have a question for you. You mentioned in your staff report that the DNR had declined to comment and one of our residents mentioned they still may decide to comment. Can you help me better understand that process? Is the time for comment passed? Does the DNR leave that open to comment when they would like? What's that look like? [1:01:34] **Andrew Liska**: So, in the public hearing went out initially that's when they reached out looking for plans. I shared those plans with the DNR. They said we may like to comment. And that was the initial correspondence from the DNR. They did follow up again saying that they had no comment, but were reminding staff of a ten-day letter that they would like to receive after the public hearing is complete. [1:02:00] **Commissioner Campbell**: Okay. Thanks. **Bill Baxley**: Thank you, Andrew. Commissioner Wagner. **Commissioner Wagner**: I have a question for staff as well. So you mentioned that the project could be done on fill, correct? And I want to make sure I'm understanding that correctly. So if they were to build a regular foundation with an elevated floor above the floodplain and slope the ground away from their house, that would have been allowed as of right in this medium and never been happening. Is my understanding there correct? [1:02:28] **Andrew Liska**: That's correct. **Commissioner Wagner**: Thank you. **Bill Baxley**: Commissioner Chowdhury, did you have a question? [1:02:47] **Commissioner Chowdhury**: YES. AND MAYBE THIS IS FOR MS. HOLIEN OR MR. LISKA OR WHOEVER IS ABLE. I JUST KIND OF WANT TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW STAFF MADE THE ERROR OF ISSUING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BEFORE THIS PROCESS. **Kimberly Holien**: The conditional use permit was not issued before this process. A building permit was issued without us catching the fact that a conditional use permit was required because staff is human, and we make mistakes. [1:03:12] **Commissioner Chowdhury**: And so follow-up and related is what would happen if a conditional use permit was not issued today? **Kimberly Holien**: I imagine that would be appealed to the city council given the status of the project and depending on the outcome of that appeal, I think there are a variety of options on the back end of that. [1:03:27] **Bill Baxley**: All right. Anybody else? Yeah. Thank you, Andrew. **Karen Coy**: I will quickly add first of all there's been nothing but professional building going on. I mean, it's very respectful to the properties and all that. So I don't want to raise any questions like that. But even like with the DNR, if the DNR knew that those of us living on the floodplain had some real concerns about this, might they not choose to take a look and comment, you know, because this is all just gone right through. [1:04:12] **Bill Baxley**: Understood. Understood. All right, public hearing is closed. So we'll take that comment and commissioner Campbell you had a comment. **Commissioner Campbell**: Yep. I was just going to say I appreciate the neighbors showing up today. I think being part of the process is really important, and we really value your commentary, especially your experience living next to this house for so long. I think my guess as to what happened is that as was said, the staff overlooked this, and I think they've given us justification, enough justification to move forward to approve staff recommendation, which is what I move for now. [1:04:49] **Bill Baxley**: All right. Thank you. Is there a second? **Commissioner Conley**: Second. **Bill Baxley**: I think we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? [1:05:04] **Commissioner Wagner**: I think I would just add to what's been mentioned, that it's hard to know this with certainty but if this wasn't allowed or we denied this conditional use permit this development probably would've happened on a regular foundation with water sloping away from the property which is worse than the current condition of having the water being able to flow through the property. So to me that speaks to it being a net positive for the project. [1:05:31] **Bill Baxley**: Yeah. I agree. And I do believe the DNR has weighed in on that condition, and it sounds like there's a relationship there. Would encourage the neighbors and the builders to keep talking and make sure that... the public hearing is closed, thank you, on this issue. So we have a motion on the table. We have a second. Clerk, please call the roll on this. [1:05:47] **Ken Dahler (Clerk)**: Commissioner Campbell. **Commissioner Campbell**: Aye. **Ken Dahler**: Chowdhury. **Commissioner Chowdhury**: Aye. **Ken Dahler**: Conley. **Commissioner Conley**: Aye. **Ken Dahler**: Meyer. **Commissioner Meyer**: Aye. [1:06:02] **Ken Dahler**: Wagner. **Commissioner Wagner**: Aye. **Ken Dahler**: And vice president Baxley. **Bill Baxley**: Aye. **Ken Dahler**: There are six ayes. **Bill Baxley**: Six ayes. The motion carries. Okay. Thanks, everybody, for that discussion. I appreciate it. That's all of our business and concludes the public hearing items for today. We do have some business. We're going to be taking executive committee nominations. I'm going to turn this over to Ken Dahler from the clerk's office to complete this portion of the agenda. [1:06:38] **Ken Dahler**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you mentioned, the next item on the agenda is nominations for the planning commission's executive committee, which is essentially the roles of president, vice president, and secretary, as is the custom of this body typically what happens is the body makes nominations at one meeting for all three positions and then we come back to our next regular meeting, which is schedule for the two weeks from today on March 18th and take a formal vote on those nominations. I will note just because it came up earlier and I pulled up the rules, that the rules do state that elected officials serving on the planning commission shall not be eligible to serve as officers on the commission. So, with that I will proceed to the first role of president and ask if there are any nominations for that role. [1:07:46] **Commissioner Campbell**: I do a nomination for Chris Meyer for president. **Ken Dahler**: Okay. I have Chris Meyer nominated for president. Any other nominations? **Commissioner Chowdhury**: Does commissioner Baxley have interest in pursuing that? [1:08:02] **Bill Baxley**: I would love to. It's just my schedule would put me in a really tough position to fulfill, I think, a role that there are other people on this committee that would be better served. So I'm happy to serve in leadership. Secretary sounds great to me. But I think I'm going to remove myself from both the presidency and the vice presidency. Thank you, commissioner. [1:08:32] **Ken Dahler**: Any additional nominations for president? Turn on your microphone, commissioner conley. **Commissioner Conley**: Question. Does our current -- how many terms can a president serve? I should ask that. **Ken Dahler**: Commissioner conley, there are no term limits. I'll let the other commissioners speak to it but I believe at the last meeting chair Olson made very clear that she did not intend to continue serving as president and hope to phase into her retirement I believe she said. But she will stay as a member of the body. [1:09:03] **Commissioner Conley**: Great context. Thank you very much. **Ken Dahler**: You're welcome. **Commissioner Meyer**: Did she actually say phase into retirement? **Bill Baxley**: No, I believe that's the terminology she used. She did also reiterate that in an email to me today that she would be stepping down as president and she made some nominations for unnamed positions. So. [1:09:29] **Ken Dahler**: Okay. So. We do not need to second nominations. We just take nominations today. And then give you two weeks to think about it and we'll vote on it at the next meeting. **Commissioner Campbell**: Campaign! [1:09:46] **Ken Dahler**: That's right. Yes. I'm not seeing other nominations for president. I just have Chris Meyer. Are there any nominations for vice president? **Commissioner Meyer**: I nominate commissioner Coleman... Oh, Campbell? **Ken Dahler**: Campbell. **Bill Baxley**: Have I been calling you commissioner Coleman the whole time? Wow. My apologies. Sorry. [1:10:06] **Ken Dahler**: Fantastic. Any other nominations? I got commissioner Campbell for vice president. Any other nominations? All right. Seeing none, I will move onto secretary. Any nominations for secretary? **Commissioner Meyer**: Sounds like commissioner Baxley is pining for that role. We'll throw him on the list. [1:10:21] **Ken Dahler**: Fantastic. Commissioner Baxley on the list. Any other nominations? Fantastic. Seeing none, I'll just to recap I have Chris Meyer for president, Campbell for vice president and bill Baxley for secretary so we can take action on those nominations at our next meeting. **Bill Baxley**: Thank you, Ken. Appreciate it. All right. I think that's it for new business. Any announcements from staff? [1:10:56] **Kimberly Holien**: I know I've mentioned it, maybe at our last meeting but we are currently eyeing March 21 committee of the whole date to have a study session, retreat, pick a name that you want to use for that. So far we plan to have some colleagues from public works at that meeting to talk about their role in the development review process. So that would include someone from traffic and parking services who's involved in the TDM process and someone who's heavily involved in the PDR process. I don't want to name names in case they send designees to the meeting. But we are also open to other ideas for discussion and given the fact that our committee of the whole agendas have been light and therefore getting canceled, we don't have to limit this to just like you get one chance in March and then you have to wait 6 months. It can be kind of a rolling opportunity as well. But if you have ideas, you can express them now. You can email me. Either way is fine. [1:11:59] **Bill Baxley**: Great. **Commissioner Campbell**: Chair Baxley, I just wanted to, if it's not set yet I would request to be at the next committee of the whole after that one because I won't be able to join with that one and that subject around TDM is something I wanted to participate in. If you want to go forward with the 21st I would request to have discussion about TDM at a future one. The 22nd is the committee deadline for the legislature so that's the day beforehand so I probably won't be able to join that one unfortunately. [1:12:40] **Kimberly Holien**: Maybe we can shift things around. I know that's an important issue for you. **Commissioner Campbell**: Can I ask a quick question. I don't know if this is appropriate for me to do right now. I'm wondering if staff has done any analysis of the number of items that have come before the commission or the number of permits reviewed as part of the team since that lawsuit put things on hold compared to the previous year. [1:13:08] **Kimberly Holien**: Yes. We did adopt our 2023 annual report last two meetings ago maybe. And that contained -- we use that to identify trends in years past. We compare it we typically do the past five years and we'll compare total projects, number of required applications per project. One thing that we had been promising through the 2040 plan was more predictability and we were hoping there would be a drop in variance requests. That was evident last year when we did the annual report. This year one thing we also track is quarterly major projects, which is anything with more than 10,000 square feet of nonresident Kenial square footage and anything with more than 10 dwelling units. We have two major projects in the fourth quarter of 2023, which is a significant reduction. There's a lot of things happening with the market, with the 2040 plan. [1:14:13] **Kimberly Holien**: So it's hard to say exactly what the issue is, but we certainly are seeing a dip in applications submitted. Although I will say just in terms of what's coming through my inbox for project assignments I'm assigning a lot of projects now all of a sudden the last couple of weeks. So, some of the dip could be seasonal, could be interest rates, could be lawsuit related. It could be accommodation of all those things. We also publish total permit evaluation and permit numbers at the end of the year. I can send that link out. I don't have those numbers off the top of my head but we did report out on that recently as well. [1:14:58] **Commissioner Campbell**: I want to be very respectful of your team and your staff's time, but just to note that 20 to 30-minute presentation on that annual report might be a good use of time if they're willing to come and speak to that. **Kimberly Holien**: Sure. Yeah. [1:15:13] **Bill Baxley**: On the variance issue it seems, whether developers are finding just the odd ball sites, whatever, there are a lot of variance requests for sure. I mean it seems like that, which is maybe to be expected, but seems like every application has some form of variance request. **Kimberly Holien**: And one unique thing right now too with the adoption of the land use rezoning study is it made it possible for a lot of projects that weren't previously eligible for administrative site plan review to take advantage of administrative site plan review. So if it's fewer than 20 dwelling units and doesn't need any other land use applications it can be approved administratively and you're not seeing those. So one other thing that we need to be doing is figuring out a way to be kind of tracking and presenting that data other than just keeping it in a spreadsheet on the cloud somewhere. So there is some of that happening as well. [1:16:13] **Bill Baxley**: Yeah. Cool. Anybody else? All right. I think any announcements from commissioners? We're good? Okay. I think we've concluded all the items in the agenda. I think we can call this. Without further objection I declare this meeting adjourned. Next regular meeting will be Monday, March 18. Our next committee of the whole meeting is canceled, correct? Kimberly? Yeah. And our next scheduled CPC will be Thursday, March 21st. Thank you. [1:16:51]