PC2 PDD 227569 multifamily units
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Oct 28, 2021
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted — it is an image-only scan — so nothing in it is searchable here, but it reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Oct 28, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 100% of 14 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
So would the Planning Commission odd like a full presentation on item PC two, or is there just some questions on the item?
Just a quick comment.
Okay.
We go?
Yes, absolutely.
All right. So it's two hundred and thirty eight units.
Two hundred and thirty-eight multifamily so apartments.
I did a concurrency review for it in um April of last year for two hundred and two units, so just so the applicant knows I'll have to resubmit for school concurrency. For those other units?
That is noted.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you. All right.
That being done, uh do I have a motion to approve. Motion to approve PC two on the consent agenda.
I'll second it.
Motion and second. Further discussion of the motion. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like signs. Motion carries.