[0:08] All right, it is 6:34 p.m. on Wednesday, August 20th. I am going to call this

[0:14] meeting to order of the Mattress Planning Commission. Um, we'll first do

[0:19] a roll call. It looks like um you can start. Commissioner Eder is here.

[0:26] Commissioner Urban is here. Commissioner Kendall is here and we have

[0:32] Commissioner Garrett and Commissioner Reynolds absent this evening. Do we have

[0:36] a quorum? Chair, you have a quorum. >> All right. All right. We will move on

[0:42] with our consent agenda. We can approve. These are all from four

[0:48] different meetings. Um we do not need to approve them individually, but has

[0:52] everyone had a chance to review the meeting minutes?

[1:00] I'm gonna always correct. >> They are. Uh you guys are very accurate

[1:06] on those. Um so if I can get a motion to approve the and you can say the four

[1:10] dates that are listed here and we can approve them all at once. This is

[1:14] Commissioner Eder and I approve the minutes for April 2nd, 2025, May 21st,

[1:21] 2025, June 4th, 2025, and August 6th of 2025 for the planning commission. And

[1:29] » I second the motion. >> All right, I have a first and a second.

[1:33] All those in favor say I. >> I.

[1:35] » I. I. All right, everybody here says approved. Moving on, we will move on to

[1:42] the public hearing. The public hearing is MP-25-1

[1:48] Mule Deere Estates Master Plan Development. For those that are in the

[1:52] audience, we kind of go through a set agenda on these um as far as the order

[1:58] of the meeting. I'm going to read a document that is a lot of um words so I

[2:04] try to say it fast but just in general the um we'll open the hearing I'll read

[2:10] this complex document then staff has a chance to report on the proposal and

[2:18] then we hear from the applicant we hear from any uh proponents

[2:24] which are people that are for we hear any neutral testimony and then we will

[2:29] hear from opponent testimony. Sorry. During that section, we will have the

[2:33] opportunity to hear comments from um you if you are here to make a comment and

[2:38] then the applicant will have a chance to talk about anything that was mentioned

[2:42] in those three sections above. And then after that, we will see if we have any

[2:47] other questions for staff and then we will have a the commission will have a

[2:50] chance to discuss the item before us um before we decide to make a decision or

[2:56] keep the public hearing open and make a decision later. that type of thing. So,

[3:01] here we go with the long statement. Please stay with me. This is the time

[3:05] and place set for hearing on planning file number MP25-1.

[3:10] The hearing is now called to order. The hearing will proceed as follows. Staff

[3:15] will present the staff report. Applicant will present its application and

[3:19] supporting evidence. Any interested persons will then be provided the

[3:22] opportunity to present testimony or evidence in support, evidence that is

[3:26] neutral, or evidence that is in opposition. Applicant, as the party

[3:30] bearing the burden of proof, will then be afforded an opportunity to present

[3:34] rebuttal testimony. Staff will provide closing comments. Any party may request

[3:40] that the written record remain open to respond to testimony presented at the

[3:45] hearing. At the conclusion of this hearing, the planning commission may

[3:49] close the public hearing and deliberate towards a decision, close the public

[3:53] hearing and defer deliberations towards a decision at a date and time certain,

[3:57] or continue the public hearing at a date and time certain. All testimony,

[4:02] argument, and evidence must be directed to the applicable criteria or any other

[4:06] approval criteria you believe to be applicable. Matters unrelated to the

[4:11] application are not pertinent to the planning commission's decision in these

[4:14] proceedings. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue that is not

[4:18] specific enough to afford the planning commission and parties to this

[4:21] proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the city

[4:24] council and land use board of appeals on that issue. Failure of the applicant to

[4:29] raise constitutional or other issues relating to conditions of approval with

[4:32] sufficient relevance to allow the local government or its designate to respond

[4:36] to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Commissioners

[4:40] must disclose any exparte contacts including site visits, biases or

[4:45] conflicts of interest. Does any commissioner have anything to disclose

[4:49] and if so please state the nature? >> This is Commissioner Eder and I do not.

[4:56] Commissioner Kendall, I do not. >> Commissioner Urban, I do not.

[5:02] Does any party wish to challenge any member of the hearings body based on

[5:07] exparte context, biases or conflicts?

[5:12] Okay, seeing none, we will now listen to the staff deliver the staff report.

[5:18] Okay, thank you. So this is file uh MP 25-1.

[5:26] It's for the um the lot shown on the screen. It's identified as 1113 12CA 900

[5:34] and 600. You'll see on your agenda um we're discussing this in two separate

[5:39] items. We've split it between the master plan development and the subdivision. Um

[5:44] this is just to kind of break things up um administratively for you all. The

[5:48] master plan is more of a bird's eye view of the development. Um while the

[5:52] subdivision we can get into the nitty-gritty kind of lot development

[5:55] standards um specific. So uh here you can see that the proposed uh development

[6:02] is on southeast McTagert um Southeast 10th Street and Southeast J

[6:07] Street. It's composed uh of two lots. Uh the kind of the demarcation line is up

[6:13] here um on the northern knob. It's an acre and a half zoned R1 and to the

[6:19] south it's uh zoned R3. The total site is 13 acres in size and they're

[6:26] proposing 21 hound town homes in 47 single family dwellings for a 68 lot

[6:32] subdivision. Um you'll remember from our housing

[6:36] capacity analysis that um all housing in Madress is uh needed housing. We require

[6:42] affordable housing um high income housing and all different types single

[6:47] family building and town and town homes and uh per uh Oregon statute OS197

[6:55] uh307 we need to adopt clear and objective

[6:58] standards to review this development. So we can't take a discretionary path when

[7:03] um reviewing this criteria. Some of that criteria is making sure that public

[7:08] facilities have adequate capacity to serve the development. We also look at

[7:13] our municipal code and requirements as far as um how many uh housing types are

[7:20] proposed on the uh development based off of the the lots proposed and then um

[7:27] compliance with uh applicable code requirements.

[7:31] So, taking a look at the plat here, let me move this so you can see it.

[7:37] Um, you can see that they're proposing a mix of town homes and single family

[7:41] dwellings. Code requires that if you're doing more than uh 50 lots in a

[7:45] subdivision, you need um at least two dwelling types. So, they meet that

[7:49] requirement. And they can't um propose say like 48 single family dwellings in

[7:56] two town homes. it has to they can't exceed or yeah exceed over 80% of a um

[8:02] single housing type. So this breaks down to about 70% single family dwellings and

[8:07] 30% town homes. Um we've looked at density. So this northern part here, you

[8:13] can see this blue line is kind of where you see the R1 zone and the R3. R1

[8:18] requires uh at least four dwellings per acre and they uh are proposing 4.1. And

[8:25] then down here in the R3, it's six dwellings per acre and they're proposing

[8:29] 6.1. So they're kind of on that lower threshold, but they're still meeting our

[8:32] requirement. And we also looked at um our code requirements for uh

[8:39] infrastructure. Specifically, uh we looked at the traffic impass impact

[8:44] analysis provided. So the key point points from that um is that no capacity

[8:50] mitigation mitigation is required. They're not going to need to install any

[8:54] kind of traffic lights or special turn lanes um for this development because

[8:58] they're on the lower capacity of um density. They are actually like 50% of

[9:04] the uh maximum theoretical that the site could be developed to. So that's uh good

[9:10] for the area. And um all study intersections will continue to meet the

[9:15] city's level of service standards and ODAT ODOT mobility targets. So, I'll

[9:20] leave um this plan up here if you guys want to refer to it while asking

[9:25] questions and give Craig a chance if he wants to chime in on anything.

[9:35] Does the commission have any questions for staff at this point?

[9:39] » No. >> Okay. So, now we will hear from the

[9:42] applicant. If the applicant would like to come

[9:46] forward, state your name. You've been here before.

[9:49] It's been a couple years.

[9:57] I think the red light. Yep. Okay. Uh, good evening, commission. My name is

[10:01] Hayes McCoy. I'm the civil engineer for the applicant who's Gary Alers, who is

[10:05] here this evening. And, um, I don't have much to add to, uh, Bethy's report. The

[10:14] one reason I the one reason I wanted to state why we were on the lower of the

[10:19] density is there's a lot of topography on this site and if you've seen it

[10:23] driving down Jane Street and how couldn't you um there's a big drop off

[10:27] so the trying to meet you know be uh it

[10:33] lends itself to a lower density otherwise uh

[10:39] uh higher density will require a lot more grading. Now we have some with town

[10:44] homes. Um but uh if we had say apartments or anything uh it would it

[10:51] would really increase the cost of the project. So anyway that's all I have to

[10:56] add is the reason for the density. Do you have any questions for me?

[10:59] » So I guess I do have a couple questions. So, the neighborhood that's across from

[11:04] the street, the street on J Street has very steep lots and fencing around

[11:12] um >> I know which lots you're talking about.

[11:16] » Is that a similar look or is this um are you know is this development

[11:23] going to have I guess a better setback elevation

[11:28] change? >> Okay. because you're you're talking

[11:30] about those lots where the fence goes way down and towards the intersection of

[11:35] Mlofflin and J Street. Uh th this one would look different. We don't you know

[11:39] the closest thing we have is up on phase 4. Um

[11:45] and I can't read the lot number there. So there's a handful that get close to

[11:52] that. Lot 65 I think is what it looks like near phase four. So, there's a

[11:58] handful that could enter that criteria, but um I don't think those lots are

[12:04] nearly as big as the ones you're referring to at Strawberry Heights.

[12:09] » These lots will have a grade. >> Those ones will uh 65 would be one. Um,

[12:21] » and all it looks like from just the schematics that we have that the

[12:25] entrance and exits to these lots would be from an interior street as opposed to

[12:29] J Street itself. >> Correct. Your public works director

[12:33] would not allow me to access J Street, but we we'll have a pedestrian trail

[12:38] connection actually that's intended to be lined up with the intersection of

[12:43] where um 10th comes in. >> Oh, good.

[12:46] » From the south, it doesn't show up on that map, but uh that was one thing that

[12:51] we were asked to put in. Well, it does seem we know that this lot is crossed a

[12:57] lot by people who live in the adjacent subdivision. Um, so just making sure

[13:02] that that pedestrian traffic that's going to the schools, you know, I assume

[13:07] the sidewalk will be >> on J Street and 10th.

[13:12] » Well, we we'll have a sidewalk along J Street. It'll be adjacent to the curb,

[13:17] but we'll also um we're also supposed to have a pedestrian

[13:22] connection. And that one will be u there's there's a drop off from there.

[13:28] So, it'll have to come from J Street and it'll kind of come down like a ramp.

[13:32] » Okay. >> And then go between two lots, then it'll

[13:34] enter the subdivision. And the nice thing about that, I think the city, what

[13:38] this reason the city was asking us to do that is it gets kids who would be

[13:43] walking to Buff Elementary, walking through a neighborhood instead of J

[13:48] Street, which you know, sometimes people speed on that street.

[13:52] » Yeah. No, I I've definitely seen some things happen on that street that

[13:56] shouldn't happen. So, >> okay. Walking through a neighborhood is

[14:00] safer. >> Yes,

[14:01] » definitely. That's That's where I'd prefer my my kid to go.

[14:07] » Um, do you anyone have any questions for the applicant at this point?

[14:16] » Uh, what phase are you working on presently?

[14:21] Are you trying to get approval for? Is it phase

[14:24] because you've got phase three, phase two?

[14:29] Yes, that's >> we have them all, but which ones are

[14:32] you? Is phase one going to be the first one?

[14:35] » Yes. So, >> phase four is where there's that real

[14:40] » phase four has some topographic challenges. So,

[14:44] » right now we're just approving for phase one or are we approving for

[14:51] the whole thing? I believe it's for all the whole thing, but I believe in the

[14:55] packet there's a page that has the expected date for each phase

[15:00] implementation. Perfect. That might give you some information

[15:04] there. >> Okay. So, fall of 25, phase 2, 26, phase

[15:08] three. Okay. So, it's spread out. >> 24 9 six 21.

[15:17] » And so, the town homes would be all part of phase three.

[15:20] » Three. Correct.

[15:27] » Um I don't know if this is relevant or not, but is this like more affordable

[15:33] housing or is this along the medium um price housing of the area?

[15:40] » Um market rate, there's no affordable housing or or goal to meet an AMU. It's

[15:47] what the market allow. >> That's right. Okay.

[15:54] This isn't relevant, but I just feel like in the morning it's crazy on Jay

[15:59] and and is it buff >> with the stop sign with this growth. I

[16:05] really feel like at some point public works will have to put in a light there

[16:09] with with how bad the traffic will get. >> But that's not relevant to your guys'

[16:15] plan. I'm just I'm just commenting that traffic there in the morning. and I go

[16:18] every morning and it is that stop sign is crazy.

[16:22] » Can I respond to that just a little bit though because maybe maybe it's well

[16:27] more traffic is always frustrating. So, uh one of the features one of the things

[16:33] that public works did ask us at our southeast corner. You'll see that

[16:38] rounded off lot right there. And the purpose of that is in the future when

[16:43] traffic is more crazy than maybe it already is, uh, the city hopes to have a

[16:47] roundabout there to to help with traffic and turning vehicles. So,

[16:54] um,

[16:59] » any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.

[17:02] » Thank you.

[17:07] » Okay. Uh, we will now receive public testimony. When you testify, please

[17:12] state your name and address for the record. All testimony shall be directed

[17:16] to the planning commission and not to the applicant, staff, or other members

[17:20] of the audience. If you have a question for another party, please direct your

[17:23] question to the planning commission chair, and the chair will determine

[17:26] whether a response from the other party is appropriate. Please keep your

[17:30] testimony concise and relevant to the issues before us this evening. It is

[17:33] perfectly acceptable and encouraged to indicate that you agree with the points

[17:37] made by another party instead of reiterating the point. Testimony will be

[17:41] received in the following order. Persons persons speaking in support of the

[17:45] application, persons who wish to provide neutral testimony, and then persons who

[17:50] wish to provide opposition testimony. Finally, we will hear rebuttal argument

[17:54] from the applicant to the testimony provided. Who would like to testify in

[17:59] support of the application? Is there anyone here or online

[18:08] who would like to provide neutral testimony? Neutral testimony is

[18:11] testimony that does not express an opinion or an approval or denial of the

[18:16] application but addresses the issues involved in the proceedings such as site

[18:19] design, conditions of approval or similar items.

[18:24] Anyone online for neutral? >> Chair, I believe we have someone for

[18:27] neutral. >> Okay, go ahead. Looks like it's Jerome.

[18:32] » Hello. >> Can you hear me?

[18:33] » Yes. Thank you. Jerome, can you please state your address for the record?

[18:37] » It is 811 Southeast 10th Street, Madress, Oregon 97741.

[18:43] My full name is Jerome Turbate. Um,

[18:48] » go ahead. >> So, I have a question because on the

[18:50] plans of this, a portion of the culde-sac in phase 4 is part of my

[18:55] property line and I haven't had a discussion with anybody about this. Um,

[19:01] if you guys approve this, like is this something that you guys are you allowed

[19:05] to just take part of my property for this development

[19:09] or is this something that needs to be discussed between myself and the owner

[19:13] of the land that's developing this? >> No, I believe that the city probably

[19:17] provided you a notice, but that is not normal uh course of action for the city

[19:23] to take a property. There may be an easement um that is part of that, but I

[19:29] can maybe have staff respond to that if possible.

[19:37] Um so I would maybe like the applicant to respond to that if that's possible.

[19:43] If you Okay, that'd be great. Would would you mind going on?

[19:46] » The applicant is going to respond to your question. And just to be clear, do

[19:49] you do you know which lot we're talking about here? I don't. It's the lot just

[19:55] north of phase 4. That like rhombus rectangular lot.

[20:01] » So I think is it the one that says TL700?

[20:05] » Yeah, I think so. It's a little blurry the presentation so it's hard for me to

[20:08] see but yeah. Yeah, TL700. That one right there.

[20:11] » Okay. And I know when when I first bought this property three years ago,

[20:15] somebody I think the owner of this came and talked to us about this about it

[20:18] possibly being future plans, but that was the only discussion I had about this

[20:23] subject until I received um the letter about this meeting.

[20:28] » Okay, go ahead applicant. >> Okay, good evening Jerome. My name is

[20:31] Hayes McCoy. I'm uh representing applicant. So to answer questions, uh

[20:37] no, you don't have to give up your land. um we would need to approach you and in

[20:43] this process first we're trying to seek an approval of this development. Now

[20:48] phase four is one of the later phases but at that as the time we are getting

[20:54] closer to where we're planning the construction

[20:58] uh myself one of the owners the developers perhaps

[21:03] with the city would discuss potentially uh purchasing or asking you to dedicate

[21:09] that rightaway at that time and that can be negotiated. Now, you may decide, you

[21:15] know what, I really don't want to do that. And that's fine, too. And we would

[21:17] need to modify our subdivision accordingly. Um, the reason we show it

[21:22] where it currently is, which does show us, assuming we could acquire your

[21:28] property, is because we would be directly across Sun Drive. And at

[21:31] intersections, we we want to try to line up those streets as best as possible.

[21:36] » I'm guessing this is his, but see, it would come this is probably his property

[21:41] line comes here. So, it's a it's the road. Can you put the map back up? So,

[21:45] it's the road going into the culdesac that's on his property.

[21:50] » Yes. >> Yeah. There was a there was another

[21:54] photo earlier that showed the where that road was overlapping as well.

[21:58] » Yep. No, I see that. So, the culde-sac would be

[22:03] » Yeah. >> through kind of the end part of your

[22:07] property there. >> Yeah. which I am, you know,

[22:11] » I'm totally up foreigner >> um, you know, discussion if the plans

[22:15] get approved. Uh, I just wanted to make sure that the city approving the plans

[22:19] didn't like, you know, I didn't have to forfeit that portion of the land because

[22:22] it's in the plans because I'm not, you know, I'm not a lawyer. I have no idea

[22:26] what the, you know, legality of that is. >> No, that I think that's a valid question

[22:30] that you have, but no. Um, as uh, um, Mr. Hayes has said that that is kind of

[22:38] wishful thinking on their part after they come together with an agreement

[22:41] with the current property owner for those lines.

[22:44] The question before us today is more about

[22:48] the master plan big picture items, right?

[22:52] » It's not the specifics and and that would not be a normal process where we

[22:56] could approve in a meeting like this somebody losing a portion of their

[23:00] property. So, it sounds like you will be approached at some point to talk about

[23:04] that and then it would be up to you to decide whether or not you are willing to

[23:09] come to terms with that. If not, then the property owner would have to adjust

[23:14] their plans for that phase. >> Okay. No, that totally makes sense. I

[23:18] just wanted to double check. I do have other questions about the development as

[23:21] well. Um, if that's okay. >> Sure. Um so is is this development going

[23:27] to be because of the increased traffic of you know 68 homes I believe it was um

[23:33] some of them town homes the you know it's a pretty it's a few hundred people

[23:37] that are going to be in the area. Is there going to is there going to be like

[23:40] any effort for noise dampening with J Street right there, which is a pretty I

[23:44] mean Tenth is also a super busy street. Um and Jay's pretty busy as well. And so

[23:50] I think the increased traffic might just create more natural noise because it's

[23:53] going to be busier. Are there any has there been any thought on that? So, um,

[23:58] as mentioned earlier in the meeting, whenever a master plan comes forth, we

[24:03] do have to work with the public works director and also the Oregon Department

[24:07] of Transportation to review the plan to make sure that it meets the thresholds

[24:13] for the roads that are currently in place. Um, also any new developments

[24:19] have to meet the design code set forth by the city. Um, so those questions have

[24:25] been answered during the applicant process of of just filling out the forms

[24:31] and coming forward to the city. Um, so from what I understand, those questions

[24:36] have been addressed through those analyses from the public works

[24:39] department and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Is that correct, staff?

[24:44] They have um placed conditions of approval for improvements, but they have

[24:48] not stipulated anything as far as um noise dampening.

[24:53] » Okay. And all this information is in the previous meeting notes that led up to

[24:56] the the master plan being brought forth. Right.

[25:01] » So when uh a plan like this comes forth, usually the applicant meets with city

[25:06] staff over multiple time periods and over multiple document reviews. and it

[25:13] usually comes to the planning commission at a point where um they've been able to

[25:17] say these are the things that must happen in order for this to be approved.

[25:21] Um so those discussions have happened from the city and they are all part of

[25:27] the big block of papers that we've reviewed in this hearing and that packet

[25:33] is available in your uh publicly if you wanted to download that. But you also

[25:39] are welcome to schedule a meeting to talk with staff about any questions or

[25:44] specifics that you have outside of this meeting because this is still in

[25:49] development phases and um they have the knowledge to answer questions um in

[25:57] their office at any time. >> Okay. Uh and then this you're saying

[26:01] this information is available in the packet that's attached to this meeting.

[26:05] » Okay. Perfect. All right. I'll just I'll look through that and if I have

[26:08] questions I'll I'll get with one of the staff members.

[26:11] » Definitely. And and even if it's that you just want to talk with them, the

[26:15] city planning people would love to hear more from people who live in our area

[26:20] who have general questions. I think even just hearing more about how this process

[26:25] works is helpful to people. So, um even if you just wanted to meet with them

[26:31] about how things work, um they would be happy to meet with you.

[26:36] Okay. Yeah, totally. I appreciate it. Thank you.

[26:38] » You're welcome. All right. Do we have any other neutral

[26:42] testimony? All right.

[26:47] So, we now will listen. Thank you for coming forward. We will now uh accept

[26:53] testimony in opposition. Do we have any testimony in opposition?

[27:00] Anyone online?

[27:07] Okay. Do you does the applicant uh feel like you need to provide any further

[27:13] information from what has been discussed?

[27:17] » Okay. Does the staff wish to provide anything further at this time?

[27:21] » No. >> Okay. So now commission we have three

[27:25] options. We can close the public hearing and deliberate towards a decision or we

[27:30] can close the hearing and defer deliberation to a time and date certain

[27:34] or we can continue the public hearing to a date and time certain. How are you all

[27:39] feeling? >> Um I have just one additional question.

[27:42] » Sure. Um that's to staff with regards to uh

[27:47] the gentleman Jerome had asked all those analysis of extra traffic and

[27:55] all those things have been done and have met the criteria. Um but there with his

[28:01] um concern about noise, is there something specifically that addresses

[28:06] that in our code or is that just in general part of the analysis?

[28:13] We do have noise ordinances. Um but I don't believe that that's included in

[28:18] our traffic impact analysis unless I'm mistaken.

[28:21] » No, no, there'd be nothing applicable to the master plan or subdivision that's in

[28:26] the code. uh you know related to noise mitigation or anything like that.

[28:31] There's making sure there's not an undue impact on infrastructure, sewer, water

[28:35] streets, but nothing particular to the noise that would that would come from

[28:40] kind of those >> J street is a busy street. It's um high

[28:44] traffic no matter what. So anytime you build more, it's just going to add to

[28:49] that unfortunately. >> Yeah. Okay.

[28:50] » It's a private development project, so they're obviously having to work through

[28:54] the code. If it was a public works project that they were taking on, that

[28:57] might be something that they that they have discretion over engage more with

[29:01] the public on. >> Okay. Thank you.

[29:07] » I would like to um close the hearing and deliberate towards a decision. You guys

[29:13] are good. >> Um I second. All right. I have a motion

[29:18] on the floor to close the public hearing and move towards deliberation. All those

[29:21] in favor say I. >> I. I motion carries. All right, the

[29:25] public hearing is closed. Okay, so let's see. Do you guys have any questions

[29:31] specifically for staff at this time?

[29:37] » I um the last two meetings we've kind of seen more infill type projects, which I

[29:43] think is exciting because they use current roads, current infrastructure,

[29:48] current sewer. um that I feel like that is a good use of our um resources. I do

[29:56] understand that every house that is next to a vacant lot that is hard to see new

[30:03] things coming in, but that is part of our job is to make sure that land is

[30:07] being used thoughtfully and appropriately. And this subdevelopment

[30:13] is a similar to other developments near it and would fill in a blank space in

[30:20] our community. Um, and provide more housing for new people to move here or

[30:25] people who've been living in apartments to move into houses. So, um, I look at

[30:29] that as a an exciting project, but also knowing that growth sometimes is is hard

[30:34] when we live in a small community.

[30:38] » Agree. It's a It's a great spot. I drive by it every day and um see the kids

[30:44] walking through it. So, it's great location for the schools and I think

[30:49] it's a it's exciting for our town. >> I do have a question. I'm not sure who

[30:55] to address it to, but because it's near the schools is the bus route

[31:03] » on off of J. No buses come through that to pick up

[31:08] kids. It's all walking to Buff and middle school and high school. Okay.

[31:12] » There is a spot that the kids get picked up for the middle school and it's a

[31:16] little bit more down the road by the pines.

[31:18] » Okay. >> And they have a few of those spots for

[31:20] the middle school kids. >> Okay.

[31:23] Okay. So, foot traffic. >> Okay. Thank you.

[31:30] So, if we don't have any more discussion, I can take a motion to

[31:33] either approve or not approve. This is Commissioner Eder, and I would

[31:41] make a motion to approve the master plan development for the Mule Deer Estates.

[31:53] » Is this the master plan or we're doing

[32:00] I second the motion. >> All right, I have a first and a second.

[32:05] All those in favor say I. >> I.

[32:08] » I. I. Motion carries. All right. We will now move on to the mu

[32:15] deer estate subdivision application which is related.

[32:21] Okay. So, do I need to read the same thing? Oh,

[32:26] great. Okay. I'm sorry. Um, we will now hear the our I'm opening

[32:35] the hearing for planning file number SP or SD-25-1,

[32:41] the MU deer estate subdivision application. The hearing is now called

[32:45] to order. We will proceed as follows. The staff will present, the applicant

[32:50] will present, and then any interested persons will then be provided the

[32:53] opportunity to present testimony in support that is neutral or that is in

[32:58] opposition. The applicant then can respond to that. The staff will provide

[33:03] closing comments and any party may request that the written record remain

[33:06] open to respond to testimony presented at this hearing. At the conclusion of

[33:11] the hearing, the planning commission may close the public hearing and deliberate

[33:15] or close the public hearing and defer deliberations

[33:18] or they can continue the public hearing at a date and time certain. All

[33:22] testimony, argument, and evidence must be directed to the applicable criteria

[33:26] or any other approval criteria you believe to be applicable. Matters

[33:29] unrelated to the application are not pertinent to the planning commission's

[33:32] decisions in these proceedings. Failure on the part of any person to raise an

[33:36] issue that is not specific enough to afford the planning commission and

[33:39] parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue

[33:42] precludes appeal to the city council and land use board of appeals on the issue.

[33:46] Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating

[33:49] to conditions of approval with sufficient relevance to allow the local

[33:53] government or its designate to respond to the issue precludes an action for

[33:56] damages in circuit court. Commissioners must disclose any expiree contacts,

[34:02] biases, or conflicts of incidents. Does any commissioner have those?

[34:06] » Uh, Commissioner Kendall, I do not. Commissioner Eder, and I do not.

[34:10] Commissioner Urban, and I do not. Does any party here wish to challenge those

[34:15] statements? All right. Seeing none, we will move on

[34:18] to the staff report. Okay. Thank you.

[34:23] Um, for the sake of the record, this is SD25-1

[34:28] and it's for tax lots uh 1113 12CA 600 and 900. So, we did discuss um some of

[34:36] the components of this subdivision application, namely the infrastructure

[34:41] improvements. Um, as mentioned, we sent out um notices to our public works

[34:46] director and he provided a memorandum stipulating certain conditions of

[34:50] approval for this development. Um all roads are required to uh dedicate

[34:56] rightaway to meet our major collector uh road standards. Um those familiar with

[35:01] the area know that uh Southeast McTagert does not have a sidewalk here on the

[35:05] west side. So they'll be required to do a six-foot sidewalk and planter strip on

[35:10] there. Along um Southeast 10th Street, uh the same condition applies where

[35:16] they'll have to do a planter strip and sidewalk as well. Hayes pointed out that

[35:21] um there will be a pedestrian crossing from Strawberry Heights to J Street.

[35:26] That includes ADA ramps um those blinky pedestrian crossing signs and um street

[35:31] lights. There will also be another one to the north um to the south um driveway

[35:39] to Buff Elementary School there. So that'll improve a lot of connectivity

[35:44] for um children walking to school every day. It'll give them a place to cross

[35:49] safely. Um

[35:52] yeah, and as mentioned, so all um access to the lots is from those local streets.

[35:57] So we're kind of avoiding a situation you get like on B Street where

[36:01] somebody's going 50 miles per hour and somebody's trying to back into their

[36:04] driveway there. So um it should keep things relatively safe um as far as

[36:08] access into those lots go. Um lot development standards. Um, as I

[36:14] mentioned, there's two different zoning districts and two different housing

[36:16] types. So, those have their own specific um, lot size requirements. The applicant

[36:22] has met or exceeded those requirements. Um, we also have frontage requirements.

[36:27] So, the lot has to be extended a certain length along the roadway depending on

[36:31] where it is, culde-sac or a regular lot or a town home. They've met those as

[36:36] well. Um, and block lengths and perimeters. So the block that they

[36:40] proposed uh meets all of those requirements as well because there is uh

[36:45] town homes proposed um they are required to do uh 200 ft of or square feet of

[36:52] common area per town home development. Um that's going to be located to the um

[37:00] west of the town home development there. uh it comes out to a requirement of

[37:04] about 4,200 square feet of common area and they've exceeded that. They're

[37:09] around I think 5600 a little over 1,000 square foot. Um so

[37:16] they've met that as well. Um basically they've met all of the design standards

[37:22] um that we look at when we review these subdivisions. So is there any questions

[37:28] you guys have?

[38:00] are the in our in our map it shows the ones lower that are closer together

[38:07] that makes that L those are the town homes.

[38:11] » Yeah, I can pull up um there's a probably a better photo where they're

[38:15] all highlighted green. >> Yeah. So, all of these green ones here

[38:18] are town homes. And then this kind of hashmark area is the common area back

[38:23] here.

[38:30] » What is this lot here? >> So, on that schematic, um, Commissioner

[38:35] Kendall is noticing that there is a little block that says future middle

[38:39] housing. Is that a city thing or is that from the applicant or

[38:45] that is from the applicant? Um, I assume that they just have not decided as far

[38:50] as what type of development they want to put there. Probably multiple town homes

[38:55] or detach duplex. Go ahead. Yeah, the applicant will speak to that.

[39:01] » Yeah. >> Do we have any other questions for staff

[39:06] at this point?

[39:10] Okay. So, now we will hear from the applicant.

[39:14] You get to come up again.

[39:19] It works out that way. Uh, okay. So, the only thing I would like to speak to is

[39:25] the middle housing. Of course, if you have questions, please ask. So, the

[39:30] middle housing is not shaded uh green because it's not going to be platted as

[39:35] a town home lot. Instead, it's going to be platted as a separate unit of land.

[39:41] And then we have to use a different process to create that as a town home

[39:46] lot. And um middle housing was passed, Greg probably knows, but uh a few years

[39:53] ago, which allows for higher density. And so when we were putting together

[39:58] this subdivision, that middle housing area would not quite meet the regular

[40:05] subdivision code, but it meets middle housing criteria. And since it's around

[40:10] a bunch of other town homes, it it will end up looking like a town home in the

[40:14] end. It's just the process we have to use as middle housing to get it there.

[40:19] » How many acres is it? >> Oh, I don't even know if it's a quarter

[40:24] acre. >> It's pretty small.

[40:30] » So that's more of a lot size that just has to fit a different process. Yes.

[40:35] » And a different criteria. >> Yes.

[40:38] And would access from to that be from within that Sun Drive?

[40:44] » Uh, no. Access would would be a private shared driveway across the front of lots

[40:50] 49 and 50. >> Okay. But not from J Street.

[40:56] » No, not from J Street. >> Sort of an easement.

[41:02] » Oh, okay. Um, it would be through an easement. Correct. and we would run

[41:07] utilities through an easement. So the middle housing

[41:12] is part of lot 49. So uh lot 49 overall including the area that's not green

[41:19] would be 6768 square feet. And then we would come back through through a middle

[41:25] housing land division and create three town homes there that would look real

[41:30] similar to the other town homes in the area.

[41:32] » Okay, that makes sense. So, the green shading on that particular lot is a

[41:36] little misnomer, but >> it gives me something to talk about.

[41:41] » I don't see where they would enter into that because

[41:48] » through lot 48. So, whoever purchases lot 48, they will

[41:53] know that they will be sharing an easement.

[41:56] Um it wouldn't be I don't it might be partially through lot 48 but when we

[42:01] plat the subdivision we'll provide there will be an easement

[42:07] an access easement and um I think our plan is to put it across the front of

[42:14] lots 50 lot 50 and 49. So the driveway would be there and be shared between lot

[42:20] 50 and 49. >> Okay. So they would come in up on

[42:26] lot. No, it looks like you have an opening up

[42:31] on lot 51. >> It could be there, too.

[42:36] It could be both 50 and 51, but at least 50 because we'd want to have about 20

[42:43] feet for the access.

[42:50] Okay. And so whoever purchases those three lots will know ahead of time that

[42:56] they will be sharing an easement. >> Yes. But the process usually is the home

[43:01] gets built and then platted and then the buyer's building a home. So all those

[43:06] encumbrances, it's seen there's a driveway there. It's

[43:10] u it's not somebody buying a bare lot and realizing later, oh my gosh, there's

[43:15] a driveway through the front of my property.

[43:19] » They will know ahead of time. >> Yes.

[43:21] » Okay.

[43:25] » Anything else? >> No.

[43:28] » Okay.

[43:32] » So, they are pointing if maybe Yep. Bethany. Yep. right there at the the

[43:37] last lot there is where the future middle housing it's in little tiny print

[43:42] but that's the three lots that we're kind of talking about the lot 49

[43:47] » 50 and 5 >> 50 and 51 as they may have a portion of

[43:51] a street there but from what the applicant was saying those will be

[43:56] developed the town homes will be put on it and then it will be noted for sale

[44:00] this isn't like you were getting at someone purchasing bare land and

[44:05] building this as part of a planned subdivision.

[44:08] » Correct. >> Everything will be

[44:14] brought forth to the people, the buyers. We'll know ahead of time

[44:19] » and to to make sure of that because we'll have to put an easement on our

[44:26] subdivision plat otherwise it won't be there and then lot 49 won't

[44:32] be able to be developed into three units. We kind

[44:36] » it wouldn't be accessible then. >> Yes. Then then we would have boxed

[44:39] ourselves into a corner that we don't want to be in.

[44:41] » Exactly. So you do those easements through the city planning and we have

[44:46] everything in place for that. >> Yeah. When they come through that for

[44:51] that final plat. So this is the preliminary approval. They come through

[44:54] the final plat engineering does do a review of that to make sure that all

[44:59] necessary easements where they be access utilities are on that plat um before it

[45:04] gets recorded with the county and that any purchaser of that property is going

[45:08] to be able to identify any easements that exist on that property. Excellent.

[45:12] Thank you. >> You're welcome.

[45:14] » Thank you. >> You're welcome. Do

[45:15] » you have any questions? >> Okay. So, now we will receive public

[45:20] testimony. When you testify, please state your name and address for the

[45:24] record. All testimony will be directed to the planning commission and not the

[45:27] applicant, staff, or other members of the audience.

[45:31] Um, please keep your testimony concise and relevant to the issues before us

[45:34] this evening. It is perfectly acceptable and courage to indicate that you agree

[45:37] with the points made by another party. Uh, do we have anyone speaking in

[45:42] support of the application? Anyone online?

[45:48] Do we have anyone with neutral testimony

[45:53] or general questions like Jerome in the previous discussion?

[45:58] » Yeah, I do again. >> Okay, great. If you can state your name

[46:01] again, we can get your address from the last.

[46:04] » Yep. My name is Jerome Turviate. Um, and you don't need me to do my address

[46:08] again. I don't think you need to. Thank you.

[46:12] » Okay. Um, so question for the development is I look through I'm

[46:16] looking through the packet and I don't see

[46:19] um a ton of stuff about dust abatement. Um, when it comes to construction

[46:25] because there's a lot of I mean there's a lot of dead trees and stuff out there.

[46:28] There's going to need to be some sort of excavation done. It's a lot of dust to

[46:33] be kicked up. There's quite a few people that live in the area um that don't want

[46:38] to really be exposed to a ton of silica. Is there the only thing I'm seeing is

[46:42] that there hasn't been really a plan submitted and in other areas it says

[46:46] that they'll obtain a permit from public works uh for excavation that requires

[46:50] dust abatement. But does that like uh does that make them uh beholden to some

[46:57] sort of requirements for like is there a certain level of dust exposure that's

[47:02] allowed? Uh and then I also have a question about

[47:05] fencing. Um I don't see much about fencing. It just says it'll be used

[47:09] where required to uh let me see here. To avoid disrupting like the nature around

[47:17] is basically what I'm understanding. Um

[47:21] » those are both good questions. I will have staff respond to those.

[47:25] » Okay. So, um they will be required to get a

[47:29] grading permit from public works and they will address any kind of um dust

[47:33] control. Um they'll also be required to have a pre-construction meeting before

[47:37] they begin construction and they'll also address that and mitigation. I know our

[47:42] public works department keeps a close eye on development and um especially if

[47:47] any complaints are made by um neighborhoods to um to address those

[47:53] with the developers. Um, as far as fences go, we don't require uh permits

[47:58] for fences, and that's more of a a civil matter. Um,

[48:03] so I think that's separate. >> Yes. And I believe in prior um

[48:08] subdivisions that we have come through here, fencing is not usually a required

[48:12] element unless it is in a zone that requires fencing for commercial

[48:18] property, storage facilities, that type of thing. Um, so most of the time people

[48:24] like in the new subdevelopment by LAS, people are choosing to build fences, but

[48:29] that's not something that the city can necessarily require um from a um

[48:35] standard. Um, is that correct?

[48:40] » Yeah, that's true. So usually you use f fences will be required as like a

[48:44] transitional element between um conflicting zones or zones uh

[48:49] particularly like a commercial to residential just to mitigate any of the

[48:54] impacts that come from headlight glare that sort of thing. Residential there's

[48:58] there's usually there's no standard attached defenses as part of a a

[49:02] transitional element to kind of pro provide a division between the

[49:07] properties. So you wouldn't see that in residential, nor there's is there a

[49:10] requirement in the code for it. >> Is there a a requirement for fencing

[49:16] where there's a street

[49:20] » where the house butts up against the street or or is it the responsibility of

[49:24] each individual owner? >> I would that would be the responsibility

[49:30] for each individual owner. Um I mean typically where where codes are going

[49:34] they're trying to eliminate fences because they create a canyoning effect

[49:37] right along the roadway. So you know a lot of times we're going to you know if

[49:42] you can front uh houses and that sort of thing on streets it gives a different

[49:46] character. So there is no requirement to build uh you know a fence to delineate

[49:53] the backyards from the road >> from the road.

[49:56] » Right. But the developer does have the option uh to build those

[50:01] » out of courtesy. They can build the fence. They could

[50:04] » that goes along the roadway. >> I mean you have

[50:09] yards and children

[50:12] » typically. I mean what you'll see from developers is some sort of continuity.

[50:16] So they'll build the fence all along there uh along a busy road uh versus

[50:21] just getting kind of a hodgepodge of fences being built by individual owners.

[50:25] So, um I don't know if they've contemplated if they're going to add

[50:29] that feature to the subdivision or not, but it is an option that they would

[50:31] have, >> but it's only volunteer. It's

[50:35] voluntarily >> correct.

[50:37] » Done. Okay.

[50:42] » Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Did that answer your question, Jerome?

[50:45] » Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.

[50:47] » All right. Do we have any testimony in opposition?

[50:54] Anything online?

[50:59] Okay. So, would the applicant like to respond to anything that has been

[51:02] discussed?

[51:07] Okay. Applicant says they're good. All right. Um, let's see. We will or

[51:15] actually staff, do you have anything that you'd like to provide? All right.

[51:19] commission. We now have those three options again where we can close the

[51:22] hearing and deliberate or we can close the hearing and defer deliberation to a

[51:27] date and time certain or we can continue the public hearing to a time and date

[51:32] certain. How does the commission wish to proceed?

[51:36] This is Commissioner Eder and I would like to close the public hearing and um

[51:42] deliberate on a decision.

[51:47] Commissioner Kendall, I second the motion.

[51:49] » All right, I have a first and a second. All those in favor say I. I.

[51:53] » I. I. All right. Motion carries. All right. Anything to add here or

[52:00] questions to staff? I think it goes right with uh what we did with the uh

[52:05] master plan.

[52:10] » Okay. Then the next step would be to submit

[52:15] either a motion to approve or this is commissioner and I approve the

[52:25] the SD25-1 mule deer estates subdivision

[52:29] application. Um

[52:36] I I can second that. Do a first and a second.

[52:42] Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor say I.

[52:46] » I. >> I. I..................... All right.

[52:48] Motion carries. All right. Thank you. Thank you for

[52:52] attending. Um we now will move on to any other items that staff would like to

[52:58] comment or talk about our next meeting. Um our next meeting is scheduled for

[53:03] September 3rd, but we don't currently have any items for that agenda. So, I'll

[53:07] reach out to you guys as it gets closer and see if we either um cancel it or and

[53:12] see your attendance as well. Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you everyone for

[53:18] attending this evening. We will adjourn the meeting at 73 or 7:27.

08 20 25 PC Meeting

Transcript