[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.