[0:00] enjoyed it when we did it but the kids

[0:01] were

[0:03] over all

[0:05] right we will call the meeting to

[0:09] order this is the monthly meeting of the

[0:13] Planning Commission of the city of

[0:15] Sandy this is Monday June 26

[0:20] 2023 we're beginning the meeting on time

[0:23] at 6:30 this meeting is in hybrid uh

[0:28] fashion uh in person and online I'll

[0:32] give uh instructions later on when the

[0:35] time comes as to how people who are

[0:38] online can uh give

[0:42] testimony so let's find out who's here

[0:45] with a roll call okay I'm gonna start

[0:48] with commissioner

[0:50] pulan here commissioner Wagner here

[0:54] commissioner Lee Weinberg here

[0:58] commissioner Ramer here

[1:00] chair Crosby here and also joining us

[1:03] online just so you're aware of who's on

[1:05] there is our City attorney and Josh soer

[1:09] and our executive assistant who is

[1:13] taking minutes Rebecca Markham and then

[1:16] you do have some other people uh on the

[1:18] attendee list as well

[1:20] okay I was going to ask you if you were

[1:23] the one taking the notes uh no Rebecca

[1:25] is taking the notes from home all right

[1:28] okay speaking of notes

[1:30] we did have in our packet the minutes

[1:32] from our last meeting May 22

[1:36] 2023 uh any additions changes

[1:39] Corrections that would need to be

[1:46] noted okay I don't see anything so we

[1:49] will consider those minutes as approved

[1:53] as

[1:55] presented and on all of our meetings we

[1:59] give opportunity at the beginning for

[2:00] anybody in the public to um speak to the

[2:04] Planning Commission on any topic that is

[2:07] not on the agenda

[2:09] tonight and um that is the time now if

[2:14] you are online on Zoom to participate

[2:19] you click the raise hand button and wait

[2:22] for Kelly to recognize you if you're on

[2:25] the telephone you dial Star n and same

[2:28] thing wait to to be recognized if you um

[2:33] doing it that way or if you are speaking

[2:36] here we ask that here in the room come

[2:38] to the podium and state your name and

[2:41] your address for the record so this is

[2:42] the opportunity for just general

[2:44] requests comments from the floor to the

[2:46] Planning Commission on anything not on

[2:49] tonight's

[2:50] [Music]

[2:54] agenda okay I don't see anything we have

[2:58] one little item item of um housekeeping

[3:01] to take care

[3:03] of um Stephen hook who was our vice

[3:07] chair as you all heard St had to step

[3:10] down from the Planning Commission

[3:12] because of a new job that conflicted

[3:15] with Monday meetings so we need to I

[3:19] need to hear any nominations or

[3:21] suggestions for a vice chair this

[3:25] position role will last will go until

[3:29] the end of the year here because we we

[3:32] re renominate first I would self

[3:37] nominate

[3:39] okay that is commissioner Lee has thrown

[3:43] her hat

[3:46] in anybody else have a suggestion or an

[3:49] idea

[3:53] or okay it is

[3:56] quiet it out the contest yeah I don't know if that needs a a first and

[4:02] a second I think it'd be best to have a

[4:05] motion just for the record so we'll take

[4:07] yours as a nomin as a first I'd be happy

[4:10] to second okay and we have a second for

[4:13] uh commissioner Lee to be the vice chair

[4:16] and we'll just do a voice Vote or a

[4:18] thumbs up on camera so all in favor say

[4:21] I I I and a thumbs up and the

[4:24] opposed all right so that's five zero

[4:30] we have an August meeting here

[4:37] on I'm not I'm not

[4:39] here all right

[4:42] uh Mr city council Li

[4:46] on you we're just so used to having you

[4:49] speak that uh you want me to get up

[4:52] there well if you if if you have any any

[4:54] particular comments from city council

[4:56] that we need you think we should be

[4:58] aware of the only thing that I would add

[5:00] to the the meeting minut that um the the

[5:06] park park is campus you know the P track

[5:09] the

[5:10] skateboard it closed and we did have bid

[5:14] a bid on it so that's I mean that was

[5:16] big news because you know we allocated a

[5:19] lot of money to build that part and we

[5:21] put it out for nomination for RP and and

[5:24] it went out and we had people B on it so

[5:26] that closed and there should be some

[5:28] exciting news you know about that it's

[5:30] going to be a long process but I was

[5:31] excited when I saw that representation

[5:34] and then other than that we had the

[5:35] longest day Parkway event just last week

[5:37] at at the bo park by Smash pad I think

[5:39] we had about 350 people show up I mean

[5:41] it was pretty big success and over 300

[5:45] hot dogs

[5:46] so pretty excited so other than that um

[5:49] there was a fatality on the corner over

[5:52] here I think that was it last night on

[5:57] 211 and

[6:00] Pioneer

[6:02] so a tragic accident they ran into the

[6:07] corner do an investigation on that so

[6:09] that's really all the news I have

[6:12] okay thank you very

[6:15] much all right we'll move on to the

[6:17] director's report it was in our pocket

[6:21] so Kelly you can add to elaborate or ask

[6:24] the questions whatever yeah I'm going to

[6:26] try to do some fancier camera angles

[6:28] tonight when I speak for longer like

[6:30] this and during the presentation so

[6:32] we'll see if I'm successful on it so

[6:34] it's showing me now instead of

[6:36] youas um yeah the main the main few

[6:39] things I would like to let everybody

[6:41] know is the city council did pass the

[6:44] Bal budget for the next two years and we

[6:47] will be filling two positions one of

[6:50] which has

[6:50] already um been posted on the city

[6:53] website and at different websites for

[6:56] basically planners that they go to um

[6:59] like the organ APA and the Washington

[7:00] APA so we're hopeful that we'll get that

[7:03] filled within a couple months and then

[7:05] we're working on um finalizing the job

[7:08] description for a new code enforcement

[7:10] specialist so traditionally in the city

[7:13] of Sandy over the last probably 3040

[7:15] years there's been one code enforcement

[7:18] officer and that person's been stationed

[7:19] out of the police department um that

[7:23] code enforcement officer has been very

[7:25] helpful to City Hall and to the

[7:28] department I oversee and public works

[7:30] but the city has just gotten too large

[7:33] and there's not we basically need

[7:35] another person to assist and so what

[7:37] we're going to be doing is creating two

[7:39] different positions one of which is

[7:42] going to stay in the police department

[7:43] and focus more on police Centric items

[7:47] like noise complaints

[7:49] dogs um stolen vehicles illegally parked

[7:52] vehicles um things that would

[7:54] traditionally be taken care of by a

[7:56] police department and the other position

[7:58] is going to be focused more on things in

[8:00] the development services and Public

[8:02] Works realm such as um sidewalk issues

[8:05] Street tree damage sign violations

[8:08] building code violations um and so on so

[8:11] they're going to be kind of divided up

[8:12] and then our plan's going to be over

[8:14] this summer to create a really robust

[8:17] web page uh with all the information on

[8:19] it that depending on what your um

[8:22] complaint or inquiry is that this is who

[8:24] you contact so it's very clearly

[8:26] delineated on the website

[8:29] um and one of the main reasons we

[8:31] decided that it was you know that we

[8:33] approached it that way is because the

[8:34] police department and you know the

[8:36] lieutenants insurgents and chief over

[8:38] there really specialize

[8:40] in police violations and the people in

[8:43] our department specialize more in

[8:46] development code violations so both the

[8:48] police chief and myself thought it was

[8:50] best if we had two different officers

[8:51] reporting to the two different

[8:53] departments so that's an interesting

[8:56] update um a small update on the sanitary

[8:58] sewer moratory

[9:00] the city entered into a consent degree

[9:02] so basically a settlement Court

[9:03] settlement with EPA and DQ we're hopeful

[9:06] that will be signed by the judge um in

[9:11] July I believe and then we repealed and

[9:14] replaced moratorium 1.0 is what I'm kind

[9:17] of calling it uh that was established on

[9:20] October 3rd

[9:21] 2022 and we replaced it with a new

[9:24] moratorium that does allow for some

[9:26] additional land use applications to be

[9:28] submitted and also for more building

[9:30] permits to be issued is basically the

[9:32] main thrust of that

[9:34] change um and then the stress test is

[9:37] all been completed out at the sewer

[9:40] treatment plant and we're hopeful that

[9:42] the results will be done probably late

[9:46] summer and then it'll have to be

[9:49] analyzed by both the city's engineering

[9:51] firm that we've hired and also by the

[9:54] EPA and DQ so we're hopeful that

[9:56] sometime in the spring it'll be agreed

[9:58] upon how much additional capacity

[10:01] basically we opened up with all the

[10:03] sewer treatment plant and sewer pipe

[10:06] lateral improvements we've done around

[10:09] town um the upcoming meetings there'll

[10:12] be no meeting in July we're going to

[10:13] take that month off and there might be

[10:16] on August 14th and then there definitely

[10:19] will be on September

[10:21] 25th I won't go into the applications a

[10:23] note just because you're all familiar

[10:25] with those I believe and I just wanted

[10:27] to kind of give a small update on those within uh the director

[10:31] report the clear and objective audit I

[10:34] believe most of you are aware of what's

[10:35] going on with that there was a work

[10:37] session um last week on that and the tsp

[10:40] was adopted last Tuesday so that's a big

[10:44] move that's uh been a document that

[10:46] we've been preparing and moving forward

[10:48] on for I believe three and a half years

[10:50] with our engineering firm and ODOT and

[10:52] so that's complete and adopted and then

[10:55] I just included a bunch of um

[10:57] information on comprehensive plan

[10:58] Outreach we'll be doing over the summer

[11:01] and then also the additional Outreach

[11:04] and feedback we're going to be looking

[11:06] for in Block two uh which is mainly

[11:08] focused around natural hazards and parks

[11:11] of

[11:12] recreation so oh and then the last thing

[11:15] which I said I was going to update you

[11:16] on is with uh commissioner hook stepping

[11:20] down from the commission um we did post

[11:23] I believe it was last week the opening

[11:25] for the Planning Commission so I think

[11:28] that'll open for two weeks I

[11:31] believe and then we're going to move on

[11:34] it pretty quickly

[11:36] there's I believe mid July there'll be a

[11:39] meeting with any of the applicants that

[11:42] are the finalists and I believe

[11:44] commissioner Wagner will be serving that

[11:47] role assisting three different city

[11:50] councilors with selecting somebody to

[11:53] then be brought forward as a potential

[11:55] appointment before the city council so

[11:58] hopefully we'll have somebody new in

[12:01] that role

[12:04] um I would think by August would be my

[12:07] hope so it's pretty pretty quick

[12:09] turnaround actually so I think think

[12:12] that's what I had for you okay you had mentioned something about update

[12:16] on legislation oh yes sure that might be

[12:21] informative to us yeah yesterday was the

[12:23] last day of the legislative session

[12:26] there was a bill on the floor that would

[12:28] have allowed any property to be exempt

[12:32] from the ugb and to move forward with

[12:35] development so there was quite a concern

[12:38] whether that would pass or not it felled

[12:40] by one vote because the Republicans had

[12:42] five people that didn't show up for the

[12:45] meetings so we missed we dodged that

[12:48] bullet but there's another bill House

[12:50] Bill 3395 that I sent to Kelly some info

[12:54] about but what it does is it changes

[12:57] some of the regulations for affordable

[13:00] housing um it has new process for citing

[13:04] Emergency Shelters um new regulations

[13:07] for planned communities and for single

[13:10] room occupancy

[13:12] residency and reduces some barriers in

[13:17] planning regulations but there will be

[13:20] some grants from the state for some of

[13:22] that

[13:26] work lots of stuff to come and and just

[13:28] so you know we'll we'll be trying to

[13:30] address as much House Bill andca Bill

[13:33] Provisions as possible with the curent

[13:35] objective audit but um I would say over

[13:38] the last three years or so the state's

[13:40] been moving so fast on bills that it's

[13:44] very likely that we'll get done with the

[13:45] audit uh this winter and then have to

[13:48] make additional code edits soon

[13:50] thereafter I'm I'm almost positive that

[13:53] will happen it's just the legislature is

[13:56] moving very quickly on landuse bills

[13:59] and our attorney can give a better

[14:01] rendition of this no I think that was

[14:04] very well

[14:07] done all right anybody have questions

[14:11] for

[14:15] Kelly very well then we have one public

[14:18] hearing

[14:19] tonight which we will and again I will

[14:22] be given instructions to those

[14:25] online for testimony and when we get to

[14:29] that point so I will open the public

[14:32] hearing at

[14:35] 6:44 Kelly there I don't see a file

[14:38] number yeah I forgot to put it on there

[14:40] so we'll just call it the it is the

[14:42] Cascade Creek mixed use

[14:46] development you have a number I'll write

[14:49] yeah hold on one second sorry I noticed

[14:51] that today that I forgot to put it on

[14:52] the

[14:57] agenda it's on H3 oh my computer's going

[15:02] really

[15:04] [Music]

[15:09] slow it's land use file number

[15:12] 22- z39 drmp V

[15:18] tree okay we will just call it 22- 039

[15:23] file I will Begin by calling for any

[15:27] abstentions from anybody on the planning

[15:31] commission okay I see nothing any

[15:34] conflicts of interest tocl

[15:40] anybody okay nothing

[15:42] seen uh any expar contact including any

[15:46] site

[15:48] visits Park uh this week it was a Jer

[15:54] okay

[15:59] all right did anybody look at it on

[16:01] Google

[16:04] Earth no I think tell team I've been

[16:07] putting those images right into the

[16:09] staff report which has been helpful

[16:12] yeah okay and I'll call for any

[16:14] challenges to the members of the hearing

[16:17] body the Planning

[16:24] Commission all right if you testify

[16:27] tonight you must raise all issues you

[16:29] wish to address at this

[16:31] hearing if your issue is not raised at

[16:34] this hearing you may not be able to

[16:36] raise it later in any

[16:38] appeal your comments should State why

[16:41] the application should or should not be

[16:43] approved or include your proposed

[16:46] modifications you believe are necessary

[16:48] for approval according to the

[16:51] standards if you do not raise specific

[16:53] issues at the final evidentiary hearing

[16:56] or by close of the record or fail to

[16:58] provide statements or evidence to allow

[17:00] the local government or its designate to

[17:03] respond to the issue you will not be

[17:05] able to appeal the decision to the land

[17:07] use board of appeals based on that

[17:09] particular

[17:11] issue any party May request that the

[17:14] hearing be continued to a later date or

[17:16] that the record remain open after the

[17:18] hearing is

[17:21] closed failure of the applicant to raise

[17:24] constitutional or other issues relating

[17:26] to the proposed conditions of approval

[17:29] with sufficient specificity to allow the

[17:31] local government or its designate to

[17:33] respond to the issue precludes an action

[17:36] for damages in Circuit

[17:38] Court we will move to the staff

[17:43] report okay

[18:24] second it presenting on your y oh there

[18:26] it goes I think it's just such a big

[18:28] file

[18:29] okay so this is going to be somewhat of

[18:32] a longer presentation than I typically

[18:33] give just because it's a pretty complex

[18:36] land use application as you saw in the

[18:39] staff report I believe it's 66 pages

[18:41] long um so as you're going through that

[18:45] staff report and this for the public as

[18:47] well what I would mainly what I would

[18:49] recommend concentrating the most on is

[18:51] anywhere that there's bolted text

[18:53] because that's anything that we're

[18:54] recommending a condition on and then

[18:57] also anywhere in the document where it

[18:59] analyzes something met a criteria or not

[19:02] because those those are the things that

[19:03] you can either approve or reject an

[19:05] application based

[19:06] on so th those would be the two things I

[19:09] would focus in on the most uh for

[19:11] anybody that's looking at that document

[19:12] because I do realize 66 pages of text is

[19:15] difficult to look

[19:17] through so I will try to summarize the

[19:20] main points in about 25 slides

[19:24] here so as you'll see on this first map

[19:28] um this is the vicinity map the property

[19:31] in red is where the development site is

[19:34] located it's southa Highway 211 East the

[19:37] village west of Pine and north of

[19:40] bornstead Park so as you can see in the

[19:43] upper leftand corner North is pointing

[19:45] up on the

[19:48] screen I'm not going to go over all

[19:50] these but this is another point that I

[19:52] wanted to make related to the first

[19:55] point that I just made a minute ago is

[19:57] that when you're looking at a

[19:58] development site of this size also in

[20:02] the Barnstead Village overlay this is

[20:04] how many different code chapters that I

[20:07] reviewed while making the staff report

[20:09] so this is one of the reasons why it's

[20:12] complex and the staff report is very

[20:14] large is because there's a lot of codes

[20:16] to look

[20:17] at and this was this was in the public

[20:20] notice and the legal notice that we put

[20:24] out so this is again just some

[20:27] information on sent notice uh the

[20:30] transmitt on the first line items just

[20:31] to other agencies uh both internal to

[20:34] the city and external like PGE or OD do

[20:38] uh I just wanted to put some dates on

[20:39] here showing that we met our code

[20:42] required noticing for both to the

[20:45] neighborhood in the legal uh section of

[20:48] the of the Sandy post and also on the

[20:50] city's Facebook

[20:53] account I did want to also mention that

[20:55] this application is not affected by the

[20:57] moratorium and the reason why is because

[21:00] it was filed in September of

[21:04] 2022 before the effective date on

[21:06] October 3rd so if this if this

[21:09] application would have been filed on

[21:10] October 4th of

[21:12] 2022 we would have denied it outright

[21:15] and said that because there's a

[21:16] moratorium in effect uh we can't take

[21:19] the application for processing however

[21:21] that's not the case uh it's basically

[21:23] what orgon calls the go goal post rule

[21:27] so they submitted it prior to that

[21:29] resolution being effective in the city

[21:31] of Sandy so it cannot be used for our

[21:37] analysis just to remind everybody the

[21:39] proposals for 78 multif family

[21:41] residential units and 10 office spaces

[21:44] one of the existing houses on the site

[21:47] will be demolished and the other

[21:48] existing house will remain I think

[21:50] they're going to fix it up and have a

[21:52] new driveway access from the south and

[21:56] close the two driveway accesses along

[21:58] Highway uh

[22:01] 211 the four buildings to the south of

[22:05] where cascad Village Drive will go

[22:06] through which I'll show in a few minutes

[22:08] here those will all contain multif

[22:10] family residential buildings the two

[22:13] North will contain residential on the

[22:16] upper

[22:17] floors um and a mix of mixed juice

[22:20] office on the ground floor with some uh

[22:24] dwelling units on the ground floor as

[22:26] well and then this is is very important

[22:29] to note a lot of what kind of made the

[22:31] layout decisions in this development are

[22:34] related to Cascadia Village Drive being

[22:37] extended East to West Village Drive

[22:39] being extended North to South Pine

[22:42] Street being extended North up into the

[22:44] development site and the Highway 211

[22:47] improvements and driveway um removals

[22:50] that occurred along Highway 21 so th

[22:53] this development

[22:54] site in some senses was already kind of

[22:57] laid out for the applicant in that they

[23:01] had very little ability to change the

[23:03] layout of Cascadia Village Pine Street

[23:06] or Village basically they had no ability

[23:08] to change those so what you see on the

[23:10] proposal is pretty much uh the

[23:12] development layout that any developer

[23:14] would have proposed on this

[23:18] site the zoning and acreage so there are

[23:21] three zones low density residential

[23:24] which we call R1 medium density

[23:26] residential which we call R2 and

[23:28] commercial which is C3 and then there's

[23:31] an overlay which is the bornstead

[23:32] village overlay so that kind of adds

[23:34] additional complexity and scrutiny on

[23:36] the

[23:37] application the acreage was 8.83 acres

[23:41] is what the total site acreage is 1.88

[23:44] Acres would be dedicated for RightWay

[23:46] which is roads essentially and that

[23:49] would leave us with 6.95 nit Acres which

[23:52] is the development

[23:54] site so I'm not going to like go through

[23:57] every bit of this slide but basically it

[23:59] lays out in those three different zones

[24:02] what the different densities

[24:04] are uh for the top one low density

[24:07] residential there's only 023 acres and

[24:09] there's no new dwellings being proposed

[24:11] in that land the medium density which is

[24:14] R2 is

[24:16] 3.95 which allows for a maximum of 55

[24:19] dwelling units per the development code

[24:21] the applicant is proposing 46 so about

[24:24] nine less than could be allowed if they

[24:26] wanted to go with a higher density

[24:29] The Village commercial interestingly

[24:31] enough doesn't have a density range for

[24:35] residential

[24:38] development it never has since I've

[24:40] worked here in 12 years and I I think

[24:41] when it was created in 1997 it was never

[24:44] given a density at that time as

[24:47] well and it's something I would I would

[24:51] recommend rectifying in the future but

[24:53] for now this is what we're stuck with um

[24:56] so what they're proposing 32 dwelling

[24:57] units and the one existing house to

[25:00] remain this is somewhat controlled

[25:02] though because there are standards such

[25:05] as height

[25:06] setbacks parking Landscaping minimum so

[25:10] it's not like you could just go with

[25:11] unlimited density because of the other

[25:13] uh restrictions within the development

[25:17] code so it's the bottom line is it's meeting the oops it's meeting the

[25:23] allowable uses which is multif family

[25:25] and office on the C3 land and it's

[25:28] meeting the density ranges for all three

[25:32] zones The Proposal

[25:34] is the right now there's two lots which

[25:38] run kind of north to south so they run

[25:41] from Highway 211 down to

[25:44] bornstead one of the code Provisions is

[25:47] once you put a RightWay through a

[25:48] property you have to partition it um one

[25:51] of the other complexities is I think

[25:53] they were trying to clean up the

[25:54] property line so there was no property

[25:56] line running through any building which

[25:58] is a violation of the organ plumbing

[26:01] code so now instead of two properties

[26:05] running north to south there's three

[26:07] properties that are running more

[26:08] horizontal east to west and they're

[26:11] labeled here so everybody can kind of

[26:14] see

[26:15] that and just to orient everybody

[26:17] Village Boulevard's on the left hand

[26:20] side of the screen so that's the road

[26:21] going north to south and Cascadia

[26:24] Village drives kind of bisecting the

[26:26] property and then Pine streets on the

[26:28] East end or the East kind of edge of the

[26:34] property here's the site plan

[26:37] showing all of the buildings so in total

[26:40] there's six buildings the one existing

[26:43] house to remain at the

[26:45] top um it's

[26:47] showing a bunch of roads and Road

[26:50] improvements being put in uh 1.88 Acres

[26:53] of that so it's it's quite a bit of

[26:55] roads going

[26:56] in um several hundred parking spaces and

[27:00] also a lot of landscaping the

[27:03] Landscaping is in the Civil plan set

[27:05] that's in the packet but I did not

[27:08] include it in my

[27:10] slideshow they're also proposing some

[27:12] large recreational

[27:14] areas uh north of bnet Park heavily

[27:17] treed so there's if you look at the tree

[27:20] plan it's heavily treed along the South

[27:22] property line there and then they're

[27:24] also proposing some different Recreation

[27:26] areas both on the southern part of the

[27:28] property south of Cascadia Village Drive

[27:30] and on the North part of the property

[27:32] north of that um and that's required by

[27:35] the development code that when you have

[27:37] over I believe it's five multif family

[27:39] housing units you have to provide

[27:41] recreational area for of 200 square feet

[27:45] per dwelling unit so it' be 200 square

[27:48] feet times

[27:49] 78 and then in addition to that you also

[27:51] just have to provide other Landscaping

[27:54] as the code lays

[27:56] out so there requesting some variances

[28:00] this

[28:02] one this one's not of their making it's

[28:04] just because of how the roads are

[28:06] already laid out uh Pine Street has to

[28:10] go north from its current Terminus for

[28:11] the code provisions and then Pine Street

[28:14] North which is on the upper hand here of

[28:17] the screen that's shown in the bornstead

[28:20] village plan going out to the highway

[28:22] however as you've probably seen in the

[28:24] staff report our city transportation

[28:27] engineer is not recommending that that

[28:28] goes all the way through um because they

[28:31] don't want basically another access

[28:33] point out to the highway instead there

[28:35] we recommending that it turns over to

[28:37] gway and I'll show that in a few slides

[28:39] here um but this variance is basically a

[28:43] request does my cursor work no of course

[28:48] it

[28:49] doesn't so what the request is is that

[28:52] it's less than 150 feet from Pine Street

[28:55] North above cascaded Village Drive it's

[28:58] less than 150 feet horizontally over to

[29:00] Pine Street South like I said I don't we

[29:04] have I evaluated it I don't think

[29:05] there's any other way to design

[29:09] it another variance which is not of the

[29:13] applicants making really either and I

[29:15] think that's why I'm recommending

[29:16] approval of this this is for Block

[29:20] length and it's basically a request to

[29:23] exceed the 400 foot block length from

[29:26] Cascadia Village Drive to Sequoia Street

[29:29] which is the street just south of Barnet

[29:32] Park um there's really no way not to

[29:35] exceed this uh the city doesn't want

[29:38] another park at the North Terminus of

[29:40] bnad Park we talked about it pretty

[29:42] extensively recently with the parks

[29:44] department um so the applicant was

[29:47] pretty much stuck with just putting it

[29:50] just having a block link that exceeds

[29:52] 400 feet so we're recommending approval

[29:55] of that variance as well

[29:58] and as you and as you can I don't know

[30:00] if you can really see on this one the

[30:02] applicant is proposing a pedestrian

[30:05] cross through from Cascadia Village down

[30:08] to Barnstead Park and that would be a

[30:09] public eement bisecting the LA block

[30:15] there this is another variance I think

[30:18] you're very familiar with this people

[30:19] that have been on the commission for a

[30:21] while um have seen this a lot so it's

[30:24] obviously something in our code that we

[30:25] need to

[30:26] change uh

[30:29] we just approved this for stage Street

[30:31] homes um a month or two ago and this is

[30:34] the provision

[30:36] to uh reduce the offsets along a

[30:40] building to less than eight feet every

[30:42] 20 feet so I think I think we've

[30:44] approved it pretty much every time it's

[30:46] been requested because nobody is

[30:48] building

[30:50] it to these Dimensions at this point in

[30:53] time so it's it's a I I would argue it's

[30:55] a code provision that we need to change

[30:56] on our end because we haven't seen a

[30:59] multif family housing project in

[31:02] probably at least my 12 years here that

[31:05] has actually been able to meet this code

[31:07] provision and still

[31:09] build to kind of

[31:12] the what I would say is kind of

[31:16] the current style of Garden Apartments

[31:19] that we're seeing around in Sandy I

[31:21] haven't seen anybody be able to meet

[31:23] this standard yet so that's what that is

[31:24] it's an offset standard

[31:28] this is another one that we get a lot um

[31:30] and in this case I think it's pretty

[31:32] valid this is a tree variance request um

[31:36] sometimes there's a lot of healthy trees

[31:38] on sites and we still see this request

[31:40] in this case uh their arborous evaluated

[31:43] all the trees and then we had our third

[31:46] party arborus that works for the city

[31:48] evaluated

[31:50] also our third party Arbor said there's

[31:53] only four to six healthy trees most of

[31:55] the trees on the north end of that

[31:57] property

[31:58] are actually in a pretty bad state of

[32:00] Decline and he was recommending the

[32:03] majority of them not be retained there

[32:05] are some trees that were decently

[32:08] healthy uh north of the property but

[32:10] those are in the right right away right

[32:12] where the sidewalk and all the Highway

[32:14] 21 improvements need to go in so those

[32:16] need to be removed so we're also

[32:19] recommending approval of this variants I

[32:21] will say though I'm recommending 93 to

[32:24] 97 mitigation trees are planted

[32:28] um which if you look at the landscape

[32:30] plan the majority of those would be

[32:31] planted along the southern Edge uh on

[32:35] the

[32:38] park so this is this one's kind of a

[32:40] complex one I'll just say that up front

[32:43] here this is the RightWay modifications

[32:46] that our city traffic engineer and

[32:49] myself were

[32:50] recommending so as I as I said we're not

[32:53] recommending Pine Street to go all the

[32:55] way through to Highway 211 we're

[32:58] recommending that it starts the turn and

[33:00] go to gway so that there's a connection

[33:02] there in the

[33:03] future we're recommending that we the

[33:07] city conditions that the asphalt north

[33:09] of that's removed but that the RightWay

[33:11] dedication stays intact and we sell a we

[33:14] sell have Street trees and a sidewalk

[33:16] that goes up to

[33:18] 211 with that change we would be

[33:20] recommending extending the curb and

[33:22] planner strip and sidewalk on highway to

[33:24] 11 East to the project boundary

[33:28] we would also be recommending narrowing

[33:31] the medians on both Cascadia Village

[33:33] Drive and Village Boulevard to provide

[33:35] for on street parking on both sides of

[33:37] the road um the these streets that are

[33:42] being proposed by the applicant they're

[33:44] too narrow to provide on street parking

[33:47] and also fire apparatus access so right

[33:51] now with what they're being proposed at

[33:53] you wouldn't have on street parking

[33:54] anywhere on Cascadia Village or Village

[33:58] but what I'm recommending and Public

[33:59] Works is in agreement is that we'd like

[34:01] to see the medians decrease in width on

[34:05] those two streets and then on street

[34:07] parking along the frontage of both these roads that are being

[34:14] sold the other thing that's nice for the

[34:16] city is a 20 foot median is actually

[34:19] very expensive to maintain it's just a

[34:22] ton of weed pulling and maintenance

[34:24] costs so going down to a 91 foot median

[34:27] still allows for the trees uh but it

[34:30] gives it a more realistic maintenance of

[34:32] that median as

[34:33] well the really complex issue here is

[34:36] what we're going to do with Pine

[34:38] Street South and the recommendation from

[34:42] our traffic engineer is to install

[34:45] ballards for the time being to block any

[34:49] vehicles that are trying to go east from

[34:52] the development side on Cascadia Village

[34:55] so right now you'd be able to use Pine

[34:56] Street North

[34:58] if you lived in the subdivisions to the

[35:00] east of this development site but people

[35:03] coming in and out of this development

[35:04] site would not be able to travel east on

[35:07] Cascadia Village Drive the main reason

[35:09] for that

[35:10] is because they this you I'll just point

[35:13] it out here it's very

[35:16] complex this property owner that's

[35:19] developing doesn't own this acre here

[35:23] and there's no way that they can force

[35:25] anybody to dedicate right away they

[35:27] already talked them so this section

[35:31] here will remain private property and so

[35:34] there's not enough room basically to

[35:36] have two-way traffic going through here

[35:38] without that little piece of land so for

[35:40] the time being you would install

[35:41] ballards here and here this could still

[35:44] be used for like bikes and stuff through

[35:46] here and at some point when this is

[35:49] widened then there would be traffic

[35:51] through both

[35:53] ways this would also be blocked for now

[35:56] because it's going to be too narrow and

[35:58] there's not going to be anywhere to go

[36:00] um but we we always recommend and

[36:03] require that the asal's put in the

[36:04] development because otherwise there's no

[36:06] other way to really require in the

[36:08] future of the

[36:09] vul at some point when this goes through

[36:13] what we have plann on doing is this

[36:14] median will be extended all the way to

[36:20] here and so if you were to come north

[36:22] here you could go around the median and

[36:24] go west

[36:25] down but it what would restrict is that

[36:28] anybody coming south down here would

[36:30] have to turn this way it's basically

[36:31] trying to put less impact down to this neighborhood here by the design

[36:36] that we're trying to put forward and

[36:37] then eventually you would be able to go

[36:39] east on Cascadia out

[36:42] Ro hopefully that makes

[36:46] sense there's a bunch of findings and

[36:48] conditions on it I just want to kind of

[36:50] draw it out for you tonight because I

[36:52] think it's really complex to

[36:55] explain the other two here

[36:58] um oh man those turned out really small

[37:01] so the one on the on the left hand side

[37:03] that's just basically showing narrowing

[37:05] that median down uh as I already said

[37:08] and then on the east or on the on the

[37:11] right hand side of the page

[37:13] here it's showing a small off-site

[37:15] sidewalk connection to connect it to a

[37:18] gravel pathway in bad Park and that was

[37:21] requested uh verbally by both the public

[37:24] works department and the parks and and wck department and then the other

[37:29] last thing here is adding additional

[37:31] asphalt um to the southern Terminus of

[37:35] Cascadia Village and the main reason for

[37:37] that is so that fire trucks and dump

[37:39] trucks and mail delivery and all and

[37:41] school buses can all turn around down

[37:43] there is the reason

[37:46] why so I'm just going to Rifle through

[37:48] these pretty quickly this is building a

[37:50] in the design on that um as you'll see

[37:53] in the staff report there's some

[37:54] conditions to add some additional supp

[37:57] Al design elements on this building

[37:59] especially facing out to Village

[38:01] Boulevard and this is north of

[38:04] Cascadia this one's also north of

[38:06] Cascadia uh to the east of building

[38:09] a this is Building C to the south of

[38:15] Cascadia building

[38:18] D Building

[38:22] E and building

[38:24] F so as you'll see

[38:28] uh five of the buildings are three

[38:30] stories and one of the buildings

[38:33] building a is the only four-story

[38:35] building being

[38:39] proposed so this is the only four-story

[38:41] building oh man what's going on with

[38:43] this

[38:48] slideshow sorry about

[38:56] that that's only four story building the

[38:58] rests are three and then building I

[39:00] think it's

[39:03] c is kind of a day it it gives the

[39:06] appearance from the uphill side of being

[39:07] somewhat of a daylight basement on the

[39:09] one side so it's two stories basically

[39:12] on the one side and then three stories

[39:14] on the other so the South elevation

[39:16] facing the park appears to be it is two

[39:18] stories and then as you go down the hill

[39:20] it begins to be

[39:24] three and again these meet all the uh

[39:27] development code setbacks and height

[39:34] standards

[39:36] okay so last couple slides here sorry

[39:39] it's taking so long um the the the the

[39:44] proposals meeting the development codes

[39:47] Criterion for partition for design

[39:50] review for density for

[39:54] height the only thing it's really not

[39:56] meeting for the most part are those four

[39:59] variances as I covered um and then

[40:02] there's a lot of what I would

[40:05] consider design or landscaping or

[40:09] parking deficiencies or RightWay

[40:12] deficiencies they're not anything that

[40:14] would TP be typical of denial for the

[40:17] proposal they would just be conditioned

[40:19] to be modified and so that's what's in

[40:22] the packet tonight is I think 11 pages

[40:25] of conditions of

[40:27] if you were to approve the application

[40:30] here's 11 pages of changes and

[40:33] conditions that will be that I would

[40:34] recommend tying to the approval so a few

[40:37] of the few a few of the major goals

[40:40] consistent with the long-range planning

[40:41] objectives I just like to remind

[40:43] everybody of

[40:44] these is the widening of Village

[40:48] Boulevard Cascadia Village Drive being

[40:50] extended through were both in the 2011

[40:54] transportation system plan they were

[40:56] also in the one that we just adopted the

[40:57] other night although that's not

[40:59] applicable to this application they're

[41:01] also both in the bnad village overlay

[41:03] plan and so is Pine Street extending

[41:07] North this development I'm recommending

[41:09] to pay a proportional share fee and this

[41:12] was recommended by our transportation

[41:15] engineer uh the council would recall

[41:18] this I'm not sure if the Planning

[41:19] Commission remembers this or not but

[41:21] with bu the approval of Bull Run tffs

[41:23] recently this proportional share fee was

[41:26] charged on that development as well and

[41:28] basically what it's saying is that these

[41:30] developments are causing additional

[41:33] traffic or trips to board to to Barco

[41:36] Road and Highway 211 and therefore they

[41:38] have to mitigate that by paying an

[41:40] off-site fee and so the fee for this

[41:42] development would be 347,000

[41:58] uh with Cascadia Village Drive

[42:00] concurrent with the bbo and it's also

[42:02] fulfilling the housing needs as

[42:03] identified in the urbanization study

[42:05] that was adopted in

[42:08] 2015 um so with that like I said I from

[42:12] you know my job at the city is to work

[42:15] with applicants developers and try to

[42:17] find the best outcome possible um I will

[42:20] say that this developers has done a

[42:21] pretty good job of doing that their

[42:22] original site layouts and U the items

[42:27] that they submitted to us at the prea

[42:29] and in even after we worked with them

[42:32] pretty pretty earnestly to get those

[42:35] modified so that they would be meeting

[42:36] our

[42:37] code um as I

[42:39] said from a planning perspective it's

[42:42] pretty much meeting the code except for

[42:44] those few variances and if if it is

[42:47] approved with those variances and the

[42:50] long list the conditions that I'm

[42:52] recommending um I would recommend

[42:55] approval

[42:57] so with that I will stop sharing the

[43:04] screen I'm G to turn the camera

[43:10] back okay any immediate questions for

[43:19] Kelly if you uh there we go okay

[43:25] yeah all right right now we'll move on

[43:29] to the applicant

[43:31] presentation and uh while we can't see

[43:33] you yet let you know that you will have

[43:36] 20 minutes to

[43:39] uh make your presentation and as for

[43:42] everybody uh remember to give us your

[43:45] name and your address for whoever uh

[43:49] speaks and chair I'm going to be

[43:51] promoting anybody on the applicant team

[43:53] that wants to have a speaking role

[43:55] during the presentation will raise their

[43:57] hands and I'll promote them to a

[44:00] panelist so right now we have Megan that

[44:03] I promoted to a

[44:11] panelist and Zach

[44:28] and that appears like the two of them

[44:29] will be

[44:32] speaking so if you if you can both turn

[44:35] your camera on that way it just kind of

[44:37] speeds it up

[44:41] when okay the floor is

[44:45] yours how do we get multiple images here

[44:49] oh hold on one second what happened

[44:52] we're just we're just seeing all right

[44:54] yeah we're

[44:55] justy not the

[45:02] Buton there we

[45:09] go okay take it away

[45:11] Megan thank you so much Kelly um my name

[45:14] is Megan Hoy I work for bcra on behalf

[45:17] of the developer who's also here tonight

[45:19] to speak with you um I really don't have

[45:21] anything to add to this presentation I

[45:23] think that Kelly's done a great job of

[45:25] summarizing things and I won't take up

[45:27] any of your time um with redundancy so

[45:29] um if the developer would like to

[45:31] introduce himself we'd love to hear

[45:33] anything he has to

[45:43] saying another person

[46:00] hey there

[46:01] everybody Zach

[46:03] Baker on behalf of the developer uh I

[46:06] just want to thank you all for your time

[46:07] and consideration also big thanks to

[46:10] Kelly and the planning staff I know this

[46:12] is complicated one um and really

[46:15] appreciate you working through it with

[46:17] us and sticking with us um I'll just

[46:20] Echo uh Megan's comment that I think

[46:23] Kelly's presentation was very thorough

[46:25] and um I'll be mindful of your time and

[46:28] uh answer anything that you have

[46:30] questions on but we otherwise remain

[46:40] quiet anybody else on your presentation

[46:44] team I think it's pretty short and sweet

[46:47] unless you have

[46:48] questions no complaints here and they

[46:50] will have a chance to rebut anything as

[46:52] well

[46:55] um if you guys on your side do you guys

[46:57] have questions to them

[47:00] or not at the moment I don't see any

[47:02] okay Zach do you mind just um muting

[47:04] just so we don't get any background

[47:06] noise yeah you

[47:10] bet okay now we'll move into the public

[47:13] testimony uh portion and we will call

[47:16] for public testimony in three parts um

[47:20] I'll first ask for those who are in

[47:23] favor of the

[47:25] proposal and then we will

[47:27] um move to those who are not in favor or

[47:30] are against the proposal and there'll

[47:33] finally be opportunity for anybody who

[47:35] is neither for nor against just as a

[47:38] comment or an observation a kind of a

[47:41] neutral testimony area um keep in mind

[47:45] that it helps us most if you uh speak to

[47:50] code issues that we can address there's

[47:53] often there's always issues that our

[47:55] people's concerns that we cannot address

[47:58] in our decision

[48:01] making I will remind those who are on

[48:04] Zoom who are with us on Zoom that uh if

[48:07] you want to speak you can just H click

[48:10] the raised hand button and wait for uh

[48:14] Kelly to recognize you and if we have

[48:18] some we'll probably go let's just do we

[48:20] haven't done this before we'll go in the

[48:21] room and then to zoom and back and forth

[48:25] um to to keep it mixed out so you click

[48:28] the raised hand if you're on the

[48:30] telephone uh it's star9 that you'll

[48:33] effectively raise your hand and then

[48:35] wait to be

[48:36] recognized um so some of you that are on

[48:40] Zoom there may be a a lag for before you

[48:45] recognize while we give testimony

[48:47] opportunity people in the

[48:49] room

[48:51] so with all that said we'll move now to

[48:56] any public testimony who are in favor of

[48:59] the

[49:06] proposal and again name and

[49:09] address jury Jones 38330 South East

[49:13] Highway 211 which is um the property my

[49:17] wife and I bought the property 34 years

[49:20] ago we've been on that piece of property

[49:23] where the house is to remain we've lived

[49:25] in that house for 34 years raised our

[49:27] children all of that stuff there um

[49:30] we've been involved got involved in the

[49:33] whole bornstead

[49:35] village um thing went through a lot of

[49:38] issues I don't know if any of you were

[49:40] around I don't think you were Kelly when

[49:42] all that stuff was going on

[49:45] um had you know had our concerns then um

[49:51] and one of the one of the concerns that

[49:52] I had then that has popped its head up

[49:56] here a little bit you know I'm in favor

[49:57] of this we you know we need to you know

[50:00] we need to get this done move on um the governor's uh declared a 36,000

[50:06] housing unit goal per year I don't see

[50:10] how that's going to happen unless these

[50:11] type of developments happen in fairly

[50:14] quickly um but uh that Pine Street thing

[50:19] um back when that thing was first

[50:21] proposed I thought that it went away um

[50:24] one of the questions that I asked

[50:26] everybody the Planning Commission city

[50:28] council whatever is have any of you gone

[50:30] out and walked the site and the answer

[50:33] was no no one really had um I can tell

[50:37] you from experience that just pulling

[50:39] out on 211 is um you're taking your life

[50:43] in your hands especially right now uh

[50:46] police enforcement isn't what it used to

[50:48] be around there um but uh where Pine

[50:53] Street would come out on 211 I was kind

[50:55] of encouraged to here that the city's

[50:57] traffic engineer isn't recommending that

[51:00] it does so I guess my question would be

[51:03] why even have it just because code says

[51:06] that you got to have the thing there um

[51:08] doesn't make sense to me why it would

[51:10] have to be but um you know my

[51:14] recommendation is that this thing get

[51:16] moved and moved quickly um and uh we can uh plan our lives a little bit

[51:24] better that we've been in limbo for

[51:26] about the last 15 16 years um I know a

[51:29] lot of people have concerns about views

[51:32] this that traffic this that and the

[51:34] other thing well we've been through all

[51:35] that believe me our Mount Hood view has

[51:39] been gone with the town homes that were

[51:40] built you know we didn't like that but

[51:43] it happened so we um we just move on so

[51:48] with that again I recommend that you

[51:50] guys move this thing through as quickly

[51:52] as possible thank you thank you

[52:00] any

[52:01] electronic oh I'm

[52:04] sorry sometimes my mind forgets so

[52:06] that's we have both uh I don't see any

[52:08] hands

[52:12] raised all right well we will move on

[52:16] then to public

[52:18] testimony that is not in favor of the

[52:21] proposal and I want to give it a second

[52:24] or two for any online ones we can start

[52:27] there if you see any raised

[52:35] hands I do not sure okay then we'll go

[52:38] to the room any public testimony that

[52:41] are against the

[52:47] fo good evening um my name Roy Shelby my

[52:51] wife Judy and we're the one acre parcel

[52:55] that Kelly kind of alluded to that has

[52:58] all the road rideways kind of going

[52:59] through it our address is 38420

[53:02] Southeast Highway

[53:04] 211

[53:06] and

[53:07] overall got some notes Here overall

[53:11] we're really not objecting to the

[53:12] development of the site um one was our

[53:16] concerns you know were we not in favor

[53:19] of a big apartment complex coming next

[53:21] to us we'd rather see single housing

[53:23] units or something like that but looking

[53:25] through all the code Kell to it's very

[53:28] complex it takes a lot of time somebody

[53:30] who's not really familiar with the codes

[53:31] it's hard to pull all that information

[53:33] out so really we have no objections to

[53:36] any of the codes to the development as

[53:39] far as Department complex goes and all

[53:41] that that's going on out

[53:44] there all I ask is you know Zach and I

[53:48] in emailing back and forth KY might

[53:50] email back and forth all I asked is z

[53:54] Kelly or whoever be available if some

[53:56] concerns do come up when this does get

[53:58] developed and know if we're still living

[54:00] in that parcel that we have some people

[54:02] to be able to talk to about how to

[54:04] resolve issues so that's kind of where

[54:05] we're at and you know as you bring more

[54:09] people into a confined area Our concern

[54:11] is you know crime in the area whole city

[54:12] ordinances being violated we live next

[54:15] to the town homes there's lots of

[54:17] parking violations you can go out there

[54:19] and get parking violations every day out

[54:21] there you know so it's just those type

[54:24] of things and those type of issues you

[54:25] just want to are consum that we'll be

[54:27] able to have somebody divor to over all

[54:30] that I guess what our main objective to

[54:33] all this is our

[54:35] main thing that we want to allude to and look for the C commission to maybe

[54:41] do some amendment to is the Pine Street

[54:45] Road it's going going from Cascadia

[54:48] Village down to Highway 21 Kelly kind of

[54:51] modified that tonight kind of steal some

[54:53] of my

[54:54] thunder tonight that I that's our main

[54:58] contention is that Pine Street Road that

[55:00] Pine Street Road is right on our

[55:03] property

[55:04] boundary it's within three feet of my

[55:07] shop basically it's within 15 feet for S

[55:10] of by

[55:11] house and that's kind of where we would

[55:14] like to go if that Road's not going to

[55:16] be open why do we need to be building

[55:18] this right now why do if there's no real

[55:20] future the future of that road really

[55:23] depends on the development of my

[55:24] property and own and when you look at

[55:27] the road rways that are established on

[55:30] my property for any future

[55:33] development over a third of my 081 acres

[55:37] in Road rideways who's going to want to

[55:39] develop less than a half an acre and now

[55:43] Kelly alluded to they time to turn Pin

[55:45] Street down to gallway that just

[55:47] dissects in my property even more so why

[55:51] do we need to put that Pin Street Road

[55:53] in at this time even at this time it's

[55:55] only a half Road

[55:56] because the other half is IR marked on

[55:58] my property right away so our property

[56:01] right away

[56:02] so that's kind of what we want allude to

[56:04] you know part of the code that I was

[56:06] going to bring up tonight was the street

[56:08] requirements and and having the

[56:11] basically traffic analysis if they're

[56:14] bringing that out to Highway 211 I want

[56:17] to kind of brought up that you know

[56:20] that's a dangerous intersection you know

[56:22] it's it's gets tougher and tougher for

[56:24] us to get out of our driveways as it is

[56:25] right now

[56:26] and try to bring a street out right

[56:28] there I think would just you know you're

[56:31] setting yourself for another debarka

[56:33] scenario basically you're GNA have

[56:34] accident after accident with the speed

[56:36] that comes through there and with the

[56:38] sight variances you don't have a lot of

[56:40] sight distance the cures of the road and

[56:42] the hills of the road and stuff so so

[56:45] that was kind of part of my thunder and

[56:46] I was bringing out that code for Street

[56:49] requirements and stuff but it sounds

[56:51] like now that's being modified and not

[56:53] taken out to Highway 211 so it's a

[56:56] little bit of my thunder away so again

[56:58] they asked why do we need to build you

[57:00] know a couple hundred feet of Pine Road

[57:03] when it has

[57:04] no use at this time or possibly even

[57:07] future use like I say all your marks to

[57:10] the to our development of our

[57:15] property one of the other things I want

[57:17] to bring up is developing that road

[57:20] right away is taking out some basically

[57:23] five pretty good healthy looking trees

[57:25] and a green strip up and down that right

[57:29] away and I know the cities always want

[57:32] retain you know the large you know we

[57:34] got a couple 32 30 inch dug Furs a real

[57:37] nice silver maple bluk

[57:42] Spruce flowering cherry that's all being

[57:44] ear marked to be Reed you know you look

[57:46] at the plans on page

[57:48] three

[57:50] of forget which document is it's the

[57:53] plant overall plan document all those

[57:55] are being Mark to be filed and removed

[57:58] and we got these nice trees why do we

[58:01] need to remove these at this time you

[58:03] know again that's kind of our objection

[58:05] is is this road Pine Street Road if you

[58:08] look at all the setback

[58:10] requirements I couldn't build my shop in

[58:12] my house as close as what this road is

[58:14] going to approach on me so if I can't

[58:17] build there why does the city have the

[58:19] opportunity to approach on my property

[58:20] and my dwellings that's kind of where

[58:22] we're at and that's kind of the Thunder

[58:25] that we wanted to kind of promote out

[58:27] today

[58:31] so that pretty

[58:34] much says you know in

[58:37] summary that's pretty much what I've got

[58:39] I don't know if Kelly wants my write up

[58:41] or to put into the record or it's it's

[58:45] up to you if you want to enter it into

[58:46] the record or not I mean that's fine

[58:49] okay yeah well I got I got some pictures

[58:52] of the trees that are being forecast

[58:55] would be red body want to yeah we'll

[58:57] make an exhibit

[58:59] yeah thank

[59:04] you electronic hands pop up in the

[59:10] meantime you don't have many people on

[59:12] there so oh okay gosh dang it I'm sorry

[59:16] this computer uh no

[59:21] okay final opportunity for anybody in

[59:23] the room who's not in favor of The

[59:25] Proposal

[59:31] okay we'll move on to neutral testimony

[59:34] if you're neither for it or again it and

[59:39] uh we call them I call them fence Riders

[59:41] you just want to make a comment or you

[59:42] want to be on public Zoom tonight um

[59:46] how's your

[59:47] opportunity everybody wants to be on

[59:51] Zoom like we've never done that

[59:54] before I I I

[59:57] my neighbors all you will if you want to

[59:59] speak my neighbors all got notices I

[1:00:02] didn't get a notice and I and I don't

[1:00:03] know why I didn't get a notice I give us

[1:00:06] your name and your address oh my name my

[1:00:08] name is Jamie Grandy my address is 1

[1:00:10] 19019 Dublin M new Sandy and I found out

[1:00:15] about the Cascade treat through the city

[1:00:19] newsletter but I didn't get it I didn't

[1:00:21] get an official letter from anybody

[1:00:24] saying that where my neighbors all did

[1:00:26] so I don't know what happened there and

[1:00:28] I just think when I come out Cascadia

[1:00:31] Village last Friday night I counted 15

[1:00:35] cars before I could get out to 211 so

[1:00:37] what's going to happen when they put 78

[1:00:40] more units two cars per

[1:00:42] unit it's just people don't even want to

[1:00:45] come to Sandy anymore that I know

[1:00:48] because of the traffic and I just that's

[1:00:51] I don't understand what's going to

[1:00:52] happen to the park with 78 units and

[1:00:56] four people say per unit that's a lot

[1:00:59] more people at that Park that hasn't yet

[1:01:01] even been developed like the picture

[1:01:03] doesn't have a baseball field and um the

[1:01:07] house that's in the middle of that Park

[1:01:09] I heard was supposed to be for Sandy a

[1:01:12] recreation department and it's Sandy ran

[1:01:15] out of money is what I was told and now

[1:01:17] it's just a rental house in the middle

[1:01:19] of the park I just I don't understand

[1:01:22] some of the things that's going on I've

[1:01:24] never been to one of these meetings so a

[1:01:26] lot of it's way above my head but I'm

[1:01:28] just not very happy about this

[1:01:30] development and I know people need a

[1:01:32] place to live but the traffic is the

[1:01:35] main thing the amount of people that

[1:01:37] it's going to bring into that area is

[1:01:39] just incredible for everybody who lives

[1:01:42] around there in that beautiful Park and

[1:01:45] the Highway 211 is just going to get

[1:01:46] more dangerous so that's all I have to

[1:01:49] say thank you

[1:01:57] any last minute raised

[1:02:01] hands okay no we will move then to staff

[1:02:10] recap

[1:02:12] so I I agree with

[1:02:16] the uh both people that spoke both Jerry

[1:02:19] and Roy that bring Pine Street North out

[1:02:23] to Highway 211 is problematic

[1:02:26] um especially with the current rate of

[1:02:29] speed on Highway 211 if Highway 211 was

[1:02:34] reduced to probably 25 or 30 miles per

[1:02:37] hour and there was actual modifications

[1:02:41] to the road that actually forced people

[1:02:43] to go that

[1:02:44] speed then I think Pine Street coming

[1:02:47] out would would not be

[1:02:49] problematic um but do I I I do agree

[1:02:51] that it's very problematic with the

[1:02:53] current uh not just the Post-it speed

[1:02:55] but the travel speed which is two

[1:02:56] different things um I think we did a

[1:02:59] study on highway to1 west of our Letha a

[1:03:02] few years back and we were getting

[1:03:06] speeds in the mid 70s from some people

[1:03:10] um it's posted at 55 miles per hour um

[1:03:13] in the section that we did the speed

[1:03:15] study but people were traveling in the

[1:03:16] mid-70s not everybody but some people um

[1:03:20] so I I agree I I think it would be very

[1:03:22] problematic to extend Pine Street out to

[1:03:25] the highway

[1:03:28] the other part of that is an interesting

[1:03:30] question of what's the necessity to

[1:03:33] extend Pine Street at all north of

[1:03:35] casadia Village Drive and I think that's

[1:03:37] something that the

[1:03:39] commission um I think it's a good thing

[1:03:41] for the commission to talk about and

[1:03:43] analyze

[1:03:44] tonight I think for me personally if you

[1:03:48] decided not to extend the road at all

[1:03:51] North I think we should still

[1:03:54] require the right away dedication and

[1:03:57] the reason why is because this is our

[1:03:58] one and only time to get that rightaway

[1:04:01] dedication the block length I'm going

[1:04:03] all flip the camera so that Breezy can

[1:04:05] see

[1:04:06] this so the block length I'm try to draw

[1:04:10] this so the block

[1:04:12] length is one of my big potential issues

[1:04:17] so let's pretend this

[1:04:20] is you know this is paral

[1:04:23] three this is paral one and two this is

[1:04:27] Village Boulevard and this is Cascadia

[1:04:30] the problem is is that the distance from

[1:04:33] here all the way to that staircase that

[1:04:36] runs through off of gway street is

[1:04:39] somewhere down

[1:04:42] here and so if you don't have a road

[1:04:44] going through here at the very least we

[1:04:47] would want the

[1:04:48] sidewalk and Street trees and everything

[1:04:50] to be constructed in here so that

[1:04:53] pedestrians because there are quite a

[1:04:55] few people that walk down highway to 11 um which I know is

[1:04:59] dangerous but over time it'll be

[1:05:00] improved and I don't want to miss an

[1:05:02] opportunity to have the dings to be able

[1:05:04] to access through here from the highway

[1:05:07] so if you did decide to remove the

[1:05:08] asphalt

[1:05:10] section what I would encourage the

[1:05:12] commission is to still get the

[1:05:14] dedication and to still require the

[1:05:16] sidewalk and Street trees to go

[1:05:18] up um and the curb I would require the

[1:05:22] curb as well

[1:05:25] now if you don't want to require the

[1:05:28] asphalt I I can see arguments both ways

[1:05:32] um so gway Street here currently just

[1:05:35] dead

[1:05:39] ends I don't really know how it was

[1:05:42] designed in that way like I don't

[1:05:44] because

[1:05:45] typically I don't know with the parking

[1:05:48] that's along here I don't know how a fir

[1:05:50] truck I guess they would just had to

[1:05:52] back down yawe to get out typically in

[1:05:55] the state of organ and there's a at the

[1:05:56] end of streets there's like a hammerhead

[1:05:58] turnaround

[1:06:01] requirement something like that so a

[1:06:02] fire truck can turn around and a garbage

[1:06:05] truck and everything else however

[1:06:06] there's a house right here Mr Shelby's

[1:06:09] house so I understand why they didn't

[1:06:10] install this but I don't really know how

[1:06:12] that setup got approved in the first

[1:06:14] place so the benefit of bringing in a

[1:06:18] road would be that some point maybe it's

[1:06:21] 10 years maybe it's 30 years at some

[1:06:24] point this road is constructed to

[1:06:27] connect and maybe at that point this

[1:06:29] only becomes a a maybe this gets choked

[1:06:32] down to a one way because when they get

[1:06:34] out here as I said earlier you're only

[1:06:36] going to be able to go this way

[1:06:38] anyways so after a certain point it

[1:06:40] doesn't make sense to even have this be

[1:06:41] a

[1:06:42] two-way so you could have a one way the

[1:06:45] my only concern so this is totally up to

[1:06:47] the commission of course my only concern

[1:06:50] is if you don't pave this right now then

[1:06:53] the trigger for doing that going to be

[1:06:54] very difficult in the future with Cent

[1:06:56] current organ state

[1:06:58] law so the city would either be on the

[1:07:00] hook for doing that or potentially if

[1:07:03] this property was to be redeveloped Mr

[1:07:05] Shelby's property you might be able to

[1:07:07] make a justification of an off-site

[1:07:09] improvement and we' have them asphalted

[1:07:11] in but I'm just not sure if that would

[1:07:14] stand or not we can't require that money

[1:07:16] be set aside for

[1:07:18] it you could do that as well like aanl

[1:07:21] we have done that um

[1:07:25] it's it's been very Hit or Miss whether

[1:07:28] it's worked or not because typically

[1:07:29] what ends up happening is you collect it

[1:07:33] say in

[1:07:35] $223 and then it gets built in 2040 and

[1:07:39] the cost of the asphalt section is

[1:07:40] probably four times the amount or three

[1:07:42] times the amount or whatever it

[1:07:44] is um but that that's why I think at the

[1:07:47] very least you require the curb I mean

[1:07:51] I'm sorry the sidewalk the street trees

[1:07:53] and the curb right now

[1:07:56] is the curb the curb's going to be as

[1:07:58] much or more money than that asold in

[1:08:00] there right so at least you're kind of

[1:08:02] setting it up that in the future if we

[1:08:04] do decide to bring a road up you have

[1:08:06] all that taken care of and then either

[1:08:08] the city will be on the hook for that

[1:08:09] little amount of asphalt which is a ton

[1:08:12] it's not going to be a ton and if you

[1:08:13] did collect a fee and L we would at

[1:08:15] least the developer pay a portion of it

[1:08:18] right so it's not like the city would be

[1:08:20] all the way

[1:08:21] out um I I do give Mr Shelby's points

[1:08:25] you know know it is kind of a weird

[1:08:27] thing I would agree it's just this is

[1:08:30] our only time to legally collect the

[1:08:33] improvements and that's why we do it

[1:08:35] that's why in a lot of jurisdiction just

[1:08:37] so the public knows there's all these

[1:08:39] sidewalks to nowhere and I agree it

[1:08:41] looks absurd right but if you don't

[1:08:43] require it at time of development then

[1:08:45] who's going to pay for the sidewalk the

[1:08:47] taxpayers so or gas tax or any other tax

[1:08:51] mechanism but it's you and I paying for

[1:08:53] it instead of the development that's

[1:08:54] going in and that's why there's random

[1:08:56] sidewalks everywhere in different towns

[1:08:58] all over the state of Oregon because

[1:09:00] that's the one and only time you really

[1:09:02] have to have the developer install

[1:09:05] it um I only had a few other things here

[1:09:08] the code compliance issues um as I said

[1:09:11] earlier tonight we are going to be

[1:09:12] getting a second code enforcement

[1:09:14] officer and one house under myself so

[1:09:17] hopefully it probably won't alleviate

[1:09:19] all the code concerns but hopefully it

[1:09:21] helps um TR retention I would you know I

[1:09:24] would agree that if you decide to just

[1:09:26] have a fee and L paid for that asphalt

[1:09:28] it will some trees can be saved for now

[1:09:30] and maybe if the road never goes through

[1:09:32] they'll be saved then

[1:09:33] too the notice I don't know why uh there

[1:09:38] wasn't a notice then you know the notice

[1:09:40] the labels are from a title

[1:09:43] company and they just come to us we

[1:09:45] don't create the notice list so I I

[1:09:48] don't know what the problem is there you

[1:09:50] might want to contact the County tax

[1:09:52] assessor because the County tax assessor

[1:09:54] is where the

[1:09:56] uh title company gets their labels from

[1:09:58] so you might you might want to just call

[1:10:00] over there and then the one the last

[1:10:02] thing I will point out is that if this

[1:10:04] development is to go

[1:10:05] through um I would agree bornstead

[1:10:08] Park's never been built to its full

[1:10:10] vision the one nice thing about if this

[1:10:12] development does go through is we would

[1:10:14] collect F around a half million dollars

[1:10:16] in Parks

[1:10:17] sdc's which my hope would be that at

[1:10:19] least some of those would be put towards

[1:10:21] additional upgrades to that Park so

[1:10:26] and I I think that's all I

[1:10:31] had all right thank you now we'll give

[1:10:35] the uh applicant opportunity for any

[1:10:38] rebuttal that

[1:10:41] um you may have response to any of the

[1:10:44] testimony

[1:10:55] they're all

[1:10:57] um I don't see anybody's

[1:11:01] camera okay Megan you can go ahead and

[1:11:04] speak if you would like you want to turn

[1:11:06] your camera on there there you go I

[1:11:09] don't have any Ruttle unless the client

[1:11:11] would like to add anything at this

[1:11:16] time no I think I'm I'm good um I guess

[1:11:20] I would just Echo um what Kelly

[1:11:24] mentioned

[1:11:25] uh that there's Parks uh fees to be

[1:11:28] collected as well as um you know the the

[1:11:31] obvious benefits of uh kind of cleaning

[1:11:34] up some of the roadway improvements

[1:11:36] around um Cascadia Village Drive and and

[1:11:40] bornstead park making those more

[1:11:42] accessible for um fire trucks or

[1:11:44] emergency vehicles or just general use

[1:11:46] by the public so um appreciate

[1:11:49] everybody's comments um definitely

[1:11:52] taking notes on the feedback thank you

[1:11:56] okay thank

[1:11:59] you all right

[1:12:01] um we will if it's okay we keep the

[1:12:05] public hearing open in case we have any

[1:12:08] questions of Zach but for the public

[1:12:11] either online or in the room here the

[1:12:14] opportunity for public testimony is now

[1:12:16] uh closed and uh we will go into our

[1:12:20] discussion and just for your own

[1:12:24] information we could technically close

[1:12:26] the public hearing but if in the course

[1:12:29] of our discussion we had one simple

[1:12:31] question to the

[1:12:33] developer um or the applicant such as

[1:12:37] what's the color going to be of such and

[1:12:39] such a building we have to reopen the

[1:12:41] public hearing ask the question get the

[1:12:44] response of blue and then make a motion

[1:12:47] and close the public hearing so um our

[1:12:50] practice has been for years to keep it

[1:12:52] open just so we can talk to the

[1:12:55] applicant uh ourselves if the need

[1:12:58] arises and somebody just needs to remind

[1:13:01] me to make sure we remember to

[1:13:02] eventually at some point close public

[1:13:05] hearing

[1:13:07] so questions

[1:13:10] comments um any any slides that you want

[1:13:13] to see back

[1:13:15] up yes I have a question for Kelly um

[1:13:19] given the impact on the neighborhood is

[1:13:21] there any way to require that those Park

[1:13:27] funds substantial portion of them at

[1:13:29] least be dedicated to the park in the

[1:13:32] same

[1:13:37] area I don't think so that's a really

[1:13:41] good question so

[1:13:43] the parks fees are calculated by an SDC

[1:13:48] methodology that's put together some

[1:13:51] cities have decided to make

[1:13:55] certain like so there'd be a map in

[1:13:57] different areas of the Town depending on

[1:13:59] where the fee or tax is collected from

[1:14:02] it would be used on parks in that area

[1:14:04] of town our Parks methodology associated

[1:14:08] with the parks master plan doesn't get

[1:14:09] that specific so they can be used

[1:14:12] anywhere in town so I don't think in the

[1:14:15] final decision we could probably put it

[1:14:17] in there but I I think the Planning

[1:14:20] Commission could let the city council

[1:14:23] know that they would like

[1:14:25] a decent percent or a certain percentage

[1:14:27] to potentially be used at that park I

[1:14:30] think that would be fine but I think

[1:14:33] tying it in the decision I don't I don't

[1:14:36] know if our City attorney has any

[1:14:38] concerns about that I just I do that's

[1:14:41] the first I've heard of that question

[1:14:43] it's a good one I just don't know if I

[1:14:44] have an answer Josh do you want to

[1:14:46] comment on

[1:14:48] that hey Kelly I I signal dropped for a

[1:14:51] second there can you repeat what the

[1:14:53] question was

[1:14:55] it was can we condition that the parks

[1:14:59] sdc's that are collected with this

[1:15:02] development can we condition that a

[1:15:04] portion of them

[1:15:06] or most of them somewhere in there go

[1:15:09] towards furthering development of warud

[1:15:12] Park which is adjacent to this

[1:15:15] property right so that would be outside

[1:15:17] the scope of this decision um how those

[1:15:21] SDC funds are spent as a city council

[1:15:23] decision

[1:15:27] part of their budgetary Authority so it

[1:15:29] could be outside this decision but as I

[1:15:31] said the Planning Commission could

[1:15:32] certainly talk to the council about that

[1:15:34] right or or make a separate

[1:15:35] recommendation or something like that

[1:15:38] absolutely but not part of this

[1:15:40] decision and there is a counselor CH how

[1:15:43] would we make that separate

[1:15:44] recommendation would it just being in

[1:15:46] the record of tonight's

[1:15:48] meeting as a recommendation to the city

[1:15:50] council be

[1:15:52] considered you could do that um you

[1:15:56] could pass a motion separately making

[1:15:58] that recommendation formally or you

[1:16:00] could just ask your city council

[1:16:02] representative to carry that message

[1:16:04] forward to the city

[1:16:07] council you have one in the

[1:16:11] room for what it's worth in the Parks

[1:16:14] Trails Advisory Board letter they did

[1:16:17] also support the exploration of uh

[1:16:20] adding to phase two right

[1:16:27] one one comment that occurred to me when

[1:16:29] Kelly was doing um and this is for more

[1:16:33] of the public than ourselves uh but

[1:16:36] doing the little uh diagram and thank

[1:16:38] you so much for that Kelly of Pine

[1:16:41] Street and

[1:16:43] saying this is our opportunity to put

[1:16:46] the sidewalk and the curb

[1:16:49] in some might say well why not leave it

[1:16:53] off and when the dev Vel oper comes to

[1:16:55] do that little thing make them do it but

[1:16:59] correct me if I'm wrong that's not their

[1:17:02] property so it would be more difficult

[1:17:05] for us although it can to make the ones

[1:17:09] that do the the extension of gallway to

[1:17:13] do the whole thing legally that that's

[1:17:16] correct I mean any any improvements that

[1:17:19] we don't require at this time as uh

[1:17:23] commissioner Wagner said we could do a

[1:17:24] feel move but any improvements you don't

[1:17:27] do then we in in the future would have

[1:17:29] to through a what's called a

[1:17:31] proportionality test show that these

[1:17:34] improvements are proportional to this

[1:17:36] development now my one thing I would

[1:17:38] caution with that is this development

[1:17:40] site as Mr Shelby pointed out is rather

[1:17:42] small so I think it would be hard to say

[1:17:44] too much too many offset improvements I

[1:17:48] don't think you could put too many on

[1:17:49] this site to be honest so I think it's

[1:17:52] uh you could certainly do that I think

[1:17:55] it's just a it's just a risk right uh

[1:17:58] that the city might end up paying more

[1:18:00] out of pocket to complete the

[1:18:03] [Music]

[1:18:07] improvements any um there's three or

[1:18:10] four

[1:18:11] variances we are need

[1:18:13] to um consider

[1:18:17] tonight any questions concerns on any of

[1:18:20] those from

[1:18:23] anybody you understand what they are

[1:18:28] about and um any any concerns or

[1:18:32] questions with the staff report that

[1:18:35] gave the uh rationale for the

[1:18:39] recommendation I don't have but the VAR

[1:18:42] I did have a separate question okay far

[1:18:45] away um my question is for Kelly it

[1:18:48] involves uh the recreation kind of space

[1:18:52] and um

[1:18:55] I mean it's not so much I guess a

[1:18:56] concern with this particular property

[1:18:57] but maybe others that have the same

[1:18:59] thing is how uh it can be kind of bummed

[1:19:04] onto a separate zone for instance this

[1:19:06] one it carries over into that kind of

[1:19:08] little bit of R1 Zone um as she

[1:19:10] mentioned at the beginning kind of the

[1:19:12] idea behind the commercial density

[1:19:15] requirements was that you know you'd

[1:19:17] have these Recreation spaces these

[1:19:19] setbacks that were required but then if

[1:19:20] you can just kind of bump that to

[1:19:22] another property you know to another

[1:19:24] Zone

[1:19:25] um how does that kind of work because

[1:19:27] you're no longer controlling the density

[1:19:29] then I think the codee's silent on it be

[1:19:32] honest um as you probably noticed in the

[1:19:35] staff report one of the code Provisions

[1:19:38] is to legally tie parcel two and parcel

[1:19:42] three together through a covenant and

[1:19:45] the two main reasons are so that the

[1:19:48] parking and access that's all kind of

[1:19:51] shared amongst all these buildings and

[1:19:52] then the the recreation right is

[1:19:55] what I mean it's a good question um I

[1:19:59] don't know if I dove into a deep

[1:20:00] analysis of that but I do believe the

[1:20:01] code silent on it you know because I'm

[1:20:03] just thinking down the line you have a

[1:20:05] property that's you know half C3 and

[1:20:07] half R1 you just will load C3 up with

[1:20:10] whatever you want and then you know

[1:20:12] you're GNA go yeah no I get your point I

[1:20:15] think I think that's one of the reasons

[1:20:16] why we need to have a density standard

[1:20:18] in C3 I would say on this one if they

[1:20:21] did lose or if they did add more

[1:20:23] Recreation are area to paral 2 and

[1:20:28] potentially they lost a few

[1:20:30] units uh they could add more units to

[1:20:33] parcel 3 down below sure I me there's

[1:20:37] lots of extra room on parel corre kind

[1:20:39] of move it around and it makes sense so

[1:20:40] I'm not like really arguing it with this

[1:20:42] one I was just to kind of Crea a

[1:20:44] curiosity for me no I totally get it and

[1:20:45] I think it's a great question I think

[1:20:47] it's something we need to dive deeper

[1:20:48] into in the code um I do think in this

[1:20:52] circumstance it you know having a little

[1:20:55] bit less density on the property to the

[1:20:57] south of Cascadia Village Drive I

[1:20:59] think for the most part's probably a

[1:21:02] good thing um just having a little bit

[1:21:04] lower along the park there

[1:21:07] yeah thank you but yeah it's a it's a

[1:21:09] great question I think it's something we

[1:21:11] need to look into

[1:21:16] more okay any any what are thoughts on

[1:21:20] what to do with uh Pine Street as as it

[1:21:23] stands

[1:21:26] um what are the conditions for that area

[1:21:29] Kelly I don't have a mem the the drawing

[1:21:32] that you gave with the city Engineers

[1:21:34] comments in the red markings is that

[1:21:39] um has that been transferred into the

[1:21:42] conditions the what I showed on the

[1:21:45] PowerPoint yes yes that's what it that's

[1:21:48] how it's written up in the findings and

[1:21:50] conditions okay so what I what I

[1:21:51] recommended in the in the in the

[1:21:54] findings and conditions is that this

[1:21:56] section of Pine Street that ties into

[1:21:59] 211 that that's all

[1:22:01] removed and that they just had this

[1:22:04] section of asphalt for now and then

[1:22:06] these improvements continue up and then

[1:22:10] you know Pine Street was shown as

[1:22:12] opening up to the highway so with

[1:22:14] removal of that I was recommending that

[1:22:16] these you know the sidewalk and Street

[1:22:18] tree improvements on the highway

[1:22:20] continue

[1:22:21] [Music]

[1:22:23] across and that's the way it is in the in the

[1:22:27] recommended staff report now if you were

[1:22:29] to remove this or change this into fan l

[1:22:32] or something obviously that would have

[1:22:34] to be changed and that's just speaking

[1:22:36] primarily to the

[1:22:38] S I mean you could do it to the curb as

[1:22:41] well I but then that would cancel the

[1:22:44] curb all the way up probably yeah and

[1:22:47] that's going to be as expensive or more

[1:22:49] than the asold um I I think if we didn't

[1:22:52] require the sidewalk from Gia Village to

[1:22:55] highway

[1:22:56] to1 I think technically we'd be looking

[1:22:58] at another variance

[1:23:01] because you know from here to these

[1:23:04] staircases we wouldn't have a pedestrian

[1:23:06] amenities for that whole

[1:23:08] section um so I I definitely would

[1:23:11] recommend putting in the stairs in the

[1:23:12] trees through there I mean the the

[1:23:14] sidewalk in the trees and then the curb

[1:23:16] and asphalt that could be done through a

[1:23:19] f l or one or the

[1:23:22] other I would be if favor of going all

[1:23:25] the way to the curb and

[1:23:29] the the curb and sidewalk curb sidewalk

[1:23:34] trees the only way into it just a minute

[1:23:37] ma'am ma'am we're we're close to public

[1:23:40] comment from out there sorry sorry I

[1:23:43] didn't make that

[1:23:45] clear um

[1:23:47] okay and I I would agree with that as

[1:23:50] well and also continuing the sidewalk to

[1:23:54] 11 across right and that's in the the

[1:23:58] conditions that's currently in your

[1:24:00] conditions

[1:24:02] yes changing this to I would have to

[1:24:05] modify those that's the only the only

[1:24:08] change to the condition would be the Fe

[1:24:10] and mo because you have in the

[1:24:13] conditions a sidewalk and the

[1:24:15] curve going all the

[1:24:18] way I have in the conditions yes that

[1:24:21] the curb goes all the way to Highway to1

[1:24:24] with oh wait I don't think that is in

[1:24:26] there so you would be modifying as well

[1:24:28] okay well that so just just to specify

[1:24:32] the

[1:24:34] curb this is the curb would only really

[1:24:37] need to go to essentially the north side

[1:24:41] of that street coming in so this is

[1:24:44] where gets this is where it gets very

[1:24:45] complicated right

[1:24:47] because curve yeah like commissioner

[1:24:50] Wagner just said the curve only needs to

[1:24:52] be here right

[1:24:54] yeah but do we really want to put the

[1:24:57] curve on the curve it's just going to be

[1:24:59] floating out there and no I

[1:25:01] think do you not want to put the curve

[1:25:03] you know I don't know like where do you

[1:25:05] stop it you just go like up to there

[1:25:08] because you don't need a curb above that

[1:25:11] well how about I would be in favor of

[1:25:14] the curb all the way up to the sidewalk

[1:25:17] with the idea being that it could not

[1:25:20] develop for 20 years right and by that

[1:25:22] time 211 could have been approved point

[1:25:24] where it can still potentially connect

[1:25:27] right so you'd be doing curb up to here

[1:25:30] yeah I mean and then no asphalt no

[1:25:35] asphalt not knowing what the future of

[1:25:38] 21 looks like not knowing what the

[1:25:39] future of that tree looks

[1:25:42] like curb and sidewalk and trees yeah

[1:25:46] and

[1:25:46] trees I mean the one nice thing about

[1:25:49] that feature is this area that's the

[1:25:51] trees and the lands it would be kind of

[1:25:53] it be contained more

[1:25:57] mhm yeah that was that's what I was

[1:25:59] thinking because eventually there would

[1:26:00] be a park strip so the

[1:26:04] sidewalk if if if a road went through oh

[1:26:08] there would be a park

[1:26:10] strip I

[1:26:12] mean I think this is kind of the best

[1:26:14] from like a planning perspective this is

[1:26:16] giving you the most

[1:26:17] flexibility you're sending the curve up

[1:26:20] and then this might get put in someday

[1:26:22] or maybe it will go all the way through

[1:26:23] or maybe never none of it will

[1:26:26] happen either way at least we have

[1:26:27] pedestrian access and for

[1:26:31] whatever yeah so it would be curb park

[1:26:33] strip with trees

[1:26:35] sidewalk going east and

[1:26:38] west and

[1:26:40] then payment in Li of to do the black

[1:26:43] top portion when that road

[1:26:46] comes for the section for the curve

[1:26:48] probably yeah right and it would just um

[1:26:54] it would just be a matter

[1:26:58] of yeah there would be on the North side

[1:27:01] there would be a funny thing where

[1:27:03] you've got a curve going straight up to

[1:27:06] separate off the park strip

[1:27:10] right or hit the sidewalk does it hit

[1:27:13] the sidewalk right yeah it would just go

[1:27:15] up to the back of sidewalk on

[1:27:18] 21 oh there would be no curb with the

[1:27:21] park strip or no so a yeah the

[1:27:25] crosssection would be

[1:27:28] a be a 5 foot side

[1:27:32] walk so it would be five

[1:27:36] feet and then you'd have Street

[1:27:40] trees and then you'd have a

[1:27:43] curb and then this area in the RightWay

[1:27:46] would just be undeveloped for now right

[1:27:48] and then along highway to

[1:27:52] 11 and this walk it would just go like

[1:27:55] that and so this sidewalk would go to

[1:27:57] that sidewalk but this curb would just

[1:27:59] dead into the it would just terminate

[1:28:01] into the back of

[1:28:02] sidewalk yeah should be a little odd

[1:28:04] looking but it wouldn't be I don't right

[1:28:07] I don't think it's that big of a deal

[1:28:08] person it contains the sidewalk it makes

[1:28:10] it pretty with trees and all

[1:28:13] and makes

[1:28:15] sense I mean I think it makes

[1:28:17] maintenance a lot easier because like

[1:28:18] say this is bar chipped and everything

[1:28:20] it just something just kind of go out I

[1:28:22] don't know it just gives it delineates

[1:28:24] the space for it right I

[1:28:27] agree keeps the erosion down and off for

[1:28:30] the

[1:28:32] trees is that what we're thinking we got

[1:28:34] it understood because Kelly's gonna have

[1:28:37] to put in writing well that's why I

[1:28:43] was so the fee and L of is to cover the um asphalt and

[1:28:54] any changing to the curve because

[1:28:55] there'd be some curving on that

[1:28:57] curvature on their

[1:29:01] property I think we probably have to

[1:29:03] just eat it I agree yeah I don't know

[1:29:07] how I would even but I think that's

[1:29:09] worth the

[1:29:10] flexibility yep I

[1:29:13] agree

[1:29:18] okay before I forget somebody close the

[1:29:20] public motion we close public second

[1:29:24] been moved in second and Clos public

[1:29:26] hearing at

[1:29:27] 7:59 all in favor say hi hi hi hi hi I I

[1:29:32] see that eye czy

[1:29:35] um okay any

[1:29:39] other Jam I just have a minor one that I

[1:29:42] had mentioned to Kelly and that's on um

[1:29:45] number 59 it talks about uh proofing

[1:29:48] could include or should include wood

[1:29:51] shingle as well as composition and other

[1:29:54] things and given our

[1:29:56] Wildfire discussion and Hazard policy

[1:30:00] for the city um I think that we probably

[1:30:03] should remove the um wood shingle

[1:30:08] groving maybe not only from here but

[1:30:11] discuss in the future about removing it

[1:30:13] from the entire ordinance was that on on

[1:30:17] page 59 no it's number 59 and it's on

[1:30:22] page 21

[1:30:25] I went looking for it and I couldn't

[1:30:27] find it in the conditions so it's not oh

[1:30:31] okay there we are that's where we saw

[1:30:35] that's just a a minor piece compared to

[1:30:39] the yeah and so commissioner Lee um it

[1:30:43] was it was removed

[1:30:46] from the I2 and I3 zones by the city

[1:30:51] council passing that ordinance for the

[1:30:52] modifications to that but it is still

[1:30:55] technically allowed in a few of our

[1:30:56] other zones but yeah if you changed it

[1:30:59] you could even change the condition to

[1:31:01] explicitly say no shingle no wood

[1:31:03] shingle

[1:31:05] permitted um and I do agree I think

[1:31:08] working on the Oregon wildfire task

[1:31:09] force I don't even think you're gonna be

[1:31:11] able to do wood chingles in Oregon

[1:31:12] pretty

[1:31:14] soon so really all

[1:31:16] that you have inold the applicant shall

[1:31:19] revise the elevations to detail the

[1:31:21] shingles as architectural gr

[1:31:25] sh so we

[1:31:27] just you're saying we need to add

[1:31:30] something that says that it can't

[1:31:32] be uh

[1:31:34] wood because the first statement just

[1:31:37] says that it requires them to be wood or

[1:31:39] architectural which is one of the the

[1:31:42] conditions that already

[1:31:47] Crossing I think you could add some I

[1:31:49] could add some additional Clarity to it

[1:31:50] though well you can't remove the wood

[1:31:52] shingles from the first part because that's just that's just saying

[1:31:56] what the code says right right and the

[1:31:57] developer has offered an alternative and we're just saying now they have to

[1:32:02] be architectural not three right but if

[1:32:06] you want to add something he could add

[1:32:09] something that just says and oh by the

[1:32:11] way they can't be

[1:32:13] wood but that's not what they're

[1:32:17] proposing it's just more of a future yes definitely

[1:32:30] okay what are we forgetting

[1:32:35] Kelly got the I mean anything that

[1:32:41] you I mean I don't know it's 66 pages

[1:32:44] long I you know if you saw anything else

[1:32:45] that I was 68 oh was 68 oh because the

[1:32:49] two yeah it is

[1:32:52] 68 you know to to be honest I without

[1:32:55] having any other planners on staff right

[1:32:57] now

[1:32:58] it's uh Emily was gracious enough to

[1:33:02] take a look at it for me just for edits

[1:33:04] and she did catch a few errors that I

[1:33:06] had in there

[1:33:08] um so I don't think there's any in there

[1:33:13] but I'll look through it again when it

[1:33:15] before we do the final order and before

[1:33:16] you sign it I've just got a couple Tyles

[1:33:18] I'll give you

[1:33:20] afterwards okay I mean if you want to

[1:33:22] give them to me now just I can get them

[1:33:24] in there for you okay I mean these are

[1:33:27] just from appr Creator on page

[1:33:30] 16 number

[1:33:32] 29 finding

[1:33:49] 29 okay

[1:33:57] it's different than the one I have

[1:33:59] written in section page 16 no I'm on 13

[1:34:03] come on Jerry get to

[1:34:09] 16

[1:34:13] um section 17

[1:34:16] 5450 where am I

[1:34:19] going

[1:34:21] 5450 is it where it says carriers yes

[1:34:25] okay got it you got that one

[1:34:28] yes and

[1:34:31] um

[1:34:32] then I had on page

[1:34:37] 33 I know what it was what it is is the

[1:34:40] pages in the document are not

[1:34:41] necessarily the pages on the

[1:34:46] uh up

[1:34:48] here 3311

[1:34:53] kind of in

[1:34:56] the fourth line from the bottom oh no

[1:35:00] that's just how I copied

[1:35:03] it says it says but turning movements do

[1:35:06] not met the minimum valume

[1:35:11] okay yeah it's right

[1:35:14] there about five six lines above the

[1:35:17] letter

[1:35:20] A I mean anybody reading it would have

[1:35:22] understood what was being

[1:35:25] said okay I don't know that we need to

[1:35:29] labor it any further sorry one last

[1:35:31] question sure um are all planned uh

[1:35:36] retention trees and uh medication trees

[1:35:39] planned for uh Parcels two and

[1:35:49] three basically I'm asking if they put

[1:35:51] them on one and they sold off

[1:35:54] are they eventually going to get toward

[1:35:56] him the answer would be no because there

[1:35:58] would be a restrictive covenant that

[1:36:00] runs with the land that's recorded and

[1:36:02] then that would be on the

[1:36:04] title so they could they could propose

[1:36:06] someone one if they want but they'll it

[1:36:08] will tie up the future development of

[1:36:10] that

[1:36:11] property which maybe they're not

[1:36:13] concerned about I'm not I'm not sure so

[1:36:16] the the um proposal did have quite a few

[1:36:19] mitigation trees already I think it said

[1:36:22] in the STA report how many but I think

[1:36:23] they need to add another 30 or so yeah

[1:36:25] kind like some B correct so yeah they might want to put some of them on

[1:36:30] person

[1:36:32] one but yes in the city of Sandy we

[1:36:34] started about 12 13 years ago recording

[1:36:37] restrictive covenants that are then tied

[1:36:40] to the property and so even when they

[1:36:42] sell they're tied to the

[1:36:48] title all right and we need a motion it

[1:36:51] sounds like to accept it based on the of

[1:36:54] facts the conditions of approval with

[1:36:59] our modifications regarding Pin

[1:37:04] Street well I'll make an attempt here uh

[1:37:07] chair I move that we approve file number

[1:37:10] 22039 uh along with the four variants

[1:37:13] with the conditions noted in the staff

[1:37:16] report and changes noted by you as well

[1:37:20] as um our adjustments noted to require

[1:37:24] curve trees and

[1:37:27] sidewalk with a field Mo for the

[1:37:34] asphalt and think that's

[1:37:38] it I would second motion okay it's been

[1:37:42] moved and seconded to approve file 22-

[1:37:46] 039 based on everything that Darren

[1:37:50] said we will go to a roll call

[1:37:53] [Music]

[1:37:57] vote okay commissioner

[1:38:02] pullan agree

[1:38:06] um commissioner wager yes commissioner

[1:38:11] Lee wayenberg

[1:38:13] Yes commissioner Rams yes and Cher

[1:38:17] Crosby yes motion carries

[1:38:25] and do we since we have our leas on in

[1:38:29] the

[1:38:29] room you heard our comments we'll just

[1:38:33] about the park fees yeah I was just

[1:38:36] going to ask a question do you want to

[1:38:37] give a an allocated percentage or want

[1:38:39] just say

[1:38:47] significant significant is kind of

[1:38:50] subjective depending on What's

[1:38:52] significant to you or what ific to me

[1:38:54] yes that's right and we're in the era of

[1:38:57] clear and

[1:39:00] [Music]

[1:39:01] objective I I although personally I hate

[1:39:04] to put it like a percentage because that

[1:39:07] really locks it in you can't go one up

[1:39:10] one% up can't go 1% down although here's

[1:39:13] what we can do we can we can message the

[1:39:17] counsil our preference of a percentage

[1:39:20] and let them take care of how specific

[1:39:24] they want to get if they if they even

[1:39:27] want to pass their own resolution or

[1:39:30] something I was thinking we could slide

[1:39:31] also say between this percent and this

[1:39:34] percent and kind of give a range and

[1:39:36] it's kind of the same thing you just

[1:39:38] said but you know kind of narrow it down

[1:39:40] a little bit to what we would hope for

[1:39:43] and and give a little bit of

[1:39:45] objectiveness there what would be a what

[1:39:48] you all think it my problem is I don't

[1:39:50] know how much the things cost for a park

[1:39:54] you know why it would be added too for

[1:39:56] other sure but like I mean I would like

[1:39:59] enough percentage to get something

[1:40:01] done right right is it just going to sit

[1:40:04] there for the next 10 years waiting for

[1:40:06] more money to do something right and

[1:40:08] that we don't

[1:40:10] know and there's there's no way that we

[1:40:12] would know tonight that anybody may

[1:40:18] know we could do something like saying

[1:40:20] at least half of it or at least three

[1:40:22] qus of it or something like that

[1:40:24] majority the ear marked I think is is a

[1:40:28] good term to use I like something like

[1:40:30] with majority with want to see maor

[1:40:33] improvements then it would have to be at

[1:40:35] least 51% yeah to

[1:40:40] be okay please do something with this

[1:40:43] then let's let's do this so it goes on

[1:40:45] record and and

[1:40:47] U they can go to the council as we did

[1:40:51] this we passed the

[1:40:53] resolution or a vote or something so if

[1:40:56] somebody would um put that in the words

[1:40:59] just that the majority of the do you

[1:41:03] want to do a motion

[1:41:05] yes the majority of

[1:41:08] the not sdc's it would be the park

[1:41:11] what's the official word no it would be

[1:41:13] the parks sdc's the parks sdc's that's

[1:41:16] correct that the majority of them be

[1:41:18] used within bornstead Park

[1:41:24] okay there we go again uh chair I move

[1:41:27] that uh we make a recommendation to city

[1:41:29] council that the majority of the Parks

[1:41:32] sdcs from the C Mi use development uh be

[1:41:35] used for improvements at for Park I

[1:41:39] say that was perfect we'll just do a a

[1:41:43] voice Voice vote all in favor say I any

[1:41:49] opposed motion carries it's in the

[1:41:52] record so you have an official document

[1:41:54] you to them if

[1:41:58] not anything else

[1:42:02] otherwise we are a

[1:42:08] Jour thanks everybody thank you thanks

[1:42:10] for coming we do appreciate all the

[1:42:13] thank you for your my hands are clamming

[1:42:15] sorry that's all right

[1:42:21] [Music]

Planning Commission - 26 Jun 2023

Transcript