enjoyed it when we did it but the kids
were
over all
right we will call the meeting to
order this is the monthly meeting of the
Planning Commission of the city of
Sandy this is Monday June 26
2023 we're beginning the meeting on time
at 6:30 this meeting is in hybrid uh
fashion uh in person and online I'll
give uh instructions later on when the
time comes as to how people who are
online can uh give
testimony so let's find out who's here
with a roll call okay I'm gonna start
with commissioner
pulan here commissioner Wagner here
commissioner Lee Weinberg here
commissioner Ramer here
chair Crosby here and also joining us
online just so you're aware of who's on
there is our City attorney and Josh soer
and our executive assistant who is
taking minutes Rebecca Markham and then
you do have some other people uh on the
attendee list as well
okay I was going to ask you if you were
the one taking the notes uh no Rebecca
is taking the notes from home all right
okay speaking of notes
we did have in our packet the minutes
from our last meeting May 22
2023 uh any additions changes
Corrections that would need to be
noted okay I don't see anything so we
will consider those minutes as approved
as
presented and on all of our meetings we
give opportunity at the beginning for
anybody in the public to um speak to the
Planning Commission on any topic that is
not on the agenda
tonight and um that is the time now if
you are online on Zoom to participate
you click the raise hand button and wait
for Kelly to recognize you if you're on
the telephone you dial Star n and same
thing wait to to be recognized if you um
doing it that way or if you are speaking
here we ask that here in the room come
to the podium and state your name and
your address for the record so this is
the opportunity for just general
requests comments from the floor to the
Planning Commission on anything not on
tonight's
[Music]
agenda okay I don't see anything we have
one little item item of um housekeeping
to take care
of um Stephen hook who was our vice
chair as you all heard St had to step
down from the Planning Commission
because of a new job that conflicted
with Monday meetings so we need to I
need to hear any nominations or
suggestions for a vice chair this
position role will last will go until
the end of the year here because we we
re renominate first I would self
nominate
okay that is commissioner Lee has thrown
her hat
in anybody else have a suggestion or an
idea
or okay it is
quiet it out the contest yeah I don't know if that needs a a first and
a second I think it'd be best to have a
motion just for the record so we'll take
yours as a nomin as a first I'd be happy
to second okay and we have a second for
uh commissioner Lee to be the vice chair
and we'll just do a voice Vote or a
thumbs up on camera so all in favor say
I I I and a thumbs up and the
opposed all right so that's five zero
we have an August meeting here
on I'm not I'm not
here all right
uh Mr city council Li
on you we're just so used to having you
speak that uh you want me to get up
there well if you if if you have any any
particular comments from city council
that we need you think we should be
aware of the only thing that I would add
to the the meeting minut that um the the
park park is campus you know the P track
the
skateboard it closed and we did have bid
a bid on it so that's I mean that was
big news because you know we allocated a
lot of money to build that part and we
put it out for nomination for RP and and
it went out and we had people B on it so
that closed and there should be some
exciting news you know about that it's
going to be a long process but I was
excited when I saw that representation
and then other than that we had the
longest day Parkway event just last week
at at the bo park by Smash pad I think
we had about 350 people show up I mean
it was pretty big success and over 300
hot dogs
so pretty excited so other than that um
there was a fatality on the corner over
here I think that was it last night on
211 and
Pioneer
so a tragic accident they ran into the
corner do an investigation on that so
that's really all the news I have
okay thank you very
much all right we'll move on to the
director's report it was in our pocket
so Kelly you can add to elaborate or ask
the questions whatever yeah I'm going to
try to do some fancier camera angles
tonight when I speak for longer like
this and during the presentation so
we'll see if I'm successful on it so
it's showing me now instead of
youas um yeah the main the main few
things I would like to let everybody
know is the city council did pass the
Bal budget for the next two years and we
will be filling two positions one of
which has
already um been posted on the city
website and at different websites for
basically planners that they go to um
like the organ APA and the Washington
APA so we're hopeful that we'll get that
filled within a couple months and then
we're working on um finalizing the job
description for a new code enforcement
specialist so traditionally in the city
of Sandy over the last probably 3040
years there's been one code enforcement
officer and that person's been stationed
out of the police department um that
code enforcement officer has been very
helpful to City Hall and to the
department I oversee and public works
but the city has just gotten too large
and there's not we basically need
another person to assist and so what
we're going to be doing is creating two
different positions one of which is
going to stay in the police department
and focus more on police Centric items
like noise complaints
dogs um stolen vehicles illegally parked
vehicles um things that would
traditionally be taken care of by a
police department and the other position
is going to be focused more on things in
the development services and Public
Works realm such as um sidewalk issues
Street tree damage sign violations
building code violations um and so on so
they're going to be kind of divided up
and then our plan's going to be over
this summer to create a really robust
web page uh with all the information on
it that depending on what your um
complaint or inquiry is that this is who
you contact so it's very clearly
delineated on the website
um and one of the main reasons we
decided that it was you know that we
approached it that way is because the
police department and you know the
lieutenants insurgents and chief over
there really specialize
in police violations and the people in
our department specialize more in
development code violations so both the
police chief and myself thought it was
best if we had two different officers
reporting to the two different
departments so that's an interesting
update um a small update on the sanitary
sewer moratory
the city entered into a consent degree
so basically a settlement Court
settlement with EPA and DQ we're hopeful
that will be signed by the judge um in
July I believe and then we repealed and
replaced moratorium 1.0 is what I'm kind
of calling it uh that was established on
October 3rd
2022 and we replaced it with a new
moratorium that does allow for some
additional land use applications to be
submitted and also for more building
permits to be issued is basically the
main thrust of that
change um and then the stress test is
all been completed out at the sewer
treatment plant and we're hopeful that
the results will be done probably late
summer and then it'll have to be
analyzed by both the city's engineering
firm that we've hired and also by the
EPA and DQ so we're hopeful that
sometime in the spring it'll be agreed
upon how much additional capacity
basically we opened up with all the
sewer treatment plant and sewer pipe
lateral improvements we've done around
town um the upcoming meetings there'll
be no meeting in July we're going to
take that month off and there might be
on August 14th and then there definitely
will be on September
25th I won't go into the applications a
note just because you're all familiar
with those I believe and I just wanted
to kind of give a small update on those within uh the director
report the clear and objective audit I
believe most of you are aware of what's
going on with that there was a work
session um last week on that and the tsp
was adopted last Tuesday so that's a big
move that's uh been a document that
we've been preparing and moving forward
on for I believe three and a half years
with our engineering firm and ODOT and
so that's complete and adopted and then
I just included a bunch of um
information on comprehensive plan
Outreach we'll be doing over the summer
and then also the additional Outreach
and feedback we're going to be looking
for in Block two uh which is mainly
focused around natural hazards and parks
of
recreation so oh and then the last thing
which I said I was going to update you
on is with uh commissioner hook stepping
down from the commission um we did post
I believe it was last week the opening
for the Planning Commission so I think
that'll open for two weeks I
believe and then we're going to move on
it pretty quickly
there's I believe mid July there'll be a
meeting with any of the applicants that
are the finalists and I believe
commissioner Wagner will be serving that
role assisting three different city
councilors with selecting somebody to
then be brought forward as a potential
appointment before the city council so
hopefully we'll have somebody new in
that role
um I would think by August would be my
hope so it's pretty pretty quick
turnaround actually so I think think
that's what I had for you okay you had mentioned something about update
on legislation oh yes sure that might be
informative to us yeah yesterday was the
last day of the legislative session
there was a bill on the floor that would
have allowed any property to be exempt
from the ugb and to move forward with
development so there was quite a concern
whether that would pass or not it felled
by one vote because the Republicans had
five people that didn't show up for the
meetings so we missed we dodged that
bullet but there's another bill House
Bill 3395 that I sent to Kelly some info
about but what it does is it changes
some of the regulations for affordable
housing um it has new process for citing
Emergency Shelters um new regulations
for planned communities and for single
room occupancy
residency and reduces some barriers in
planning regulations but there will be
some grants from the state for some of
that
work lots of stuff to come and and just
so you know we'll we'll be trying to
address as much House Bill andca Bill
Provisions as possible with the curent
objective audit but um I would say over
the last three years or so the state's
been moving so fast on bills that it's
very likely that we'll get done with the
audit uh this winter and then have to
make additional code edits soon
thereafter I'm I'm almost positive that
will happen it's just the legislature is
moving very quickly on landuse bills
and our attorney can give a better
rendition of this no I think that was
very well
done all right anybody have questions
for
Kelly very well then we have one public
hearing
tonight which we will and again I will
be given instructions to those
online for testimony and when we get to
that point so I will open the public
hearing at
6:44 Kelly there I don't see a file
number yeah I forgot to put it on there
so we'll just call it the it is the
Cascade Creek mixed use
development you have a number I'll write
yeah hold on one second sorry I noticed
that today that I forgot to put it on
the
agenda it's on H3 oh my computer's going
really
[Music]
slow it's land use file number
22- z39 drmp V
tree okay we will just call it 22- 039
file I will Begin by calling for any
abstentions from anybody on the planning
commission okay I see nothing any
conflicts of interest tocl
anybody okay nothing
seen uh any expar contact including any
site
visits Park uh this week it was a Jer
okay
all right did anybody look at it on
Google
Earth no I think tell team I've been
putting those images right into the
staff report which has been helpful
yeah okay and I'll call for any
challenges to the members of the hearing
body the Planning
Commission all right if you testify
tonight you must raise all issues you
wish to address at this
hearing if your issue is not raised at
this hearing you may not be able to
raise it later in any
appeal your comments should State why
the application should or should not be
approved or include your proposed
modifications you believe are necessary
for approval according to the
standards if you do not raise specific
issues at the final evidentiary hearing
or by close of the record or fail to
provide statements or evidence to allow
the local government or its designate to
respond to the issue you will not be
able to appeal the decision to the land
use board of appeals based on that
particular
issue any party May request that the
hearing be continued to a later date or
that the record remain open after the
hearing is
closed failure of the applicant to raise
constitutional or other issues relating
to the proposed conditions of approval
with sufficient specificity to allow the
local government or its designate to
respond to the issue precludes an action
for damages in Circuit
Court we will move to the staff
report okay
second it presenting on your y oh there
it goes I think it's just such a big
file
okay so this is going to be somewhat of
a longer presentation than I typically
give just because it's a pretty complex
land use application as you saw in the
staff report I believe it's 66 pages
long um so as you're going through that
staff report and this for the public as
well what I would mainly what I would
recommend concentrating the most on is
anywhere that there's bolted text
because that's anything that we're
recommending a condition on and then
also anywhere in the document where it
analyzes something met a criteria or not
because those those are the things that
you can either approve or reject an
application based
on so th those would be the two things I
would focus in on the most uh for
anybody that's looking at that document
because I do realize 66 pages of text is
difficult to look
through so I will try to summarize the
main points in about 25 slides
here so as you'll see on this first map
um this is the vicinity map the property
in red is where the development site is
located it's southa Highway 211 East the
village west of Pine and north of
bornstead Park so as you can see in the
upper leftand corner North is pointing
up on the
screen I'm not going to go over all
these but this is another point that I
wanted to make related to the first
point that I just made a minute ago is
that when you're looking at a
development site of this size also in
the Barnstead Village overlay this is
how many different code chapters that I
reviewed while making the staff report
so this is one of the reasons why it's
complex and the staff report is very
large is because there's a lot of codes
to look
at and this was this was in the public
notice and the legal notice that we put
out so this is again just some
information on sent notice uh the
transmitt on the first line items just
to other agencies uh both internal to
the city and external like PGE or OD do
uh I just wanted to put some dates on
here showing that we met our code
required noticing for both to the
neighborhood in the legal uh section of
the of the Sandy post and also on the
city's Facebook
account I did want to also mention that
this application is not affected by the
moratorium and the reason why is because
it was filed in September of
2022 before the effective date on
October 3rd so if this if this
application would have been filed on
October 4th of
2022 we would have denied it outright
and said that because there's a
moratorium in effect uh we can't take
the application for processing however
that's not the case uh it's basically
what orgon calls the go goal post rule
so they submitted it prior to that
resolution being effective in the city
of Sandy so it cannot be used for our
analysis just to remind everybody the
proposals for 78 multif family
residential units and 10 office spaces
one of the existing houses on the site
will be demolished and the other
existing house will remain I think
they're going to fix it up and have a
new driveway access from the south and
close the two driveway accesses along
Highway uh
211 the four buildings to the south of
where cascad Village Drive will go
through which I'll show in a few minutes
here those will all contain multif
family residential buildings the two
North will contain residential on the
upper
floors um and a mix of mixed juice
office on the ground floor with some uh
dwelling units on the ground floor as
well and then this is is very important
to note a lot of what kind of made the
layout decisions in this development are
related to Cascadia Village Drive being
extended East to West Village Drive
being extended North to South Pine
Street being extended North up into the
development site and the Highway 211
improvements and driveway um removals
that occurred along Highway 21 so th
this development
site in some senses was already kind of
laid out for the applicant in that they
had very little ability to change the
layout of Cascadia Village Pine Street
or Village basically they had no ability
to change those so what you see on the
proposal is pretty much uh the
development layout that any developer
would have proposed on this
site the zoning and acreage so there are
three zones low density residential
which we call R1 medium density
residential which we call R2 and
commercial which is C3 and then there's
an overlay which is the bornstead
village overlay so that kind of adds
additional complexity and scrutiny on
the
application the acreage was 8.83 acres
is what the total site acreage is 1.88
Acres would be dedicated for RightWay
which is roads essentially and that
would leave us with 6.95 nit Acres which
is the development
site so I'm not going to like go through
every bit of this slide but basically it
lays out in those three different zones
what the different densities
are uh for the top one low density
residential there's only 023 acres and
there's no new dwellings being proposed
in that land the medium density which is
R2 is
3.95 which allows for a maximum of 55
dwelling units per the development code
the applicant is proposing 46 so about
nine less than could be allowed if they
wanted to go with a higher density
The Village commercial interestingly
enough doesn't have a density range for
residential
development it never has since I've
worked here in 12 years and I I think
when it was created in 1997 it was never
given a density at that time as
well and it's something I would I would
recommend rectifying in the future but
for now this is what we're stuck with um
so what they're proposing 32 dwelling
units and the one existing house to
remain this is somewhat controlled
though because there are standards such
as height
setbacks parking Landscaping minimum so
it's not like you could just go with
unlimited density because of the other
uh restrictions within the development
code so it's the bottom line is it's meeting the oops it's meeting the
allowable uses which is multif family
and office on the C3 land and it's
meeting the density ranges for all three
zones The Proposal
is the right now there's two lots which
run kind of north to south so they run
from Highway 211 down to
bornstead one of the code Provisions is
once you put a RightWay through a
property you have to partition it um one
of the other complexities is I think
they were trying to clean up the
property line so there was no property
line running through any building which
is a violation of the organ plumbing
code so now instead of two properties
running north to south there's three
properties that are running more
horizontal east to west and they're
labeled here so everybody can kind of
see
that and just to orient everybody
Village Boulevard's on the left hand
side of the screen so that's the road
going north to south and Cascadia
Village drives kind of bisecting the
property and then Pine streets on the
East end or the East kind of edge of the
property here's the site plan
showing all of the buildings so in total
there's six buildings the one existing
house to remain at the
top um it's
showing a bunch of roads and Road
improvements being put in uh 1.88 Acres
of that so it's it's quite a bit of
roads going
in um several hundred parking spaces and
also a lot of landscaping the
Landscaping is in the Civil plan set
that's in the packet but I did not
include it in my
slideshow they're also proposing some
large recreational
areas uh north of bnet Park heavily
treed so there's if you look at the tree
plan it's heavily treed along the South
property line there and then they're
also proposing some different Recreation
areas both on the southern part of the
property south of Cascadia Village Drive
and on the North part of the property
north of that um and that's required by
the development code that when you have
over I believe it's five multif family
housing units you have to provide
recreational area for of 200 square feet
per dwelling unit so it' be 200 square
feet times
78 and then in addition to that you also
just have to provide other Landscaping
as the code lays
out so there requesting some variances
this
one this one's not of their making it's
just because of how the roads are
already laid out uh Pine Street has to
go north from its current Terminus for
the code provisions and then Pine Street
North which is on the upper hand here of
the screen that's shown in the bornstead
village plan going out to the highway
however as you've probably seen in the
staff report our city transportation
engineer is not recommending that that
goes all the way through um because they
don't want basically another access
point out to the highway instead there
we recommending that it turns over to
gway and I'll show that in a few slides
here um but this variance is basically a
request does my cursor work no of course
it
doesn't so what the request is is that
it's less than 150 feet from Pine Street
North above cascaded Village Drive it's
less than 150 feet horizontally over to
Pine Street South like I said I don't we
have I evaluated it I don't think
there's any other way to design
it another variance which is not of the
applicants making really either and I
think that's why I'm recommending
approval of this this is for Block
length and it's basically a request to
exceed the 400 foot block length from
Cascadia Village Drive to Sequoia Street
which is the street just south of Barnet
Park um there's really no way not to
exceed this uh the city doesn't want
another park at the North Terminus of
bnad Park we talked about it pretty
extensively recently with the parks
department um so the applicant was
pretty much stuck with just putting it
just having a block link that exceeds
400 feet so we're recommending approval
of that variance as well
and as you and as you can I don't know
if you can really see on this one the
applicant is proposing a pedestrian
cross through from Cascadia Village down
to Barnstead Park and that would be a
public eement bisecting the LA block
there this is another variance I think
you're very familiar with this people
that have been on the commission for a
while um have seen this a lot so it's
obviously something in our code that we
need to
change uh
we just approved this for stage Street
homes um a month or two ago and this is
the provision
to uh reduce the offsets along a
building to less than eight feet every
20 feet so I think I think we've
approved it pretty much every time it's
been requested because nobody is
building
it to these Dimensions at this point in
time so it's it's a I I would argue it's
a code provision that we need to change
on our end because we haven't seen a
multif family housing project in
probably at least my 12 years here that
has actually been able to meet this code
provision and still
build to kind of
the what I would say is kind of
the current style of Garden Apartments
that we're seeing around in Sandy I
haven't seen anybody be able to meet
this standard yet so that's what that is
it's an offset standard
this is another one that we get a lot um
and in this case I think it's pretty
valid this is a tree variance request um
sometimes there's a lot of healthy trees
on sites and we still see this request
in this case uh their arborous evaluated
all the trees and then we had our third
party arborus that works for the city
evaluated
also our third party Arbor said there's
only four to six healthy trees most of
the trees on the north end of that
property
are actually in a pretty bad state of
Decline and he was recommending the
majority of them not be retained there
are some trees that were decently
healthy uh north of the property but
those are in the right right away right
where the sidewalk and all the Highway
21 improvements need to go in so those
need to be removed so we're also
recommending approval of this variants I
will say though I'm recommending 93 to
97 mitigation trees are planted
um which if you look at the landscape
plan the majority of those would be
planted along the southern Edge uh on
the
park so this is this one's kind of a
complex one I'll just say that up front
here this is the RightWay modifications
that our city traffic engineer and
myself were
recommending so as I as I said we're not
recommending Pine Street to go all the
way through to Highway 211 we're
recommending that it starts the turn and
go to gway so that there's a connection
there in the
future we're recommending that we the
city conditions that the asphalt north
of that's removed but that the RightWay
dedication stays intact and we sell a we
sell have Street trees and a sidewalk
that goes up to
211 with that change we would be
recommending extending the curb and
planner strip and sidewalk on highway to
11 East to the project boundary
we would also be recommending narrowing
the medians on both Cascadia Village
Drive and Village Boulevard to provide
for on street parking on both sides of
the road um the these streets that are
being proposed by the applicant they're
too narrow to provide on street parking
and also fire apparatus access so right
now with what they're being proposed at
you wouldn't have on street parking
anywhere on Cascadia Village or Village
but what I'm recommending and Public
Works is in agreement is that we'd like
to see the medians decrease in width on
those two streets and then on street
parking along the frontage of both these roads that are being
sold the other thing that's nice for the
city is a 20 foot median is actually
very expensive to maintain it's just a
ton of weed pulling and maintenance
costs so going down to a 91 foot median
still allows for the trees uh but it
gives it a more realistic maintenance of
that median as
well the really complex issue here is
what we're going to do with Pine
Street South and the recommendation from
our traffic engineer is to install
ballards for the time being to block any
vehicles that are trying to go east from
the development side on Cascadia Village
so right now you'd be able to use Pine
Street North
if you lived in the subdivisions to the
east of this development site but people
coming in and out of this development
site would not be able to travel east on
Cascadia Village Drive the main reason
for that
is because they this you I'll just point
it out here it's very
complex this property owner that's
developing doesn't own this acre here
and there's no way that they can force
anybody to dedicate right away they
already talked them so this section
here will remain private property and so
there's not enough room basically to
have two-way traffic going through here
without that little piece of land so for
the time being you would install
ballards here and here this could still
be used for like bikes and stuff through
here and at some point when this is
widened then there would be traffic
through both
ways this would also be blocked for now
because it's going to be too narrow and
there's not going to be anywhere to go
um but we we always recommend and
require that the asal's put in the
development because otherwise there's no
other way to really require in the
future of the
vul at some point when this goes through
what we have plann on doing is this
median will be extended all the way to
here and so if you were to come north
here you could go around the median and
go west
down but it what would restrict is that
anybody coming south down here would
have to turn this way it's basically
trying to put less impact down to this neighborhood here by the design
that we're trying to put forward and
then eventually you would be able to go
east on Cascadia out
Ro hopefully that makes
sense there's a bunch of findings and
conditions on it I just want to kind of
draw it out for you tonight because I
think it's really complex to
explain the other two here
um oh man those turned out really small
so the one on the on the left hand side
that's just basically showing narrowing
that median down uh as I already said
and then on the east or on the on the
right hand side of the page
here it's showing a small off-site
sidewalk connection to connect it to a
gravel pathway in bad Park and that was
requested uh verbally by both the public
works department and the parks and and wck department and then the other
last thing here is adding additional
asphalt um to the southern Terminus of
Cascadia Village and the main reason for
that is so that fire trucks and dump
trucks and mail delivery and all and
school buses can all turn around down
there is the reason
why so I'm just going to Rifle through
these pretty quickly this is building a
in the design on that um as you'll see
in the staff report there's some
conditions to add some additional supp
Al design elements on this building
especially facing out to Village
Boulevard and this is north of
Cascadia this one's also north of
Cascadia uh to the east of building
a this is Building C to the south of
Cascadia building
D Building
E and building
F so as you'll see
uh five of the buildings are three
stories and one of the buildings
building a is the only four-story
building being
proposed so this is the only four-story
building oh man what's going on with
this
slideshow sorry about
that that's only four story building the
rests are three and then building I
think it's
c is kind of a day it it gives the
appearance from the uphill side of being
somewhat of a daylight basement on the
one side so it's two stories basically
on the one side and then three stories
on the other so the South elevation
facing the park appears to be it is two
stories and then as you go down the hill
it begins to be
three and again these meet all the uh
development code setbacks and height
standards
okay so last couple slides here sorry
it's taking so long um the the the the
proposals meeting the development codes
Criterion for partition for design
review for density for
height the only thing it's really not
meeting for the most part are those four
variances as I covered um and then
there's a lot of what I would
consider design or landscaping or
parking deficiencies or RightWay
deficiencies they're not anything that
would TP be typical of denial for the
proposal they would just be conditioned
to be modified and so that's what's in
the packet tonight is I think 11 pages
of conditions of
if you were to approve the application
here's 11 pages of changes and
conditions that will be that I would
recommend tying to the approval so a few
of the few a few of the major goals
consistent with the long-range planning
objectives I just like to remind
everybody of
these is the widening of Village
Boulevard Cascadia Village Drive being
extended through were both in the 2011
transportation system plan they were
also in the one that we just adopted the
other night although that's not
applicable to this application they're
also both in the bnad village overlay
plan and so is Pine Street extending
North this development I'm recommending
to pay a proportional share fee and this
was recommended by our transportation
engineer uh the council would recall
this I'm not sure if the Planning
Commission remembers this or not but
with bu the approval of Bull Run tffs
recently this proportional share fee was
charged on that development as well and
basically what it's saying is that these
developments are causing additional
traffic or trips to board to to Barco
Road and Highway 211 and therefore they
have to mitigate that by paying an
off-site fee and so the fee for this
development would be 347,000
uh with Cascadia Village Drive
concurrent with the bbo and it's also
fulfilling the housing needs as
identified in the urbanization study
that was adopted in
2015 um so with that like I said I from
you know my job at the city is to work
with applicants developers and try to
find the best outcome possible um I will
say that this developers has done a
pretty good job of doing that their
original site layouts and U the items
that they submitted to us at the prea
and in even after we worked with them
pretty pretty earnestly to get those
modified so that they would be meeting
our
code um as I
said from a planning perspective it's
pretty much meeting the code except for
those few variances and if if it is
approved with those variances and the
long list the conditions that I'm
recommending um I would recommend
approval
so with that I will stop sharing the
screen I'm G to turn the camera
back okay any immediate questions for
Kelly if you uh there we go okay
yeah all right right now we'll move on
to the applicant
presentation and uh while we can't see
you yet let you know that you will have
20 minutes to
uh make your presentation and as for
everybody uh remember to give us your
name and your address for whoever uh
speaks and chair I'm going to be
promoting anybody on the applicant team
that wants to have a speaking role
during the presentation will raise their
hands and I'll promote them to a
panelist so right now we have Megan that
I promoted to a
panelist and Zach
and that appears like the two of them
will be
speaking so if you if you can both turn
your camera on that way it just kind of
speeds it up
when okay the floor is
yours how do we get multiple images here
oh hold on one second what happened
we're just we're just seeing all right
yeah we're
justy not the
Buton there we
go okay take it away
Megan thank you so much Kelly um my name
is Megan Hoy I work for bcra on behalf
of the developer who's also here tonight
to speak with you um I really don't have
anything to add to this presentation I
think that Kelly's done a great job of
summarizing things and I won't take up
any of your time um with redundancy so
um if the developer would like to
introduce himself we'd love to hear
anything he has to
saying another person
hey there
everybody Zach
Baker on behalf of the developer uh I
just want to thank you all for your time
and consideration also big thanks to
Kelly and the planning staff I know this
is complicated one um and really
appreciate you working through it with
us and sticking with us um I'll just
Echo uh Megan's comment that I think
Kelly's presentation was very thorough
and um I'll be mindful of your time and
uh answer anything that you have
questions on but we otherwise remain
quiet anybody else on your presentation
team I think it's pretty short and sweet
unless you have
questions no complaints here and they
will have a chance to rebut anything as
well
um if you guys on your side do you guys
have questions to them
or not at the moment I don't see any
okay Zach do you mind just um muting
just so we don't get any background
noise yeah you
bet okay now we'll move into the public
testimony uh portion and we will call
for public testimony in three parts um
I'll first ask for those who are in
favor of the
proposal and then we will
um move to those who are not in favor or
are against the proposal and there'll
finally be opportunity for anybody who
is neither for nor against just as a
comment or an observation a kind of a
neutral testimony area um keep in mind
that it helps us most if you uh speak to
code issues that we can address there's
often there's always issues that our
people's concerns that we cannot address
in our decision
making I will remind those who are on
Zoom who are with us on Zoom that uh if
you want to speak you can just H click
the raised hand button and wait for uh
Kelly to recognize you and if we have
some we'll probably go let's just do we
haven't done this before we'll go in the
room and then to zoom and back and forth
um to to keep it mixed out so you click
the raised hand if you're on the
telephone uh it's star9 that you'll
effectively raise your hand and then
wait to be
recognized um so some of you that are on
Zoom there may be a a lag for before you
recognize while we give testimony
opportunity people in the
room
so with all that said we'll move now to
any public testimony who are in favor of
the
proposal and again name and
address jury Jones 38330 South East
Highway 211 which is um the property my
wife and I bought the property 34 years
ago we've been on that piece of property
where the house is to remain we've lived
in that house for 34 years raised our
children all of that stuff there um
we've been involved got involved in the
whole bornstead
village um thing went through a lot of
issues I don't know if any of you were
around I don't think you were Kelly when
all that stuff was going on
um had you know had our concerns then um
and one of the one of the concerns that
I had then that has popped its head up
here a little bit you know I'm in favor
of this we you know we need to you know
we need to get this done move on um the governor's uh declared a 36,000
housing unit goal per year I don't see
how that's going to happen unless these
type of developments happen in fairly
quickly um but uh that Pine Street thing
um back when that thing was first
proposed I thought that it went away um
one of the questions that I asked
everybody the Planning Commission city
council whatever is have any of you gone
out and walked the site and the answer
was no no one really had um I can tell
you from experience that just pulling
out on 211 is um you're taking your life
in your hands especially right now uh
police enforcement isn't what it used to
be around there um but uh where Pine
Street would come out on 211 I was kind
of encouraged to here that the city's
traffic engineer isn't recommending that
it does so I guess my question would be
why even have it just because code says
that you got to have the thing there um
doesn't make sense to me why it would
have to be but um you know my
recommendation is that this thing get
moved and moved quickly um and uh we can uh plan our lives a little bit
better that we've been in limbo for
about the last 15 16 years um I know a
lot of people have concerns about views
this that traffic this that and the
other thing well we've been through all
that believe me our Mount Hood view has
been gone with the town homes that were
built you know we didn't like that but
it happened so we um we just move on so
with that again I recommend that you
guys move this thing through as quickly
as possible thank you thank you
any
electronic oh I'm
sorry sometimes my mind forgets so
that's we have both uh I don't see any
hands
raised all right well we will move on
then to public
testimony that is not in favor of the
proposal and I want to give it a second
or two for any online ones we can start
there if you see any raised
hands I do not sure okay then we'll go
to the room any public testimony that
are against the
fo good evening um my name Roy Shelby my
wife Judy and we're the one acre parcel
that Kelly kind of alluded to that has
all the road rideways kind of going
through it our address is 38420
Southeast Highway
211
and
overall got some notes Here overall
we're really not objecting to the
development of the site um one was our
concerns you know were we not in favor
of a big apartment complex coming next
to us we'd rather see single housing
units or something like that but looking
through all the code Kell to it's very
complex it takes a lot of time somebody
who's not really familiar with the codes
it's hard to pull all that information
out so really we have no objections to
any of the codes to the development as
far as Department complex goes and all
that that's going on out
there all I ask is you know Zach and I
in emailing back and forth KY might
email back and forth all I asked is z
Kelly or whoever be available if some
concerns do come up when this does get
developed and know if we're still living
in that parcel that we have some people
to be able to talk to about how to
resolve issues so that's kind of where
we're at and you know as you bring more
people into a confined area Our concern
is you know crime in the area whole city
ordinances being violated we live next
to the town homes there's lots of
parking violations you can go out there
and get parking violations every day out
there you know so it's just those type
of things and those type of issues you
just want to are consum that we'll be
able to have somebody divor to over all
that I guess what our main objective to
all this is our
main thing that we want to allude to and look for the C commission to maybe
do some amendment to is the Pine Street
Road it's going going from Cascadia
Village down to Highway 21 Kelly kind of
modified that tonight kind of steal some
of my
thunder tonight that I that's our main
contention is that Pine Street Road that
Pine Street Road is right on our
property
boundary it's within three feet of my
shop basically it's within 15 feet for S
of by
house and that's kind of where we would
like to go if that Road's not going to
be open why do we need to be building
this right now why do if there's no real
future the future of that road really
depends on the development of my
property and own and when you look at
the road rways that are established on
my property for any future
development over a third of my 081 acres
in Road rideways who's going to want to
develop less than a half an acre and now
Kelly alluded to they time to turn Pin
Street down to gallway that just
dissects in my property even more so why
do we need to put that Pin Street Road
in at this time even at this time it's
only a half Road
because the other half is IR marked on
my property right away so our property
right away
so that's kind of what we want allude to
you know part of the code that I was
going to bring up tonight was the street
requirements and and having the
basically traffic analysis if they're
bringing that out to Highway 211 I want
to kind of brought up that you know
that's a dangerous intersection you know
it's it's gets tougher and tougher for
us to get out of our driveways as it is
right now
and try to bring a street out right
there I think would just you know you're
setting yourself for another debarka
scenario basically you're GNA have
accident after accident with the speed
that comes through there and with the
sight variances you don't have a lot of
sight distance the cures of the road and
the hills of the road and stuff so so
that was kind of part of my thunder and
I was bringing out that code for Street
requirements and stuff but it sounds
like now that's being modified and not
taken out to Highway 211 so it's a
little bit of my thunder away so again
they asked why do we need to build you
know a couple hundred feet of Pine Road
when it has
no use at this time or possibly even
future use like I say all your marks to
the to our development of our
property one of the other things I want
to bring up is developing that road
right away is taking out some basically
five pretty good healthy looking trees
and a green strip up and down that right
away and I know the cities always want
retain you know the large you know we
got a couple 32 30 inch dug Furs a real
nice silver maple bluk
Spruce flowering cherry that's all being
ear marked to be Reed you know you look
at the plans on page
three
of forget which document is it's the
plant overall plan document all those
are being Mark to be filed and removed
and we got these nice trees why do we
need to remove these at this time you
know again that's kind of our objection
is is this road Pine Street Road if you
look at all the setback
requirements I couldn't build my shop in
my house as close as what this road is
going to approach on me so if I can't
build there why does the city have the
opportunity to approach on my property
and my dwellings that's kind of where
we're at and that's kind of the Thunder
that we wanted to kind of promote out
today
so that pretty
much says you know in
summary that's pretty much what I've got
I don't know if Kelly wants my write up
or to put into the record or it's it's
up to you if you want to enter it into
the record or not I mean that's fine
okay yeah well I got I got some pictures
of the trees that are being forecast
would be red body want to yeah we'll
make an exhibit
yeah thank
you electronic hands pop up in the
meantime you don't have many people on
there so oh okay gosh dang it I'm sorry
this computer uh no
okay final opportunity for anybody in
the room who's not in favor of The
Proposal
okay we'll move on to neutral testimony
if you're neither for it or again it and
uh we call them I call them fence Riders
you just want to make a comment or you
want to be on public Zoom tonight um
how's your
opportunity everybody wants to be on
Zoom like we've never done that
before I I I
my neighbors all you will if you want to
speak my neighbors all got notices I
didn't get a notice and I and I don't
know why I didn't get a notice I give us
your name and your address oh my name my
name is Jamie Grandy my address is 1
19019 Dublin M new Sandy and I found out
about the Cascade treat through the city
newsletter but I didn't get it I didn't
get an official letter from anybody
saying that where my neighbors all did
so I don't know what happened there and
I just think when I come out Cascadia
Village last Friday night I counted 15
cars before I could get out to 211 so
what's going to happen when they put 78
more units two cars per
unit it's just people don't even want to
come to Sandy anymore that I know
because of the traffic and I just that's
I don't understand what's going to
happen to the park with 78 units and
four people say per unit that's a lot
more people at that Park that hasn't yet
even been developed like the picture
doesn't have a baseball field and um the
house that's in the middle of that Park
I heard was supposed to be for Sandy a
recreation department and it's Sandy ran
out of money is what I was told and now
it's just a rental house in the middle
of the park I just I don't understand
some of the things that's going on I've
never been to one of these meetings so a
lot of it's way above my head but I'm
just not very happy about this
development and I know people need a
place to live but the traffic is the
main thing the amount of people that
it's going to bring into that area is
just incredible for everybody who lives
around there in that beautiful Park and
the Highway 211 is just going to get
more dangerous so that's all I have to
say thank you
any last minute raised
hands okay no we will move then to staff
recap
so I I agree with
the uh both people that spoke both Jerry
and Roy that bring Pine Street North out
to Highway 211 is problematic
um especially with the current rate of
speed on Highway 211 if Highway 211 was
reduced to probably 25 or 30 miles per
hour and there was actual modifications
to the road that actually forced people
to go that
speed then I think Pine Street coming
out would would not be
problematic um but do I I I do agree
that it's very problematic with the
current uh not just the Post-it speed
but the travel speed which is two
different things um I think we did a
study on highway to1 west of our Letha a
few years back and we were getting
speeds in the mid 70s from some people
um it's posted at 55 miles per hour um
in the section that we did the speed
study but people were traveling in the
mid-70s not everybody but some people um
so I I agree I I think it would be very
problematic to extend Pine Street out to
the highway
the other part of that is an interesting
question of what's the necessity to
extend Pine Street at all north of
casadia Village Drive and I think that's
something that the
commission um I think it's a good thing
for the commission to talk about and
analyze
tonight I think for me personally if you
decided not to extend the road at all
North I think we should still
require the right away dedication and
the reason why is because this is our
one and only time to get that rightaway
dedication the block length I'm going
all flip the camera so that Breezy can
see
this so the block length I'm try to draw
this so the block
length is one of my big potential issues
so let's pretend this
is you know this is paral
three this is paral one and two this is
Village Boulevard and this is Cascadia
the problem is is that the distance from
here all the way to that staircase that
runs through off of gway street is
somewhere down
here and so if you don't have a road
going through here at the very least we
would want the
sidewalk and Street trees and everything
to be constructed in here so that
pedestrians because there are quite a
few people that walk down highway to 11 um which I know is
dangerous but over time it'll be
improved and I don't want to miss an
opportunity to have the dings to be able
to access through here from the highway
so if you did decide to remove the
asphalt
section what I would encourage the
commission is to still get the
dedication and to still require the
sidewalk and Street trees to go
up um and the curb I would require the
curb as well
now if you don't want to require the
asphalt I I can see arguments both ways
um so gway Street here currently just
dead
ends I don't really know how it was
designed in that way like I don't
because
typically I don't know with the parking
that's along here I don't know how a fir
truck I guess they would just had to
back down yawe to get out typically in
the state of organ and there's a at the
end of streets there's like a hammerhead
turnaround
requirement something like that so a
fire truck can turn around and a garbage
truck and everything else however
there's a house right here Mr Shelby's
house so I understand why they didn't
install this but I don't really know how
that setup got approved in the first
place so the benefit of bringing in a
road would be that some point maybe it's
10 years maybe it's 30 years at some
point this road is constructed to
connect and maybe at that point this
only becomes a a maybe this gets choked
down to a one way because when they get
out here as I said earlier you're only
going to be able to go this way
anyways so after a certain point it
doesn't make sense to even have this be
a
two-way so you could have a one way the
my only concern so this is totally up to
the commission of course my only concern
is if you don't pave this right now then
the trigger for doing that going to be
very difficult in the future with Cent
current organ state
law so the city would either be on the
hook for doing that or potentially if
this property was to be redeveloped Mr
Shelby's property you might be able to
make a justification of an off-site
improvement and we' have them asphalted
in but I'm just not sure if that would
stand or not we can't require that money
be set aside for
it you could do that as well like aanl
we have done that um
it's it's been very Hit or Miss whether
it's worked or not because typically
what ends up happening is you collect it
say in
$223 and then it gets built in 2040 and
the cost of the asphalt section is
probably four times the amount or three
times the amount or whatever it
is um but that that's why I think at the
very least you require the curb I mean
I'm sorry the sidewalk the street trees
and the curb right now
is the curb the curb's going to be as
much or more money than that asold in
there right so at least you're kind of
setting it up that in the future if we
do decide to bring a road up you have
all that taken care of and then either
the city will be on the hook for that
little amount of asphalt which is a ton
it's not going to be a ton and if you
did collect a fee and L we would at
least the developer pay a portion of it
right so it's not like the city would be
all the way
out um I I do give Mr Shelby's points
you know know it is kind of a weird
thing I would agree it's just this is
our only time to legally collect the
improvements and that's why we do it
that's why in a lot of jurisdiction just
so the public knows there's all these
sidewalks to nowhere and I agree it
looks absurd right but if you don't
require it at time of development then
who's going to pay for the sidewalk the
taxpayers so or gas tax or any other tax
mechanism but it's you and I paying for
it instead of the development that's
going in and that's why there's random
sidewalks everywhere in different towns
all over the state of Oregon because
that's the one and only time you really
have to have the developer install
it um I only had a few other things here
the code compliance issues um as I said
earlier tonight we are going to be
getting a second code enforcement
officer and one house under myself so
hopefully it probably won't alleviate
all the code concerns but hopefully it
helps um TR retention I would you know I
would agree that if you decide to just
have a fee and L paid for that asphalt
it will some trees can be saved for now
and maybe if the road never goes through
they'll be saved then
too the notice I don't know why uh there
wasn't a notice then you know the notice
the labels are from a title
company and they just come to us we
don't create the notice list so I I
don't know what the problem is there you
might want to contact the County tax
assessor because the County tax assessor
is where the
uh title company gets their labels from
so you might you might want to just call
over there and then the one the last
thing I will point out is that if this
development is to go
through um I would agree bornstead
Park's never been built to its full
vision the one nice thing about if this
development does go through is we would
collect F around a half million dollars
in Parks
sdc's which my hope would be that at
least some of those would be put towards
additional upgrades to that Park so
and I I think that's all I
had all right thank you now we'll give
the uh applicant opportunity for any
rebuttal that
um you may have response to any of the
testimony
they're all
um I don't see anybody's
camera okay Megan you can go ahead and
speak if you would like you want to turn
your camera on there there you go I
don't have any Ruttle unless the client
would like to add anything at this
time no I think I'm I'm good um I guess
I would just Echo um what Kelly
mentioned
uh that there's Parks uh fees to be
collected as well as um you know the the
obvious benefits of uh kind of cleaning
up some of the roadway improvements
around um Cascadia Village Drive and and
bornstead park making those more
accessible for um fire trucks or
emergency vehicles or just general use
by the public so um appreciate
everybody's comments um definitely
taking notes on the feedback thank you
okay thank
you all right
um we will if it's okay we keep the
public hearing open in case we have any
questions of Zach but for the public
either online or in the room here the
opportunity for public testimony is now
uh closed and uh we will go into our
discussion and just for your own
information we could technically close
the public hearing but if in the course
of our discussion we had one simple
question to the
developer um or the applicant such as
what's the color going to be of such and
such a building we have to reopen the
public hearing ask the question get the
response of blue and then make a motion
and close the public hearing so um our
practice has been for years to keep it
open just so we can talk to the
applicant uh ourselves if the need
arises and somebody just needs to remind
me to make sure we remember to
eventually at some point close public
hearing
so questions
comments um any any slides that you want
to see back
up yes I have a question for Kelly um
given the impact on the neighborhood is
there any way to require that those Park
funds substantial portion of them at
least be dedicated to the park in the
same
area I don't think so that's a really
good question so
the parks fees are calculated by an SDC
methodology that's put together some
cities have decided to make
certain like so there'd be a map in
different areas of the Town depending on
where the fee or tax is collected from
it would be used on parks in that area
of town our Parks methodology associated
with the parks master plan doesn't get
that specific so they can be used
anywhere in town so I don't think in the
final decision we could probably put it
in there but I I think the Planning
Commission could let the city council
know that they would like
a decent percent or a certain percentage
to potentially be used at that park I
think that would be fine but I think
tying it in the decision I don't I don't
know if our City attorney has any
concerns about that I just I do that's
the first I've heard of that question
it's a good one I just don't know if I
have an answer Josh do you want to
comment on
that hey Kelly I I signal dropped for a
second there can you repeat what the
question was
it was can we condition that the parks
sdc's that are collected with this
development can we condition that a
portion of them
or most of them somewhere in there go
towards furthering development of warud
Park which is adjacent to this
property right so that would be outside
the scope of this decision um how those
SDC funds are spent as a city council
decision
part of their budgetary Authority so it
could be outside this decision but as I
said the Planning Commission could
certainly talk to the council about that
right or or make a separate
recommendation or something like that
absolutely but not part of this
decision and there is a counselor CH how
would we make that separate
recommendation would it just being in
the record of tonight's
meeting as a recommendation to the city
council be
considered you could do that um you
could pass a motion separately making
that recommendation formally or you
could just ask your city council
representative to carry that message
forward to the city
council you have one in the
room for what it's worth in the Parks
Trails Advisory Board letter they did
also support the exploration of uh
adding to phase two right
one one comment that occurred to me when
Kelly was doing um and this is for more
of the public than ourselves uh but
doing the little uh diagram and thank
you so much for that Kelly of Pine
Street and
saying this is our opportunity to put
the sidewalk and the curb
in some might say well why not leave it
off and when the dev Vel oper comes to
do that little thing make them do it but
correct me if I'm wrong that's not their
property so it would be more difficult
for us although it can to make the ones
that do the the extension of gallway to
do the whole thing legally that that's
correct I mean any any improvements that
we don't require at this time as uh
commissioner Wagner said we could do a
feel move but any improvements you don't
do then we in in the future would have
to through a what's called a
proportionality test show that these
improvements are proportional to this
development now my one thing I would
caution with that is this development
site as Mr Shelby pointed out is rather
small so I think it would be hard to say
too much too many offset improvements I
don't think you could put too many on
this site to be honest so I think it's
uh you could certainly do that I think
it's just a it's just a risk right uh
that the city might end up paying more
out of pocket to complete the
[Music]
improvements any um there's three or
four
variances we are need
to um consider
tonight any questions concerns on any of
those from
anybody you understand what they are
about and um any any concerns or
questions with the staff report that
gave the uh rationale for the
recommendation I don't have but the VAR
I did have a separate question okay far
away um my question is for Kelly it
involves uh the recreation kind of space
and um
I mean it's not so much I guess a
concern with this particular property
but maybe others that have the same
thing is how uh it can be kind of bummed
onto a separate zone for instance this
one it carries over into that kind of
little bit of R1 Zone um as she
mentioned at the beginning kind of the
idea behind the commercial density
requirements was that you know you'd
have these Recreation spaces these
setbacks that were required but then if
you can just kind of bump that to
another property you know to another
Zone
um how does that kind of work because
you're no longer controlling the density
then I think the codee's silent on it be
honest um as you probably noticed in the
staff report one of the code Provisions
is to legally tie parcel two and parcel
three together through a covenant and
the two main reasons are so that the
parking and access that's all kind of
shared amongst all these buildings and
then the the recreation right is
what I mean it's a good question um I
don't know if I dove into a deep
analysis of that but I do believe the
code silent on it you know because I'm
just thinking down the line you have a
property that's you know half C3 and
half R1 you just will load C3 up with
whatever you want and then you know
you're GNA go yeah no I get your point I
think I think that's one of the reasons
why we need to have a density standard
in C3 I would say on this one if they
did lose or if they did add more
Recreation are area to paral 2 and
potentially they lost a few
units uh they could add more units to
parcel 3 down below sure I me there's
lots of extra room on parel corre kind
of move it around and it makes sense so
I'm not like really arguing it with this
one I was just to kind of Crea a
curiosity for me no I totally get it and
I think it's a great question I think
it's something we need to dive deeper
into in the code um I do think in this
circumstance it you know having a little
bit less density on the property to the
south of Cascadia Village Drive I
think for the most part's probably a
good thing um just having a little bit
lower along the park there
yeah thank you but yeah it's a it's a
great question I think it's something we
need to look into
more okay any any what are thoughts on
what to do with uh Pine Street as as it
stands
um what are the conditions for that area
Kelly I don't have a mem the the drawing
that you gave with the city Engineers
comments in the red markings is that
um has that been transferred into the
conditions the what I showed on the
PowerPoint yes yes that's what it that's
how it's written up in the findings and
conditions okay so what I what I
recommended in the in the in the
findings and conditions is that this
section of Pine Street that ties into
211 that that's all
removed and that they just had this
section of asphalt for now and then
these improvements continue up and then
you know Pine Street was shown as
opening up to the highway so with
removal of that I was recommending that
these you know the sidewalk and Street
tree improvements on the highway
continue
[Music]
across and that's the way it is in the in the
recommended staff report now if you were
to remove this or change this into fan l
or something obviously that would have
to be changed and that's just speaking
primarily to the
S I mean you could do it to the curb as
well I but then that would cancel the
curb all the way up probably yeah and
that's going to be as expensive or more
than the asold um I I think if we didn't
require the sidewalk from Gia Village to
highway
to1 I think technically we'd be looking
at another variance
because you know from here to these
staircases we wouldn't have a pedestrian
amenities for that whole
section um so I I definitely would
recommend putting in the stairs in the
trees through there I mean the the
sidewalk in the trees and then the curb
and asphalt that could be done through a
f l or one or the
other I would be if favor of going all
the way to the curb and
the the curb and sidewalk curb sidewalk
trees the only way into it just a minute
ma'am ma'am we're we're close to public
comment from out there sorry sorry I
didn't make that
clear um
okay and I I would agree with that as
well and also continuing the sidewalk to
11 across right and that's in the the
conditions that's currently in your
conditions
yes changing this to I would have to
modify those that's the only the only
change to the condition would be the Fe
and mo because you have in the
conditions a sidewalk and the
curve going all the
way I have in the conditions yes that
the curb goes all the way to Highway to1
with oh wait I don't think that is in
there so you would be modifying as well
okay well that so just just to specify
the
curb this is the curb would only really
need to go to essentially the north side
of that street coming in so this is
where gets this is where it gets very
complicated right
because curve yeah like commissioner
Wagner just said the curve only needs to
be here right
yeah but do we really want to put the
curve on the curve it's just going to be
floating out there and no I
think do you not want to put the curve
you know I don't know like where do you
stop it you just go like up to there
because you don't need a curb above that
well how about I would be in favor of
the curb all the way up to the sidewalk
with the idea being that it could not
develop for 20 years right and by that
time 211 could have been approved point
where it can still potentially connect
right so you'd be doing curb up to here
yeah I mean and then no asphalt no
asphalt not knowing what the future of
21 looks like not knowing what the
future of that tree looks
like curb and sidewalk and trees yeah
and
trees I mean the one nice thing about
that feature is this area that's the
trees and the lands it would be kind of
it be contained more
mhm yeah that was that's what I was
thinking because eventually there would
be a park strip so the
sidewalk if if if a road went through oh
there would be a park
strip I
mean I think this is kind of the best
from like a planning perspective this is
giving you the most
flexibility you're sending the curve up
and then this might get put in someday
or maybe it will go all the way through
or maybe never none of it will
happen either way at least we have
pedestrian access and for
whatever yeah so it would be curb park
strip with trees
sidewalk going east and
west and
then payment in Li of to do the black
top portion when that road
comes for the section for the curve
probably yeah right and it would just um
it would just be a matter
of yeah there would be on the North side
there would be a funny thing where
you've got a curve going straight up to
separate off the park strip
right or hit the sidewalk does it hit
the sidewalk right yeah it would just go
up to the back of sidewalk on
21 oh there would be no curb with the
park strip or no so a yeah the
crosssection would be
a be a 5 foot side
walk so it would be five
feet and then you'd have Street
trees and then you'd have a
curb and then this area in the RightWay
would just be undeveloped for now right
and then along highway to
11 and this walk it would just go like
that and so this sidewalk would go to
that sidewalk but this curb would just
dead into the it would just terminate
into the back of
sidewalk yeah should be a little odd
looking but it wouldn't be I don't right
I don't think it's that big of a deal
person it contains the sidewalk it makes
it pretty with trees and all
and makes
sense I mean I think it makes
maintenance a lot easier because like
say this is bar chipped and everything
it just something just kind of go out I
don't know it just gives it delineates
the space for it right I
agree keeps the erosion down and off for
the
trees is that what we're thinking we got
it understood because Kelly's gonna have
to put in writing well that's why I
was so the fee and L of is to cover the um asphalt and
any changing to the curve because
there'd be some curving on that
curvature on their
property I think we probably have to
just eat it I agree yeah I don't know
how I would even but I think that's
worth the
flexibility yep I
agree
okay before I forget somebody close the
public motion we close public second
been moved in second and Clos public
hearing at
7:59 all in favor say hi hi hi hi hi I I
see that eye czy
um okay any
other Jam I just have a minor one that I
had mentioned to Kelly and that's on um
number 59 it talks about uh proofing
could include or should include wood
shingle as well as composition and other
things and given our
Wildfire discussion and Hazard policy
for the city um I think that we probably
should remove the um wood shingle
groving maybe not only from here but
discuss in the future about removing it
from the entire ordinance was that on on
page 59 no it's number 59 and it's on
page 21
I went looking for it and I couldn't
find it in the conditions so it's not oh
okay there we are that's where we saw
that's just a a minor piece compared to
the yeah and so commissioner Lee um it
was it was removed
from the I2 and I3 zones by the city
council passing that ordinance for the
modifications to that but it is still
technically allowed in a few of our
other zones but yeah if you changed it
you could even change the condition to
explicitly say no shingle no wood
shingle
permitted um and I do agree I think
working on the Oregon wildfire task
force I don't even think you're gonna be
able to do wood chingles in Oregon
pretty
soon so really all
that you have inold the applicant shall
revise the elevations to detail the
shingles as architectural gr
sh so we
just you're saying we need to add
something that says that it can't
be uh
wood because the first statement just
says that it requires them to be wood or
architectural which is one of the the
conditions that already
Crossing I think you could add some I
could add some additional Clarity to it
though well you can't remove the wood
shingles from the first part because that's just that's just saying
what the code says right right and the
developer has offered an alternative and we're just saying now they have to
be architectural not three right but if
you want to add something he could add
something that just says and oh by the
way they can't be
wood but that's not what they're
proposing it's just more of a future yes definitely
okay what are we forgetting
Kelly got the I mean anything that
you I mean I don't know it's 66 pages
long I you know if you saw anything else
that I was 68 oh was 68 oh because the
two yeah it is
68 you know to to be honest I without
having any other planners on staff right
now
it's uh Emily was gracious enough to
take a look at it for me just for edits
and she did catch a few errors that I
had in there
um so I don't think there's any in there
but I'll look through it again when it
before we do the final order and before
you sign it I've just got a couple Tyles
I'll give you
afterwards okay I mean if you want to
give them to me now just I can get them
in there for you okay I mean these are
just from appr Creator on page
16 number
29 finding
29 okay
it's different than the one I have
written in section page 16 no I'm on 13
come on Jerry get to
16
um section 17
5450 where am I
going
5450 is it where it says carriers yes
okay got it you got that one
yes and
um
then I had on page
33 I know what it was what it is is the
pages in the document are not
necessarily the pages on the
uh up
here 3311
kind of in
the fourth line from the bottom oh no
that's just how I copied
it says it says but turning movements do
not met the minimum valume
okay yeah it's right
there about five six lines above the
letter
A I mean anybody reading it would have
understood what was being
said okay I don't know that we need to
labor it any further sorry one last
question sure um are all planned uh
retention trees and uh medication trees
planned for uh Parcels two and
three basically I'm asking if they put
them on one and they sold off
are they eventually going to get toward
him the answer would be no because there
would be a restrictive covenant that
runs with the land that's recorded and
then that would be on the
title so they could they could propose
someone one if they want but they'll it
will tie up the future development of
that
property which maybe they're not
concerned about I'm not I'm not sure so
the the um proposal did have quite a few
mitigation trees already I think it said
in the STA report how many but I think
they need to add another 30 or so yeah
kind like some B correct so yeah they might want to put some of them on
person
one but yes in the city of Sandy we
started about 12 13 years ago recording
restrictive covenants that are then tied
to the property and so even when they
sell they're tied to the
title all right and we need a motion it
sounds like to accept it based on the of
facts the conditions of approval with
our modifications regarding Pin
Street well I'll make an attempt here uh
chair I move that we approve file number
22039 uh along with the four variants
with the conditions noted in the staff
report and changes noted by you as well
as um our adjustments noted to require
curve trees and
sidewalk with a field Mo for the
asphalt and think that's
it I would second motion okay it's been
moved and seconded to approve file 22-
039 based on everything that Darren
said we will go to a roll call
[Music]
vote okay commissioner
pullan agree
um commissioner wager yes commissioner
Lee wayenberg
Yes commissioner Rams yes and Cher
Crosby yes motion carries
and do we since we have our leas on in
the
room you heard our comments we'll just
about the park fees yeah I was just
going to ask a question do you want to
give a an allocated percentage or want
just say
significant significant is kind of
subjective depending on What's
significant to you or what ific to me
yes that's right and we're in the era of
clear and
[Music]
objective I I although personally I hate
to put it like a percentage because that
really locks it in you can't go one up
one% up can't go 1% down although here's
what we can do we can we can message the
counsil our preference of a percentage
and let them take care of how specific
they want to get if they if they even
want to pass their own resolution or
something I was thinking we could slide
also say between this percent and this
percent and kind of give a range and
it's kind of the same thing you just
said but you know kind of narrow it down
a little bit to what we would hope for
and and give a little bit of
objectiveness there what would be a what
you all think it my problem is I don't
know how much the things cost for a park
you know why it would be added too for
other sure but like I mean I would like
enough percentage to get something
done right right is it just going to sit
there for the next 10 years waiting for
more money to do something right and
that we don't
know and there's there's no way that we
would know tonight that anybody may
know we could do something like saying
at least half of it or at least three
qus of it or something like that
majority the ear marked I think is is a
good term to use I like something like
with majority with want to see maor
improvements then it would have to be at
least 51% yeah to
be okay please do something with this
then let's let's do this so it goes on
record and and
U they can go to the council as we did
this we passed the
resolution or a vote or something so if
somebody would um put that in the words
just that the majority of the do you
want to do a motion
yes the majority of
the not sdc's it would be the park
what's the official word no it would be
the parks sdc's the parks sdc's that's
correct that the majority of them be
used within bornstead Park
okay there we go again uh chair I move
that uh we make a recommendation to city
council that the majority of the Parks
sdcs from the C Mi use development uh be
used for improvements at for Park I
say that was perfect we'll just do a a
voice Voice vote all in favor say I any
opposed motion carries it's in the
record so you have an official document
you to them if
not anything else
otherwise we are a
Jour thanks everybody thank you thanks
for coming we do appreciate all the
thank you for your my hands are clamming
sorry that's all right
[Music]