[0:11] County Planning Commission. It is

[0:12] September 29th, 2026. The time is 6

[0:15] o'clock. Present in the room, we have

[0:17] Commissioner Degrroot and myself,

[0:19] Commissioner Minty. Commissioner Nichols

[0:20] is absent today. If everyone would

[0:22] please rise for the pledge of

[0:24] >> allegiance.

[0:26] I pledge to the flag of the United

[0:29] States of America and to the republic

[0:32] for which it stands. One nation under

[0:36] God, indivisible with liberty and

[0:39] justice for all.

[0:42] Hey,

[0:45] » before I turn the meeting over to the

[0:49] planning commission chair, I would like

[0:52] to check in uh with you, Commissioner G.

[0:55] Do you have anything that you would

[0:57] consider a need to declare in terms of

[1:00] exparte contact or any reason to abstain

[1:02] from the upcoming proceedings?

[1:04] >> I don't believe so. No.

[1:06] >> Or do I? So, with that, I will turn the

[1:08] meeting over to the chair of the county.

[1:11] Thank you, Madam Chair.

[1:13] Starting on my far left, I ask that the

[1:16] commission members please introduce

[1:17] themselves.

[1:19] >> Joe Young,

[1:20] >> Jennifer Fairfield,

[1:21] >> Randy Shaw,

[1:22] >> Charlie Gray, Sarah Decker, Clint

[1:24] Rhinus.

[1:26] >> We have convened to review certain

[1:27] matters and to make recommendations

[1:29] thereon. To that end, I ask if any

[1:32] member of this commission has a conflict

[1:34] of interest, bias, or exparte contact to

[1:37] report with regard to any matter before

[1:39] us this evening. So, I want to make sure

[1:41] to say that I do know the applicant and

[1:44] have worked with him in the past. I

[1:46] don't feel that that's going to have any

[1:48] uh any any conflict on me.

[1:56] I note for the record that the

[1:58] commission has a quorum to proceed. With

[2:00] regard to each matter before us, the

[2:02] following order of proceeding will be

[2:04] observed. First, the planning commission

[2:06] will open the public hearing by

[2:08] receiving a staff report on the

[2:10] particular matter. Staff will be given

[2:12] 15 minutes for this report. Next, the

[2:16] applicant or their representative may

[2:18] present testimony. to include the

[2:20] testimony of the witnesses. The

[2:22] applicant will be given 15 minutes for

[2:25] this report. Following this

[2:27] presentation, those who support the

[2:28] applicant may testify. We will then hear

[2:31] testimony of any opponents. Then we will

[2:34] hear testimony of p persons wishing to

[2:37] speak from a neutral position. Each

[2:40] person testifying will be given five

[2:42] minutes for their comments. Last of all,

[2:45] the applicant will be allowed the

[2:46] opportunity to rebut any testimony

[2:49] opposing the application. Arguments and

[2:52] debates over the rebuttal are not

[2:54] allowed.

[2:56] The applicant will be allowed 10 minutes

[2:58] for this rebuttal. All testimony must be

[3:01] directed toward the planning commission.

[3:04] Additional or sidebar questions or

[3:07] [clears throat] conversations should

[3:09] take place outside of the hearing room.

[3:11] I also ask that you please turn off all

[3:14] cell phones and other electronic

[3:16] devices. At the conclusion of the

[3:18] evidentiary portion of the hearing, this

[3:20] commission shall close the hearing to

[3:22] deliberate toward a resolution. It is

[3:25] not appropriate for the applicant,

[3:28] opponents, or any member of the public

[3:30] to comment or to pose questions during

[3:33] these deliberations.

[3:35] Finally, please be advised that at 8:00

[3:37] p.m. we will take a short break. At 10

[3:40] p.m. I will ask the planning commission

[3:41] members if they wish to continue and

[3:44] will ask again every hour thereafter. If

[3:47] they vote to end the meeting, all

[3:49] proceedings will be continued to a time

[3:51] and date established. With this, I will

[3:54] open the hearing as to the first item.

[3:56] on the agenda is CLUP

[4:00] ZC zone change 4-26

[4:04] AKS Engineering and Forestry LLC for

[4:07] Daniel R. Horton. The application seeks

[4:11] consolidated review

[4:13] an amendment to the Clamoth Falls urban

[4:16] growth urban area comprehensive plan map

[4:18] designation from general commercial and

[4:21] suburban residential to medium density

[4:24] residential together with a

[4:26] corresponding zone change from general

[4:28] commercial and suburban residential to

[4:31] medium density residential on a 30.54

[4:35] acre tract of land comprised of

[4:37] approximately 14.26 26 acres of general

[4:41] commercial zoned land and 16.28 acres of

[4:46] RSZoned land or residential suburban and

[4:50] two preliminary subdivision plats for

[4:52] the proposed Hill Haven s estates

[4:55] residential subdivision to be developed

[4:57] in two phases creating 118 residential

[5:01] lots. one lot for a municipal water

[5:04] booster pump station and common area

[5:06] lots for storm water facilities and open

[5:09] space recreation. Consolidated review of

[5:12] the map amendment and subdivision

[5:14] applications is requested pursuant to OS

[5:18] 215.416

[5:20] parentheses 2. The general location of

[5:23] the proposed development is the north

[5:25] side of Highway 140 at the east end of

[5:28] Hillyard Avenue, east of the Highway

[5:30] 39140 junction within within the

[5:34] unincorporated Clamoth Falls urban

[5:36] growth boundary area which is comprised

[5:39] of map tax lot numbers 3910-06

[5:43] C-0000400

[5:47] 3910-07BA-200

[5:52] 00 39107B-01300

[5:59] back slash01.

[6:01] And with that, Mr. Mr. Throne, please

[6:05] give us a report.

[6:06] >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, wait till

[6:09] this pulls up on full screen.

[6:17] Maybe we won't. So, this is a

[6:19] combination of a zone change, a a

[6:22] comprehensive plan change, and a

[6:24] subdivision. Uh, the zone change is from

[6:27] commercial, which is what it is right

[6:28] now, and [snorts] that's just a parcel,

[6:30] a portion of this land, to medium

[6:33] density residential. The other area of

[6:36] land is zone suburban residential, and

[6:38] the applicant is asked to change that to

[6:40] medium density residential.

[6:45] Here

[6:47] is a map of the what's in proposed in

[6:50] its entirety. You have two phases. The

[6:53] portion on the south half and then you

[6:55] have pha this is phase one. Phase two is

[6:58] a portion on the north half. The portion

[7:01] on the south half is currently zone

[7:02] commercial and the portion on the north

[7:04] half is currently zone suburban

[7:06] residential.

[7:10] » Change it at all? Yeah,

[7:13] >> there's just a a enlarged if you can

[7:17] back up one maybe the enlarged area on

[7:20] this. This was laid out in such a manner

[7:22] that you can see um

[7:25] where the streets are planned for future

[7:28] development. Um there are stub streets

[7:31] that would have a plug in them if this

[7:33] were approved that could connect both to

[7:36] the east of that to be able to tie in uh

[7:39] to potential further development um in

[7:42] that direction.

[7:45] >> I'll change that to change.

[7:48] >> Sure. So this is what it looks like

[7:49] right now. As I'm sure all of you are

[7:51] aware, there's no buildings on it. It's

[7:54] uh devoid of any structures.

[8:00] And here's what it looks like in

[8:01] relationship to the urban growth

[8:03] boundary. So all of that area that's in

[8:05] purple, that is the Clamoth Falls urban

[8:08] growth boundary that was established

[8:10] back in the late 1970s and early 1980s

[8:13] as the outer limits of where the city or

[8:16] the town of Clamoth Falls or the city of

[8:18] Clamoth Falls and the U suburbs of the

[8:21] city could expand to. So, it's not on

[8:24] the edge of it, but it is towards the

[8:25] edge of it, but it is um right in in

[8:28] place of that.

[8:33] Here's this shows the the neighborhood

[8:35] zoning. The the red is general

[8:38] commercial. And so, there's a lot of

[8:40] that right along the highways as is the

[8:43] as is normal. And then the bright yellow

[8:46] is suburban residential. Um the pale

[8:49] yellow up on top is uh uh low density

[8:52] residential and there's a portion up

[8:55] there that is outside the urban growth

[8:57] boundary that's kind of greenish that's

[8:58] called nonresource.

[9:00] Um the eastern line there's a dashed

[9:04] white line that is the urban growth

[9:06] boundary. Uh there's no even though this

[9:09] land is uh presently farmed or or uh

[9:12] used for agricultural purposes there is

[9:14] no EFU land within the urban growth

[9:16] boundary. That was by decision back in

[9:19] the late 1970s.

[9:21] >> Mr. Thron, what's that green

[9:24] [snorts] what appears to be a green line

[9:26] running through there and it kind of

[9:27] separates the general commercial from

[9:29] the residential?

[9:31] >> That's a that is the Yeah, the

[9:33] Enterprise Irrigation District canal.

[9:41] Next slide if you can. Okay.

[9:46] Sure.

[9:47] So, this is just a perspective map to be

[9:49] able to see things that how they're

[9:50] built currently. You do have this, I

[9:53] would call it more or less of an island

[9:55] or a pocket that does not have

[9:57] residential development on it.

[9:58] Currently, things to the east of it are

[10:00] broken up into very much smaller

[10:02] parcels. They are do have a lot of

[10:04] houses there. Things to the west

[10:07] especially are broken up broken up into

[10:09] smaller parcels and have houses. And

[10:11] then there's there's a development

[10:12] directly north and you can see um it's

[10:15] partially built. I think that's the

[10:18] Hidden Valley development. And there's a

[10:21] water tower at the very north of the

[10:23] pinnacle there, the White Circle.

[10:36] Here's just the same view, but looking

[10:38] towards the south. It kind of helps to

[10:41] see some of the topography. There is a

[10:43] natural boundary on the east of what is

[10:45] the northernmost area for development

[10:48] and that is that higher ridge that's

[10:50] getting into slopes that are too steep

[10:52] to build on. The uh the slopes here on

[10:55] the southern part are about a 3 or 4%

[10:58] grade. On the northern part they're

[10:59] about a 6% grade, but they do veer

[11:02] sharply upward as you head east.

[11:09] I apologize for our problems with the technology here. We're having a

[11:14] lag time and it's not working like it

[11:16] should be. So, please bear with us. Here

[11:18] is the development in red, the proposed

[11:21] development in red and here is the

[11:22] yellow line denotes the urban growth

[11:25] boundary. So, it um encompasses quite a

[11:28] swath of land east of there of the

[11:31] proposed development, juts down just

[11:34] briefly, and then heads north in a

[11:36] straight line basically along Hogsback

[11:38] Ridge. That is the area that the

[11:41] citizens when they adopted all of the

[11:43] comprehensive plan for Clamoth County

[11:45] years ago, that's the area they

[11:47] designated was going to be the outer

[11:48] limits of growth for the city for the

[11:50] urban area of Clamoth Falls.

[11:53] Here

[11:56] is a little bit of the water rights. So

[11:59] the bottom portion uh inter is in

[12:02] enterprise irrigation district and

[12:04] that's in the green. That's actually a

[12:06] surface water right and Clamoth basin

[12:07] adjudication along with all the other

[12:09] surface water rights. Um KA 1000 is the

[12:13] claim number uh served by the bureau

[12:16] through the Bureau of Recation served by

[12:17] Enterprise Irrigation District. On the

[12:19] northern part there is no surface water

[12:21] right. Uh there is a groundwater right

[12:24] that goes back to the 1940s and that was

[12:26] irrigated. And I think that the well I'm

[12:29] not for sure but I think that the well

[12:30] that originally supplied that water

[12:32] right is now the one that supplies the

[12:34] city water tank.

[12:38] Here's just a view looking at the end of

[12:41] Hillyard. Well, no, let me see. Is that

[12:43] No, that's looking at the from the

[12:45] Hidden Valley subdivision. uh that's

[12:48] north of this looking towards the water

[12:50] tank and then the and then the land

[12:52] beyond. That's the area that's part of

[12:55] this proposal.

[12:59] And this is a view looking from Highway

[13:01] 140 east looking north where the wheel

[13:04] line is at and and that field that is

[13:07] the southern part of the proposal.

[13:11] So medium density, why medium density?

[13:14] It's actually not too much different

[13:16] than suburban residential, but it allows

[13:18] for smaller lot sizes. It also allows

[13:21] for duplexes, which are not allowed in

[13:24] the suburban residential zone. So, this

[13:26] is the medium density um zone. It says

[13:29] the purpose of the zone is to establish

[13:31] and maintain areas for single family and

[13:33] duplex residences.

[13:36] And the density, the upper limits of the

[13:38] density is eight dwelling units per

[13:40] acre. That's it doesn't have to be that.

[13:44] This isn't necessarily laid out for

[13:45] that, but that's the upper limit. If you

[13:48] look at what the permitted uses are

[13:50] there on the 81-720,

[13:53] single family dwelling is a permitted

[13:55] use. Duplex is a permitted use. Um, I

[13:59] think if you go to the next slide, the

[14:02] minimum parcel size, the lot minimum lot

[14:04] size is 5,000 square ft. In suburban

[14:06] residential, the minimum lot size is

[14:08] 10,000 square feet.

[14:11] Go ahead and move on.

[14:14] So there were quite there were some

[14:15] written comments. We received three

[14:17] written comments from people that live

[14:19] in the vicinity about different issues

[14:21] and one of the topics that keeps

[14:23] recurring uh is uh the traffic situation

[14:27] and also the visibility out there. uh

[14:30] the applicant in their proposal has has

[14:33] actually part of what they had to do was

[14:36] a a traffic impact analysis and they had

[14:39] to set forth how they would mitigate for

[14:41] those concerns and they actually also

[14:43] raised those concerns as well based on

[14:45] ODOT's data and other sources. Uh this

[14:48] is I'm if I were standing taking this

[14:51] picture I'd be on 140 heading towards

[14:53] Clamoth. You see on the right hand side

[14:55] the blue sign and in front of you you

[14:57] see behind that you see the mailbox

[15:00] right about there is if this were

[15:02] approved and if the subdivision were

[15:04] constructed that is where the access

[15:06] point would be off of 140 is right at

[15:08] that red that black mailbox

[15:11] uh more or less.

[15:16] Now um as part of that traffic impact

[15:19] analysis

[15:20] uh they had to look at what based on

[15:24] ODOT's data and other sources how many

[15:27] uh distance site distance feet would

[15:29] need to be had both to the west and to

[15:32] the east both for you know right and

[15:34] left turns coming into that access point

[15:36] to be safe and the highest standard was

[15:40] 690 ft on the west 720 ft on the east.

[15:44] The actual sight distances are 950 feet

[15:47] on the west and 1,200 feet on the east.

[15:50] So it exceeds what's actually there on

[15:52] the ground exceeds what's required for a

[15:55] safe turn. And they did the same thing

[15:58] in that traffic impact analysis. They

[15:59] did the same thing on the Hillier

[16:01] intersection.

[16:03] Go ahead.

[16:06] >> And did they have those same results?

[16:09] they exceeded the the the actual sight

[16:12] distance has exceeded what the threshold

[16:14] was that was recommended.

[16:18] >> So here's pictures. I don't think that's

[16:19] the same mailbox necessarily, but maybe

[16:22] it is. But

[16:23] >> can I ask one more question?

[16:25] >> U so did the traffic study include and

[16:30] maybe this is a question for the

[16:32] applicant. I apologize

[16:34] that's the case. Did it include the uh

[16:39] traffic that was going to be coming out

[16:40] of Hidden Valley at the same time?

[16:43] >> Um it took Yes, it definitely took that

[16:46] into consideration. It took all those factors into consideration,

[16:50] but it it specifically is for looking at

[16:52] the new development. Um you know, Hidden

[16:55] Valley had to do I I believe they had to

[16:57] do the same thing when they got

[16:58] subdivided with traffic impact study. So

[17:01] the idea behind those is um the

[17:04] developer pays for things like the

[17:08] things that are meant to mitigate for an

[17:10] increase in traffic. The general

[17:12] taxpayer doesn't pay that. The developer

[17:14] pays that. Um this is uh photos taken by

[17:18] the traffic engineer who who prepared

[17:20] that study. Uh I don't know if that's

[17:22] the same black mailbox. I don't think it

[17:24] is.

[17:25] >> Yeah, that's the back of the sign.

[17:26] >> Okay. Oh, I see. Okay. So that's uh well

[17:29] that's looking east then the picture on

[17:31] the left and the picture on the right is

[17:33] looking west. Um and of course when they

[17:36] do that they don't just consider

[17:38] horizontal curves but they also consider

[17:41] vertical curves because there are places

[17:42] along 140 where

[17:45] there's a hump in the road and you

[17:48] cannot see well beyond it. also takes

[17:50] into account the speed limit and it's a

[17:53] safe stopping distance would be the way

[17:55] to say it based on the speed limit.

[17:58] >> So there were all those variables what

[18:00] he just mentioned with the speed limit

[18:01] whatever and they took the highest of

[18:03] those which was the numbers that I just

[18:05] gave you. That way there would be no

[18:07] question that that was still a safe

[18:09] distance.

[18:11] Next slide.

[18:12] >> Yeah. in in this area here. Is it still

[18:15] a 55 zone or

[18:21] » I don't know.

[18:22] >> It's 50 in one direction and um

[18:26] >> it's crazy.

[18:26] >> Yeah, I believe 45 in the other

[18:29] direction is what the traffic study

[18:30] says.

[18:31] >> Yeah, 45 going into Yeah.

[18:34] So, what the solution was to that and

[18:37] what the applicant proposed and what the

[18:39] applicant would have to build is a two

[18:42] TWWLT, a two two-way left turn lane um

[18:47] for quite a distance there to allow

[18:51] traffic to basically that's heading

[18:53] eastbound to make a left-hand turn into

[18:56] the subdivision. And um I guess if

[18:59] traffic were heading westbound, there

[19:01] are homes along there that could also

[19:03] utilize that lane.

[19:05] >> So would that require widening of 140?

[19:08] >> Mhm.

[19:08] >> Okay.

[19:10] >> Now the it should be noted that uh the

[19:13] particular so Mr. Horton who's the

[19:16] applicant Daniel R. Horton not to be

[19:18] confused with Dr. Horton who is the

[19:20] nation's largest home builder because we

[19:22] were there was some confusion there when

[19:24] people got that that they thought this

[19:25] was a big corporate deal. His family has

[19:27] owned that particular piece on the south

[19:29] for half a century. So there are a lot

[19:32] of grand they owned that when 140 was a

[19:34] very much smaller road and highway and

[19:37] so there are a lot of grandfathered

[19:38] access points. Currently there are three

[19:40] ODOT access points that would be

[19:42] consolidated into one single one. So

[19:45] right now the the owner of that land has

[19:47] the ability to to exit at three

[19:49] different stages along there. That's not

[19:52] a safe thing to have when you have a

[19:53] development with people coming and

[19:54] going. You want to narrow it down to one way in and one way or one way in

[19:58] that's dedicated for that and that's

[20:00] that that's what the plans are if this

[20:03] is approved

[20:06] >> and go to the next slide.

[20:08] >> So that was

[20:08] >> Oh, and this is Hillyard too. I mean

[20:10] Hillyard's got so many issues but uh

[20:12] that are have nothing to do with this

[20:14] development but you know there's I think

[20:16] there's a long-term solution that has to

[20:18] be done you know that's been in

[20:20] discussion with a long time with ODOT.

[20:22] You know all about that, Jeremy, and I

[20:23] don't know if you want to elaborate on

[20:25] it, but for purposes of this, again,

[20:28] you're strictly looking at sight lines

[20:30] and distances and things of that nature,

[20:32] but it's um that that's

[20:37] something in need of a long-term

[20:39] solution. So the whenever a a zone is

[20:43] changed, proposed to be changed or a a

[20:45] development [clears throat]

[20:46] um is proposed a commercial development

[20:49] there's always the need to do a

[20:50] transportation planning rule analysis

[20:53] and that is to first of all look and see

[20:56] if the development is going to uh to see

[20:59] what trip generation is caused by the

[21:01] development meaning how many more

[21:04] average daily trips of cars you have and

[21:06] how many peak hour trips you have. And

[21:08] in this case that was triggered. Some

[21:11] cases on small developments you don't

[21:13] have to get into the whole weeds of a

[21:15] traffic impact analysis because it's on a much smaller scale. But in

[21:19] this case uh that got triggered for both

[21:22] um phase one and phase two. So that's

[21:25] what required the traffic impact

[21:28] analysis which is a fairly large ordeal.

[21:31] And I don't know how many of you have

[21:32] looked at these are available uh for

[21:35] anybody that wants to request the full

[21:36] file. Um and it can be sent

[21:39] electronically. I have sent a few out

[21:41] but um the whole traffic impact analysis

[21:44] in there where they were able to come to

[21:46] the conclusions they were um we should

[21:49] talk about intensity of uses because

[21:52] that is something that they're doing in

[21:54] this case is they're taking a commercial

[21:56] zone which in zoning you have a

[21:58] hierarchy. You have industrial as the

[22:01] most intensive of use, meaning you can

[22:03] have large or very loud noises. Uh very

[22:07] unsight unsightly uh going on. You can

[22:10] have really bad smells, things like

[22:13] that. You know, industrial plants,

[22:15] logging mills, all those kinds of

[22:17] things. That's the most intense use.

[22:19] Below that is commercial and below that

[22:22] is residential. So in this case, the the request to zone from commercial to

[22:26] residential is actually called a down

[22:29] zone, which means it's a less intensive

[22:30] use of the land. And that plays into a

[22:34] lot of the analysis that has to be done.

[22:36] There's a lot of scrutiny going that's

[22:38] required when you're actually trying to

[22:39] upzone and go from say residential to

[22:41] commercial because that usually means

[22:43] that there's going to be a lot more

[22:44] conflicting uses, but residential is on

[22:47] the bottom of the totem pole when it

[22:49] comes to intensity.

[22:54] So the because this is in the urban

[22:56] growth boundary, there's actually a

[22:57] different methodology that we use to

[22:59] analyze it rather than the normal zone

[23:01] change we in the past. I don't we don't

[23:04] often do them in the urban growth

[23:05] boundary, but in the past when when

[23:07] we're analyzing the comprehensive plan,

[23:09] that's whether something is C, R, or I,

[23:12] whether it's commercial, residential, or

[23:14] industrial in the urban context and

[23:16] whether [clears throat] that can change

[23:17] on the overall map. And this this is the

[23:20] traditional criteria and we can I have

[23:22] it on there so we can come back to it if

[23:24] we need to do that in the course of

[23:25] conversation. But um the uh because it's

[23:29] in the urban growth boundary you adopted

[23:32] u I think was it two years less than two

[23:34] years ago the Clamoth Falls urban area

[23:38] um

[23:40] >> transportation master plan

[23:42] >> that that but also the urban area

[23:44] comprehensive plan.

[23:46] >> Mhm. And that was a very large document

[23:49] that was put together in conjunction

[23:50] with the city of Climate Falls to try to

[23:53] make more harmonious um things like zone

[23:56] changes in that environment and as well

[23:58] as the actual zone designations and

[24:00] things of that nature. Um because that's

[24:03] there there's two methodologies. One is

[24:07] the applicant can try to um be annexed

[24:10] into the city and this and then go from

[24:12] there which is not feasible in this case

[24:15] because the city limits are a long

[24:17] distance away or the applicant can u and

[24:20] they have to be contiguous or the

[24:22] applicant can go ahead and use the

[24:24] criteria in there for a zone change um

[24:26] as opposed to the traditional county

[24:28] criteria.

[24:30] uh with an abundance of caution the

[24:32] applicant offered up both in their

[24:34] application both analyses uh based on

[24:37] the traditional criteria and and this

[24:40] new one. The next slide is just the

[24:43] traditional zone change criteria which

[24:45] closely aligns with the comprehensive

[24:48] plan criteria. You can move on from

[24:51] there.

[24:52] So, in the past when we've looked at

[24:54] zone changes, we've often talked about

[24:56] exceptions. Uh the asbuilt, the

[24:59] irrevocid, the reasons exception.

[25:03] We don't do that here. Um that's only

[25:05] when we're going from uh resource land

[25:08] like forestry or or EFU to something

[25:12] like um residential or a map amendment

[25:15] because the power plant's too big than

[25:18] it's normally required. So, or you know,

[25:20] the one that didn't go through was of

[25:22] trying to change EFU to transportation

[25:25] commercial. Uh, so you guys have heard a

[25:27] lot about those exceptions. Uh, we don't

[25:30] and those are hard to get by. Those have

[25:31] to those you have to have a there's a

[25:33] high standard or high high threshold to

[25:35] meet in order to be [clears throat]

[25:36] successful with those in this

[25:38] environment because we're not changing

[25:40] we're not taking any kind of a resource

[25:42] land out of resource use. Even though I

[25:45] mean I admit it is farmed ground and

[25:48] everything else, but it is commercially

[25:50] zoned land set aside years ago with that

[25:52] zoning design as a nation for from for

[25:55] future commercial development. But

[25:57] because we're not actually ch taking

[25:58] changing the zone from resource, we

[26:01] don't need to worry about those. Um what

[26:03] we do dive into is the Clamoth Falls

[26:06] urban area comprehensive plan and um

[26:09] some of the this is a very

[26:13] brief summary but are very tended to be

[26:16] kind of short but some of the things

[26:19] that you look at is you well I think

[26:22] that that would be is that newly adopted

[26:25] one is decisive over the general

[26:27] comprehensive plans by either the city

[26:29] or the county. So that's what they have

[26:30] by agreement and by legislation both by

[26:33] you and by the city council have agreed

[26:35] to beat the standard for zone changes.

[26:37] You look to see if it's an up zone

[26:38] versus a down zone. Upzones high

[26:42] standard to meet. Down zones um there's

[26:45] a lot less requirements. Uh the

[26:47] background materials must be looked at

[26:49] to support it. In this case, there were

[26:51] two documents that were part of that

[26:54] urban area growth um urban area

[26:57] comprehensive plan. That was the HNA,

[27:00] the housing needs analysis. Sorry to

[27:03] overdo with uh acronyms here. The EOA,

[27:06] which was the uh employment

[27:09] opportunities analysis. Those were both

[27:12] done over the last half decade to see

[27:14] what kind of housing stocks the Clamoth

[27:16] area had and what kind they needed. Some

[27:18] of the the conclusions from that were

[27:20] that they had too much suburban

[27:22] residential, not enough of the medium

[27:25] and highdensity residential zones.

[27:28] That was in the housing use analysis.

[27:30] The EOA um it was determined that there

[27:33] were large stocks of commercial and

[27:35] industrial zone land um and actually too

[27:38] much commercial that didn't look like it

[27:40] was going to be developed anytime soon.

[27:42] Uh when you look at this area we're at

[27:44] right now, uh on the south side, we've

[27:47] had a number of proposals come across

[27:49] the desk and never make it further than

[27:51] that than just ideas because on the

[27:53] south side you have it's all zone

[27:56] commercial with that intersection. You

[27:58] have very it's very difficult to get in

[27:59] and out for people to come to go to a

[28:02] store or anything like that. So there's

[28:04] not much that can be done. Now we're not

[28:05] talking about the south side, but it's

[28:07] very you're in a similar situation on

[28:08] the north side. Um, what could go there

[28:11] today without having to do any kind of a

[28:14] zone change or at all would be a Costco.

[28:17] I don't know if 16 acres or 17 is enough

[28:20] with all the drainage and pay parking

[28:22] lot or something like that, but a big

[28:24] box store could. So, when you're looking

[28:26] at what are the options there for the

[28:27] future,

[28:29] it's not going to continue to be an

[28:31] open. It just is not. It's going to

[28:34] either be housing or it's going to be

[28:35] some kind of a commercial facility. And

[28:38] that could include a lot of things as

[28:39] well.

[28:42] That's all I had for the moment.

[28:43] >> Okay. So, does it does anybody have any

[28:45] questions for staff?

[28:47] >> Yeah, I may have one general question.

[28:48] Go ahead, Joe.

[28:49] >> Um, can you think of any comparable

[28:52] subdivisions with highway access that

[28:54] this uh proposed 118 lots could be

[28:57] compared to like a south view or

[28:59] >> almost all of them?

[29:01] >> I mean, okay, look at Pine Grove as far

[29:03] as points in and points out.

[29:04] >> Yeah. No, not like traffic, amount of

[29:06] traffic that would be generated.

[29:08] >> Oh. Um well uh

[29:11] >> yeah South View

[29:12] >> Ridgewater

[29:14] >> most of them are in the city's

[29:15] jurisdiction like both of those are

[29:16] South and Ridgewwater

[29:18] >> running wise quite a bit larger than

[29:19] that.

[29:22] >> Um other than that I can't think of

[29:24] anything that in the suburbs usually we

[29:27] have smaller subdivisions. I mean I

[29:28] would consider this one to be kind of an

[29:31] infill subdivision.

[29:32] >> Yeah.

[29:33] >> With the smaller lot sizes.

[29:34] >> Yeah. just going for if you're going to

[29:35] put yourself in the mindset of how much

[29:37] traffic you know what to envision like

[29:40] cruise cruising by the running Y and

[29:43] South view is that comparable or is that

[29:46] more traffic than what this would

[29:47] generate?

[29:48] >> Oh, I think um South View or Ridgewater

[29:52] are probably similar running wise 950

[29:57] lots or something like that plus

[29:58] commercial plus a resort plus you know

[30:01] golf course. running wise probably 10

[30:04] times more traffic but

[30:07] >> maybe

[30:07] >> yeah Shield Crest even though I mean

[30:10] it's got a golf course and a commercial

[30:12] area so it's that those amenities are

[30:14] attracting more people

[30:18] » so I want to do one thing uh Jim can Jim

[30:23] hear us

[30:24] can he talk Jim can you hear us uh he's

[30:28] mute

[30:28] >> you're on mute Jim

[30:32] Yeah,

[30:35] >> frozen.

[30:37] >> Is he there?

[30:40] >> Yeah. [clears throat]

[30:42] » Okay. Well, I was going to bring him in

[30:44] and we didn't hear from him on the

[30:46] creation of the meeting as to whether he

[30:48] had exparte contact interest or bias.

[30:51] >> Sure.

[30:52] >> And so I'm wondering if he can hear us

[30:53] or can speak to us at all.

[30:58] >> Believe I have a bell. Don't you have

[31:01] >> I got a short question while we're wait

[31:04] phase one ends quite a way hillyard is

[31:07] this haven crest going to be taken up to

[31:09] d in phase one [snorts]

[31:12] >> so no phase one

[31:14] >> one point outlet for phase one

[31:17] >> well here's here's a little bit of a I

[31:20] should back up as well uh this there's

[31:22] going to be another hearing next month

[31:26] because when I send out notices to

[31:28] agencies

[31:29] and departments and jurisdictions. We

[31:30] don't we give people notice within a

[31:32] certain distance of uh the property. We

[31:35] also send that out. I um made a mistake

[31:38] and and thought that I sent it to ODOT.

[31:40] I did not. But I didn't discover that

[31:42] until two weeks after. So I talked to

[31:45] ODOT. So um ODOT is going has been

[31:48] meeting about that and there will have

[31:50] more to present next time. They're uh

[31:53] what ODOT's mostly concerned about is um

[31:57] obviously the traffic and access, but

[31:59] they get into the nitty-gritty too. And

[32:01] that I bring that all up because I

[32:03] wanted to let you know. So, we're going

[32:05] to continue this hearing um hopefully

[32:08] after the zone change is decided on

[32:11] continue the hearing for next month and

[32:14] at the same time um we'll call it

[32:17] bifurcated. And often times that's the

[32:19] case with these combined hearings

[32:21] because the zone change and the

[32:22] subdivision itself. Subdivisions relying

[32:24] on the zone change. If the zone change

[32:26] is not approved, there's not going to be

[32:27] another hearing. Um and uh so anyway,

[32:31] that's uh and talk more about that. ODOT

[32:34] does not want Hillyard people coming

[32:37] through on Hillyard on phase two to be

[32:39] able to drive over across the little

[32:41] connection there that connects these two

[32:43] main areas to be able to go on to 140.

[32:46] ODOT only wants the people in these

[32:49] three tax lots that you see that's on

[32:52] the on the west side that are in red and

[32:54] a little bit of yellow above that on the

[32:56] other side of the canal

[33:00] » right there. Can you see that?

[33:03] ODOT only wants people in there to come

[33:05] off of 140. He doesn't want people to

[33:08] come down Hillyard and go over and go

[33:09] there. It doesn't want people to um and

[33:13] vice versa. doesn't want people that are

[33:15] in this area to go up here and go there.

[33:19] Normally, you want have to have multiple

[33:21] you have want to have good circulation

[33:24] options to go in and out. What the

[33:26] applicant has proposed is to put what's

[33:28] called a temporary street plug right

[33:30] there which is basically a gate and

[33:34] until it could be until ODOT feels

[33:37] comfortable with allowing that

[33:39] circulation flow and go so that those

[33:42] can are connected.

[33:47] Does that answer your question?

[33:53] So did you say that ODOT has not been

[33:56] consulted on this yet?

[33:58] >> So they so I should start off these these projects are multipleyear

[34:02] projects. This project um three years

[34:05] ago was being at the pre-application

[34:08] level when the applicant just owned this

[34:12] part right here.

[34:14] [snorts] Uh two years ago, I got an

[34:16] email from my that my was addressed to

[34:18] my predecessor about this ready to move

[34:20] forward. And I was like, what the heck

[34:21] are we talking about? Well, the

[34:23] applicant had purchased this from the

[34:25] school district right here. So, I wanted

[34:26] to combine those two things. [snorts]

[34:28] So, in summer of 2025, the applicant had

[34:32] a pre-app meeting, pre-application

[34:34] meeting, which is common with all the

[34:36] agencies, jurisdictions, and

[34:37] departments, including ODOT. ODOT

[34:40] weighed in at the time. ODOT gave its

[34:42] opinions. The main sticking point with

[34:43] ODOT is not access. It's just that

[34:46] circulation right there.

[34:49] >> So, the county has um circulation

[34:53] standards for subdivisions like this.

[34:57] It's in article 71 of the land

[34:58] development code and it does require

[35:01] interconnection of those because um more

[35:05] than uh I believe the thresholds more

[35:08] than 50 new lots needs a second way in

[35:10] and out and uh the fire district also

[35:15] commented that the state fire code has

[35:17] circulation standards that are similar

[35:19] to the counties.

[35:23] So

[35:24] >> basically it's a showdown between our

[35:26] county code and ODOT's

[35:30] statutes or administrative rules.

[35:32] >> So what what tell tell us about that

[35:35] water tank. Is that the city's water

[35:37] tank? this then yes there have been

[35:39] extensive convers discussions and deal

[35:41] with the city going back a number of

[35:44] years and that's the city's water tank

[35:46] and as part of this the uh there would

[35:49] have to be improvements made and the

[35:51] installation of a booster station that

[35:53] would be adequate to serve this

[35:55] subdivision but also would be adequate

[35:56] to serve future subdivisions or future

[35:59] development to the east um going

[36:02] forward.

[36:03] So, but there's some there's some sub

[36:05] substantial amount of money that needs

[36:08] to be paid by somebody, right? Because

[36:11] they have to put a lift station in that

[36:13] in order to get that water out to that

[36:14] water tank is my understanding. Is that

[36:16] what you understand to be?

[36:18] >> That's correct. Development is a very

[36:19] expensive thing.

[36:20] >> Yeah.

[36:21] >> And it's rare that

[36:23] >> Yeah. There's there's a full memo in the

[36:25] as one of the exhibits from the the

[36:28] water. It it already has a tank and a

[36:30] booster station. And my understanding is

[36:33] uh they it has one fire pump in it uh

[36:36] for redundancy purposes. The city had

[36:39] actually coordinated with Hidden Valley

[36:40] phase 2, you know, plus this subdivision

[36:43] to add the second fire pump uh for that.

[36:47] There's a whole analysis for um fire

[36:50] flow, water pressures, all of that. Um

[36:53] it's probably a 10page memo. It's in the

[36:56] exhibits.

[36:58] Now in and another question during that

[37:01] opportunity analysis that was done with

[37:03] the city and and the county in

[37:04] conjunction with it was my understanding

[37:06] that the they there were housing needs

[37:09] that were identified it during that

[37:11] analysis and that it was it was uh I

[37:16] believe what they came up with was we

[37:17] were 400 homes behind the curve

[37:22] but it was a big number. I don't

[37:23] remember what what what it was, but

[37:25] yeah, that touched on that EO economic opportunities analysis touched

[37:31] on housing as well, you know, because

[37:33] that goes hand in hand with workforce

[37:36] um and development.

[37:38] >> Okay,

[37:41] further questions here from the

[37:43] question.

[37:44] >> Go ahead, Jack. Jennifer,

[37:45] >> multiple times the city of Clamoth water

[37:48] weighed in in the application and the

[37:50] staff report as well as Enterprise

[37:52] Irrigation District. Can you tell me how

[37:53] those two play together in this

[37:56] situation?

[37:57] >> Well, so if the land the red area at

[38:00] least is inter is part of Enterprise

[38:03] Irrigation District. The district

[38:04] boundaries are the technical boundaries

[38:07] when they were you know decreed and came

[38:09] about are rectalinear and go like that.

[38:12] But I mean the actual areas that

[38:14] irrigated at least below the canal that

[38:17] area is irrigated and it has a water

[38:19] right and so um much like a huge amount

[38:23] of enterprise irrigation district is in

[38:24] the suburban area in small tracks and um

[38:28] they have water rights for surface water

[38:30] for your lawn and garden. When it comes

[38:32] to the drinking water obviously it's all

[38:34] city but what that can do is that can

[38:36] save if that's the case and that could

[38:38] be utilized. The problem is Enterprise

[38:41] is a B district year to year. You don't

[38:43] know if you're going to get water or

[38:44] not. So it's, you know, there's no

[38:46] certainty. But, you know, that could

[38:48] take care of the lawns and gardens and,

[38:50] you know, the there would be less demand

[38:52] on the city water for those kinds of

[38:55] things for sure.

[38:56] >> So, EID did have a letter in there

[39:00] requesting the developer install

[39:02] infrastructure to each lot to continue

[39:04] service of uh irrigation. So would that

[39:08] be just in the southern portion of the

[39:09] development?

[39:10] >> Yeah, for my research it would be um

[39:13] because in the northern portion there is

[39:15] a groundwater, right? But there's no

[39:16] surface water, right?

[39:17] >> And you'd have to pump it to get it

[39:19] uphill from the canal.

[39:21] >> There's an 81 ft elevation difference

[39:24] between the lowest part on this whole

[39:26] property and the highest part. So it is,

[39:28] you know, the the northern part is quite

[39:30] a bit higher. But um yeah, so normally

[39:34] when in that situation the city provides

[39:37] water for you know the meter the meter's

[39:39] ticking but the city provides water for

[39:41] all your household domestic consumptive

[39:43] uses plus your lawn and garden you know

[39:46] like like you're in the city of Clement

[39:48] Falls so you pay for it but you get you

[39:50] get the water.

[39:51] >> Okay. Thank you. Can you talk me through

[39:53] the notice process? You mentioned that

[39:56] ODOT may have been left out and I know

[39:58] one of the concerns in here was that

[39:59] perhaps proper notice hadn't gone out um

[40:02] to neighbors. So can you talk me through

[40:04] what that notice process?

[40:05] >> So within the urban growth boundary, our

[40:07] notice requirements are 100 ft. We have

[40:10] a computer program that's um based on

[40:12] some of the same things where you see

[40:13] the mapping that we rely on every day

[40:16] when we people come to the planning

[40:17] counter and ask what where's my property

[40:20] and what's my zone and all those

[40:21] questions. And so we type in the

[40:24] perimeter, the actual tax lots in

[40:26] question, and we push a button, and it

[40:28] says how many feet, and that's by

[40:30] statute, by by the legislators decreed

[40:33] that. So we type in 100, and it outlines

[40:36] the whole thing and spews out a list of

[40:39] mailing labels.

[40:41] So we attach those to envelopes and send

[40:43] that out. And we send that out that we

[40:46] have to have that out 20 days prior to

[40:48] the hearing date.

[40:50] We also publish in the Herald News. I

[40:52] don't know how many of you still read

[40:53] the newspaper, but we we're required.

[40:56] It's a real pain. And I mean, well, it's

[40:59] it it seems like it's something that's

[41:02] going to I don't know how much longer

[41:03] it's got to that's got, but we have to

[41:05] make sure that we publish it in the

[41:06] paper twice, two different weeks that

[41:09] there's this hearing coming up. What I

[41:12] also do is I send it to any agency,

[41:15] department, jurisdiction that would have

[41:17] some kind of a relationship or state of

[41:19] the matter. And so, um, ODOT was first

[41:23] and foremost on the list, but so is the

[41:25] fire, so is Enterprise Irrigation

[41:27] District, K, the fire protection

[41:29] district, you know, the list goes, South

[41:31] Suburban Sanitary District, all the

[41:33] different ones that are going to be

[41:34] involved with this. And um I

[41:37] inadvertently made a fat finger mistake

[41:39] and left ODOT off the last of the list

[41:41] because the phone rang or something. So

[41:43] I when I discovered that um I called

[41:45] them up and they are reviewing it. Uh

[41:47] they were reviewing it yesterday at a

[41:48] meeting and they will have something to

[41:51] say about it in the next week or so.

[41:53] >> And the next meeting you might talk

[41:56] about here.

[41:58] >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, the next meeting that

[41:59] would be here, uh we would um have what

[42:01] ODOT's comments in advance and would

[42:04] also um uh you know

[42:08] uh they're they're not these people

[42:10] don't testify. They don't come to these

[42:12] meetings and testify and they don't want

[42:13] to testify, but they would have their

[42:15] comments, but their comments are of a

[42:17] nature that they're not the main the

[42:20] main controversy is between them and the

[42:22] county. The county engineer says we want

[42:25] circulation. smart code says you you

[42:26] have to have these streets connected,

[42:28] make a big loop. And ODOT says no

[42:30] because that way people that are

[42:31] technically living here should only be

[42:34] accessing it from 140 and should not

[42:36] come in on this road. And people living

[42:39] here should only access it from this

[42:41] road, not come in on 140. So at the end

[42:43] of the day, I don't know who's going to

[42:44] win.

[42:45] >> So am I to understand that what we're

[42:47] going to rule on tonight is just the

[42:49] zone change?

[42:50] >> Yes. It's a comprehensive plan change

[42:54] from commercial to residential. That's

[42:58] just for this area right there um the

[43:01] southern part. And then it's um on the

[43:03] and then it's it's zone change for all

[43:06] of it from uh whatever this from from it

[43:10] current zone to residential

[43:13] uh to medium density residential. The

[43:15] reason why you don't need a

[43:15] comprehensive plan change on this part

[43:17] is because it's already own residential.

[43:19] You're just changing it from suburban to medium density.

[43:28] » Sorry. You can you can do that when it's

[43:32] time for you to testify. That that'd be

[43:34] fine.

[43:35] >> Okay. So, uh so is going from

[43:40] residential suburban to residential

[43:43] medium density an upzone?

[43:46] It is technically

[43:48] no. It's not an up zone, but it it is it

[43:50] is something where you can have a higher

[43:53] density. Yes. But it's not if it went to

[43:55] commercial, it would be an up zone in

[43:57] the technical sense, but it is you can

[43:59] go to a higher density on that. Yes.

[44:01] >> Okay.

[44:02] >> On the topic of zoning, there was a

[44:05] water report, maybe from the city. I'm

[44:07] not entirely sure who it was from, but

[44:08] it talked about water use that mentioned

[44:11] a daycare in this development at a few

[44:14] times as well as a commercial area at

[44:17] least once. How does that with the zone

[44:20] >> change between the city and I'll let the

[44:22] applicant address this too in case I'm

[44:23] misspeaking, but um I believe when the

[44:26] city when we had that pre-application

[44:28] meeting in the summer of 2025,

[44:31] there were there was a commercial and

[44:34] there was a daycare. I'm good good eye.

[44:37] It's embedded in there that was on that

[44:40] and discussed in the southern part. Um

[44:43] it was and then that was changed and

[44:45] it's no longer there. But when the city

[44:48] incorporated their prior comments, they

[44:50] still had that from their previous

[44:52] discussion.

[44:53] >> So if this zone change were approved,

[44:56] would a daycare and or other commercial

[44:58] area be allowed?

[45:00] >> No.

[45:01] Okay. it' just be strictly

[45:03] residential, but I would caveat that

[45:06] with the applicant correcting me if I'm

[45:07] wrong.

[45:09] >> And then we as a planning commission

[45:11] have had several conversations in work

[45:14] sessions recently about changes to

[45:16] housing code. Would any of those

[45:18] proposed changes impact density in this

[45:20] development?

[45:22] >> Yes, but it's not because things you're

[45:24] making. It's because we're updating our

[45:26] code so that we're actually um in line

[45:29] with what the state legislature has

[45:30] already said as the law. And one thing

[45:32] is um you cannot discriminate on minimum

[45:36] parcel sizes for duplexes and make them

[45:39] be have to be a larger parcel size than

[45:41] you can single family dwellings. And

[45:43] that when I pulled up that code section

[45:45] on medium density, that's still in

[45:47] there, but we will change that. But we

[45:49] we're changing that because we're doing

[45:51] two things. We're bringing our our code

[45:52] up to date with what the current law is

[45:55] because, you know, we have to follow the

[45:56] law and then we're also looking at all

[45:59] other housing options, but it's mainly

[46:00] because we're just following the law on

[46:02] that one.

[46:03] >> So, what impact would that have? One of

[46:05] the assumptions I believe in in that

[46:07] same water document was a maximum of 25

[46:11] duplexes in this development. If that

[46:14] number happens to be greatly increased

[46:16] through that future change, would we

[46:18] still have water infrastructure based on

[46:20] the current?

[46:21] >> Well, it would have to be designed

[46:22] around an upper limit

[46:24] and um that's a a largely a contractual

[46:28] thing between the city and the developer

[46:30] when they go to hammer out who's going

[46:32] to pay for what and everything and there

[46:34] would be have to be an upper limit. What

[46:36] the what you could do with the with the

[46:39] updates to the code is you could

[46:41] increase the possibility of them them

[46:42] increasing that upper limit, but they'd

[46:44] have to have infrastructure to support

[46:45] it both for fire protection and for the

[46:49] water to serve for the individual

[46:51] residences.

[46:53] >> Would that upper limit be put as part of

[46:56] this zone change or would that be in the

[46:58] future for a subdivision application?

[47:03] >> Well, it could be put as a zone change.

[47:04] remember the limited use overlay that we

[47:06] talked about. Um the the the difficulty

[47:09] is is I um unless a person has something

[47:13] concrete, it's hard to to envision all

[47:16] that. And sometimes you're better off to

[47:18] just stick with medium density and

[47:20] figure that that's the upper limit

[47:24] rather than something else. But yes, you

[47:25] can you can condition zone changes uh

[47:28] that way. It just has to last in

[47:31] perpetuity for the next generation where

[47:33] they can still know that it's there and

[47:36] it still makes sense.

[47:42] » I think that was all I've got.

[47:43] >> Any further questions for staff from the

[47:45] planning commission?

[47:47] >> Okay. Not seeing any, then um I would

[47:50] like to ask the applicant or their

[47:53] representative to please come to the

[47:54] podium, be sworn in, and we'd like to

[47:57] hear from you.

[48:07] I do. So is where?

[48:08] >> Please state your name.

[48:11] >> Raul Water with AKS Engineering and

[48:13] Forestry. We're at 4497 Brownidge

[48:16] Terrace in Medford, Oregon.

[48:18] >> Mr. Warner, are you at 15 minutes?

[48:22] >> Thank you. uh here on behalf of Dan

[48:25] Horton uh property owner who is in the

[48:28] audience with me today and uh we also

[48:31] have the civil engineers John Mortz from

[48:34] um Atkins Engineering um designed the

[48:37] infrastructure for the project. This is

[48:40] property the Hortons have owned since

[48:41] the early 1970s. Uh that lower parcel

[48:45] anyway uh the upper parcel was owned by

[48:47] the school district. Uh Dan Horton uh at

[48:52] bother had originally asked the county

[48:54] to zone this commercial thinking uh

[48:56] along Highway 140 there might be some

[48:59] beneficial use someday in the future. It

[49:01] just never really occurred. And uh the

[49:04] economic opportunities analysis for for

[49:06] Clamoth uh Falls urban area plan is

[49:11] similarly like determined that there's a

[49:13] an over a surplus of commercial land.

[49:16] Uh Dan's an architect as well and he's designed many residential

[49:21] developments and and his uh his desire

[49:24] was to to make this available as a nice

[49:27] housing project for the community. Uh

[49:29] challenges

[49:30] were uh this is in the urbanizable area

[49:33] of Clamoth Falls urban growth boundary

[49:37] under state rules under statewide pl 14

[49:40] urbanization land within an urbanizable

[49:43] urban growth boundary is considered

[49:44] urbanizable. It's not for preservation

[49:47] as as uh staff pointed out earlier where

[49:50] you have to take exceptions. It's

[49:51] actually planned for for urban types of

[49:54] uses. Uh the size of the southern parcel

[49:58] would be okay for a big box. You'd need

[50:01] like 10 plus acres for something like

[50:03] that. Uh interesting thing about the

[50:05] property as mentioned was there are

[50:06] three access reservations to highway 140

[50:09] and three tax lots that comprise that lower track. Uh those were provided

[50:14] in exchange for rightway uh widening of

[50:17] the uh highway 140 back in the 1970s.

[50:21] Um

[50:22] so you could develop each with

[50:24] commercial uses on three different lots

[50:26] or do a a single development that has uh

[50:29] a larger commercial plaza or something

[50:31] like that.

[50:34] ODOT has been coordinated with

[50:36] throughout the process. our traffic

[50:37] engineer continuously communicated with

[50:40] them after the pre-application

[50:42] conference. They just haven't provided

[50:44] the the comment back yet. Their concern

[50:46] is really with the site plan. They call

[50:47] it site plan. It's the subdivision plan.

[50:50] Uh they're concerned that that

[50:53] because the property to the north is a

[50:55] is privately held. Uh

[50:58] it's not that they don't want to

[51:00] connect. There's not a grant of access

[51:02] for that property. only the three lot

[51:04] tax lots down below were provided

[51:06] highway reservations and we're going to

[51:08] consolidate those into one public street

[51:11] connection. Uh ODOT's position though is

[51:14] on on the process side for entitling the

[51:18] highway access to go through to

[51:20] Hilliard. Uh so there's a process to do

[51:24] that and get the permits from them. Like

[51:26] a lot of state agency permitting

[51:29] processes, you have to start with a

[51:31] local entitlement that says yes, this is

[51:34] an allowed use in the zone and the

[51:35] development is is conditionally

[51:37] approved, but uh as a condition they you

[51:40] have to satisfy the various state

[51:42] permitting processes. That would include

[51:45] environmental things like uh erosion

[51:47] control. Uh if there were wetlands, that

[51:50] sort of thing, coordination with the

[51:52] irrigation district, all those are

[51:53] typical conditions of approval. you work

[51:56] with those agencies to get the final

[51:58] plat approval um before the expiration

[52:00] date occurs and and then then once you

[52:03] get all the permits together and the

[52:04] development end we can we can subdivide.

[52:08] So, it's not that they're opposed to

[52:09] connectivity. In fact, you know, state

[52:12] policy is to promote neighborhood

[52:14] connectivity and diffuse traffic so

[52:16] everybody's not having to go and

[52:18] concentrate traffic at any single point.

[52:20] And that's what we're trying to achieve.

[52:22] And as this development goes forward, we

[52:25] can bring in that another uh access or

[52:28] emergencies or just daily use ultimately

[52:31] to connect all the neighborhoods to the

[52:33] north. But we have to go through the

[52:34] process with ODOT before we can do that.

[52:37] and perfect that. We really need to get

[52:39] a conditional approval from from the

[52:41] county. Um

[52:45] the uh another challenge was the Hortons

[52:49] didn't own the property to the north

[52:50] between the subject property and source

[52:54] of water and and of course that's a

[52:55] problem. So the Dan Horton worked with

[52:58] school district and acquired that that

[53:00] parcel to the north uh which is adjacent

[53:03] to property that has the the water res

[53:05] city's water reservoir on it and it's

[53:07] been coordinating with the the city uh

[53:10] and the adjacent developer uh on

[53:14] uh delivering infrastructure and

[53:16] extending that infrastructure so that uh

[53:19] all that urbanizable area can be brought

[53:21] online. So, we're going to be extending

[53:23] water infrastructure all the way down

[53:24] along the sewer infrastructure and and

[53:26] that really addresses concerns about

[53:28] wellwater because this development won't

[53:30] be using wellwater. It's providing an

[53:33] alternative in in municipal water. Um

[53:40] the design of development is really

[53:43] driven by the adopted urbanizable area

[53:46] comp plan and some of the code

[53:48] provisions that apply inside urban

[53:50] growth boundary in the county's

[53:52] ordinance. We have a requirement to not

[53:55] exceed 600 foot block standard in

[53:58] urbanizable area. And given the

[54:00] property's trapezoidal configuration at

[54:03] the top and and uh uh you know the

[54:07] requirement to maintain separation as

[54:09] well minimum separation from uh I think

[54:12] it was 120 ft from the intersection

[54:14] right before you on hillyard right

[54:16] before you get to the uh the property.

[54:19] It just it wasn't mathing out at the SR

[54:22] uh zoning standards and the density in

[54:26] the SR zone allows up to four units per

[54:28] acre. that this subdivision will deliver

[54:31] 3.9 lots per acre when all said and

[54:34] done. So, it it really is kind of where

[54:38] SR and RM meet me in terms of density.

[54:42] Uh but it just gives us a little more

[54:46] ability to sort of pixelize uh if you

[54:48] will uh to make lots fit into the block

[54:52] standards that the urban area plan

[54:53] requires.

[54:55] uh again with the also the terrain and the the lot shape

[54:59] the uh going back to the ODOT

[55:01] reservation rightway we we proposed so

[55:04] ODOT's initial response on the site plan

[55:07] subdivision plan was we can't you don't

[55:10] have an entitlement to extend access

[55:13] from highway 140 to the north but

[55:14] there's a process to do that so we don't

[55:17] want the site plan connecting but county

[55:20] and urban area plans for the city uh

[55:23] require connectivity and subdivision

[55:24] plans have to assure that adjacent

[55:27] properties will have access in the

[55:29] future too. So you want to design it to

[55:30] extend. So we've designed it to connect

[55:33] but proposing a street plug be dedicated

[55:36] on the plat which can only be released

[55:38] by the county by vacating the street

[55:41] plug with the condition that ODOT has

[55:43] approved the ability to connect through.

[55:46] uh the street would actually come

[55:48] together, but there'd be a gate with uh

[55:50] emergency access. We call Knox Block or

[55:53] something like that that would allow

[55:54] fire truck to get through in an

[55:56] emergency or or neighborhood in case of

[55:58] a an emergency could get out of the

[55:59] highway. So, this is just your

[56:02] day-to-day

[56:04] access uh concern that ODOT has. in an

[56:08] emergency there there are provisions in

[56:11] law that allow you to uh trespass if you

[56:14] will on other people's property even if

[56:16] you have to get away from your

[56:17] neighborhood. So uh it does provide that

[56:20] benefit to the public as well. So water

[56:22] infrastructure, sewer infrastructure

[56:24] gets extended. Area that's planned for

[56:26] urbanization will have facilities uh

[56:31] made available and possible through this project and we get that

[56:36] connection that alternative connection

[56:38] uh out of that neighborhood. So there

[56:39] was another outlet.

[56:42] So those are [clears throat]

[56:44] the major points I wanted to make. I

[56:45] know I have limited time. I'd like to uh

[56:48] reserve time for rebuttal and stand for

[56:50] any questions that you have. We do have

[56:52] Mr. Horton here too if you want to bring

[56:54] him up. And

[56:56] >> so I've got a question. Who who's going

[56:58] to be the sewer provider there?

[57:02] >> SSS.

[57:03] >> So South Suburban Center. Okay.

[57:06] >> Um you you talked about the traffic flow

[57:11] out of those private citizens driveways

[57:13] that are on Highway 140 there. Okay. So,

[57:17] it sounded like to me, I wasn't sure,

[57:19] but it sounded like they were all going

[57:21] to be combined. So, they came to one

[57:23] central location, which I guess would be

[57:25] the access to 140. Is that correct?

[57:27] >> So, Mr. Horton owns three access rights

[57:30] to 140. They're associated with each of

[57:32] the three tax lots on the south side. Uh

[57:36] they will all be consolidated and moved

[57:37] as far away,

[57:40] you know, at the east end of the

[57:41] property from the the interchange

[57:43] between the two highways to the west. So

[57:45] it it pushes the distance all the way to

[57:47] the east. So instead of having three

[57:50] separate driveways, you're going to have

[57:51] they're private. You'd have one

[57:52] consolidated public street access with

[57:55] the

[57:56] two-way turn TWWT,

[57:59] the turn lane uh in in the highway

[58:01] provided by this project.

[58:04] >> I put a screenshot of the southern part.

[58:08] and it shows the connection over there

[58:10] on the right hand side. [clears throat]

[58:12] But that's three separate tax lots today

[58:15] that have three separate driveways. The

[58:18] proposals will for one public street to

[58:20] connect.

[58:21] >> And so how are those those three going

[58:23] to be combined then? I don't quite

[58:26] understand.

[58:26] >> And the subdivision it the subdivision

[58:29] eventually will combine. Right now we're

[58:31] talking about the zone change. Okay.

[58:33] >> The subdivision combines lots and then

[58:35] divides lots into the final

[58:36] configuration.

[58:37] >> Yeah. those three existing lot lines

[58:39] become invisible later on.

[58:41] >> Yeah, I got you.

[58:42] >> As to the zone change and comprehensive

[58:44] plan map amendment, I mean the effect of

[58:46] that change is an overall reduction in

[58:50] potential trips generated based on

[58:51] zoning. you're going from over 27 well

[58:55] it's a a reduction of over 2700

[58:58] average daily trips per day uh to the

[59:01] system by changing to the proposed RM

[59:04] zoning

[59:06] uh and that's you know PM afternoon trip

[59:11] peak hours are are kind of the the the

[59:14] big number that the OD is concerned and

[59:16] it's um you could generate more than

[59:22] under the existing zoning 578 more PMP

[59:25] hour trips in than the proposed zone.

[59:26] So, uh that's a benefit to the

[59:30] transportation system systemwide that

[59:33] you know the county or city can

[59:34] negotiate with ODOT and taking those

[59:36] trips that are are going away from their

[59:38] model and putting them somewhere else if you're having some issues with the

[59:42] project.

[59:44] >> So, the traffic impact analysis states

[59:46] that this development will reduce

[59:49] numbers of trips affected. the zoning,

[59:52] the zone change,

[59:53] >> right?

[59:54] >> While that sounds

[59:57] kind of weird on the surface, there's

[59:59] nothing there right now. There are no

[1:00:01] trips essentially. Can you walk me

[1:00:04] through kind of the math on how changing

[1:00:07] it to this zoning would reduce the

[1:00:10] future potential trips?

[1:00:12] >> Okay. So, zoning and comp plan are are

[1:00:15] subject to findings directed to

[1:00:16] something called the transportation

[1:00:18] planning rule. that that's where that

[1:00:20] math lies and those are trips that are

[1:00:22] already in the adopted transportation

[1:00:26] system plans model for determining what they're planning for in terms of

[1:00:30] projects uh that the city and the county

[1:00:33] have to choose to to prioritize and fund

[1:00:37] the actual development whether it's

[1:00:39] under commercial zoning or residential

[1:00:42] development under the county's code

[1:00:44] requires a transportation impact study

[1:00:48] specific specific to the development. So

[1:00:50] that's where we're looking at day of

[1:00:53] opening kind of impacts from the

[1:00:55] development itself relative to the

[1:00:57] existing conditions. So the the vacant

[1:00:59] land produces very little trips

[1:01:01] associated with just the maintenance of

[1:01:03] the property. the subdivision will

[1:01:05] generate some new trips uh as per the

[1:01:07] TIS which has determined that there's

[1:01:10] going to be some mitigation required and

[1:01:12] that's the uh but that otherwise with

[1:01:15] the mitigation that it's going to meet

[1:01:16] all parameters for for ODOT and the

[1:01:18] county

[1:01:21] um on the subject of ODOT they are

[1:01:23] working on a master plan for that South

[1:01:25] Sixth Street corridor

[1:01:28] does the proposed access fall in line

[1:01:30] with that master plan for that specific

[1:01:32] intersection South 6th and 140

[1:01:35] intersection.

[1:01:36] >> We don't have any direct access there,

[1:01:38] but the the study examined that and and

[1:01:42] uh you know the the findings uh

[1:01:45] considered that in terms of determining

[1:01:47] what mitigation is needed.

[1:01:50] Um

[1:01:51] >> so ODOT the south six corridor plan is

[1:01:54] from

[1:01:56] uh roughly Starbucks which is kind of

[1:01:59] the city line where the city takes care

[1:02:01] of the south six west of there and ODOT

[1:02:04] is used there to KCC. Uh so the Hillyard

[1:02:09] intersection that is the upper

[1:02:10] connection is inside of that corridor.

[1:02:13] Uh the the connection out here isn't,

[1:02:15] but the applicant is proposing a uh

[1:02:18] two-way left turn lane, which um gives

[1:02:22] refuge to somebody turning left and Q

[1:02:25] length in there.

[1:02:27] And another point to be made is any uh

[1:02:31] projects that are are planned and

[1:02:32] adopted in a TSP are going to be with uh

[1:02:35] associated with a capital improvement

[1:02:37] plan in a budget which will qualify all

[1:02:40] those projects for use of SDC systems

[1:02:43] development charges that are charged at the time the homes

[1:02:48] are built. So when we have the lots and

[1:02:50] as the subdivision is planted. So, uh,

[1:02:54] this project will actually help fund,

[1:02:56] you know, your capital improvement plan.

[1:02:58] Yes.

[1:02:58] >> Super quick. Um, Climate County doesn't

[1:03:01] have transportation SDC's. I know that's

[1:03:03] not normal. Okay. Most places do, but we

[1:03:06] don't.

[1:03:07] >> Um, and so what would happen is

[1:03:10] um, you would you would directly

[1:03:12] participate. You're obviously mitigating

[1:03:14] Highway 140 or the turn lanes, whatnot.

[1:03:17] That's a very big improvement and that's

[1:03:19] on the developer. um Hillyard just so

[1:03:23] that the group knows is that that

[1:03:25] corridor study was is I would say 60%

[1:03:29] done. The idea at Hillyard is ODOT um

[1:03:35] doesn't want a traffic signal there.

[1:03:37] ODOT doesn't want a roundabout there. So

[1:03:39] the current

[1:03:41] idea from ODOT is to have an offset T

[1:03:44] intersection. So, right now it's skewed

[1:03:46] and it comes together is to bend the uh

[1:03:50] north leg in and uh then bend the uh

[1:03:55] south leg further north and have them

[1:03:57] separated by like a th00and ft. And so

[1:04:00] it's going to turn a you know skewed

[1:04:03] intersection into two T intersections uh

[1:04:06] thousand feet apart. So that's the

[1:04:09] current plan on that. um this uh this

[1:04:13] development would pay its proportional

[1:04:15] share of that. So um we anticipate with

[1:04:20] any uh increased traffic u from the

[1:04:24] subdivision. The way it normally goes is

[1:04:26] you count background traffic and let's

[1:04:29] say that the peak hour background

[1:04:31] traffic is 100 cars to that intersection

[1:04:34] and this application adds I'm just

[1:04:36] making numbers up 30. this development

[1:04:40] would be responsible for 30% of their fair share of the future

[1:04:44] improvements for that intersection.

[1:04:47] >> Thank you.

[1:04:49] >> Yeah. Um now on that property now you

[1:04:52] said there's three accesses. Are they

[1:04:54] actually there? The three accesses off

[1:04:57] of 140 or they just you just have the

[1:05:00] right away.

[1:05:02] Well,

[1:05:02] >> there's there's one driveway on the

[1:05:04] westerly end for sure. Dan, are the

[1:05:06] other two in or just reservations?

[1:05:11] It's kind of a little farm.

[1:05:13] >> Yeah.

[1:05:14] >> Access there from the highway.

[1:05:15] >> Go back out there. You could you could

[1:05:16] see the three access.

[1:05:19] >> No, no,

[1:05:20] >> no, They're reservations.

[1:05:22] >> They're on their reservations on paper

[1:05:24] through OD,

[1:05:25] >> right? Okay. That's that's what

[1:05:29] » Okay. Further questions from the

[1:05:31] commission for for the applicant?

[1:05:35] Hearing none. Thank you so much for your

[1:05:37] testimony. Okay. Now, we're going to

[1:05:39] call people off of their slips that they

[1:05:42] filled out. So, we're going to try to

[1:05:44] avoid any real chaos here if we can. Um,

[1:05:47] so it would be good. Robin, are they are

[1:05:50] they noted as to whether they're an

[1:05:52] opponent or a proponent?

[1:06:02] » Okay. So that that would be the first

[1:06:03] group that we want to hear from are the ones that have opposition. So go ahead Rob.

[1:06:09] >> We typically just

[1:06:12] favor.

[1:06:16] » Okay. Uh

[1:06:18] >> oh, you're right.

[1:06:20] >> opposition.

[1:06:25] >> Okay. And that was it.

[1:06:34] Is that Yeah. So, we can call the first

[1:06:35] person. Yeah.

[1:06:37] >> David Ferguson

[1:06:41] helpful to announce who's on deck so

[1:06:43] that they can

[1:06:51] language.

[1:06:53] Please raise your right hand. Do you

[1:06:54] swear to confirm that the statements you

[1:06:56] make at this hearing shall be true to

[1:06:57] your best?

[1:06:59] >> Yes. Please state your name and address

[1:07:01] for the record.

[1:07:01] >> David Ferguson, 7845 Mark Lane, Clamoth

[1:07:06] Falls.

[1:07:07] >> Mr. Ferguson, you'll have five minutes.

[1:07:10] >> Okay. Two things. One being the water in

[1:07:13] that area. When they put that well in

[1:07:16] and started pumping, there's already

[1:07:18] been two rel two neighbors that have

[1:07:20] lost their water.

[1:07:22] Now, I took the state's um water usage

[1:07:26] averages of 105 homes is 26,250

[1:07:31] gallons per day. Now, me being on a well

[1:07:35] and a lot of others on wells, what's

[1:07:37] going to happen when they draw that down

[1:07:39] even more and we lose our water? How are

[1:07:42] we going to,

[1:07:44] you know, what's going to happen to our

[1:07:46] wells?

[1:07:48] And the other thing is the amount of

[1:07:49] traffic going down Hillyard now is

[1:07:53] fairly heavy. There's no bike paths.

[1:07:56] There's a lot of kids, bikes, horses,

[1:07:59] riders that go up and down that street.

[1:08:02] Adding that many more houses in that

[1:08:05] area is going to cause congestion. I've

[1:08:08] been down at the end of Hillyard early

[1:08:10] of the morning when everybody's going to

[1:08:12] work. You're eight or nine cars back

[1:08:14] trying to get out on the sixth out about

[1:08:17] another 30 or 40 more homes. And what's

[1:08:20] going to happen? And have they ever done

[1:08:23] a uh water underground water study to

[1:08:26] see what the water table is like there?

[1:08:30] You know, those are my two main

[1:08:32] concerns.

[1:08:34] >> Okay. Does that conclude your testimony?

[1:08:37] Yes. Okay. Stay right where you are.

[1:08:38] Does anybody in the planning commission

[1:08:40] have questions for this gentleman?

[1:08:43] Okay, hearing none. Thank you so much

[1:08:44] for your testimony. Now, I did start

[1:08:47] that incorrectly, so we need to switch

[1:08:49] lanes here. And those that support would

[1:08:52] be the ones we want to hear from now.

[1:08:54] Apologize for that.

[1:08:58] » It's okay.

[1:08:59] Yeah.

[1:09:00] >> Okay. [laughter]

[1:09:01] Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. So, we'll

[1:09:04] continue then to hear from those that

[1:09:05] are opposed.

[1:09:19] I do.

[1:09:20] >> Please state your name and address.

[1:09:22] >> Drew Langley. I live at 7215 Hillyard

[1:09:25] Avenue here in Clamoth Falls.

[1:09:27] >> Mr. Langley, you have five minutes.

[1:09:29] >> Good. Hey, can we can we get you to put

[1:09:32] one of your pictures back up here? Sure.

[1:09:34] the picture of

[1:09:36] Hillyard Avenue facing east from South

[1:09:40] Sixth Street.

[1:09:53] Well, he's looking for that. Um, I'll

[1:09:55] mimic some of his concerns. Uh we had a

[1:09:59] well at our house and they've drilled

[1:10:03] other wells and they've extended wells

[1:10:05] and all that and we've lost our well.

[1:10:07] Cost us $5,000 to get hooked up to city

[1:10:09] water. That was five or six years ago. I

[1:10:12] can't imagine what it's going to cost

[1:10:13] now to do that. Um but

[1:10:18] I I guess my intentions here are pretty

[1:10:21] selfish because I'm concerned about

[1:10:23] traffic flow. I'm concerned about where

[1:10:27] are all these kids that are going to

[1:10:29] move into these houses? Where are they

[1:10:30] going to go to school? That's Henley

[1:10:32] School District there. Henley is at its

[1:10:35] peak right now. Um so that that's just a

[1:10:39] question with that. Um Enterprise

[1:10:42] Irrigation, we're only allotted a

[1:10:44] certain amount of water that comes

[1:10:48] through that ditch and we get about six

[1:10:51] weeks of water. So with that, when that

[1:10:55] water's done, they shut it off and we go

[1:10:57] back to using city water or private

[1:11:00] wellwater to irrigate gardens and lawns

[1:11:04] and things like that. So again, there's

[1:11:06] a water issue. Uh if they drill that

[1:11:09] well deeper up on the hill, okay, um

[1:11:14] what is going to happen to all those

[1:11:16] domestic wells that are on there? And

[1:11:18] there's several shared wells. Skyline is

[1:11:20] on a shared well. There's other houses.

[1:11:24] There's about 12 houses on another

[1:11:26] shared well. That's one of the major

[1:11:28] concerns. This is Hillyard.

[1:11:32] My house sits right around the corner.

[1:11:35] You can see my house

[1:11:37] up Hillyard there. I'm the first one

[1:11:39] past the fire station. When I bought my

[1:11:42] house in 2000,

[1:11:44] Sierra Heights was not fully developed

[1:11:47] up there. Hidden Valley was not

[1:11:48] developed there. Traffic has quadrupled

[1:11:53] at least in the amount of time that I

[1:11:55] have lived there. There are no sidewalks

[1:11:58] on that road. There are no street lights

[1:12:00] on that road.

[1:12:02] You're going to put a hundred houses up

[1:12:05] there

[1:12:07] with no infrastructure in place.

[1:12:11] Nobody has mentioned that there's an

[1:12:14] exit,

[1:12:15] you know what, 200 feet down the road

[1:12:17] from the community college. Try to get

[1:12:20] out from Hillyard onto South Sixth

[1:12:22] Street at class time change.

[1:12:26] It's a disaster.

[1:12:29] Maybe their grand plan on on South Sixth

[1:12:32] Street's re redo will fix that, but

[1:12:35] right now it's a disaster. Um and the

[1:12:38] fire department is there on that skewed

[1:12:41] intersection. Uh th those are our major

[1:12:44] concerns is water schooling for the

[1:12:47] kids. Um safety

[1:12:51] there there are no sidewalks. There's no

[1:12:53] curbs going down Hillyard.

[1:12:56] So and it's a half mile straight

[1:12:58] stretch. It's a 25 mph zone that is

[1:13:01] hardly ever patrolled and is hardly ever

[1:13:06] observed by people driving up and down

[1:13:09] that road. So, I guess those would be

[1:13:12] the concerns for me being the first

[1:13:16] house on that road. Every single one of

[1:13:18] those new cars is going to go in front

[1:13:21] of my house.

[1:13:25] » That concludes your testimony.

[1:13:26] >> Yes, sir.

[1:13:27] >> Okay. Does anybody have any questions

[1:13:29] for this gentleman from the planning

[1:13:31] commission?

[1:13:31] >> I have one question.

[1:13:32] >> Go ahead, Jack. Sure.

[1:13:33] >> Are you familiar with the currently

[1:13:36] irrigated portion of the proposed zone

[1:13:39] change area and whether or not you've

[1:13:41] seen it using its a lotment of

[1:13:42] enterprise irrigation water? It

[1:13:44] >> it probably has not been using it

[1:13:46] because it hasn't been irrigated.

[1:13:49] U it's been barren land for multiple

[1:13:53] years. Um, and so if they build houses

[1:13:56] up there and people do start to use that

[1:13:58] water, that uses up our aotment quicker,

[1:14:01] I would assume. So I I don't know that

[1:14:05] for as a fact, but that's just what my

[1:14:08] opinion would be.

[1:14:10] >> Any further questions?

[1:14:12] >> Thank you so much for your testimony,

[1:14:14] Robin.

[1:14:28] Kaitlyn Mendoza.

[1:14:33] [laughter]

[1:14:36] [clears throat]

[1:14:40] » Please raise your right hand. Do you

[1:14:41] swear the statements you make at this

[1:14:43] hearing shall be true?

[1:14:45] >> Yes.

[1:14:45] >> Please say your name and that photo. Uh

[1:14:48] Kayla Mendoza and it's 7509 South 6th

[1:14:51] Street.

[1:14:52] >> Miss Mendoza, you have five minutes.

[1:14:54] >> Thank you. Um so uh my partner and I

[1:14:57] have recently purchased um Goodell

[1:14:59] Veterinary Clinic. So we are on the

[1:15:02] corner on 140 and Western right next to

[1:15:06] it. Our concerns are mainly um the water

[1:15:10] starting there um and traffic concerns.

[1:15:14] with the traffic. Um, you made a point

[1:15:17] about planning a center lane, turn lane.

[1:15:22] We you kind of touched on that and

[1:15:25] talking about having enough time to stop

[1:15:28] when you have I mean there are hay

[1:15:30] trucks that go up and down that road. Do

[1:15:32] they have plenty of time to stop?

[1:15:35] livestock trailers, horse trailers, it

[1:15:38] takes a significant amount of time to

[1:15:40] stop when you're going 45

[1:15:44] coming down, which most people in that

[1:15:46] area already know to kind of slow down

[1:15:48] to make those turns, but you never know.

[1:15:52] Um, and then how long is the planned

[1:15:57] um, center turn lane and how that would

[1:16:00] affect that 140 south 6 intersection?

[1:16:05] Um, they just replaced a bunch of power

[1:16:08] poles all along 140. So, if they are

[1:16:11] going to widen the road, which direction

[1:16:13] would you be, you know, widening it if

[1:16:15] it's going to be on our side of the

[1:16:18] street or the other side? So, just kind

[1:16:20] of thoughts to think about those since

[1:16:23] they just put a bunch of money and with

[1:16:25] that traffic, it's been a nightmare

[1:16:28] going in and out and getting around. Um,

[1:16:34] I had one more thing too. There on our

[1:16:37] side, we have a hill and it's really

[1:16:40] sandy. I don't know if you guys looked

[1:16:42] at

[1:16:44] um the ground there and the stability if

[1:16:47] you were planning on flattening that out

[1:16:49] or if it was just we're going to kind of

[1:16:52] build on this hill. And

[1:16:54] >> ma'am, could you please address the

[1:16:56] commission with your

[1:16:57] >> Sorry.

[1:17:00] So with with the ground being so sandy,

[1:17:04] um how that would if houses would fall

[1:17:08] or whatnot or you know building

[1:17:10] something there to stand it up. Um

[1:17:17] and I think that's our main concerns,

[1:17:20] you know, just wanted to touch on to

[1:17:22] think about.

[1:17:23] >> Okay, that concludes your testimony.

[1:17:26] >> Yes.

[1:17:26] >> Okay. Does anybody on the planning

[1:17:27] commission have a question for this

[1:17:29] lady? Thank you so much for your

[1:17:31] testimony. We really appreciate it.

[1:17:33] >> Thank you.

[1:17:33] >> Go ahead, Robin.

[1:17:47] » Yeah, I do.

[1:17:49] Uh, it's Todd Hamlin, 7849 Highway 140

[1:17:52] East.

[1:17:53] >> Mr. You have five minutes.

[1:17:55] >> Okay. I live right next to the property

[1:17:58] that they're looking to develop down on

[1:18:00] the highway part of it. As they all say,

[1:18:04] the water is an issue, but also the

[1:18:06] traffic because if they do widen that

[1:18:08] road, where are they going to take it

[1:18:10] from the properties across the street?

[1:18:12] Because there's not enough room over to

[1:18:15] where, like they said with power poles,

[1:18:18] they just put all that in. There's not

[1:18:19] enough room to extend that way. So,

[1:18:21] they're going to ease into the people

[1:18:24] across the road. And then how far like

[1:18:27] she asked was how far does it go

[1:18:29] actually go down from the Y junction

[1:18:34] towards the corner of 140? Because the

[1:18:38] 50 mph speed limit, nobody obeys it. And

[1:18:42] there's multiple wrecks on that corner.

[1:18:44] For whatever reason, nobody can drive

[1:18:46] that corner. So, if you add more

[1:18:48] traffic, it's not going to help because

[1:18:52] he Mr. Young asked about like south view

[1:18:57] and all that with it coming onto a

[1:18:59] highway which is totally different

[1:19:01] because that's actually

[1:19:04] so much wider and there's a lot less

[1:19:06] traffic because you have them coming in

[1:19:09] nothing really past there where they're

[1:19:12] coming in and out except for the traffic

[1:19:14] going to and from Medford and so because

[1:19:18] most everybody from running Y goes down

[1:19:20] Lake Shore And you have Pine Grove Veil,

[1:19:25] Shield Trust, or I guess yeah, all out

[1:19:28] there, which has more traffic going by

[1:19:31] our house than anybody that he asked

[1:19:34] about them subdivisions.

[1:19:36] And

[1:19:39] I didn't realize that they were looking

[1:19:40] to put a road in off of 140 because that

[1:19:45] just is going to create more problems

[1:19:48] for the traffic.

[1:19:50] And uh my other issue is when they do

[1:19:54] build, if they do get approved for this

[1:19:56] and then they end up with the

[1:19:57] subdivision, what's going to be the

[1:19:59] barrier between the properties they're

[1:20:02] building and my property? because right

[1:20:04] now it's just a field and it's never,

[1:20:08] you know, going to have 14 homes right

[1:20:11] next to my property and I water when we

[1:20:14] have irrigation water and it's like

[1:20:19] how's it going to affect all that

[1:20:21] because

[1:20:23] they haven't you asked about the uh

[1:20:26] irrigation

[1:20:28] there's a pump for that property but it

[1:20:30] has no power to it. So, as long as I've

[1:20:33] lived there since 2020,

[1:20:36] the only time it's ever been mowed, ever

[1:20:38] tended to was the last two years. Other

[1:20:40] than that, it's just been overgrown and

[1:20:43] uh Enterprise has to deal with all of

[1:20:45] it. So, that's all I have to say. Thank

[1:20:47] you.

[1:20:48] >> Okay, hang on. Maybe somebody has a

[1:20:50] question.

[1:20:52] >> Any have a question? Um, so I I

[1:20:55] appreciate you expressing your concern

[1:20:56] about a separation between your property

[1:20:59] and the potential for new houses next

[1:21:01] door.

[1:21:02] >> With it currently zoned commercial, is

[1:21:06] the potential for a big box store next

[1:21:09] door equally upsetting?

[1:21:11] >> I'd rather have a Costco there than 30,

[1:21:15] 40 houses.

[1:21:16] >> Be more traffic. Be a lot more traffic.

[1:21:18] >> But I mean, you'd have a quiet zone. You

[1:21:21] put all them houses in there. my quiet

[1:21:23] area that I have now isn't going to be

[1:21:26] quiet ever because with like uh glacier

[1:21:31] and all that, it's loud up there. It's

[1:21:34] not as bad, but like you know, Fourth of

[1:21:36] July, all that, you get all the

[1:21:38] fireworks, all that, and it goes on for

[1:21:40] days. Next, I'm going to have it right

[1:21:42] next to my house and I'll have to listen

[1:21:44] to it. That's why we moved there was to

[1:21:46] get out of the neighborhoods and I just

[1:21:50] would see it go that way. So,

[1:21:54] >> thank you.

[1:21:55] >> Any further questions,

[1:21:57] >> Randy? I have one,

[1:21:59] >> Jeff.

[1:22:00] >> Hey, so

[1:22:02] >> you came on. Thank you.

[1:22:03] >> Yeah, no problem. Thank you for

[1:22:05] testifying. Do you I was wondering, sir,

[1:22:07] if you have a well, and if so, how deep

[1:22:10] is the well? I'm curious about I was not

[1:22:12] able to pull well logs while we were

[1:22:14] talking. Hoping you can help with that.

[1:22:18] >> Um actually we do have a well and as far

[1:22:21] as the depth goes I don't know. Um

[1:22:24] because I've looked on the well where

[1:22:27] they've been drilled and it tells you

[1:22:28] how everybody around you how far they

[1:22:30] are deep. Ours is not there. Maybe Mr.

[1:22:35] Horton could answer that question since

[1:22:37] his parents owned that property years

[1:22:40] past.

[1:22:42] Other than that, I have no idea.

[1:22:44] >> Okay. Thanks.

[1:22:47] >> Any further, Jim?

[1:22:49] >> No, that's that's what I was curious

[1:22:51] about right now.

[1:22:53] >> Okay. Thank you very much for your

[1:22:54] testimony, Robin.

[1:22:57] [clears throat]

[1:23:07] Yes, please say your name and address.

[1:23:10] >> It's Terry McCcler, 7604 Hillyard.

[1:23:13] >> Miss McClur, you have five minutes.

[1:23:15] >> Huh?

[1:23:15] >> You have five minutes. So, I live right

[1:23:18] across from Sierra Heights. The

[1:23:21] driveway. They do not stop.

[1:23:25] Hilliard, they come screaming down the

[1:23:27] street. They even went and stole the 25

[1:23:29] mph stop sign.

[1:23:32] I almost got hit last night just trying

[1:23:34] to get across the street to my mailbox.

[1:23:37] There is no They patch you if you're

[1:23:40] going 25. Hillard Street is a old

[1:23:44] street.

[1:23:45] There's no sidewalks, no lights. We have

[1:23:48] burrow ditches, deep burrow ditches

[1:23:51] along that street.

[1:23:53] I mean,

[1:23:56] a lot of people have lost their wells

[1:23:58] because of the water system up above.

[1:24:01] They says that it improve the

[1:24:02] neighborhood. It has not. Neither Sierra

[1:24:06] Heights or Hidden Valley.

[1:24:09] We have more crime, more crap going on.

[1:24:11] We have little kids on their electric

[1:24:13] bikes screaming up and down the street.

[1:24:15] We have fireworks from those areas. You

[1:24:18] call 911, they don't do nothing. They

[1:24:22] shoot him off over into our fields

[1:24:25] and there's been a fire across my

[1:24:28] house and they says, "Is there a fire?"

[1:24:31] And I says, "Yes." And I says, "Do you

[1:24:33] want the fire department to come?"

[1:24:34] "Yes." Most of the homes are older

[1:24:37] homes.

[1:24:40] I guess that's all I have to say.

[1:24:42] >> Okay. We have any questions for this

[1:24:45] lady for for testimony? No. Thank you so

[1:24:49] much for your testimony. Appreciate it.

[1:24:51] product

[1:25:01] from the statements you make at this

[1:25:02] hearing for your knowledge.

[1:25:06] >> Please state your name and address for

[1:25:07] the record.

[1:25:08] >> Charles Riley, 3117 Western Street.

[1:25:11] >> Mr. Riley, you have five minutes.

[1:25:12] >> Thank you. Um, so since it's a resoning

[1:25:16] um, consideration here, I I started

[1:25:18] looking at some of the zoning maps um,

[1:25:21] and lot sizes. The only place I could

[1:25:23] find with lots sizes at 0.14 acres or

[1:25:27] less with in this number is the Mills

[1:25:30] edition.

[1:25:32] I I can't find any other places that

[1:25:35] have single family lots uh, with this

[1:25:38] kind of density. So for me, just looking

[1:25:41] at at the development plan, it looks

[1:25:43] like it's extremely dense for this area.

[1:25:46] And this is an area that you've got

[1:25:49] suburban residential moving towards um

[1:25:52] exclusive farm use, right? And so if

[1:25:55] we're putting in between suburban

[1:25:56] residential, medium density, exclusive

[1:25:59] farm use, the character of this

[1:26:02] neighborhood is all over the place. It feels it feels very serene. Um, so my

[1:26:09] that's my first concern is with density.

[1:26:11] Um, I'm also concerned that Hidden

[1:26:13] Valley isn't fully built out and we're

[1:26:14] looking at another highdensity um,

[1:26:17] development in the same area. If we

[1:26:20] can't finish the developments that we

[1:26:22] install, why are we looking to new ones?

[1:26:26] Um,

[1:26:28] I looked at uh the comprehensive

[1:26:32] um comprehensive plan. Um, it's it's got

[1:26:36] some goals. One of them is to uh in

[1:26:39] unincorporated areas with within the

[1:26:41] Clamoth Falls UGB, city and county

[1:26:43] should collaborate to ensure that new

[1:26:45] development occurs at urban densities

[1:26:48] consistent with agreed on urban

[1:26:50] densities.

[1:26:53] Couldn't make sense of that. Um and it

[1:26:56] seems like we're talking about urban

[1:26:58] densities here. I'm not sure who's

[1:27:00] agreed on them. I'm not sure what's

[1:27:01] driving them. I'm not sure what the

[1:27:02] goals are. In this case, it feels like

[1:27:04] the goals are to make the most money out

[1:27:07] of this this area as possible. And I get

[1:27:10] that. But if if we're looking at

[1:27:13] densities that are reasonable, I think

[1:27:14] these are too much.

[1:27:16] Um I'll echo everybody's concerns about

[1:27:20] the the traffic on Hillyard um and the

[1:27:23] impact of 140. The only thing I can see

[1:27:26] remedying any of that is speed

[1:27:27] reductions, which I haven't heard

[1:27:28] anything about, and I would love to know

[1:27:30] if consistent with this development,

[1:27:32] there would have to be speed reductions.

[1:27:34] I don't think you could maintain uh the

[1:27:36] kind of speed limits that are that are

[1:27:38] existing there. Um

[1:27:41] I am served by the Enterprise Irrigation

[1:27:44] District. I also have a well. My well is

[1:27:46] 80 ft deep. So far so good. But uh we

[1:27:49] have a 5 acre horse property. Um, if we

[1:27:52] were on city water, I I think it would

[1:27:55] put us out of business. Um, and uh, we

[1:27:59] do rely on enterprise as much um, as

[1:28:01] they're able to serve. Uh, I'm

[1:28:04] interested in knowing about how that

[1:28:05] enterprise ditch would be addressed

[1:28:08] through that property. It looks like

[1:28:09] it's it's to be built on. Um, so what

[1:28:12] does that look like when that ditch goes

[1:28:14] underground or homes go on top of it?

[1:28:17] Um, I'm also concerned about the

[1:28:18] timeline and duration. I'm curious about

[1:28:21] construction noise in building 118

[1:28:23] single family residences. How long does

[1:28:25] that go on? Uh what does that look like

[1:28:28] for a community? Um and

[1:28:34] I'll echo the the Hillyard um the

[1:28:36] Hillyard improvements for kids waiting

[1:28:39] for school buses uh effectively in

[1:28:41] ditches um with traffic moving at high

[1:28:44] speeds. None of that feels safe to me.

[1:28:46] Um, and it seems like it would only get

[1:28:48] worse with this. Uh, I'll also echo the

[1:28:52] concern about the sand pit. Our property

[1:28:54] also that's that sand pit um next to

[1:28:57] Goodell's clinic and uh I would be very

[1:29:00] concerned about burying anywhere close

[1:29:04] to that. It's a pretty significant drop.

[1:29:06] Um, I think I'll leave it there. Thank

[1:29:08] you for allowing me to test.

[1:29:10] >> Okay, don't leave. Somebody might have

[1:29:11] questions for you. Do you have any

[1:29:13] further journal?

[1:29:14] >> I do Randy.

[1:29:17] >> Okay, Jim. Go ahead.

[1:29:18] >> Thanks. Um, thanks for your testimony. I

[1:29:21] was curious, um, have [clears throat]

[1:29:24] you considered, you know, what I'm

[1:29:26] wondering is, um, have you considered

[1:29:29] the fact that until there is higher

[1:29:31] density in the area, there's going to be

[1:29:34] little to no reason to make any

[1:29:36] adjustments to traffic patterns or speed

[1:29:39] limits on Highway 140.

[1:29:43] that the traffic rules and the

[1:29:46] regulations and the targeted enforcement

[1:29:49] is often responsive to the number of

[1:29:51] people who are there who have a stake in

[1:29:54] all of this. And that as part of, you

[1:29:58] know, development, it would encourage

[1:30:01] more responsiveness by the various

[1:30:05] agencies in the county and the city that

[1:30:08] would otherwise, you know, be looking

[1:30:11] to, you know, different parts of the u

[1:30:14] the area.

[1:30:17] >> Um, yeah, I can see that I because I'm

[1:30:20] not opposed to any development. I'm

[1:30:22] opposed to what feels like extreme

[1:30:24] density. So, while they might respond to

[1:30:27] more people because there are more

[1:30:29] people there, um it it doesn't feel like

[1:30:34] uh I don't know, maybe a worthwhile

[1:30:36] trade-off. And I know ODOT's already

[1:30:37] planning on working on that interchange

[1:30:40] and and that may come with with speed

[1:30:42] reductions as well or at least a more

[1:30:44] functional um roundabout intersection at

[1:30:47] 140 and 39.

[1:30:48] >> Okay. Then I'd ask you to if you could

[1:30:51] stick around for the discussion because

[1:30:54] we you know it's not something we can

[1:30:57] talk about now but there will be a time

[1:30:59] when we can voice our own you know

[1:31:01] concerns and thoughts about this

[1:31:04] >> and I hope that'll help. Yep.

[1:31:08] >> Just a clarification on the speed

[1:31:10] reductions. It's um in your opinion for

[1:31:13] Highway 140 and for South Six,

[1:31:16] everything internal of the subdivision

[1:31:18] will be 25 and that's a statutory speed

[1:31:21] for residential areas. So, so just to

[1:31:24] clarify, it was Highway 140 and South 6

[1:31:27] that you were

[1:31:28] >> that I would imagine speed reductions

[1:31:30] would be required.

[1:31:31] >> Yeah.

[1:31:31] with that with that entrance onto 140, I don't know how you could

[1:31:35] maintain 50 and 45 mile per hour. Uh

[1:31:38] even with even with that median, it

[1:31:40] feels very unsafe. And with the the

[1:31:42] sight distance around um the

[1:31:45] intersection there at Western,

[1:31:49] » can one of the planning staff um speak

[1:31:51] to the urban densities consistent with

[1:31:54] agreed on urban densities that uh Mr.

[1:31:57] Riley was quoting?

[1:31:59] you know where that comes from and what

[1:32:01] that means.

[1:32:04] >> Well, you guys adopted that.

[1:32:05] >> So, before my time. So, I

[1:32:08] >> So, was that in was that in the

[1:32:11] >> county comprehensive plan or was that in

[1:32:13] the urban comprehensive plan?

[1:32:15] >> They was the city and county.

[1:32:24] Sorry,

[1:32:28] » the urban area comprehensive plan volume

[1:32:30] one. Okay. April 2022.

[1:32:35] >> Um, well, that was a bad choice of

[1:32:38] language. I don't know who came up with

[1:32:39] that. [laughter]

[1:32:40] Um, I mean the non is that a

[1:32:42] nonsequittor or something like that? I

[1:32:43] don't know what it's called, but anyway.

[1:32:45] Uh

[1:32:48] well, he's got a good point and that is

[1:32:49] that that that's you know this is

[1:32:52] surrounded by suburban residential ex

[1:32:54] with the exception on the north side of low low low density residential and

[1:33:00] um but um as that's the the zeitgeist of

[1:33:07] the past decade has been towards

[1:33:08] densification

[1:33:10] anywhere in the urban growth boundaries

[1:33:11] in Oregon. And so that's part of that

[1:33:15] gets whether it's intentional or not, it

[1:33:18] always gets smuggled in on any kind of

[1:33:19] long range planning because it's just

[1:33:22] more homes, infill lots, all that stuff.

[1:33:24] We hear about that and the legislature

[1:33:26] is continually passing laws a huge

[1:33:28] amount in the last few years that

[1:33:30] sometimes require us to do that. Um, on

[1:33:33] this we used to designate and say you

[1:33:35] can have this size of a lot for a a

[1:33:38] single family dwelling, but for a for a

[1:33:39] duplex it has to be 3,000 square feet

[1:33:41] bigger. That's illegal now. Our code is

[1:33:44] illegal and has to be updated because of

[1:33:45] the legislature. So I I don't think it

[1:33:48] was anything nefarious. I but it's just

[1:33:50] that seems that is the overall trend. 50

[1:33:54] years from now it might reverse and go

[1:33:56] back to trying to live dis distances but

[1:33:59] it's just almost unavoidable in Oregon

[1:34:00] planning to not up against that.

[1:34:05] >> I I'd add to that and say that um inside

[1:34:08] the urban growth boundary the county has

[1:34:10] four residential zones. It has

[1:34:13] residential suburban

[1:34:15] um medium

[1:34:17] and then high and then am I missing one?

[1:34:22] um low, medium, high.

[1:34:24] >> Yeah, low, medium, high, and suburban.

[1:34:27] So, that's the agreed upon urban uh

[1:34:30] zoning inside the UGB for the county.

[1:34:33] The city has slightly different as as

[1:34:36] the planning commissioners know. We had

[1:34:37] a joint work session month ago, I

[1:34:40] believe, and um and we're working

[1:34:43] towards, you know, they they call they

[1:34:46] don't have those zones. They call them

[1:34:47] whatever the city zones are. And so when

[1:34:49] one one of those zones annexes into the

[1:34:51] city, they change it to a city zone.

[1:34:54] That's the equivalent. We're trying to

[1:34:57] um uh both both agencies have similar

[1:35:00] standards, 7,000 and 10,000 is the

[1:35:02] minimum lot sizes in both agencies uh

[1:35:05] right now. So, um, they are kind of

[1:35:08] agreed upon already inside the UGB and

[1:35:12] they're established holistically

[1:35:15] unless you go through a zone change to

[1:35:17] change them to something else.

[1:35:20] I mean, and that's what this is, right?

[1:35:22] Zone change to encourage greater

[1:35:25] densification.

[1:35:27] don't know if the extreme eastern edge

[1:35:30] of the urban growth boundary is the

[1:35:31] place to densify rather than infill as

[1:35:34] that that plan also proposes lots of

[1:35:36] infill.

[1:35:39] >> So the uh RS is 10,000 square foot

[1:35:42] minimum RM is seven RM allows duplexes.

[1:35:46] Those are the primary changes. So um the

[1:35:52] current north zoning is minimum lot size

[1:35:54] of 10,000 already.

[1:35:58] This development is all single family

[1:35:59] residences. Is that right?

[1:36:01] >> Uh yes. I don't believe the applicant

[1:36:04] answered that question about the

[1:36:06] daycare, but didn't correct Justin

[1:36:09] either. So,

[1:36:10] >> and when I said um when I said duplexes,

[1:36:12] we're also talking about on zone changes

[1:36:15] of having duplexes that can be half

[1:36:17] owned by one party and half owned by the

[1:36:19] other, which you don't currently have.

[1:36:21] So, I should have mentioned that a

[1:36:23] duplex can be a single family model.

[1:36:26] because they're all on separate lots

[1:36:27] even though they have a common wall.

[1:36:29] That that's um but I think the applicant

[1:36:32] should tell us what they're planning on

[1:36:33] it. Um those are conditions that can be

[1:36:37] imposed at a zone change level.

[1:36:40] If the if the zone change is intended to

[1:36:42] be single family, that's a limited use

[1:36:45] overlay that can be put on

[1:36:48] that would that that further restricts

[1:36:49] it. There's things so that you don't

[1:36:52] change the zone and then the developer

[1:36:54] sells it to somebody else and somebody

[1:36:55] else has a whole different idea than

[1:36:57] what you saw. There's this mechanism

[1:36:59] called a limited use overlay that can be

[1:37:01] adopted when the zone is being changed

[1:37:04] that um cements uh upper limits

[1:37:10] is often times a tool that's used to um

[1:37:14] to have expectations not change over

[1:37:17] time.

[1:37:22] And so concludes

[1:37:24] >> one [clears throat] of the things that

[1:37:25] you guys consider is

[1:37:27] >> Yeah. So thank you so much for your

[1:37:28] testimony. Thank you Robin. Do we have

[1:37:31] any further opposition?

[1:37:47] » Yes. Please state your name and address

[1:37:49] for

[1:37:50] >> Oh, Bill Bole. I live at 7840 Highway

[1:37:54] 140.

[1:37:55] >> Mr. Bole, you have five minutes.

[1:37:58] >> Okay. Thank you. Um, for Jim's

[1:38:02] information, my well is 40 ft deep and

[1:38:05] it's still working, but I know that my

[1:38:09] neighbor had a well that I was supposed

[1:38:12] to access, but it went dry and he had to

[1:38:15] dig another well.

[1:38:17] Um I am also concerned about water usage

[1:38:21] and lack of water. Um

[1:38:26] uh I also am concerned about traffic.

[1:38:31] I have tried uh for I've lived at my

[1:38:35] present address for 50 years.

[1:38:39] So, I remember the Hortons owning that

[1:38:43] property

[1:38:44] and I remember u

[1:38:48] being able to cross the road and get my

[1:38:51] mail and not be fearful for my life.

[1:38:55] Now, it's almost impossible because

[1:38:58] there's a curve about less than a

[1:39:00] quarter mile away. People come down that

[1:39:02] road and they have no fear about they

[1:39:07] don't slow down. In fact, they honk at

[1:39:09] me when I try to cross the road.

[1:39:13] Uh I heard nothing concerning

[1:39:17] um sidewalks,

[1:39:20] uh bike lanes,

[1:39:23] uh human crossing. I assume that a lot

[1:39:27] of people that are going to uh southern

[1:39:30] uh KCC will be going to

[1:39:34] school. what is going to happen to them

[1:39:38] as they try to cross either

[1:39:42] uh South 6th Street or 140 or try to get

[1:39:46] over to where they need to be.

[1:39:49] Uh

[1:39:50] the uh

[1:39:53] human traffic is what I was considering.

[1:39:55] I mean, and there's kids, buses.

[1:39:58] Uh, uh, another reason that I've tried

[1:40:02] to change the law or get the law changed

[1:40:04] to slow the speed limit down is because

[1:40:07] my grandkids now

[1:40:10] uh, were to catch the bus, but it's

[1:40:13] almost fearful to be out there because

[1:40:15] the people drive so fast. U, they just don't slow down.

[1:40:21] Um

[1:40:23] I also am concerned about what they call

[1:40:25] medium density.

[1:40:28] Uh that's almost high density. Do you

[1:40:30] putund and that's uh 118 or 10 whatever

[1:40:36] uh lots for for houses or buildings or

[1:40:40] whatever structures. I think it ought to

[1:40:43] be, you know, I agree that it, you know,

[1:40:47] it it's growing and we need to have more

[1:40:49] houses, but we don't need to have it at

[1:40:51] that density.

[1:40:54] Um, what else do I have here?

[1:41:02] I don't know if anybody really addressed

[1:41:04] the malfunction junction which is

[1:41:06] highway 39 and 140 and it's just uh a

[1:41:11] hazard and there's accidents because

[1:41:15] people coming from Merrill try to go

[1:41:18] into the right lane as soon as they get

[1:41:19] into town. And if you're going coming

[1:41:23] into town, no problem. But if you're

[1:41:26] going out of town, uh when they put

[1:41:29] those power poles in, they put the

[1:41:32] traffic down to one lane going by KCC

[1:41:37] and uh

[1:41:40] we were backed up all the way to Home

[1:41:42] Depot waiting for us our right to get

[1:41:46] which was about a quarter mile on 140.

[1:41:50] And uh I can't imagine what you put x

[1:41:53] amount of houses or people living there

[1:41:57] going and coming whether to to work or

[1:41:59] to school or to whatever.

[1:42:01] >> One minute left, Mr. Bole. One minute

[1:42:03] left.

[1:42:04] >> All right. Essentially, that's all I

[1:42:06] have.

[1:42:07] >> Okay. Don't don't take off. Any

[1:42:09] questions for this gentleman from the

[1:42:10] planning commission?

[1:42:13] >> How deep was your neighbor's well?

[1:42:15] >> Excuse me.

[1:42:16] >> Do you remember how deep your neighbor's

[1:42:17] well was that went dry? Uh actually it

[1:42:20] was deeper. It was like 140 ft deep.

[1:42:24] Essentially my when I bought the

[1:42:25] property it was split into three lots

[1:42:29] and uh

[1:42:32] my second lot I bought next to mine. It

[1:42:35] was I had access to that well but when I

[1:42:39] tried to use that well he said it's it's

[1:42:42] gone dry. I have to dig another wells.

[1:42:47] » Okay. Thank I have one one further

[1:42:49] question for you.

[1:42:50] >> Sure.

[1:42:51] >> Um density is your your biggest concern

[1:42:54] along with safety of course. Um

[1:42:58] >> do you have a number in mind for what

[1:42:59] you think the appropriate a more

[1:43:01] appropriate number of residences per

[1:43:04] acre would be?

[1:43:05] >> Well, I would you know half that amount

[1:43:08] maybe, you know, maybe half that amount.

[1:43:10] So they have to twice the size of the

[1:43:12] lots maybe and uh half as many people,

[1:43:15] half as many cars, half as much traffic.

[1:43:19] I would hope as much traffic, you know,

[1:43:22] that's that's my guess.

[1:43:24] >> Thank you.

[1:43:25] >> Y

[1:43:35] » please raise your right hand. You swear

[1:43:37] that the statement of this hearing

[1:43:40] Yes,

[1:43:41] >> please.

[1:43:42] >> Ian Gilbert, 7840, Highway 140.

[1:43:46] >> Mr. Gilbert, you have five minutes.

[1:43:48] >> So, I'm going to reiterate a lot of the

[1:43:49] other concerns that people have. Um, we

[1:43:52] have the same well that Bill was just

[1:43:53] talking about. It's only 35 ft deep

[1:43:56] somewhere in there. Uh, I'm going to

[1:43:58] talk more about construction issues. One

[1:44:00] of them is we're downhill from the

[1:44:02] construction sites. So, we're I'm

[1:44:03] concerned about construction runoff into

[1:44:06] shallow wells, which would cause well

[1:44:08] water to be contaminated, forcing deeper

[1:44:10] wells, which are tens of thousands of

[1:44:13] dollars cost

[1:44:15] wells.

[1:44:17] Um, I'm in construction for 14 years.

[1:44:20] I'm an electrical contractor. The

[1:44:22] upfront costs

[1:44:24] for this project concern me relative to

[1:44:27] the cash flow that the developer would

[1:44:29] receive to repay that cost. the

[1:44:32] development north of the property we're

[1:44:34] talking about is still not filled. I'm

[1:44:37] fearful that they're going to start

[1:44:39] developing the property and it's going

[1:44:40] to turn on to one of the other

[1:44:41] developments we have in town like the

[1:44:42] one on Foothills Road that started to be

[1:44:46] developed with um access to that road

[1:44:49] and it just ended. So, it left it could

[1:44:51] potentially leave an awkward space in

[1:44:53] our neighborhood with half-developed

[1:44:56] properties or roads that are just not

[1:44:58] being used. Um, I'm also on this I'm on

[1:45:02] the south side of 140, right on the

[1:45:03] corner bound, southeast corner boundary

[1:45:05] of that property. Um, they put in those

[1:45:09] new power poles, so I'm concerned about

[1:45:10] the highway being um, pushed into our

[1:45:13] property to widen it. Um, I'm also I try

[1:45:17] to leave my property during rush hour

[1:45:19] traffic and having a center turn lane of

[1:45:21] potentially people traveling east and

[1:45:23] turning north into that property,

[1:45:25] preventing those southside properties

[1:45:26] from turning west across those lanes.

[1:45:30] There's uh that blind corner to the east

[1:45:33] of us that caused a lot of traffic

[1:45:34] issues with crashes. Someone crashed

[1:45:37] through our fence last year. Um a lot of

[1:45:39] deer get hit there constantly. We've

[1:45:41] written emails to ODOT five or six times

[1:45:44] to try to get them to slow down. Their

[1:45:46] solution was to lower from 55 to 50.

[1:45:49] There's a lot of residential streets

[1:45:51] there that or driveways that would be

[1:45:53] affected by this traffic change.

[1:45:56] Um, station two, fire district one

[1:46:01] is [clears throat] the closest fire

[1:46:02] station to our location for that

[1:46:04] property. It's the oldest and the least

[1:46:07] prepared fire station for heavy use. Um,

[1:46:11] any upgrades to the fire district to

[1:46:13] cover this house development would

[1:46:16] likely come from taxpayer expenses and

[1:46:18] levies.

[1:46:19] And um

[1:46:23] so my concerns basically are the water rental from construction the

[1:46:27] lack of knowledge of the the land that

[1:46:30] they're going to construct the upfront

[1:46:32] cost of construction that won't be

[1:46:33] repaid by people that will be living

[1:46:35] there. Also, is there a study for the

[1:46:38] traffic increase if theoretically every

[1:46:41] lot is a duplex, thus doubling every

[1:46:45] traffic example that we're looking at?

[1:46:49] Because there are other duplexes being

[1:46:50] built in town, especially near schools

[1:46:52] like KCC for high investment

[1:46:55] opportunities for land owners. They're

[1:46:58] gonna, if you're a land owner trying to

[1:47:00] get the most bang out of your money,

[1:47:01] you're going to build as many duplexes

[1:47:02] as you can, thus doubling any kind of

[1:47:05] traffic um scenario that we're looking

[1:47:08] at.

[1:47:10] It seems like a really bad location for

[1:47:12] any kind of building. I know that the

[1:47:14] argument is like, well, we could build

[1:47:15] houses here or we could build a Costco,

[1:47:18] but I don't think any big commercial

[1:47:20] company is going to take the risk of

[1:47:22] putting a big building there with such

[1:47:24] poor road access to the property.

[1:47:27] That's my concerns.

[1:47:29] >> Hang on. Questions for this gentleman

[1:47:31] from the Atlantic Commission? Hearing

[1:47:34] none. Thank you for your your

[1:47:36] >> I have one.

[1:47:37] >> All right.

[1:47:38] >> Okay.

[1:47:39] >> Randy. Yes. So,

[1:47:42] >> go ahead, Jim.

[1:47:43] >> Thanks. Um my question is um

[1:47:48] would you be satisfied if for example

[1:47:52] this was not done and traffic and the

[1:47:56] same traffic problems remain for the

[1:47:58] next seven or eight years because

[1:48:01] there's no change in the infrastructure.

[1:48:05] there's no change in the environment and

[1:48:07] things continued to happen because you

[1:48:10] know we weren't able to make

[1:48:11] improvements in the highway or change

[1:48:14] the um traffic um management process or

[1:48:19] reduce the speed limit because there you

[1:48:23] know there was no justification

[1:48:24] otherwise for it is the status quo okay

[1:48:29] if we don't do any additional

[1:48:32] development

[1:48:34] I would rather see the traffic situation

[1:48:36] for my house stay the same than the

[1:48:38] proposed solutions to manage the traffic

[1:48:40] increase that would happen from the

[1:48:42] property that's developed. The widening

[1:48:44] of the road, Highway 140, to make a turn

[1:48:46] lane is not a good solution for the

[1:48:48] access to the south side of this

[1:48:49] property. I would rather keep the road

[1:48:52] it is now than try to add more traffic

[1:48:53] or another lane that would could

[1:48:55] probably impose onto my side of the

[1:48:56] property.

[1:48:59] Thanks your question. Thank you.

[1:49:01] >> That's what I wanted to know.

[1:49:04] Thank you very much for your testimony.

[1:49:06] [clears throat]

[1:49:11] » Who is it?

[1:49:27] » I do.

[1:49:28] >> State your name and address. Uh, my name

[1:49:30] is Dennis Telly and my address is 7733

[1:49:34] Hillyard Avenue.

[1:49:35] >> Mr. Telly, you have five minutes.

[1:49:38] >> Can I have six?

[1:49:40] [clears throat] I'll make you

[1:49:41] Everybody's pretty much touching about

[1:49:43] the same thing about the traffic and

[1:49:44] stuff. Uh, my dad bought our house in

[1:49:48] 1973,

[1:49:50] so it's been all 50 years. And, uh, we

[1:49:52] own the house next door, too. Uh, we got

[1:49:55] our wells about about 140. And uh uh

[1:49:58] last year we we had the rental house

[1:50:01] next door and we had it on our well too.

[1:50:04] So we decided with all the problems with people below us uh uh losing their

[1:50:09] wells, we decided to put that on city

[1:50:12] water. So for 7,600

[1:50:15] 800 bucks, we got to put that on city

[1:50:17] water. And that's with me digging the

[1:50:20] ditch, laying the pipe, and whatever

[1:50:22] else. So, you know, that was one of the

[1:50:25] questions somebody looked down the

[1:50:26] street. Uh, you maybe $5,000 a few years

[1:50:29] ago, but I imagine it's probably gone up

[1:50:31] a little bit more now. Uh, so when you

[1:50:35] run out of water and you and you've had

[1:50:37] a well for all these years, uh, is it is

[1:50:41] the city's going to be jumping right in

[1:50:42] and saying, "Hey, don't worry. We're

[1:50:43] going to hook you up." I kind of doubt

[1:50:46] that. Uh, we we talk about Hillyard

[1:50:49] Avenue. uh very narrow, very dark. Uh

[1:50:54] with the development up above us now,

[1:50:56] the cars are ripping down. Uh garbage

[1:50:58] trucks are ripping up and uh 25 miles an

[1:51:02] hour is like, and I got to be honest

[1:51:03] with you, too, because I got to look at

[1:51:05] my speedometer sometimes. So, I'm

[1:51:07] thinking, "Oh, shoot." You know, I'm the

[1:51:09] guy I'm not calling in on anybody, but

[1:51:11] I'm the guy that's been driving up to

[1:51:13] these houses and knocking on the door

[1:51:15] and saying, "Please slow down. We got

[1:51:17] kids across the street, a lot of

[1:51:19] animals. Uh, and animals seem to like

[1:51:23] going across the street. I'm not feeding

[1:51:24] them cookies or anything, but they're

[1:51:26] coming over. Uh, I got hit by a car a couple years

[1:51:31] ago and I flipped over the car. And of

[1:51:35] course, my size, I'm pretty nimble, but

[1:51:37] uh, I've got it on a CD. If you'd like

[1:51:40] to see it for the next meeting, I can

[1:51:41] bring it to you. And my intention walked

[1:51:43] out just to tell the guy, "Please slow

[1:51:46] down." And he thought it was funny to

[1:51:47] kind of swerve at me. And anyway, I hit

[1:51:50] rolled over his hood and landed uh flat

[1:51:55] broke glasses, but but anyway, just

[1:51:58] trying to tell people to slow down. It

[1:52:00] It's a tough thing to do. And and when

[1:52:03] you're talking about building this many

[1:52:04] houses up there and and I I saw the

[1:52:07] thing where you're going to say, "Okay,

[1:52:08] you're going to block off the road so

[1:52:10] these people can't go down Hillyard."

[1:52:12] Well, I I'll call Horseshin on that one

[1:52:15] because that'll happen because these

[1:52:18] people are going to find a way to get

[1:52:19] through there whether you open that gate

[1:52:21] or whatever you got planned for that.

[1:52:23] Okay? And when you start thinking about

[1:52:25] that many houses, where do people want

[1:52:28] to go? They don't want to go to 140 and

[1:52:30] head towards

[1:52:32] They want to go down Hillyard and get to

[1:52:34] town or cross over and try to get to the

[1:52:37] college without going through that big

[1:52:39] ass intersection.

[1:52:41] So that's what what's going to happen.

[1:52:42] And when you're talking about [snorts]

[1:52:45] each house has got an average of

[1:52:47] probably two cars, maybe three. Okay,

[1:52:50] you got the kids running back and forth

[1:52:52] to school. So it's not just going in the

[1:52:55] morning, I'm going to work and then I'm

[1:52:57] coming home. You're running to work.

[1:53:00] You're running home for lunch, you're

[1:53:01] running you're running back because

[1:53:03] you're late and and you know say it's

[1:53:05] four or five then you're going to the

[1:53:06] stores. So that traffic up and down

[1:53:08] Hillyard is going to be tenfold.

[1:53:12] It's going to be phenomenal. And uh uh

[1:53:15] it it's a small road. And when you're

[1:53:17] talking about horses, you know, that

[1:53:20] field's been up there since I was a kid.

[1:53:22] And when I went to Henley, we had, you

[1:53:23] know, we of course we were up there,

[1:53:25] too, with the bonfires and all the stuff

[1:53:27] too and all the kids. And horses are are

[1:53:29] going up the road and and and going

[1:53:31] around the field and stuff like that,

[1:53:33] too. So, I mean, basically, you're

[1:53:35] saying, "Hey, no more horses up here."

[1:53:37] You're saying, "No, don't come up here

[1:53:38] and drive around." Yeah, I know. I don't

[1:53:41] own it.

[1:53:42] >> You've got about one minute left.

[1:53:43] >> Well, I walk two.

[1:53:44] >> Talk real fast.

[1:53:46] >> But anyway, yeah, I know I don't own it

[1:53:49] and I can't stop progress. I was the

[1:53:51] owner of Windco and I've been in a lot

[1:53:54] of this stuff where people are mad at

[1:53:56] you, but uh even came back to town. But

[1:54:01] still, uh the traffic is something

[1:54:03] that's got to be really addressed. the

[1:54:05] water situation, the people down below

[1:54:06] us losing their wells. Are are we we are

[1:54:10] liable for hooking up the city water

[1:54:12] again

[1:54:14] and and that one big water station up

[1:54:17] there is supposed to take care of all

[1:54:18] that?

[1:54:20] I find that hard to believe. And like

[1:54:23] the gentleman before me, you're going to

[1:54:25] start digging and all these all the

[1:54:27] tractors and all the equipment driving

[1:54:30] up and down hillier to get up here to

[1:54:31] build all this stuff.

[1:54:35] You know, I can't stop progress, but

[1:54:37] maybe it's just a little bit too much.

[1:54:39] >> That was perfect timing.

[1:54:40] >> Don't leave yet. We might have a

[1:54:41] question for you.

[1:54:42] >> I hope you [clears throat] do.

[1:54:43] >> Okay. Anybody here on the planning

[1:54:45] commission like to have a question for

[1:54:47] this gentleman?

[1:54:48] >> I would like to have a question just to

[1:54:49] hear him keep talking, but I don't have

[1:54:51] anything to ask.

[1:54:52] >> Please character. Okay. Thank you so

[1:54:54] much for your testimony.

[1:54:57] >> Robin, how are we doing?

[1:55:02] That's the end of the opposition. Okay.

[1:55:04] Now, let's hear from the proponents.

[1:55:09] » Yeah.

[1:55:09] >> Okay. Uh the only one is Dort.

[1:55:19] » Dan Borton. I don't know who wanted to

[1:55:21] speak.

[1:55:21] >> Okay.

[1:55:25] » Please raise your hand.

[1:55:31] I just

[1:55:32] >> uh Dan Horton, 169 West Main, Eagle

[1:55:35] Point.

[1:55:37] >> Mr. Horton, you have five minutes.

[1:55:38] >> Thank you. Uh I don't really know what

[1:55:42] to add uh to all this. Uh basically,

[1:55:45] irrigation water. Uh we're

[1:55:49] leaning towards not using uh EID for

[1:55:51] that mainly because uh it they cut it

[1:55:55] off pretty early. Uh

[1:55:58] I think they stopped at 1 of August this

[1:56:00] year and that pretty much leaves

[1:56:02] everybody dry. Uh it be a difficult

[1:56:04] system because it have to be

[1:56:06] pressurized.

[1:56:07] Uh the upward part of this development

[1:56:10] does not have water rights.

[1:56:13] Um so we we would uh probably just put

[1:56:17] the the pipe in a ditch and uh let it

[1:56:20] run through and then irrigate with city

[1:56:23] water.

[1:56:24] uh what we would do would be to

[1:56:26] encourage and it may even be a code uh water conservative landscaping. So in

[1:56:33] other words, no big laws, no not a lot

[1:56:35] of sprinklers. Um try to do a lot of

[1:56:38] drip irrigation and shrubs.

[1:56:40] The other problem with uh irrigation

[1:56:43] district water is it's dirty and uh you

[1:56:46] can't run that through drip irrigation.

[1:56:50] So, um,

[1:56:55] I didn't expect to come up here, so I

[1:56:57] don't have a list of things to talk

[1:56:58] about. Any questions?

[1:57:01] We have any questions for the this

[1:57:03] gentleman?

[1:57:05] >> I I do have a question. Just to clarify,

[1:57:07] if you're leaning away from using the

[1:57:10] Enterprise Irrigation District water,

[1:57:14] would there be any impact to the

[1:57:16] neighboring wells with city water?

[1:57:19] Well, you know, that's a question for

[1:57:22] the water department and there's a

[1:57:24] report uh um this part of the packet

[1:57:28] here where uh the med the uh clim water

[1:57:34] department did a study and you've got

[1:57:37] that in your packet and they did not

[1:57:39] seem to think of a problem with

[1:57:42] using city water on this project as it's

[1:57:46] designed in total without using irrigation district water.

[1:57:54] So, you know, the impact on wells, you

[1:57:56] know, that's hard to tell. The one

[1:57:58] gentleman mentioned that he had a well

[1:57:59] 40 foot deep and still works. So, you

[1:58:02] know, another 140 foot next door doesn't

[1:58:05] work. Who knows why did it cave in? You

[1:58:08] know, who knows?

[1:58:10] >> Thank you.

[1:58:11] >> And to be clear, there's there's no plan

[1:58:14] to drill a well for this development.

[1:58:17] >> No. What? No plan to drill a well for

[1:58:19] this to

[1:58:20] >> No, no, it's all based on the existing

[1:58:23] uh city infrastructure and that's part

[1:58:25] of your your uh report.

[1:58:28] Uh Ry did a good job and then hired an

[1:58:31] engineer to model it. So that's all

[1:58:35] documented.

[1:58:39] Any further questions?

[1:58:40] >> Yeah.

[1:58:40] >> Yes, I had one

[1:58:42] >> maybe after Jim.

[1:58:43] >> Okay, go ahead Jim.

[1:58:45] >> Thanks. And in your um you did traffic

[1:58:48] analysis, was there any indication

[1:58:52] regarding the relative safety of the

[1:58:55] approach to the intersection there at uh

[1:58:59] 140 near the college?

[1:59:03] Well, I think it was pointed out in that

[1:59:06] report that we actually exceed DOT's

[1:59:09] requirement for sight distance

[1:59:12] and we purposely located that

[1:59:14] intersection uh as far away from the 39

[1:59:18] intersection as possible. So, in other

[1:59:19] words, it's as far east as we can get.

[1:59:23] And I think ODOT's okay with that. Um,

[1:59:27] you know, there was comment from one of

[1:59:29] the ODOT people that said, "Well, those

[1:59:32] accesses that were granted many years

[1:59:34] ago did were not intended to serve the

[1:59:36] property, the north property." And they

[1:59:39] said, "If you want, you can do a a

[1:59:44] an appraisal and prove that by having

[1:59:47] that access, you're not increasing the

[1:59:49] value, or if you do increase value, we

[1:59:51] want the we want the difference. So, in

[1:59:54] my mind, they're wanting ODOT is wanting

[1:59:57] to shut that off because they're afraid

[1:59:59] that they're going to help somebody else

[2:00:02] and miss out on some money. It's not,

[2:00:05] you know, I don't think it has anything

[2:00:06] to do with traffic necessarily.

[2:00:09] Um, matter of fact, if that connection

[2:00:11] was made, a lot of the folks that live

[2:00:14] in the south part would actually

[2:00:16] probably go up and come down Hillyard

[2:00:19] and not go out on. So, you know, it

[2:00:21] gives everybody a lot of options.

[2:00:24] So, um, you know, that's something we

[2:00:27] need to work out with ODOT.

[2:00:28] >> Okay. [clears throat] And then my

[2:00:30] followup was, um, did you consider or

[2:00:34] did you look at the possibility of

[2:00:36] adding bike lanes

[2:00:38] >> because bike lanes actually do add a

[2:00:40] level of safety for cyclist? I don't

[2:00:43] >> 140,

[2:00:44] >> right?

[2:00:45] >> Well, you know, that whole road needs to

[2:00:48] be engineered. So, I don't know the

[2:00:49] answer to that. you know, that's once we

[2:00:51] get into

[2:00:53] engineering for construction of on-site

[2:00:56] roads and, you know, whatever ODO's

[2:00:59] requirements are, we'll meet them. And

[2:01:02] um so, you know, I would think that,

[2:01:05] well, for for one, we'd have to have

[2:01:07] sidewalks, I'm sure. Uh bike lanes, you

[2:01:11] know, do you want a bike lane on a 50

[2:01:13] mph road? Um you know, something we need

[2:01:16] to work out with DOT. I'm not sure on

[2:01:18] that. Well, and Jib, we're we're going

[2:01:20] to have the applicant come back up and

[2:01:23] rebut the testimony that we've had from

[2:01:25] the opponents. So, that's the time to

[2:01:27] ask the types of questions you're

[2:01:28] talking about there.

[2:01:31] So, yeah. And, you know, and I think a

[2:01:33] lot of these questions will come up too

[2:01:35] and be addressed during the next hearing

[2:01:37] when we're talking about the subdivision

[2:01:39] and not necessarily the zone change.

[2:01:43] >> Okay.

[2:01:43] >> Yeah.

[2:01:44] >> Um, maybe to finish it off, Joe. Um

[2:01:46] could you maybe cover a thought process

[2:01:48] or a target a goal in mind for the

[2:01:51] density uh sizes of lots and how much

[2:01:54] development?

[2:01:55] >> You know I'm from over in the Rogue

[2:01:57] Valley and uh the lots that we have

[2:01:59] designed are kind of mediumsiz for that

[2:02:02] area. Um

[2:02:05] you know I've got I'm an architect. have

[2:02:07] many house designs that will easily

[2:02:10] nicely fit on those lots and have you

[2:02:12] know RV parking beside them and you have

[2:02:15] a nice backyard and you know land's

[2:02:19] valuable so why waste it and you know if

[2:02:22] we can increase the density and uh I

[2:02:26] think we should matter of fact I think

[2:02:28] it's state law is now requiring cities

[2:02:31] to try to maximize optimize density

[2:02:37] there. I don't want to be out of place,

[2:02:39] but planning commission members, there

[2:02:41] was one question asked about duplexes

[2:02:42] versus single family. Can one of you ask

[2:02:45] that?

[2:02:47] >> Yeah. Have you considered putting

[2:02:48] duplexes?

[2:02:50] >> We've got lots designed uh strictly for

[2:02:52] duplexes. They're they're larger lots.

[2:02:55] Uh duplexes do require more square

[2:02:58] footage and I can't remember. I think

[2:02:59] 8,000 square feet. So, they're wider.

[2:03:04] The intention there would be to turn

[2:03:06] them into uh town houses where we

[2:03:09] actually have a property line so you

[2:03:11] have two individual owners. Someone

[2:03:13] could buy one and rent the other side.

[2:03:15] So we have a number of those. Um the

[2:03:18] code the that we're going by does allow

[2:03:21] duplexes on any lot and I matter of fact

[2:03:25] I think the state law requires that too.

[2:03:30] >> Yes. I just wondered if the um if

[2:03:33] basically [clears throat]

[2:03:34] um if it's if the intent is single

[2:03:36] family ownership

[2:03:39] um

[2:03:40] only one dwelling unit per lot on

[2:03:44] duplexes other words split zone but

[2:03:46] maybe we should wait to follow up sorry

[2:03:49] I'm not

[2:03:50] >> so that you know that's those are

[2:03:51] questions I think we should start

[2:03:53] getting into the details of subdivision

[2:03:55] >> yeah this is all in a conceptual stage

[2:03:57] >> yeah right so we have a lot of work to

[2:04:00] do a lot engineering and and so

[2:04:04] >> okay, thank you so much for your

[2:04:06] testimony. I'm going to go ahead and

[2:04:07] call an eight at the 8:00 recess and

[2:04:10] then we'll have the uh applicant to

[2:04:13] rebut.

[2:04:15] >> Oh, you can leave that there, sir.

[2:04:16] >> No, you can leave that there.

[2:04:18] >> That's the microphone.

[2:04:20] >> Yeah, [laughter]

[2:04:23] >> okay. So, let's take that

[2:04:26] up.

[2:04:30] We have two more two more supporters.

[2:04:37] » Okay. Yeah. Well, let's bring them up.

[2:04:39] >> Two of them.

[2:04:40] >> You don't have to.

[2:04:42] >> Yeah, I got you.

[2:04:59] Please state your name and address for

[2:05:00] the record.

[2:05:01] >> Tony Johnson, 2871 Glacier.

[2:05:04] >> Miss Johnson, you have five minutes.

[2:05:07] >> Yes. From the Herald and News in

[2:05:09] January. The LA wildfires are a

[2:05:12] cautionary tale for every community

[2:05:15] showing that preparedness and non-negoti

[2:05:18] is non-negotiable.

[2:05:20] One key lesson is the importance of

[2:05:22] maintaining crucial infrastructure, fire

[2:05:26] hydrants, reservoirs, water systems to

[2:05:29] be inspected and repaired regularly.

[2:05:32] I don't have water in my fire hydrant.

[2:05:37] What's all these houses going to do? Is

[2:05:39] it going to get worse? I could get a cup

[2:05:41] or two of water out of my fire hydrant,

[2:05:44] but we don't have fire safety. What

[2:05:46] What's it going to be like when they're

[2:05:48] there? And our water pressure is going

[2:05:50] down. I've noticed several times a week

[2:05:54] we don't have very good water pressure.

[2:05:57] That's basically my concern is how come

[2:06:01] they're going to have water in their

[2:06:02] fire hydrants but I don't have water in

[2:06:05] my fire hydrants.

[2:06:08] >> Does that conclude your testimony? Okay.

[2:06:11] We have any questions for this lady

[2:06:12] >> regarding your water pressure. Are you

[2:06:14] on a well or are you on city water?

[2:06:16] >> I I believe it's a well on Sierra

[2:06:21] feeds our area. Oh, so you're a public

[2:06:25] you're you're on a community well then?

[2:06:28] >> I believe so.

[2:06:29] >> Yeah, because your well comes from

[2:06:30] Sierra Heights or your water comes out

[2:06:32] of Sierra Height,

[2:06:33] >> I believe. So,

[2:06:34] >> yeah.

[2:06:35] >> Okay.

[2:06:36] >> And I I guess I have a question for you

[2:06:38] guys. Would her fire hydrant be

[2:06:40] municipal water or would her fire

[2:06:41] hydrant be on this city?

[2:06:44] >> Did you see your address again?

[2:06:46] >> 2871 Glacier.

[2:06:50] Is that in Skyline,

[2:06:53] >> Hidden Valley?

[2:06:54] >> Or Hidden Valley?

[2:06:55] >> Yeah, Hidden Valley should be city

[2:06:57] water. Uh there's an elevation issue.

[2:07:00] The higher lots and hidden valley would

[2:07:02] have less pressure than the lower plots.

[2:07:06] But um have you reached out to the city

[2:07:09] about the fire hydrant?

[2:07:11] >> No.

[2:07:14] Can I get your phone number on break and

[2:07:16] I'll get you uh in contact with Robbie's

[2:07:20] the water manager there. Okay.

[2:07:26] » Any further?

[2:07:29] >> Okay. Thank you so much for your

[2:07:30] testimony.

[2:07:43] the best.

[2:07:44] >> Thank you.

[2:07:46] >> Uh Jim Herren, 7617 Hillers.

[2:07:49] >> Mr. Herren, you have five minutes.

[2:07:51] >> Thank you. Um I'm echoing all of the

[2:07:56] opposition's

[2:07:57] problems with water, traffic,

[2:08:00] too much density. Um the one question

[2:08:04] that I've got is this is a zoning

[2:08:07] question and it appears that the zoning

[2:08:10] is not correct. It's mo some of the lots

[2:08:14] are zon commercial

[2:08:16] uh at least 8 and a half acres is zoned

[2:08:19] farm 540.

[2:08:22] >> Can we put that map back?

[2:08:25] >> Just a minute.

[2:08:26] >> We'll put this up there and you can show

[2:08:28] us which

[2:08:29] >> actually pretty easy. It's the lower the south western triangle

[2:08:35] next to 140.

[2:08:38] Think everybody saw that

[2:08:40] >> it's

[2:08:41] >> um

[2:08:42] >> we have we do have we do make mistakes

[2:08:44] at the county. The maps that we go by

[2:08:47] here are are the more authoritative than

[2:08:51] I don't know the assessor's office

[2:08:52] sometimes will have it listed some way

[2:08:54] because it might be in farm tax

[2:08:56] deferral.

[2:08:58] I'm just referring to the to the land

[2:09:00] explorer.

[2:09:02] >> That's it tax.

[2:09:04] >> This is the screenshot of it.

[2:09:05] >> This is a screenshot up there. So,

[2:09:07] >> yeah, it's it's that triangle down in

[2:09:10] the left hand corner there.

[2:09:13] >> Well, that's where I got all the

[2:09:14] information off was land explorer. That

[2:09:16] was a screenshot that I did. So, um

[2:09:20] >> I can show you.

[2:09:22] >> We can go right online right now.

[2:09:24] >> Go for it. Um, but I mean it's I know it's not EFU. It's not it um

[2:09:29] it could it could be that listed at the

[2:09:30] Cess's office because of farm tax

[2:09:32] deferral because it is farmed. Uh but

[2:09:34] it's not EFU.

[2:09:36] >> It it actually does specify that it's

[2:09:38] non EFU.

[2:09:39] >> Yeah. I mean the way it's Yeah. Yep.

[2:09:42] It's not EFU 100%.

[2:09:45] >> But it's not commercial.

[2:09:46] >> No, it is commercial.

[2:09:47] >> Okay. That's not not what the Land

[2:09:49] Explorer says.

[2:09:50] >> This is for This is Land Explorer. what

[2:09:51] you're looking at right here.

[2:09:53] >> Brought God pulled up.

[2:09:55] >> Okay.

[2:09:55] >> I'm looking at the last assessor's

[2:09:57] report.

[2:09:58] >> Well, that's the assessor's report.

[2:10:01] >> Yeah.

[2:10:02] >> The the map governs EFU. There is no EFU

[2:10:06] inside of urban growth foundry. There's

[2:10:08] a different way to think of it.

[2:10:09] >> Okay.

[2:10:11] >> All right.

[2:10:12] >> But you're on you're on that right

[2:10:13] there. So,

[2:10:14] >> so I'll pull up land explorer.

[2:10:17] >> The other question I had was my math. I

[2:10:20] did some math on the lot sizes that or

[2:10:25] on the document that we got and they

[2:10:28] look like 1 nth of an acre and I believe

[2:10:32] medium density is eighth of an acre,

[2:10:35] isn't it?

[2:10:37] >> Medium density 7th minimum size. Is that

[2:10:40] what you're talking about?

[2:10:41] >> Medium density is 7,000 square ft. It's

[2:10:44] about an acre and these are

[2:10:47] >> 714 which is a nth of an acre.

[2:10:51] Anyway, just saying that the the plan

[2:10:54] shows higher density than the medium

[2:10:57] density even shows.

[2:10:59] >> Well, medium density is 6,000 square

[2:11:02] feet an acre and most of those are 150

[2:11:07] and 150 by

[2:11:08] >> 110 by 110 by 55, which is a little over

[2:11:11] 6,000 square feet.

[2:11:14] >> We we we misspoke. Our

[2:11:18] >> planning department spoke earlier and

[2:11:19] said it was 7,000 square feet. It's not

[2:11:21] at 6,000.

[2:11:23] >> The document in the staff report says

[2:11:25] it's 5,000 for the minimum lot size

[2:11:28] of so it's five and then it has a

[2:11:31] provision for duplexes. That's the

[2:11:34] provision that is in

[2:11:37] >> uh illegal now like state law that you

[2:11:40] can't discriminate against duplexes with

[2:11:42] differing lot sizes. So it's it is five.

[2:11:45] You're correct.

[2:11:47] This is the map, the um the zoning map

[2:11:51] from Land Explorer right off the

[2:11:53] website.

[2:11:55] I think if you click on

[2:11:56] >> I think you're looking at the assessor's

[2:11:59] report

[2:12:00] >> and uh the assessor's report doesn't

[2:12:02] govern zoning. The the zoning map does

[2:12:07] the assessor's report could have been

[2:12:08] left over from 50 years ago where it

[2:12:11] didn't um prezoning

[2:12:13] >> it was dated 2025, but okay.

[2:12:15] >> No, I I'm just saying that the the

[2:12:18] description of uh farm use or anything

[2:12:21] like that could have predated zoning.

[2:12:24] There's errors like that all over,

[2:12:26] >> but this is the official map and it's zoned general commercial.

[2:12:33] We will we will try to get that

[2:12:34] corrected. That is a mistake. It happens

[2:12:36] every once in a while.

[2:12:38] >> That was all I had.

[2:12:41] >> That's all you had. Okay. Any questions

[2:12:43] for this gentleman from the planning,

[2:12:44] please? Okay. Thank you so much for your

[2:12:47] testimony. Now, we'll take a break.

[2:12:50] Okay. And then when we come back, we're

[2:12:52] going to have rebuttal by the applicant.

[2:12:54] >> When are we back?

[2:12:56] >> Oh, how many how many minutes?

[2:12:58] >> 8:13 right now. Uh,

[2:13:00] >> well, let's be back at 8:30. Okay.

9-29-2026 BOCC Planning Hearing

Transcript