[0:28] e e

[1:14] okay it t the hour so let's call the meeting of the 11 and Planning

[1:17] Commission order please be standing for a flag

[1:23] salute iedge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for

[1:30] which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for

[1:39] all right thank you and Kelly would you call a roll

[1:44] absolutely uh Commissioners Miller here Malloy here angelp here bount here

[1:52] commissioner Baxter is excused brashers here mlan here Vice chair gar kunowski

[1:59] here and chair Robertson here okay I hope everybody's had an

[2:05] opportunity to review the minutes from our June Planning

[2:08] Commission uh any additions corrections to those

[2:14] minutes hearing none then the minutes will be approved as

[2:20] presented [Music]

[2:23] um just skip over that um we have three public hearings on our agenda tonight

[2:30] and I am going to turn it over to our legal guy legal guy for some great stuff

[2:39] thank you chair uh tonight's hearing will be pursuant to the quasa judicial

[2:42] procedure set out in 97797 at the start of each hearing

[2:46] commission members will be asked to disclose any ex party Communications

[2:50] conflict of interest or bias if you have any questions as to what that is please

[2:53] let me know the applicable substantive criteria for this hearing will be

[2:58] addressed in the staff report testimony may be in any oral or written form but

[3:02] must be directed towards the criteria outlined in the staff report the

[3:05] comprehensive plan are the city's land use regulations any issue raised must be

[3:10] accompanied accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient enough to allow the

[3:14] commission and parties an opportunity to respond please note the failure to raise

[3:18] an issue including a constitutional issue by the close of the hearing will

[3:22] prevent any appeal to the land board of appeals you may ask for any uh bias or

[3:28] expar contct act okay and with that we will open public

[3:34] hearing uh ar-24 d05 as for any exper contact uh conflict of interest or

[3:44] bias I live near

[3:49] by so you're saying you live nearby the proposed development yes and will the

[3:55] fact that you live nearby that development have any influence in your

[3:58] decision-making process tonight no okay okay any other

[4:05] disclosures if not then we will turn it over to staff for staff

[4:11] report uh so good evening everybody before you tonight is a proposed uh

[4:17] apartment development for a 20 unit uh development at

[4:23] 377 Von Lane the property is on the south side of Von Lane it is located

[4:28] within the residential mixed density Zone uh it is surrounded by properties

[4:34] that is within a mix of City uh limits and County limits all within the urban

[4:40] growth boundary um and the comprehensive plan designation and Zoning designation

[4:45] match as residential mixed density um it is surrounded by residential uses of um

[4:53] single family homes in nature um and the property to the South is currently

[4:58] vacant um but it has been previously approved for a subdivision um and an

[5:03] application before you tonight is also uh a proposal for a subdivision

[5:07] modification for that site as well um there are public facilities within Von

[5:12] Lane that are available to be extended to the site um to serve the development

[5:18] as well um and we will be able to talk about those in the next

[5:24] slide um this is the proposed uh development again the assigned zoning is

[5:30] residential mixed density uh the proposal is 28 uh apartment units all of

[5:36] them would be one bedroom units uh it is proposed to be single

[5:41] story um the density for the property meets code uh in terms of how many units

[5:48] are provided for the size of the property um it's actually less dense

[5:53] than what is technically authorized per the code um per what is required for uh

[5:59] the area you uh to make the number of units um that are proposed you require

[6:05] just under an acre in size and the property is 1.88 Acres so it is less

[6:11] dense than what is uh authorized um the property uh includes a

[6:17] total of three building blocks two of them are oriented kind of in a north

[6:22] south Direction um and one of them towards the south side of the property

[6:25] is oriented in an East West Direction um and they're oriented around the main

[6:31] Drive aisles to provide the parking and access uh to the sites uh the property

[6:38] and the development is designed to meet the required setback standards uh it

[6:43] meets the required 10- foot front setback along Von Lane uh the five foot

[6:49] setbacks along the side property line is the minimum um that minimum is provided

[6:55] for the southern building block um um for that east west building um for the

[7:01] Eastern property line uh a 10- foot setback is provided for the north south

[7:08] building on the western uh building block uh and then a much larger setback

[7:13] is provided for the north south building block uh on the western side of the

[7:19] property um where the uh remainder part of that property area is provided as the

[7:24] open space area but it is also a large Wetland area for the site um as you can

[7:31] see um also south of that uh building that's oriented in the east west

[7:37] direction there's also a large area that's about 79 feet uh in setback area

[7:45] from the southern property line um that is the rear setback um that is far more

[7:51] than the minimum the ma the minimum 20 foot setback and that is largely because

[7:56] that area is also designated Wetland area

[8:00] um so for lot coverage purposes the maximum allowed under code is 60% of the

[8:07] lot area um what is proposed is 25 so that meets the

[8:13] requirements um for open space standards 25% of the lot must meet the uh must be

[8:18] provided for open space um and then the standards as dictated in the uh in the

[8:24] staff reports uh are are uh separated for uh commment open space and usable

[8:30] open space um the blue area is designated as the common and usable open

[8:36] space and within that includes the children's play area um and they're also

[8:41] providing private uh patio areas um which provides the the open space area

[8:47] as well um to meet the code requirements uh in terms of parking uh

[8:54] to within our code um there is a mixture of B bicycle parking requirements and

[9:00] vehicle parking requirements um it's 2.25 parking spaces

[9:05] per unit um for vehicle parking spaces and 0.5 parking spaces uh vehicle spaces

[9:13] per unit uh sorry backtrack 0.5 bicycle spaces per unit um for for the bike

[9:22] standards um however our code does provide what's called an earned um

[9:27] parking reduction for vehicle parking uh if you provide additional bicycle

[9:33] parking um on the property which is provided um so providing additional

[9:39] bicycle amenities with covered bicycle spaces um they are providing uh

[9:44] ultimately a 10% parking redu vehicle parking reduction um which is authorized

[9:50] by right in the code um so a total of 54 vehicle parking spaces is provided for

[9:55] the 28 uh one-bedroom units and 20 for uh uh bicycle parking spaces and as

[10:02] covered bicycle spaces uh in terms of access uh there

[10:07] would be one vehicle access uh from Von Lane as a driveway uh and then there's

[10:14] parking on both sides of the main Drive aisle access and then it goes into a a

[10:20] hammerhead Drive AIS um and they have provided the the template that

[10:25] demonstrates that it meets the the fire turnaround radiuses is uh to be able to

[10:31] to get a fir Tru in there and then be able to turn around and be able to and

[10:35] exit the property appropriately um and then in terms of

[10:42] utilities um there is the um Westside Interceptor uh project that was just

[10:49] completed at uh fifth in vaugh um before it turns southwards on Fifth um this

[10:55] property as part of the development would extend the sewer um to and through

[11:00] this property um there is water already uh along the frontage of this property

[11:06] um and then there is a storm drainage ditch along the front edge of this

[11:09] property that would be able to serve the property as well um and then as part of

[11:13] the development you can see that there are storm drainage basins that are

[11:17] designed to hold the water on the site um to retain the the natural drainage as

[11:23] well um for offsite improvements for the street um if if you look at the natural

[11:30] development of the area and the the street

[11:34] elevations um the street proposed improvements are are proposed to be

[11:40] deferred so that a larger project can occur um because of the street

[11:45] elevations to the the height of the property um you can't get Street grade

[11:50] to do half Street improvements um that are would be naturally required for this

[11:55] type of a project um and so the developer would be required to pay their

[12:00] fair share as part of those improvements to the city to then do a larger project

[12:05] of of Street improvements as part of improvements to bond

[12:09] Lane um in terms of traffic um for analysis of um traffic uh

[12:20] for the site um there's a Traffic Engineers manual that basically

[12:24] identifies for units like this it's 7.3 to average daily trips uh per day with

[12:34] 0.56 um trips um per unit uh per peak time basically um so that would be 28 uh

[12:44] sorry 16 peak hour trips and 205 average daily trips um and so per hour

[12:52] development code and per our engineering review standards um this does increase

[12:58] traffic on the road Road um Von Lane is identified within our transportation

[13:03] system plan as a minor arterial um and so it is uh intended for

[13:10] uh traffic of of this uh type um and and so there was no additional traffic

[13:16] analysis identified as as required um and the system is able to hold that

[13:21] additional traffic so we can move on to next

[13:28] comment area um as was identified within the agenda

[13:33] packet we did receive some written comments um after the agenda packet was

[13:39] published we received some additional written comments and so we just wanted

[13:42] to summarize those um I am not going to be the voice to those comments I want to

[13:50] um make sure that those uh individuals feel that those written comments are

[13:54] their voice we have provided those to the Planning Commission um the Planning

[13:59] Commission has had the time to read them um ahead of time um and they have been

[14:04] provided on the Das as well for further review and Analysis um so I am just

[14:09] simply identifying the main talking points of them as just sort of a

[14:14] refresher for everybody um but I do want to make sure that the public is aware

[14:19] that the full comments have been provided to the Planning

[14:22] Commission um so for General talking point purposes um the first public was

[14:30] uh identified opposition due to concerns regarding um loss of a neighborhood

[14:36] atmosphere um the issues regarding the fact that a lot of the properties around

[14:42] the area are on well and that the property could affect the water aquifer

[14:47] um and then increase traffic and loss of natural

[14:53] viewpoints um generally speaking this property is within the city's Urban

[14:59] growth boundary um per the state of Oregon per the city's growth patterns

[15:05] the urban growth boundary is intended for urbanization it is for City growth

[15:11] purposes um the city's General uh comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances

[15:18] identify as residential mixed density that this type of development is

[15:22] intended and and for its purposes um to meet the housing purposes and growth for

[15:28] the city um and so if the project meets the development code um the

[15:34] comprehensive plan identifies that this is the intended purpose of this area um

[15:39] and so it's the the purpose and growth of the neighborhood um the water aquifer

[15:46] this development would connect to the city's water services and the city's

[15:51] infrastructure um which we pull water from the sou sanum River so it would not

[15:58] affect the AER in the area um and then increased traffic um yes there will be

[16:04] an increased traffic the city is growing um but uh that that is the nature of

[16:11] growth um but the the street system does have the capacity to accommodate that

[16:16] growth um for comment number two uh again there was opposition

[16:22] generally due to the fact that the city's infrastructure can't handle more

[16:26] apartment development um that is

[16:31] uh the infrastructure can handle it uh we do have uh Master plans that uh

[16:38] accommodates growth we regularly review those Master plans we have projects uh

[16:44] that we plan regularly and we require developers to pay their fair share

[16:49] through system development charges to help pay for improvements to the system

[16:54] to to help pay for the city's growth in the

[16:57] infrastructure um um public uh opposition comment number three is

[17:03] concerns about impact of the wells and offers increased traffic and loss of the

[17:07] small town atmosphere um I think already kind of addressed

[17:12] those um comment number four improvements to Von Lane for pedestrian

[17:18] uh safety and vehicle safety uh addressing flooding and needed

[17:23] development uh needed as development in the area is increasing so I believe the

[17:32] area of flooding that they're talking about is to the West um by Oak Creek um

[17:39] that is in County jurisdiction um and so

[17:45] as we continue to grow we'll continue to work with the county and identify areas

[17:50] that need to be improved we we continue to have relationships with them to

[17:55] identify areas within our um city and urban growth boundary where they need to

[17:59] to work with us to make improvements um but if there are areas that that are um

[18:06] of concern we will work with the county to notify them of such um and then

[18:12] improvements on Von Lane as I identified the developer will be uh providing

[18:17] funding for their Fair Shore portion of any future project on Von Lane to do a

[18:23] buildout project um uh opposition number five is

[18:29] very similar um lack of street lights as part of this project uh there is a

[18:35] condition I believe for street lights to be improved um as part of a future

[18:40] project um and then opposition number six uh the neighborhood is single family

[18:46] dwellings and should remain as such um and then concerns for traffic on Bon

[18:52] Lane um residential mixed density um zoning is that it is mixed density it is

[19:00] identified that if your property is of a certain size you allowed to build of

[19:07] many different types of housing um and so it is a meant to be a mixture of

[19:13] different opportunities um and if the developer chooses to do um a different

[19:18] type of uh housing than single family um the development code provides that that

[19:23] right to that property same as if the property owner next door had that design

[19:28] desire to do so as well and then finally um comment number

[19:35] seven was concerns about traffic safety um at vau and main streets um and I

[19:42] think I would turn that over to Ron to extrapolate on anything further yeah so

[19:48] we've had a lot of complaints about that intersection biggest complaint is not

[19:52] having uh visual to pull out um we've actually gone back after the project and

[19:58] looked at that and it does meet uh ashto requirements for safe stopping distance

[20:03] and safe sight distance while those requirements are met I think what's

[20:07] confusing for most drivers is yes you cannot see where you need to go from

[20:13] behind the crosswalk which is pretty standard of most intersections that we

[20:17] have throughout town uh the idea here and it's even in the Oregon driver's

[20:20] manual is that you stop the crosswalk check for pedestrians and then you move

[20:24] forward uh and that's typical of most of our intersections if you really stop and

[20:28] think about it where access ramps are um it it doesn't even have to be a an

[20:33] intersection with crosswalks and if you look at where our stop bars are at so it

[20:37] does meet the standards uh it's it just feels different I think because you've

[20:40] got a three-story apartment there and uh but all in all it functions um and I you

[20:48] know there's not much else to say about it other than it does function and we've

[20:51] gone back and looked at it twice we've had it surveyed and to make sure and uh

[20:55] we do meet all those ashto requirements

[21:01] so I think with uh that that would conclude the summary of the project um

[21:07] and the summary of the written comments uh and we'll conclude staff's report and

[21:12] answer any

[21:16] questions any questions for

[21:23] Kelly Kelly I'm going to assume since it meets the open space requirement they're

[21:27] not going to do any Wetlands mitigation even though Wetlands exist so the

[21:32] wetlands mitigation would occur uh can you see my cursor within the areas that

[21:39] buildings overlap um the area um and then there

[21:44] might be some areas uh in the open space I have I don't have the exact map that

[21:50] they might do a little bit in the open space uh area itself um but only in the

[21:56] areas that that are identified as um the building area I believe is where they

[22:02] would be doing the mitigation but they do meet the the open space requirements

[22:06] in the Blue Area itself to where they might not need to and our development

[22:10] code does say that 20% of wetland areas can also count towards open space um so

[22:17] they they don't necessarily have to okay any other questions I had a

[22:24] question do you have another one I do oh go ahead well it's just for onon when I

[22:29] realize they're going to pay for Street improvements when they come but

[22:33] postponing those with the new development what is that going to have

[22:38] any kind of impact or what would that look

[22:41] like so when you say impact what do you mean well you have all this uh more

[22:47] traffic on the road that already exists and they're paying should be paying for

[22:50] Street improvements that are going to come at some point but not doing those

[22:55] with the development I'm a little concerned about that that's all going to

[22:58] sh sure sure so so if you think about their lot Frontage out there and you

[23:03] think about that's a county standard Road as it sits today uh I've looked at

[23:07] it and you're probably looking at about two foot of elevation drop in order to

[23:10] make that a city standard street so to try and build a Half street in

[23:16] that and widen it um it can be done but it actually probably creates more of a

[23:22] safety hazard for drivers than anything else because you're you're taper and

[23:25] you're drop you're dropping down and to try and match that all up cuz all we can

[23:30] condition is the half Street on their side so that was the reason for the

[23:33] deferral if you're starting this at an intersection it's a little bit easier to

[23:38] start into it but to try and hit grades Midstream and the block is it's it's

[23:46] really tough uh Walker Road's a prime example of that where we did that and uh

[23:51] we tried to save some of the stuff that they've done back and forth and and it

[23:55] couldn't be done we ended up taking it all out and redoing doing it all again

[23:59] so this is this is the response to this um we know at some point Von Lane's

[24:04] going to have to be rebuilt uh it's in the SDC plans and okay it's just a

[24:08] matter of getting into it but I think that's does that answer your question

[24:11] yes it okay and that was going to be my question too is sort of could you help

[24:16] us understand what triggers the road Improvement as far as

[24:20] like in the future I mean as tra as it begins to develop you know I said

[24:27] ultimately we want to see development pay for this right so rather than using

[24:32] what little Street funds we have or resources that we have we would like to

[24:36] see development pay for this now timing May dictate that we have to step in at

[24:41] some point and do that uh we pushed all of our traffic when we had Walker Road

[24:46] closed down to bond Lane um yeah it increase the traffic but if you think

[24:50] about all the the traffic that uses Walker Road and you push that all down

[24:54] to Von Lane and South Main we made that work and there's going to be less than

[24:59] that here uh so is there a trigger there probably should be but

[25:05] it's going to come down to resources uh you know and how soon that happens

[25:09] because right now the city doesn't have enough money to fund the improvements uh

[25:13] you know even with what they're they're they're doing here so just to clarify

[25:17] will or will not there be a sidewalk there will not be a sidewalk no on this

[25:23] on this portion right here there will be in the future yes we will tie it all

[25:27] together as more of the properties along the road

[25:31] are annexed and development again it comes back to we can put a sidewalk out

[25:35] there um it's really a sidewalk to Nowhere at this point yeah and you'd

[25:40] have to tear it back up and and most likely yeah it's going to come back

[25:47] up okay any other

[25:51] questions hearing none then we will open the public testimony portion of our

[25:55] hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant representative to come forward

[26:00] sign in state your names please I guess you've already signed

[26:11] in okay good evening um my name is Laura Lor rock with Udell engineering and

[26:16] joining me today is Andrew rape um civil engineering questions can be directed

[26:21] towards Andrew so as always I say this every time but Kelly does such a great

[26:25] overview there's not too much more for me to add to the presentation um so I'll

[26:30] just briefly recap The Proposal um so again you have almost a two just under a

[26:35] 2 Acre Site proposed for development is a 28 unit one-bedroom apartments it's

[26:42] going to be a lowrise development um so less than two stories likely just one

[26:48] majority of the site does have delineated Wetlands on it and many of

[26:52] that Wetland area is going to be set aside and preserved and going to be open

[26:55] space um for the the residents of this site um parking is um asked to be a

[27:01] reduction however um if you calculate it it's almost two parking spaces per one

[27:07] bedroom unit so there's sufficient parking for the site um access um to the

[27:12] high volume roadway is always encouraged to be single access and that's what's

[27:16] proposed here um and all the development code standards in terms of flock

[27:20] coverage and setback and things of those nature are met um so I'll be very brief

[27:26] today and hand it over to Andrew to just give a quick overview of Public

[27:29] Utilities and

[27:32] drainage yeah thank you Laura so just to recap what Kelly already said a lot of

[27:38] the utilities are already available in vaugh uh with the exception of um the

[27:44] sewer line which is at the intersection of South Fifth and vaugh so the

[27:48] applicant will be installing a new main from that intersection across the front

[27:52] edge of this site uh water will be coming from a existing Main in mon in

[27:57] vaugh and we'll be installing a new fire

[28:00] hydrant in vaugh to serve the site and then storm drain will be discharging uh

[28:06] into the southwest corner of the site uh to an existing ditch that's running

[28:11] along the South

[28:15] border we are here primarily just to answer any questions so is there

[28:19] anything that we can answer for you terms of site design or use yeah from

[28:24] what I understand you're going to drain that wet land towards Joy Street into

[28:30] that drainage ditch so they're going to create an improved surface so any sort

[28:35] of parking area and building area is going to have um be drained and I

[28:39] shouldn't speak for Andrew because he's here so I'll let him finish yeah for the

[28:44] portion of the wetlands that will be disturbed they'll be capturing the run

[28:47] off and running it to the South and it'll end up meeting that ditch and joy

[28:52] you know I like to visualize things so you know that's that's I'm asking I've

[28:59] driven by there before in the winter and seen a lake out there in that area so it

[29:06] does get quite a bit of water buildt up and part of the improvements will be

[29:11] cleaning up that roadside ditch a lot of times they become plugged over time with

[29:16] sediment and vegetation so part of this project will be clearing out some of

[29:20] that if any of that has occurred in that area now that ditch to the South that

[29:24] you're going to be draining into just looking at it it looks to be maybe 3 or

[29:28] 4T deep are you going to have to change

[29:32] that in order to drain everything out of that parking lot and that Wetland into

[29:38] that is it you know just looking at it visualizing it looks like it's going

[29:46] uphill yeah I guess one clarification is wetland wouldn't be drained necessarily

[29:51] across the site so the storm water retention and drainage is going to be

[29:54] anything that's created as impervious surface so pay building area things like

[30:00] that um preserving the wetlands allows those areas to function naturally so

[30:04] there's going to be some sort of um water retention in those natural areas

[30:09] and then the rest of the site that's being improved um that would be

[30:13] addressed through grading on site and detention and possibly treatment in

[30:18] terms of the Calver um this is a preliminary planning approval so once we

[30:23] get to the next stage in development there'll be more engineering that has

[30:27] occurred and we'll take a closer look at those elevations and solutions for those

[30:31] if they're needed

[30:36] um I don't know if you're able to answer this question or not but I'd like to ask

[30:41] about the Builder's intent as to Future changes or what their target occupancy

[30:49] is are they targeting you know because they're one-bedroom apartments are they

[30:54] targeting um uh elderly people for occupants

[30:59] or um and the second part question is and

[31:05] this has happened before is a builder will come in and say I'd like to do this

[31:10] and then he comes in six months later and he says I want to change this to

[31:14] that so the Builder that you're representing would they are they likely

[31:20] to come back and ask for changes yeah to answer that kind of

[31:25] two-part question so the owner is present in the room today today and I'll

[31:28] I'll briefly address your question if he has anything to fill in I can ask him to

[31:32] come up um but um Mr wh he's the property owner and he will be the

[31:37] developer as well um I can say that he spent a considerable amount of time um

[31:42] researching projects um to be able to build something like this uh in the

[31:47] immediate area he spent um considerable time on this particular site um and he

[31:52] is very mindful about what he's going to be constructing he wants it to be

[31:56] something that's affordable to the broad population um and he didn't want it to

[32:01] be high density as what could have been developed on this site so he's very

[32:05] mindful about keeping the construction cost down which trickles down to keeping

[32:09] the rents lower and um affordable for a wider range of public in terms of tenant

[32:15] restrictions I have not heard any um any to a specific population group answer

[32:22] that

[32:33] uh about a year ago I sat in this room and listen to you guys uh discuss the

[32:38] need for housing and the the lower portion of the housing is um or the the

[32:45] more affordable housing units were one of the things that had a higher need and

[32:50] and less actual apartments or homes being built so I'm I'm trying to address

[32:57] that calculated need and I I do have a target

[33:01] market um of older individuals on fixed incomes but I can't just rent to those

[33:09] um and I don't plan on any age restrictions but um my entire uh that's

[33:16] why we're not doing a two-story or three-story apartment building because I

[33:21] hate those giant boxes I really do they're more profitable but um they

[33:26] don't add to any Community value and it doesn't address the need for

[33:33] um uh the Lower Side of the housing the lower cost housing for the record could

[33:40] you state your name please Braden wayy thank

[33:46] you you live here in town Braden uh yeah I graduated from lemon High School in

[33:52] 2005 and I was born here

[33:58] it's not too often somebody sits before us with a project that's that's from

[34:02] here or lives oh gotcha home Crown is that what you said

[34:07] yes no okay any other questions for the applicant that'll come in due

[34:16] time any other questions from the Planning

[34:20] Commission okay thank you okay so our Our Testimony portion is

[34:27] divided into three segments first we have the applicant which we just heard

[34:32] from then we will take testimony in as approving or in favor of I should say of

[34:39] the application then finally we will do testimony in

[34:43] opposition um once the opposition is completed if the applicant wishes to do

[34:48] a rebuttal they can then that would close the public testimony so following

[34:54] that prescription then is there anybody with us that wishes to speak in favor of

[34:59] the

[35:03] application seeing no movement then we would open up to anybody that wish to

[35:08] speak in opposition of the application okay come forward uh if

[35:14] you've not already signed in please do so and state your name have a question

[35:18] that's okay come to the mic question is if it's one-bedroom

[35:23] apartment why do they need a playr could you state your name

[35:35] please okay so your question is not I'm not opposed I think it's a wonderful

[35:40] idea to

[35:43] have Boris I'm sorry to bug you but can you speak in the microphone so we can

[35:47] catch it for minute purpos I'm not opposed I think it's a

[35:52] great idea and have it low like that but I'm just concerned if there are

[35:55] one-bedroom apartments and they B playground around where they going to

[35:58] put the children okay we can have the applicant

[36:02] address

[36:05] that uh any other testimony and opposition of the application okay come

[36:10] forward if you're not already signed in please do so and state your

[36:16] name um I'm merth lenford I actually live on Von Lane where South fif comes

[36:21] and the traffic there is so horrendous and I I think that's my biggest concern

[36:26] is the traffic people just run down that street they go screaming down that

[36:30] street and um about last year I think early last year I or maybe even this

[36:38] year I contacted the city and I said hey could you maybe could we do something

[36:43] about lowering the speed limit on there because almost almost where um Chuck

[36:48] lives uh right next to where this property is going to be the speed Lim is

[36:52] 40 and there's nowhere to get off the street and U it's it's a dangerous

[36:56] Street to walk on and so I I don't have any opposition particularly but I'm

[37:01] really worried about that traffic it's going to if I don't know if the city

[37:05] could just lower the speed limit and things would be better that that's

[37:09] probably a really good option I think and try and and you know the the kids

[37:13] that go up to school there this Christian School up on the hill this

[37:16] time of year we're just people are coming in and out so much it's really

[37:20] hard for me to even get out my driveway but again that's my problem I lived

[37:24] there for 29 years it's okay but I am concerned about more a lot more traffic

[37:29] there okay thank you Meredith what is the posted speed limit there right now

[37:35] 40 yeah I drove by just to make sure because I think when we're coming off

[37:40] second you know we're coming to the Sanam school is a Sanam um the school

[37:45] district is 20 no Sandridge I mean yeah so it's 20 and then it goes to 25 I

[37:51] think and then then it starts to go to 35 after it gets I think after it goes

[37:56] past vaugh and then I'm not really sure when you first turn around V where that

[38:01] what that speed limit is right there from South Main to vaugh but then again

[38:06] at 40 it goes 40 just almost in front of where the subd development is going to

[38:10] be going Kelly what is the criteria for setting a speed limit on the street like

[38:15] blond ltic question to ask

[38:21] not wrong okay so so there's there's quite a

[38:27] process no a portion of its City a portion of its County so really what you

[38:31] have to is is you have to uh you have to do a speed study so you

[38:37] go out do a speed study um I think we've done speed studies on Von Lane before

[38:42] and what we've come back with is your it it's changed a little bit used

[38:47] to be the 85th percentile now I think it's the 50th percentile uh basically

[38:52] that's what your speed limit is set to what 50% I think it's 50% of your your

[38:57] motorists are traveling is what your speed limit is set at so then you've got

[39:00] some that are Under and Over um what we found is that it was posted within the

[39:06] speed limit that met most of the traffic and most drivers will drive at a speed

[39:11] that's comfortable for the road conditions and that's that's how they

[39:13] set the speed limit that's not to say that we can't look at it again but it's

[39:18] not going to guarantee that people are going to slow down yeah and I know

[39:22] that's what we find they did put that sign they did put that speed check there

[39:25] for a while but you know the other day stand by my garbage can some guy's

[39:29] coming down the street he's going up and down the street really really one of

[39:32] these cars and I stood there and they went

[39:35] with my neighbor I went like that and he just spit up as fast as he could I'm

[39:41] thinking yeah sure why are you doing that but you know we have a lot of

[39:44] people that do that kind of thing and so when you're talking about the bikes

[39:48] there's not going to be there's no room for bikes to be you might be wasting

[39:51] your time to put in bike bike uh parking because there's no room for bikes on the

[39:56] on that road Road at all now yeah it it's dangerous for for the speed I mean

[40:02] it becomes an Enforcement issue right so if people are aren't driving the speed

[40:07] limit or driving recklessly then it's an Enforcement issue and sometimes lowering

[40:12] the speed limit is not quite the answer I mean it seems like the answer but if

[40:16] people are driving it at a comfortable speed that's not going to change their

[40:19] habits until they get a ticket of course but until we have police officer on

[40:24] every street we run into this a lot and sh fifth even when they they used to

[40:28] come down South Fifth just tearing down there and I've had three three people in

[40:32] my yard actually over the years and they put street light up up on the corner

[40:39] there and then not too long ago somebody went speeding around the corner and they

[40:43] took out the the light on the the power pole on South Fifth so that's my only

[40:50] gripe well we'll continue to monitor we're we're constantly monitoring speed

[40:55] on streets and we we'll continue to do so and we have to throw out tax out on

[40:59] the road right I don't do that cuz I'll probably be the get one to get the flat

[41:04] tire yeah we'll continue to monitor that all right thank

[41:11] you all right anybody else wishing to speak in

[41:17] opposition all right seeing none then we will turn it back to the applicant or

[41:20] applicants

[41:26] representative thank you so the question I heard was um why is there a children's

[41:30] play area if it's one bedroom units uh questions that Kelly and I have talked

[41:34] about before um so this is a development code standard the development code

[41:39] states that multif family development with eight or more units needs to

[41:43] provide a children's play area uh doesn't stipulate about bedrooms so this

[41:48] would be a possible code amendment in the future to address this um because

[41:52] it's not likely that childrens would use such a facility if it is only one

[41:56] bedroom typically that's just one adult um what has occurred in other situations

[42:01] around town is that what is considered a children's play area is widely defined

[42:06] um and types of improvements can be modified per development um so onless

[42:12] there is an area for a children's play area to be developed um alternatively it

[42:16] could contain things like a barbecue pits or some more adult um amenities for

[42:22] the site that would be better utilized all right any final

[42:29] questions all right thank you thank you and with that we will close the public

[42:34] testimony portion of our hearing all further discussion will be among staff

[42:38] and planning

[42:41] Commissioners okay what are you

[42:46] thinking um I'd just like to say that uh I I really appreciate the uh uh

[42:52] developer being present in person um also really appre appreciate

[42:57] the um local aspect um and the consideration of not

[43:04] trying to milk every last commercial Penny available out of the property and

[43:11] being mindful about the community um I I am very appreciative to

[43:17] to hear those kinds of things and um also want to make note of the fact that

[43:23] um The Proposal is directly in alignment with uh existing Provisions within the

[43:32] code uh not seeking uh you know um uh variances or or or anything like that

[43:42] um to me this has a very different feel than a a

[43:48] um previous development that came through uh the planning Planning

[43:52] Commission uh there uh at Crowfoot and we had many people out there that were

[43:59] unhappy and and present and vocal about it um and I I feel very good about uh

[44:07] what's what's been proposed here today okay thank

[44:11] you uh any other questions

[44:17] comments then let me ask the commission do you feel that the criteria in this

[44:22] application has been met yes okay see heads nod positively

[44:28] any other

[44:31] concerns all right is anybody prepared to make a motion I'll make a motion I

[44:37] move that the Planning Commission approve the proposed administrative

[44:40] review AR 24-5 adopting the written findings

[44:46] contained in the staff Report with the development conditions and direct the

[44:49] staff to draft an order of decision incorporating the findings and

[44:53] conditions of the approval okay it's been motion and

[44:57] seconded any further

[45:01] discussion okay all those then in favor of the motion please say I I and those

[45:07] opposed motion carries unanimously okay thank

[45:13] you uh moving on to our second public hearing uh sday

[45:19] 2404 again ask if there's any conflict of interest exp party contact or bias

[45:25] that the Planning Commission needs to disclose I live near this development as

[45:33] well it's still not a it's still not a conf still not a I mean I I no bu Mr

[45:38] chairman I still do have to unfortunately read the certain

[45:42] Provisions into the record uh testim this will be pursuant to quasa judicial

[45:46] hearing procedures testimony may be in oral or written form but must be

[45:49] directed towards a criteria the comprehensive plan are the city's land

[45:53] use regulations any issue raised must be accompanied by statements and evidence

[45:56] of efficient to allow the commission and parties an opportunity to respond please

[46:00] note the failure to raise an issue including constitutional issues by the

[46:03] close of the hearing will prevent any appeal to the land use board of appeals

[46:06] please recognize that my requirement to read this is by Statute and not by

[46:10] choice okay thank

[46:14] you you just saying that so that we're paying attention yeah I wanted to see if

[46:18] anybody giggled he's just feeling really spunky tonight practicing for a

[46:23] commercial it sounded like I was reading it right

[46:27] um all right we've already established no export contact conflict of interest

[46:31] or bias and we will turn it over staff for staff report thank you sir uh this

[46:38] uh proposal should look somewhat familiar for uh everybody here I think

[46:44] um this is a development proposal for a property at the northwest corner of

[46:50] South Fifth and Joy Street um the zoning is residential mixed density it is

[46:57] surrounded by properties within the city and within the county um all either

[47:03] designated within the zoning code or within the comprehensive plan as

[47:07] residential mixed density and uh surrounded by um either vacant

[47:12] properties uh properties that are uh improved with single family homes or now

[47:18] recently approved for an apartment development um The

[47:25] Proposal is to modify or uh obtain a new uh subdivision plan um back in

[47:35] 2022 or 23 one of those two um the Planning Commission approved this

[47:41] property for a 22 lot subdivision um and that was for a duplex

[47:49] development um now the same developer and property owner um is proposing a 35

[47:56] l lot subdivision um and based off of The Narrative it is a um understanding

[48:02] with the traffic analysis that was provided that the general intention is

[48:06] to provide single family homes um however it's important to note that

[48:11] based off of House Bill 2001 uh any property that we do approve for a um

[48:17] single family home is also eligible for a duplex as well um but uh from the

[48:22] small Lots the these lots have been uh indicated

[48:27] to intend for single family homes based off of The Narrative um the lots that

[48:32] are proposed are between 5,5 square feet uh to 7, uh 29 square F feet um and they

[48:41] maintain at least a minimum of uh 50 feet in width each uh meeting those uh

[48:47] minimum requirements for a lot size to meet the single family home uh lot

[48:53] requirements within the residential mixed density Zone

[48:57] um the access requirements and improvements uh are exactly the same in

[49:03] terms of public Street improvements for uh the subdivision uh new access would

[49:08] be provided off of Fifth Street in uh the creation of a new public Street um

[49:15] which would then turn into a little mini caac and then down and turn into Kingdom

[49:22] drive and connect to uh Joy Street um and then to access the properties to the

[49:29] east is a proposal to provide a private Street um which has a maximum of 16

[49:36] units that would be eligible to be built off of the private Street um so even if

[49:42] um some duplexes are proposed for the property um that does restrict um the

[49:48] number of duplexes that could be combined within on this uh private

[49:52] Street um or it could be single family homes um where with some accessory

[49:57] dwelling units as well um in terms of roadway improvements

[50:05] uh as well on Joy Street as part of The Proposal improvements would also be

[50:11] included to require what's uh called a full Street Improvement is um we

[50:16] wouldn't be including uh sidewalks and curbing gutter because of the drainage

[50:21] ditch that's there um as our maintenance crews are still requiring um to be able

[50:26] to maintain that drainage ditch um but uh four feet of additional pavement

[50:31] would be provided on Joy Street which would actually open up uh Joy Street to

[50:36] be able to provide parking uh on one side of the street um and so that would

[50:42] actually provide a parking Improvement to uh the neighborhood as well um in

[50:47] terms of uh traffic considerations uh since we're on road conditions as well

[50:55] um for single family homes uh there is a traffic count requirement of somewhere

[51:06] around get to it have that paper in front of

[51:11] me

[51:15] um 9.34 vehicles per day um and uh .94 trips uh per uh Peak PM traffic hour um

[51:25] and with 30 Lots uh that would equates to 330 trips

[51:30] per day um and so our development code does identify that we may trigger a

[51:36] traffic impact analysis for a a project that could equat to trips per day of

[51:41] that size um however we did look at um the roadway uh system in this area um

[51:50] and all of the intersections in this area and they are all already improved

[51:54] and appropriately metered with stop signs um and uh the the roads are

[52:00] improved with the appropriate um amount of lanes um and improvements and so a

[52:08] traffic impact analysis would not have uh metered any additional mitigation

[52:14] measures out of it um and so it was determined that no additional analysis

[52:19] was needed um for a traffic at this point um we do have uh

[52:27] an added condition um that we we are um proposing uh that would uh clarify that

[52:36] additional stop signs as part of the subdivision would be required um the

[52:41] just to clarify that that is a Improvement as part of the subdivision

[52:47] um so we do have a modified uh Motion in front of you to to consider uh that

[52:53] would just clarify that stop signs would be required for the intersection of

[52:57] Fifth and the new public Street um joy and the new public Street and then also

[53:03] the the private Street and the new public streets to make sure that that

[53:08] traffic pattern is also uh metered appropriately um in terms of utility

[53:16] extensions uh there's the Westside Interceptor was recently pulled through

[53:21] uh this section of fist Street um and so now uh the uh sewer would be extended

[53:27] through the new public Street and then connected down to Joy um water utility

[53:32] would also be extended through the new public Street as well as storm drainage

[53:36] um and then uh private uh utilities would be extended through the um private

[53:44] Street to service those lots uh along that

[53:48] Corridor um we would also maintain the private uh ditch uh sorry the storm

[53:55] drainage ditch um on the south side of the property is along Joy um and so that

[54:00] means we would also be maintaining the easements on the south side of the

[54:04] property um one change from the previous consideration of this is we did go back

[54:10] and evaluate the size of the easement that was required for this prop for this

[54:16] easement um for maintenance purposes um and instead of the um size that we

[54:22] currently have uh we can reduce it down to a 20 foot easement

[54:26] um and so that is what is currently um proposed as part of the subdivision plan

[54:31] and so that would give uh 7 feet of additional land back to the property um

[54:37] for use and enjoyment as well um and there are um as with the previous uh

[54:44] development as well there are wetlands on this site uh that would be uh

[54:49] proposed to be um delineated and then mitigated uh for the development to the

[54:55] private streets and and uh future development um we did receive written

[55:03] public comments for this project as well um we received a letter of opposition um

[55:10] for the development that generally again caveat I am not speaking for the

[55:16] individuals um you did receive these comments ahead of time um and so just a

[55:21] a sum not even a summary but just general comment points are being

[55:25] provided um um but commission had time to fully review the

[55:29] comments um but for the the first public comment the opposition was generally um

[55:35] the desire to maintain the approval at the smaller number of lots um and that

[55:41] uh we are already um strapped in terms of police and fire capacity and instead

[55:47] of this development they'd rather see a new grocery store uh built somewhere

[55:52] else in town um I cannot speak for the fire district RCT they are a separate

[55:57] entity than the Lebanon um and for the the police department um we provide

[56:04] services with our Police Department um we are constantly striving to provide

[56:09] the best service we possibly can um and we continue to provide that service um

[56:14] to our community uh so was uh um for comment number two um this did

[56:24] not identify opposition or uh in favor it was mostly just asking

[56:29] questions um in the comments that were provided you also saw a dialogue um with

[56:35] myself where I answered those questions um but it asked questions regarding the

[56:41] Joy Street roadway parking and sidewalk improvements which I I summarized in my

[56:46] presentation it asked about building Heights and occupancy um the building

[56:53] height maximum within the residential mixed density uh zone is 40 feet um that

[56:59] is for three generally a three-story dwelling um these are intended for um

[57:05] single family homes or duplexes which generally speaking within the city have

[57:10] been built as single story or twostory homes um which um is the norm however

[57:17] they are allowed to be built up to 40 feet uh if the developer so

[57:21] chose um in terms of occupancy they were asking whether or not they were going to

[57:26] be renter own or um rented or own owner occupied I would leave that up to the

[57:33] applicant to answer um they asked about traffic impacts uh I have spoke about

[57:40] that already and then in terms of street lights they asked uh if street lights

[57:46] were going to be provided and if so if they can be uh informed about where

[57:51] exactly they were going to be provided um yes street lights will be provided as

[57:55] part part of this development uh the exact location will be determined uh

[58:00] through the engineering site plan review and has not been specifically laid out

[58:05] at this point in time

[58:08] so sure if you have anything um so that at this point would

[58:13] conclude staff's report there any questions all right any

[58:24] questions do you know the square footage of the Lots

[58:29] across the street across the street right on Joy

[58:34] Street there uh they sou that you know how big those lots are about 5,000

[58:39] square

[58:44] feet so pretty much the

[58:48] same yeah okay all

[58:54] right all right thank

[58:59] you all right any other ask the tough questions well I I'll have a couple more

[59:05] down the road here any other questions um I have one

[59:10] Kelly um I vaguely remember us doing this for the other one and I remember

[59:17] the people on Joy Street complaining about looking at the in the backyards of

[59:22] the homes we maintained the condition that

[59:27] the Planning Commission ultimately ended up with from the previous discussion and

[59:33] it was copied and pasted okay I was just wondering if it followed through okay it

[59:38] followed through okay thank you right anything

[59:44] else okay then we'll open our public testimony portion and ask the applicant

[59:49] or applicants representative to come

[59:54] forward okay good evening Laura Lorac with Udell engineering and land

[59:58] surveying joining me this evening is Andrew repe uh also with Udell so thank

[1:00:04] you for hearing the presentation tonight what you have before you is a 30 lot

[1:00:09] subdivision proposal uh most of these Lots will be served by the creation of

[1:00:13] new public streets one is a longer section the other is short uh those

[1:00:18] streets that will be developed will have connections to South Fifth and also Joy

[1:00:23] Street um sidewalk connections to the existing sidewalk system on the opposite

[1:00:28] side of Joy Street will be created through the creation of these Lots um

[1:00:34] there's also included in the proposal is a short private Street section um that

[1:00:40] will provide access to just a few Lots off the end of the sub subdivision

[1:00:44] called a sack um included in that private street is a fire turnaround so

[1:00:50] fire apparatuses will have the ability to drive down and serve those um created

[1:00:54] lots and also make the backing movements to move out of that

[1:00:59] area um and as Kelly mentioned I think the the the highlight of this

[1:01:04] application is it's one that you have seen before um the earlier proposal had

[1:01:09] less Lots proposed um those lots were bigger in size the intention of the

[1:01:14] development on those lots were duplex so primarily duplex development uh the

[1:01:19] proposal before you today is intended to um serve what the market is demanding

[1:01:24] and that's primarily sing single family development possibly a mix of some

[1:01:28] duplexes in there as well um and as your planning commissioner already has

[1:01:34] pointed out the lots that are proposed this evening with the current

[1:01:38] subdivision proposal are the same size and width and dimensions as things that

[1:01:43] already exist in the surrounding neighborhood so the subdivision directly

[1:01:48] um south of the project has similar size Lots as the proposal that's in front of

[1:01:52] you this evening um so we'll think it'll add some consist y um to the already

[1:01:57] developed neighborhood in the area that I'll complete mine and hand it over to

[1:02:02] Andrew talk a little bit about Utilities in

[1:02:05] storm yeah briefly for the utilities uh there's water available in South fif and

[1:02:12] enjoy so we'll be connecting to both of those Mains and looping it through this

[1:02:16] development there's sewer available in South fif and the West Side Interceptor

[1:02:20] and so we'll be creating a new main running east and west through the

[1:02:24] development for sewer uh storm drain will all be gathered to

[1:02:28] the Southwest there will be a new track created that will be owned by the HOA

[1:02:35] and uh where we'll have a detention Pond and that will detain the runoff to

[1:02:39] pre-developed levels and then it will discharge into the the ditch that runs

[1:02:45] along joy and uh South Fifth so it will discharge down there at the intersection

[1:02:51] of those you'll notice there's several new box cul

[1:02:56] uh two on South Fifth and one on Joy that will be created for these Crossings

[1:03:04] and uh those are regulated by ODFW and they're they're quite large to

[1:03:11] uh to enable fish fish passage so um that's why they're so big um we'll also

[1:03:19] be creating a sidewalk along South Fifth Street but the the paved surface will

[1:03:25] remain as it is

[1:03:29] now that concludes our presentation but we're happy to answer any questions that

[1:03:34] you have any

[1:03:41] questions dang you done good all right all right thank you again

[1:03:46] appreciate your

[1:03:51] time all right then we will open it up for Testimony in in favor of the

[1:04:00] application seeing none is there testimony in opposition of the

[1:04:05] application okay come forward again state your

[1:04:11] name I'm Doris modman and I live right across the street from this and the size

[1:04:16] of my L lot is

[1:04:19] 6,535 5,000 foot lot is considerably smaller than what most of us have I can

[1:04:24] put an RV next to my house I think some of these other ones I really good

[1:04:30] friends with Mark Schneider who is the owner of the property and helping these

[1:04:34] people do this I'm not against the project I just like to see it much less

[1:04:39] dense okay maybe 24 was too little maybe 35 is too big I'd like to see a

[1:04:45] compromise thank you any other testimony and opposition

[1:04:49] of the

[1:04:53] application all right seeing none then we will close public testimony portion

[1:04:57] all further discussion will be amongst planning Commissioners and

[1:05:01] staff so the private the private Street that's maintained by the homeowner right

[1:05:12] yes simple

[1:05:16] question okay I can't remember the last application we had a combination of

[1:05:21] public and private this a little unique I thought

[1:05:25] so too but what what is the point in making

[1:05:30] that private the

[1:05:34] uh public Street can't extend far enough to make a

[1:05:43] culac large enough um without impeding on other

[1:05:48] people's properties basically you there's no land

[1:05:53] to be able to build a public Street and actually have

[1:05:58] property um basically yeah so you you can't we

[1:06:04] couldn't technically allow people to drive down there and turn around in

[1:06:08] somebody's driveway so that's that's the reason for the private street because

[1:06:12] it's just those folks that live down there that would use that portion of the

[1:06:15] street very similar to what's built over on um off of U and yes yeah same same

[1:06:22] situation

[1:06:26] right any other questions go ahead for the private street is there

[1:06:30] going to be some kind of HOA or something to uh fund maintenance Etc on

[1:06:36] that yeah I think they alluded to an HOA for the uh the drainage so I would

[1:06:41] assume that the same thing would apply here too yeah it would have to there's a

[1:06:46] condition that says that there has to be a reciprocal access and maintenance

[1:06:49] agreement at minimum but then with drainage

[1:06:56] it probably has the age away as well so Kelly um I have a question if

[1:07:03] they and I could be um from if they use if they put

[1:07:09] duplexes in there is that considered a multif family no okay it's just a it's

[1:07:15] just a shared wall right like a zero lot line okay the only reason I was asking

[1:07:21] was because of green space for children if you have if we require for multif

[1:07:26] family if that was something that would be required because I didn't see it so

[1:07:30] our code only identifies multif family multi more than three units more than

[1:07:35] three okay thank you Joy since they came back and changed their their plan did

[1:07:42] they have to pay their fees all over again yes

[1:07:48] sir okay any other

[1:07:53] questions okay is anybody prepared well first let me ask this question do you

[1:07:57] feel the criteria has been

[1:08:03] met okay I think we have an agreement that it has been so in that case then is

[1:08:08] there a

[1:08:21] motion I'll make a motion um I move that the Planning

[1:08:26] Commission approved the subdivision s-22 d03 adopting the written findings

[1:08:32] contained in the staff report for the decision criteria and conditions of

[1:08:36] development with the modification to add an engineering condition for

[1:08:40] transportation to require a total of three stop signs at the intersections of

[1:08:45] the new public Street and South Fifth Street and Joy Street and the

[1:08:50] intersection of the private Street and the new public Street and direct staff

[1:08:55] to D draft an order of decision with the modified findings and conditions of

[1:09:00] approval It's s 24-4 you said 22 oh that's because it

[1:09:07] says 03 in there 04 I'm so sorry I'll second okay it's been motioned and

[1:09:13] seconded does everybody understand the motion and the

[1:09:18] correction okay any further

[1:09:23] discussion okay all those then in favor of the motion please say I I I and those

[1:09:29] oppose same sign right motion carries

[1:09:33] unanimously again thank you all right moving on to our third and

[1:09:39] final public hearing uh annexation a-24

[1:09:46] d02 pursuant to 97797 testimony may be in any oral or

[1:09:52] written form but must be directed towards the criteria outlined in the

[1:09:54] staff report the comprehensive plan of the city's land use regulations any

[1:09:58] issue raised must be accompanied by statements and evidence sufficient to

[1:10:00] allow the commission and parties an opportunity to respond please note

[1:10:04] failure to raise an issue including constitutional issues by the close of

[1:10:07] the hearing will prevent any appeal to the land board of

[1:10:10] appeals okay any expert take contact conflict of

[1:10:16] interest or

[1:10:19] bias you don't live next to it no

[1:10:25] I was expecting that all right then we will turn it over

[1:10:30] to staff for staff report okay this is the longest one of the night guys so 785

[1:10:37] West B Street would like to Annex into the city to be able to connect to City

[1:10:42] uh sewer Services uh the property is contiguous to City boundaries on the

[1:10:48] north and west property lines um and it is uh identified in the comprehensive

[1:10:55] plan as residential mixed density and assigned zoning of residential mixed

[1:11:00] density upon annexation the applicant has identified acceptance of the initial

[1:11:07] zoning uh the surrounding properties are residential uses in nature um and public

[1:11:13] facilities are available in Ninth Street and able to be uh extended to the

[1:11:20] property uh once annexed into the City and so therefore it is eligible for

[1:11:25] urbanization although it is already developed uh so it meets the criteria

[1:11:30] for annexation so staff recommendation is for approval of the annexation and

[1:11:35] that concludes my staff's report I'm available for any

[1:11:39] questions any questions for

[1:11:45] staff okay um then we will open public testimony

[1:11:51] portion [Laughter]

[1:11:58] then we will close public testimony portion um any any further questions any

[1:12:04] comments any concerns I'm going to assume that they

[1:12:07] must have had a septic failure maybe don't know because I know

[1:12:15] that we have some property that's County so it's a good possibility or they want

[1:12:20] to sell the property and it's easier to sell a property when it's connected to

[1:12:24] City all the better reason either way yeah I think this is a pretty

[1:12:29] straightforward thing so slowly this little island of

[1:12:34] County Properties is shrinking yeah which is a good thing all right any

[1:12:40] further discussion concerns are we uh I assume you feel that we've met

[1:12:47] the criteria you'd be asking questions y okay um anybody prepared for

[1:12:53] a motion go ahead are you sure okay um I move

[1:13:00] that the Planning Commission recommend approval of annexation A-

[1:13:05] 24-02 to the city council based on the written findings and the staff report

[1:13:10] and direct staff to draft an order of recommendation incorporating the

[1:13:13] findings and conditions of

[1:13:17] approval okay been motion and seconded any further

[1:13:22] discussion all those any in favor please say I I those oppose same sign motion

[1:13:28] carries unanimously all right um citizens

[1:13:36] comments see no movement then we will go on to commission

[1:13:41] business uh we will have a meeting in October um please remember that we will

[1:13:48] have a joint Planning Commission and city council meeting in November believe

[1:13:53] we have it set to start it at 4:30 uh yes what's that date in

[1:14:00] November date is the 2 uh Wednesday of the month so it's

[1:14:07] November 13th November 13th at 4:30 yes uh and that's uh again for an update

[1:14:16] on the code amendment process much like we did the last go around uh in between

[1:14:21] now and then we'll have another project advisory committee for those that are

[1:14:25] participating on the project advisory committee um I think that's all I have

[1:14:31] unless anybody has questions for

[1:14:44] us has it okay so November we have the joint meeting but we're not going to

[1:14:50] actually have a Planning Commission meeting we might depending on whether or

[1:14:55] not we have applications

[1:15:00] okay um just a question um in the first hearing we had lot coverage does that

[1:15:08] include impervious areas like parking lot no it includes pretty much just the

[1:15:14] building footprint okay that makes more

[1:15:18] sense all

[1:15:21] right any updates any questions comments

Lebanon Oregon Planning Commission Meeting 9-18-2024

Transcript