[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