[0:05] All right. I call the June 10th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order at

[0:10] 6 PM. Can I get a roll call, please?

[0:15] » Chair Jana Senova. Simova, excuse me. >> Here.

[0:19] » Jeff Sundell >> here.

[0:22] » Nicole Hendricks >> here.

[0:24] » Matt Constantine. Rob Candrian

[0:28] » here. Andrew Carr >> here.

[0:30] » Thank you. >> Excellent. Thank you. And uh please join

[0:33] me in the pledge of >> allegiance

[0:40] to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one

[0:48] indivisible and justice for all.

[0:58] All right. For citizen input, this is the time the citizens have the

[1:01] opportunity to address the planning commission regarding any item that is

[1:05] not already scheduled for a formal public hearing tonight. Therefore, if

[1:09] any member of the audience would like to speak about any work session item or any

[1:13] other matter of concern, please raise your hand so we hear from you. Now,

[1:20] » I do not have anybody online. >> Okay.

[1:25] Is is this for now? Okay. Um I do have Cynthia Russell.

[1:40] Hello. Uh my name is Cynthia Russell. My address is on the contact card on file.

[1:46] Um I just want to say I was on the task force, the building height waiver task

[1:50] force committee. It's a long one. Um, and I I think we had a lot of good

[1:56] discussion and by the end of it, I think we came to a lot of we agreed on a lot

[2:01] of things. So, I'm just excited to see your guys' discussion and where it goes

[2:05] with it. And thank you to everyone that put together all the materials. There

[2:08] was a lot and all the time stamps and everything. So, there was a lot of work

[2:11] that went into it. So, I just want to say thanks for everyone's effort on it.

[2:17] » Thank you so much and thank you for being on the task force.

[2:23] Okay,

[2:27] next on the agenda is a work session for Wilsonville Industrial Land

[2:32] Readiness for Basalt Creek Master Plan. This work session is a chance for

[2:38] planning commission to get additional understanding of and provide guidance of

[2:42] on ongoing legislative projects prior to a public hearing.

[2:50] So at this time I call for the city staff to present information they have

[2:53] prepared for the work session. Will the city staff please present?

[2:59] All right.

[3:16] » Oh, you're right.

[3:23] get started. >> Yeah.

[3:24] » Thanks. Okay. >> Good evening, chair, commissioners.

[3:29] » Appreciate your time this evening. Uh, you know, so tonight's kind of a cool

[3:33] night for us. This is actually a a kind of a milestone moment in the Basalt

[3:37] Creek master plan process that we've been involved in. Um, it's been over two

[3:41] years. And uh tonight really begins tonight's work work session begins a

[3:46] five-month adoption process as we move to toward finishing up this project. So

[3:51] it's a pretty uh it's a pretty cool night for us in the planning department.

[3:54] We're pretty excited. So before I get too far into it, um tonight with me I

[3:58] have uh Lauren Scott from MIG, one of our consulting firms, Alex Dupy as well,

[4:03] also from MIG. And joining us at some point in time will be um Jenna Bogurt

[4:08] from DKS who does our transportation analysis. So, we should have her online.

[4:12] So, um keep an eye out for her. She'll be in. Perfect.

[4:17] Um so, let's see. Couple things here. Um where was I? I lost my notes. Uh so,

[4:24] again, over the past several years, um the city, the community, um our

[4:28] consulting firms, developers, property owners, we've been involved in the in

[4:32] what was at one time known as the Wilsonville Industrial Land Readiness

[4:36] Project, right? We've sort of morphed it now. It's it's the Basalt Creek master

[4:40] plan is the outcome of those of that project and of the West Railroad um

[4:44] study. And so here here we are um starting this process. Now Basalt Creek

[4:49] represents one of the largest uh remaining employment opportunity areas

[4:53] in Wilsonville um as well and it really provides us a unique opportunity to look

[4:59] forward for future industrial and employment growth um and to do so in a

[5:04] coordinated manner. Right? So through this process we've been able to examine

[5:09] transportation needs uh environmental resources infrastructure requirements uh

[5:15] economic development opportunities and really doing so in a framework that will

[5:19] help us guide you know future development in this area for decades to

[5:23] come. So it's a it's a it's a pretty cool and big deal. Um so as we get into

[5:27] this looks like we are do you advance? You probably have to advance. Thank you.

[5:32] So tonight's discussion, we're going to focus on three main components of the

[5:36] draft master plan. The actual master plan itself, the document. Um there are

[5:42] some comprehensive plan amendments in your packet that I'll have some slides

[5:45] for as well. And then looking at the transportation analysis um that was

[5:49] performed by Jenna at DKS. And ultimately our goal is to receive your

[5:54] feedback about any of those components that you feel you would like to offer

[5:57] feedback on. One more slide, please. Um, but before

[6:02] we get too deep into it, uh, I realize that sometimes as planners and people

[6:06] who live in this world, we get a little bit ahead of ourselves and forget that

[6:10] not everyone knows what we're talking about or why we're doing what we do. So,

[6:13] we're just going to take a moment and talk about what is a master plan and and

[6:18] really just think of it this way that it it it's the way we establish the

[6:22] long-term vision for an area that we want to be developed, right? This is

[6:25] where we set the ground rules and the framework. you know, we can coordinate

[6:29] infrastructure investments. Instead of peacemeal infrastructure spending, we

[6:32] can do it in a coordinated, more effective and efficient fashion. Um,

[6:36] this is where we identify long range transportation needs. What do we as a

[6:41] city, what will we need as this moves forward and we can really think about

[6:45] that in a long long term fashion. We can also look at protecting our

[6:49] environmental resources that we all care so much about. This is where we

[6:52] establish what we want to protect in the future. So that when we get to that

[6:56] future, we already have that framework set up that we have decided to protect

[6:59] that. Uh it also helps us guide future development patterns. What kind of

[7:03] development do we want? Um current codes don't do that. They implement that. But

[7:09] this is where we decide what we want. And then this is also a space where we

[7:12] create certainty certainty for property owners and investors. What can a

[7:16] property owner do or not do on their property going into the future? Right?

[7:21] Right. So that's really what a master plan kind of in a nutshell. Next slide.

[7:26] So then why does Basalt Creek matter? Well, Basalt Creek represents one of the

[7:30] city's as I said largest remaining employment growth opportunities. It's a

[7:36] key component of Wilsonville's long-term economic strategy, right? Lots of

[7:40] employment is what we're hoping for. It's a major industrial and employment

[7:44] center within the Portland metropolitan region. Um and it's also an again an

[7:49] opportunity for us to coordinate growth before development happens to do it in a

[7:54] a concerned and um a thoughtful manner. Next slide.

[7:59] So the Basalt Creek vision, right? We have some guiding principles that we've

[8:03] sort of been operating under. You know, employment focused development,

[8:07] transportation connectivity, uh environmental stewardship. These all

[8:11] kind of apply. You'll hear these themes coming up. flexible industrial

[8:15] opportunities, uh, efficient infrastructure investment

[8:18] and long-term economic vitality. Thank you. So, next steps, um, we're re

[8:26] on July 8th, uh, we will be back for a second work session here at the comm uh,

[8:30] planning commission. That's where we're going to look at draft code amendments.

[8:33] So, you'll actually get to see some really, um, exciting code.

[8:38] These are usually where uh, the rubber hits the road, if you will. Those draft

[8:42] code amendments are going to help implement some of the stuff that we're

[8:45] working on. Um you'll see the final draft master plan um with you know

[8:49] hopefully only a few little tweaks here and there that you might want and then

[8:52] there will be some more technical appendices as well. Storm water, sewer,

[8:56] water lines, things like that. So those technical appendices will come through

[8:59] as well in the second session. Go for it.

[9:03] Oh, and now I forgot the blank slide was my cue. And now actually Lauren is going

[9:08] to walk you through the actual draft master plan and then she'll kick it back

[9:12] to me for some um good comp plan amendment talk. So Lauren, take it away.

[9:16] » Thanks Chris and good evening commissioners. It's good to see you all

[9:18] again. Like Chris said, I'll be spending some time just briefly walking through

[9:22] the structure of the document, some key components, reviewing some of the

[9:25] placeholders. You may have noticed uh a bit of red text in several chapters just

[9:29] to give you an idea of what's coming in work session number two. Um so the plan

[9:34] starts off with the introduction providing the foundation for the master

[9:38] plan. It's introducing the Basalt Creek uh planning area explaining how this

[9:43] document builds upon the Basalt Creek concept plan and describing the role

[9:48] that uh or the role this area plays in Wilsonville's long-term employment and

[9:53] industrial growth strategy. And this chapter also spends a bit of time

[9:57] connecting this plan and this work to the city's recently adopted economic

[10:03] opportunities analysis and economic development strategy. Uh both of which

[10:07] spend a bit of time um and effort talking about Basalt Creek and what

[10:10] should happen out there. Chapter 2 uh reviews a lot of the

[10:16] information. A lot of technical analysis and reports went into this. I think

[10:20] there's a long list of appendices. We're adding more to that with the upcoming

[10:24] infrastructure analysis. So, this chapter walks through that. Uh, it um

[10:29] includes the original Basalt Creek concept plan guiding principles. It

[10:34] includes the guiding principles that were adapted for this specific process.

[10:38] It talks about the comprehensive plan policies, those areas of special concern

[10:43] that affected this planning work and then listing the uh technical studies as

[10:48] well as some of the key themes from the stakeholder outreach and work that the

[10:53] city has done.

[10:56] And then chapter 3 reviews a lot of that information, summarizing it at a very

[11:02] high level. It's looking at the economic conditions, summarizing the industrial

[11:06] land readiness, talking about those contractor establishments and the role

[11:10] they play um in that area's future development potential. Talks about

[11:15] transportation, a light touch on infrastructure with more to come. And

[11:20] then natural resources as well. Uh, I think Chris said this earlier, but the

[11:24] key takeaway is that Basalt Creek really remains one of Wilsonville's most

[11:28] important long-term employment areas, but there are challenges bringing

[11:32] infrastructure, uh, bringing transportation, the the fragmented

[11:36] ownership and and contractor establishments and making that work.

[11:41] Chapter four, we're really building out the master plan. Um, so we have these

[11:46] layers. That's how the chapter is organized. I'll spend a little bit of

[11:49] time talking about each. We have our natural resources section. The updated

[11:55] natural resources inventory which is included as an appendix identified the

[11:59] wetlands, the repairarian corridors, upland tree groves, the streams and

[12:04] wildlife habitat areas throughout the Basalt Creek planning area. And these

[12:08] resources, as we talked about a lot for West Railroad, helped shape those land

[12:11] use considerations. They affect where the roads will go. Um, and they also

[12:15] affected the uh bike and pedestrian trail concepts. um the habitat

[12:20] restoration that could occur in the environmental stewardship as well.

[12:26] And then getting into the land use framework, this builds upon the vision

[12:31] in the 2019 concept plan while refining some of the land use expectations and of

[12:36] course including West Railroad uh as an area that has a land use identified for

[12:41] it. And this framework includes the high-tech employment, light industrial,

[12:46] craft, industrial, and west railroad districts. Each district is intended to

[12:51] support different employment and industrial opportunities based on the

[12:55] site characteristics, infrastructure availability, and market conditions.

[13:03] And then I'll just briefly cover transportation. I know that Chris and

[13:06] DKS are planning a deeper dive into that. We talked about this at the

[13:11] previous work session for West Railroad. Um, this work integrates that and then

[13:16] includes a full uh concept and framework plan for transportation. Um, and

[13:22] basically talking about what projects and key intersections uh will be needed.

[13:35] In terms of the bike and pedestrian framework that also carries through a

[13:39] lot of the concepts identified in the 2019 plan, this is emphasizing

[13:44] connections between employment areas, uh, future transit service, natural

[13:49] resources, and those regional trail systems that run through it. That

[13:52] includes the Basalt Creek Canyon Trail and the Ice Age Tonkan Trail, as well as

[13:57] some future pathways and improved crossings at certain locations.

[14:04] and then infrastructure. More to come on this one. It remains one of the most

[14:08] important implementation considerations for the planning area. Uh the draft plan

[14:12] builds upon the previous utility planning and will identify

[14:16] infrastructure readiness, utility coordination and phased investment. We

[14:20] do have a bit of information about that in the plan now, but obviously uh

[14:25] recommendations graphics will uh be forthcoming in work session number two

[14:29] and we'll have more information about that.

[14:34] And then chapter five is our implementation and phasing chapter. It

[14:39] organizes the plans recommendations into different buckets. Those are further

[14:43] exploration, planning, funding, and investments. And the intent here is to

[14:48] create a practical implementation framework rather than some list of

[14:53] isolated projects. This chapter also includes a phasing strategy that

[14:58] recognizes that implementation will occur over many years and will depend a

[15:03] lot on infrastructure funding, market demand, uh redevelopment opportunities

[15:08] and and those partnerships as well. And so just a highlevel uh overview of

[15:16] the phasing strategy, it's three buckets. Near-term actions, medium-term

[15:20] actions, and long-term actions. Those near-term actions are really focused on

[15:24] planning, coordination, policy updates, building a strong foundation for the

[15:29] future implementation. Medium-term actions are focused more on

[15:33] infrastructure planning, those funding strategies that are identified in the

[15:37] plan, working to implement those uh creating and and forming those

[15:42] partnerships and uh addressing redevelopment readiness. And then

[15:47] long-term actions are focused on continued investment. It's envisioning

[15:52] the infrastructure buildout, that redevelopment actually occurring, and

[15:56] then the longer range implementation. Um, you'll notice that many of the

[15:59] recommendations span multiple phases, uh, just because implementation might

[16:04] expect to start within the next year, but would actually finally be completed

[16:08] in, you know, year 15, year 20 for some of those longer planning items.

[16:14] And I think that oh and then covering just the placeholder uh analysis that

[16:20] we've noted um the plan will become just a little bit longer with the graphics

[16:24] and text covering infrastructure. We've noted placeholders for now. Um but

[16:29] hopefully that was clear what's to come. Like Chris said it's the water system

[16:33] analysis, the sanitary sewer analysis, storm water. those uh zoning code

[16:38] refinements which will be a large focus of work session two will also maybe

[16:42] affect some of the recommendations as well as phasing in chapter 5 and build

[16:47] out some of the development district uh descriptions in chapter 4. And then of

[16:53] course just all the maps and figures uh that go along with with those pieces as

[16:58] well will be finalized and it will include hopefully a nice summary graphic

[17:02] of what this master plan is in chapter 4.

[17:07] And with that, I think I'm passing it back to

[17:09] » Chris. >> All right, lots of slides for you guys

[17:14] tonight. Sorry about that. Kind of is what it is sometimes.

[17:20] All right, so the next component um is our proposed comprehensive plan

[17:24] amendments. Right, these are, you know, essentially the point here or

[17:28] the purpose is you updating our comp plan language that'll reflect more of

[17:31] today's current economic conditions. Um, I believe we brought to you the economic

[17:36] opportunities analysis and the economic development strategy. That must have

[17:40] been two or three months ago at this point. So, we need to implement those.

[17:44] Um, and also updating the language helps us to support future industrial and

[17:49] employment growth and then align our policies with the Basalt Creek master

[17:52] plan. You really can't have a comp plan and a master plan that uh that are in

[17:56] conflict with one another. They need to align. So, we're in that process.

[18:01] Um so the existing language uh much of our um comp plan language is written in

[18:06] in the n 1990s and early 2000s. So we need to update to reflect more of today.

[18:13] Um we have some proposed changes in um employment forecasts um recognizing

[18:18] Wilsonville as a major regional employment center um and incorporate the

[18:22] findings from the economic opportunities analysis and the um economic development

[18:27] strategy as well. Um and ultimately, you know, the bottom bullet there, modernize

[18:31] our economic development policies, kind of get up to date a little bit.

[18:38] So, we've highlighted a few things in the comp plan amendments. Um you know,

[18:41] the um projected job growth is an important piece to Wilson's view,

[18:45] Wilsonville's future over the next 20 or more years. Um also recognizing our role

[18:50] in manufacturing and logistics, technology, um professional services,

[18:55] health related industries. So, you know, our breadth of industries, we needed to

[18:59] sort of get some of that um written up into the um comprehensive plan as well.

[19:03] So, next slide. Uh modernizing our industrial

[19:08] development policies. Yeah, economic resilience. You know, one of the things

[19:11] that we need to make sure that we have here in Wilsonville and we act have more

[19:15] opportunity than many jurisdictions do um with the Basalt Creek planning area.

[19:18] It's a real advantage for our community. um preparing and and making sure we have

[19:23] employment land readiness um strategic infrastructure investment as I talked

[19:27] about coordinated efficient and strategic infrastructure and then

[19:30] long-term competitiveness for Wilsonville to be both an employment

[19:34] area and a place that people want to be.

[19:38] There we go. Um so some new uh implementation measures development

[19:43] ready employment lands. You'll hear some themes throughout all these work

[19:46] sessions, right? And that's a big one for us is development ready employment

[19:49] land multiple building types and tenants not leaning on just one thing to get us

[19:54] through to the next several generations. Um interconnected street networks

[19:59] connectivity has been expressed as a very important piece of what the city of

[20:03] Wilsonville and the community would like. Um uh improving but also ensuring

[20:09] um positive freight mobility uh bicycle and pedestrian circulation even in

[20:14] industrial areas. uh transit supportive design, want SMA smart to be able to run

[20:19] uh get people to their jobs and infrastructure readiness. These are all

[20:23] represented as parts of the comp plan amendments that we've written up

[20:28] um supporting innovation and economic diversity. So, some new industrial types

[20:33] um that we haven't had in the comp plan previously. Craft industrial businesses,

[20:37] maker spaces, artisan manufacturing, breweries and distilleries, um small

[20:43] business entrepreneurship. Um those are now represented in the comp plan and

[20:47] they weren't before. Um you know, ultimately the goal as we've kind of

[20:51] chatted about diversity, uh diversity employment opportunities, encourage

[20:56] innovation and and support some of those emerging industries.

[21:02] And that's my pause on the comp plan stuff. I know we're just like flying

[21:06] through slides tonight. Sorry. Um I have one more uh I have five more

[21:11] slides on transportation. Are we filling up for it or you want to stop for a

[21:15] question or two or power through? Let's do it. All right.

[21:20] These are a little more text heavy. My apologies. Um I need I didn't uh I

[21:24] didn't edit them very well. though. Um so, uh Jenna, who I believe is is online

[21:29] right now, um for DKS and Associates, um she performed a transportation analysis

[21:35] of um the Basalt Creek planning area and the West Railroad area. And this was

[21:41] essentially, as you can see, evaluating the transportation impacts associated

[21:44] with the future buildout of those areas. What will happen when we develop when

[21:48] those areas develop? Hey, there's Jenna. Um hey, Jenna. Um she assessed roadway,

[21:54] freight, bicycle, ped and trail connections. Um identified needed

[21:59] transportation improvements that will support that future development and then

[22:03] of course ensured that whatever we're going to do is consistent with the

[22:07] state's transportation planning rule. Next slide, please. Um that's a lot. Um

[22:13] existing transportation conditions. So you know some existing challenges. Uh

[22:17] the west railroad area currently has limited access. Uh there is some

[22:22] significant environmental constraints, wetlands and such. Uh the railroad

[22:26] corridor does limit connectivity. We all know that that's a little too shallow

[22:30] for trucks to go under and that creates a a bit of a conflict. Um incomplete

[22:34] pedestrian and bicycle facilities and of course there is some existing congestion

[22:39] at Grahams Ferry and Day right now. But some of the assets, Basalt Creek

[22:44] Parkway, Grahams Ferry Road, Tonken Road, um good regional freight access,

[22:49] and the planned ice age tonken trail.

[22:55] So then the the access strategy and Jenna can speak to this um after we get

[23:00] through these slides. I'm sure uh she'll need to correct me a couple of times,

[23:03] but uh you know the future uh development uh oh sorry the planned

[23:07] access strategy the future development is antic anticipated to be served by the

[23:12] northern access via the Tonkan road via Tonkan Road um southern access via

[23:17] Gramps Ferry and then the internal local street network and in a lot of cases

[23:22] well at least in the west railroad area that's generally going to be decided by

[23:25] the type of development that we have. Um we'll still have code um requirements,

[23:30] but the location won't we won't necessarily have in West Railroad. Um

[23:35] additional opportunities are potential future public railroad crossing at

[23:39] Cahalen Road. Um the Ice Age Tonkan Trail connection um and future

[23:44] pedestrian and bicycle network improvements.

[23:47] I think this might be my last one here. Oh no, it's not. Um existing conditions.

[23:53] So most study intersections, the good news, currently meet mobility standards,

[23:57] Grahams Ferry and Day Road is the primary existing deficiency at this

[24:01] time. Anyone who's been around there probably understands that. Um so future

[24:06] conditions so about 20 years out the analysis assumes completion of the

[24:10] planned transportation system uh uh system planned projects which include

[24:14] Basalt Creek Parkway extension uh grants fairy road improvements uh day road

[24:20] widening and garden acres road intersection reconstruction.

[24:25] Next slide please. So the key recommendations were to

[24:29] continue or are to continue implementation of the transportation

[24:32] system plan projects that we have now. Um advance ice age tonken trail

[24:37] connections, preserve opportunities for future railroad crossing discussion. Um

[24:42] those are ongoing discussions. They're difficult, complex, and expensive. So

[24:48] yay. Uh preserve opportunity. Oh, sorry. Coordinate transportation improvements

[24:52] with future development. We talked earlier about that trying to be

[24:55] efficient with our with our um looking forward to development and how we spend

[25:00] infrastructure and transportation dollars and it it continues to be a

[25:03] theme. The conclusion is that the transportation and or the uh basalt

[25:08] creek planning area in the west railroad area can be developed with planned

[25:11] network and currently identified transportation improvements. We we don't

[25:16] need any additional major transportation capacity projects that we don't have on

[25:19] the list now uh to support that future buildout. So, that's all good news. Uh,

[25:25] for the most part, it's we recognize it. The projects are in there. We just need

[25:29] to keep moving forward on those projects. Next slide, please. Um, so the

[25:35] overall next steps for where we're at, we'll be back here in a month uh is July

[25:41] 8th for our second work session. Um, on August 3rd, we'll be at uh city council

[25:46] for their only work session on this project. And then on September 9th,

[25:50] we'll be back here for a public hearing uh looking for recommendations to

[25:53] council from the commission to council. And then we'll start the council's um

[25:57] public hearing process in October. So we've got about five months. Um as I

[26:01] said, this is step one in in a six-step process. Um so that might be my last

[26:08] slide. Oh my question slide. That's right. Uh so these were the questions

[26:14] that I prompted that we have in the staff report. Um but again the your

[26:19] questions do not have to follow this pattern. These were just

[26:23] discussion questions to think about but we are done with slides and we would

[26:28] like to hear any and all feedback that you may have. Thank you.

[26:32] » Excellent. Thank you. All right members of the commission.

[26:38] Do you have any questions for staff? Any comments or discussions you want to

[26:42] have? >> I see no

[26:50] Oh, awesome. All right. First of all, thanks so much. Great presentation. It

[26:54] was um really interesting to dive into the plan as it exists so far. So, great

[26:58] work on this. Um a lot of the the really like burning questions that I had that I

[27:03] have had to do with the transportation um system plan. So, excellent. Uh, one

[27:08] of the things that I was trying to make sense of as I was looking at the studies

[27:11] and and what they might mean is uh how do we reconcile the local traffic needs

[27:19] of this area with the uh the through traffic needs. So like on Graham Road

[27:24] and Day Road and on Ellis or on Boon Ferry Road that leads leads toward the

[27:29] freeway. I I my my observation as a non professional here is that almost all of

[27:36] that traffic is through traffic and it's not really servicing the the local

[27:41] businesses that operate there or the local industry. Um, how do we reconcile

[27:46] kind of as we make a change to extending B to Salt Creek,

[27:50] » how that may affect what how much Day Road actually gets used, how much of

[27:55] that through traffic moves north and in Dayude maybe doesn't need to be widened.

[28:00] » Um, how do how do we think about I know we've got professionals here.

[28:03] » So, how should we be thinking about that as a planning commission? Um, and how

[28:07] can we maybe I guess a lot of this is coming from the

[28:10] standpoint of like how do we avoid maybe creating such capacity that we end up

[28:15] inducing more through traffic demand in the area. Um, so

[28:20] » that's a good question and it's one of those moments where I'm so happy that we

[28:25] have a transportation expert here to talk to us about stuff like that. Jenna,

[28:29] I'm hoping you heard that question. >> I did. Yes. Yeah. Thanks for that

[28:35] question. Um it's it's a good one to consider in this area, right? You're

[28:38] you're totally right on. There's so much um regional and local traffic happening

[28:43] there at the interchange. We've definitely seen an uptick since the

[28:48] 124th extension was built in what 2018 2019 um of that kind of regional traffic

[28:55] moving through the area. these transportation system plan projects that

[28:59] Chris covered in his presentation that the city has in their TSP, they they're

[29:05] also in the metro TSP. So, the the greater Portland area acknowledges that

[29:11] a lot of these improvements are um needed for regional purposes, right, for

[29:16] this kind of cross city travel, access to the I-5 interchange. Um yeah, it's

[29:23] tough there. There's definitely kind of a chicken and egg situation,

[29:28] right, where if you build these improvements, traffic will come. But,

[29:32] um, this area specifically just has so much potential for development. I think

[29:38] we'll find that that these improvements are needed and that it'll probably

[29:42] quickly fill up. You know, if we look at the next 20 years, a lot of that traffic

[29:45] will growth will be consisting of Assault Creek um, and just the job

[29:51] growth that we're expecting to see out here. So, um I wouldn't say that I'm I'm

[29:57] concerned about regional traffic eating up all of that capacity. Um and and

[30:03] there's certainly uh partners in this these projects between city Wilsonville,

[30:09] city of Talton, Washington County, and and Metro that are, you know, keeping

[30:13] their eye on things out here as well. And and everyone's kind of doing their

[30:18] part to uh claim their their piece of the the issues out here. So, um, yeah.

[30:24] Does that kind of help answer your question or?

[30:27] » Yeah, I think that's helpful. I wonder if there are other materials that also

[30:32] help to kind of explain how this fits into or or maybe maybe even just for my

[30:36] benefit, but if it it would help the the public understand also how the these

[30:40] transportation system plans fit into the the broader regional system plans. Um

[30:46] because one of the other questions that I that came into my mind as I was

[30:49] reading the the packet was um when we look at the non non-car traffic that we

[30:56] expect uh and specifically the the more human scale transportation modes like

[31:02] walking and biking. Um how do we determine where to put those? Um, is it

[31:08] is it right to really build out a huge like nonprotected bicycle lane

[31:13] infrastructure on the major caropair, car and truck thoroughfare, or is that

[31:19] going to create an environment that's so hostile to bikes that no bike is ever

[31:22] actually going to ride on it? And would it be would it be better to maybe think

[31:25] about putting the bike somewhere else for instance?

[31:28] » Um, creating something that's more amendable to biking and and uh and

[31:33] pedestrian infrastructure. And I maybe this is like too early to

[31:38] get into that level of detail. I know like the the plan is kind of a little

[31:41] bit higher level, but it was one of the things that popped in my head is we're

[31:44] thinking about we're measuring current pedestrian and we're measuring current

[31:48] bicycle traffic and and it's zero right now. And it's not hard to imagine why.

[31:52] It's such a such a very hostile environment for a person on foot or on

[31:56] bike. >> Um so rather than kind of continuing to

[31:59] build the infrastructure there and assuming like well this is day road this

[32:02] is where we should put all of our traffic. Well maybe not. Maybe bikes and

[32:06] pedestrians can be somewhere adjacent to it or orthogonal to that main car throw

[32:11] fair. >> Yeah.

[32:13] » So I um Commissioner Zundal, I can reply to a few of those items and then maybe

[32:19] um Jenna might have a few things to add as well in terms of how we model and and

[32:23] design uh the system. But um I would note some additional documentation

[32:31] around the transportation planning in this area that has happened over a

[32:34] number of years. So the first was um actually the adoption of the Basalt

[32:38] Creek transportation refinement plan in 2014. Um that actually predated the

[32:44] concept plan between the cities of um Wilsonville and Twolitin. And that was

[32:50] because uh this the Basalt Creek planning area that's in both cities was

[32:56] brought into the metro uh urban growth boundary for the purposes of serving

[33:01] regional industrial need. Um and there was a recognition that a transportation

[33:07] system in the south county industrial area was needed in order to support the

[33:12] industrial area growth of land that was brought in in Twolitin, Wilsonville, and

[33:16] in Sherwood. So that plan was adopted and it essentially modeled and accounted

[33:22] for the regional traffic that would be coming through that south county area

[33:25] and connecting all three of those industrial areas as well as what would

[33:29] be the traffic generated by the local um growth that is planned for in this area.

[33:35] And so there was kind of this split of trips and anybody who was around during

[33:39] the Basalt Creek concept planning might remember we talked about trip caps and

[33:43] uh internal uh trip rates. Um and that was a part of the discussion to ensure

[33:48] that we were being cognizant of the land uses we were planning for in

[33:51] relationship to the transportation system that's being planned regionally.

[33:56] Um and so you see things like the Basalt Creek Parkway which is an investment by

[34:00] the county. um the majority of that money coming from the county or from the

[34:04] feds uh federal money they're able to obtain to help to build that um

[34:09] framework project. It's really a project that will be necessary to serve all the

[34:13] industrial areas in this um kind of south county what we call the south

[34:17] county area. So in addition to that project, there was actually a South

[34:20] County infrastructure project that followed. Um it was happening basically

[34:25] during the Basalt Creek planning project that was to help the county to

[34:29] prioritize specific projects for them to help um allocate their TDT to and one of

[34:36] the main projects there was improvements to Day Road. understanding that the

[34:41] parallel improvements to Day Road along with Basalt Creek Parkway are both

[34:44] needed in order for the area to function well and efficiently. So, we can

[34:49] definitely share both of those um planning documents uh with you. Um and I

[34:54] would just note that that is something that we consistently model and work with

[34:58] and our own transportation modeling as developments are approved. Um that is we

[35:03] have our traffic analysis that goes with every development project. So we're able

[35:08] to continually track how is the growth and the development actually um like

[35:14] happening in comparison to what we planned for. And so then we better

[35:18] understand whether pivots need to be made, adjustments need to be made, if

[35:22] things are developing different than what our uh assumptions were during

[35:25] these long range uh planning projects. I would also note on the last comment

[35:30] about kind of the multimodal um we look at that during the planning process to

[35:35] think about what would be the best placement for things in the Basalt Creek

[35:38] planning area. We looked at the trails that would potentially go um off kind of

[35:43] network. We have the Ice Age Tonkan Trail throughout West Railroad. We then

[35:46] have the hopefully ridge trail that will happen um up in the Basalt Creek um area

[35:53] um just north of Day Road. Um, and then we look at bicycle infrastructure

[35:57] differently than we used to in the past. So, if you have been on Gardenacres

[36:01] Road, you'll note that our latest industrial road project has a buffered

[36:05] bike lane um actually separated by a a curb. Um, so we are working on

[36:12] infrastructure for bike and pedestrian movement that is more um friendly, less

[36:18] hostile, um more buffered. Some of the infrastructure we don't control. So,

[36:24] there are some roads out there currently that are in like Washington County um

[36:28] ownership at this time until they transfer to the city in the future. Uh

[36:33] during that time period, it will things get built to Washington County

[36:36] standards. Um and so that kind of there could be differences there in terms of

[36:42] how they'll build a cross-section uh in versus once it becomes urbanized and the

[36:46] city um has control and we have different cross-section standards. So, I

[36:52] hope that answered all the points. I think I heard you made all the questions

[36:55] you had, but if I missed anything, please let me know.

[36:58] » I think that Thank you. I think that's great, actually. And maybe I can follow

[37:01] up um separately to get more of those resources from benefit in education.

[37:06] Thank you. Commissioner Kandine.

[37:10] » Um just to kind of follow up with what Jeff said too, um especially like

[37:15] talking about the through traffic and I know from my time on the DRB that when

[37:19] we do traffic studies, we're not allowed to look at I5. Um but that's always the

[37:26] elephant in the room, right? Is that if I works, we don't have as much

[37:31] through traffic to your point. But if I5 is always a bottleneck,

[37:35] » then people are always going to be trying to save that one minute because

[37:39] ways or Google maps told them that if they exited early and went through the

[37:42] neighborhood, they could, you know, save a little bit of time. So,

[37:47] has that been factored into this at all about, you know, how much does success

[37:54] from the transportation side depend upon a boon bridge replacement?

[37:59] » Yeah. Jenna, do you want to jump on that question, please?

[38:01] » Yeah. Thank you. >> The traffic forecasts we um traffic

[38:08] forecast that we use from Metro from the Metro model

[38:13] did not include the Boone Bridge replacement. It's it's an unconstrained

[38:17] project, right? So, it's not funded. It's not on their financially

[38:21] constrained list that's kind of on their ability to priority right now. So, um,

[38:28] that so that wasn't that project is not kind of baked into those traffic

[38:32] forecasts that were used for this analysis. That's kind of standard

[38:36] practice to not include those unfunded um, long range projects and to only

[38:42] include those projects that are um, funded. But

[38:47] yeah, I I know that some changes to the interchange ramps in the last few years

[38:52] have kind of made it more difficult for folks to to make those types of

[38:55] movements. Used to be able to take the southbound off-ramp and just keep on

[38:59] gliding on through the interchange and get back onto I5. Um that ability has

[39:05] been kind of removed down uh up at the North Ellison interchange. Um

[39:11] I yeah I guess the travel models and travel forecasts account for those

[39:18] constraints, right? The the I-5 pinch points, the the congestion at the

[39:23] offramps and through the um corridor between 205 um on I5 and and

[39:29] the boom bridge. So um those have been considered. Those are

[39:34] those are included in those traffic assumptions and and the growth um growth

[39:39] rates and um we look at those peak hour conditions and you know some days

[39:44] especially in this area are in when incidents happen they feel um really

[39:51] catastrophic but those are not the average days. Um, and so we really try

[39:55] to capture that that kind of typical average day. And so I I see I see most

[39:59] of that kind of significant detour happening when there's accidents on I5,

[40:03] when there's those road closures on I5. And so um, yeah, I I'm Yeah, I hope that

[40:11] answers your question. I there's only Yeah, the modeling accounts for a lot of

[40:16] that as much as it can, you know, the congestion and the pinch points in in

[40:19] the street network. So >> yeah.

[40:24] » Yeah. Obviously it's difficult with it not being funded. So but I mean like in

[40:29] theory like the funding time frame would account for this if this goes out to

[40:32] like 2046 but um and then I kind of had a follow-up question again still

[40:38] transportation related but also um with the overall development. What type of

[40:42] coordination do we do with Tolatin and Sherwood as well as how this looks

[40:48] compared to like what they're planning to build, what they're planning to do? I

[40:51] mean, I know there's a lot of housing kind of going up um like next to Horizon

[40:55] Christian, which could feed in, you know, to to possible employment

[41:00] opportunities for people in that area. But is there like what type of

[41:04] collaboration do we have with neighboring jurisdictions on these types

[41:07] of plans? >> Yeah, that's a good question. And I'm

[41:09] actually and I think she already knows I'm going to look toward uh toward uh

[41:12] planning director Bait Shell over here since she's been here quite a bit longer

[41:15] than I have. We have done quite a bit of coordination, but I'll let Miranda speak

[41:18] to that. >> Yeah, thank you for the question,

[41:20] Commissioner Candrian. We um during the the concept planning process, we worked

[41:26] um very like closely with the city of Talatin. As I mentioned earlier, this

[41:30] land was brought into the urban growth boundary by Metro and it was intended to

[41:34] be split. So essentially during that entire process there were joint council

[41:39] meetings, there were numerous I think it was every couple weeks um staff were

[41:44] meeting uh to work on the plan uh the concept plan and so through that process

[41:49] is where you have like those guiding principles that came from and a concept

[41:54] for the growth in this area. Uh what land uses would be there and that was uh

[41:58] built upon that transportation refinement plan I talked about. that

[42:01] transportation refinement plan was done with uh in joint partnership with uh the

[42:05] county metro Tallatin and Wilsonville. So both of those plans were done with a

[42:11] high level of coordination. Once we got through that process, um there was

[42:16] continued coordination when we did our comprehensive plan amendments um where

[42:21] because we did essentially the transportation modeling together um with

[42:26] those findings for um uh the transportation the TPR findings,

[42:32] transportation planning rule. Thank you.

[42:36] How easily I can forget simple words. Um, so we had to do those findings for

[42:41] the state and so we did all of that work together. At this point where we're

[42:45] doing kind of master planning which turns into our own code um and the

[42:50] details of implementation, that's where there's less coordination that occurs

[42:54] because it's really about how we want uh the look and feel to be how we what

[42:58] types of um kind of the details that go into the land uses, the site design, the

[43:04] transportation design, uh the public realm design. like those are all things

[43:08] that kind of happen um at that um more local level and there's less

[43:13] coordination at that point. But things like the trail um I know Tolatin has

[43:18] like we know what that alignment is generally going to be and where it will

[43:22] connect underneath the parkway. Um and so then we know at that point how it'll

[43:26] be designed. Uh north and south can happen independently. But we often will

[43:32] coordinate to ensure that like if they've created a design well what are

[43:35] they doing? what are they talking about doing so we can look at how that might

[43:40] um be embedded within the trail design we have to the south where it takes into

[43:43] consideration our own standards but also would coordinate so there's continued

[43:48] coordination where um kind of the elements in place uh need further

[43:53] coordination and then we do track the other piece of

[43:57] it is we do track their development um they invite us to their preapp meetings

[44:02] so if we want to connect with them um one of the key concerns that came out

[44:07] through the concept planning is that most of the storm water will eventually

[44:10] make its way into our system um and down into our wetlands. And so, um one of the

[44:15] key things that we tend to coordinate with them on is the transportation

[44:18] system and the storm water when we're participating in that process. We don't

[44:21] really get into, uh the weeds on anything, um because they're, you know,

[44:25] they're following the concept plan, um through their own zoning code and and

[44:30] comprehensive plan regulations. And so, but we do participate just to make sure

[44:34] we don't have any concerns. Um, and they will be invited to do the same when we

[44:39] uh see development in our area of the planning area.

[44:43] » Cool. Thank you.

[44:50] Maybe before we move off of transportation, I don't know if Alex,

[44:53] you look like you're about to speak, but before we move on for trans

[44:56] transportation, I had a a kind of a curiosity around uh we in the in the uh

[45:02] in the packet, I saw a kind of open question that some of these

[45:06] intersections as we build them will be roundabouts, some of them will be

[45:09] signal, and we don't really know yet. Um, right. Is is that an accurate

[45:12] interpretation of that? >> I think so.

[45:17] » Yeah. Well, I guess I was just kind of curious like what are the um what are

[45:22] the criteria for especially in an industrial zone where we might see like

[45:26] heavier vehicles, larger vehicles. Are there different criteria that we use for

[45:30] determining when something can be a roundabout considering maybe a big

[45:34] semi-truck needs to be able to move through it um versus a signaled

[45:38] intersection?

[45:42] Jenna, would you would you like to take that one?

[45:46] » Yeah, sure. >> Yeah, there's a couple things we look

[45:49] at. There's um there's an analysis we'll do called an intersection control

[45:52] evaluation at the time when it's time to decide what needs to be um constructed.

[45:58] And that looks at a lot of things. the capacity um the the delay kind of those

[46:05] mobility metrics but it also looks at the impacts from rideway cost storm

[46:10] water um it's kind of a whole slew truck and freight movement is another big one

[46:14] so those are definitely considerations and we look at it um you know heavy

[46:19] freight and truck movement through an intersection does not disqualify a

[46:23] roundabout from being an option and staying on the table um there's there's

[46:28] given if there's enough ride of way and um ability to make a roundabout the

[46:33] right size and give it the right design. Um freight and truck can can navigate

[46:38] those um well and safely. And so there's there's kind of a detailed uh like list

[46:44] of criteria that we'll kind of work our way through when the time comes. And um

[46:50] but yeah, a lot of times there's just that kind of multiaceted

[46:55] approach. you have to look at all the variables and and weigh the pros and

[46:59] cons of of each of those and kind of to get a comprehensive picture of which

[47:03] option signal or roundabout is going to be most um appropriate and preferred. So

[47:09] um yeah, there's there's definitely benefits and um and um challenges with

[47:16] with roundabouts and freight and and traffic. So it it will definitely be a

[47:21] consideration. >> Thank you.

[47:28] I have a couple I guess are transportation related. The um

[47:33] uh on the west railroad area, how dependent

[47:38] will traffic flow be on a potential new railroad crossing?

[47:45] » You want me to take that one? Yeah, Chris.

[47:47] » Yeah, please. Um, we analyzed

[47:54] the traffic for the west railroad area and found that we can serve the area via

[48:02] two access points. one to the north um on Tonquin Road and one to the south on

[48:07] Grahams Ferry Road um without the connection across uh to K Halen across

[48:14] the railroad um like but that is not necessary to serve that area under full

[48:20] development assumptions. So um of course if that is a a opportunity that we can

[48:29] take advantage of and and you know coordinate with railroad to get some

[48:33] kind of public crossing um at Cahalen over the railroad there that would be

[48:38] all the much better but um those two access points um north to Ton and south

[48:43] to Grans Ferry would will be adequate to serve that area.

[48:47] » Okay. So follow-up question then with the

[48:51] anticipated expense of the south um access being Graham's Ferry

[48:59] uh the overpass I guess you would call it the

[49:02] railroad crossing >> uh is that a nearterm um shortterm

[49:08] near-term short-term or future >> consideration

[49:13] commissioner you referring to the undercrossing the under

[49:15] » crossing okay Yeah, I I actually don't know where that slates

[49:21] out on a >> um Commissioner Carr at this point. That

[49:26] project is a long-term investment. Um as you know, we currently have our uh

[49:32] Coffee Creek Industrial Area and the urban renewal plan that's helping to

[49:36] finance infrastructure projects in that area that has a infrastructure project

[49:40] list that's incorporated into our CIP. um until we have a sense of when this

[49:45] area might come online, um we wouldn't, you know, we'd be looking at that point

[49:51] and trying to figure out, okay, how do we make that project work? As we've

[49:54] already um uh explored, the cost is high. Um it

[50:01] likely will need some kind of city investment, likely urban renewal. Um,

[50:06] and we're doing that additional analysis now to see like if it was integrated in,

[50:11] what impact does that have on our initial uh, estimates for potentially

[50:17] expanding urban renewal into Basalt Creek. So, kind of understanding what

[50:21] that might do based on the revenue we might generate will feed at least some

[50:25] inputs for future decisions. But there will be future decisions essentially on

[50:29] that project. Um, we're identifying it now as we need to have a north, we need

[50:34] to have two access points getting in and out. we likely need that south one

[50:37] regardless um even without Cahalen um to get the connectivity that we need the

[50:42] through traffic connectivity um and that improvement has already been identified

[50:47] not just for west road if you remember when we were here discussing with you

[50:50] last time it's also to help citywide um that improvement so um we essentially

[50:57] that project is it's not in the CIP now it's probably not in the next you know

[51:02] update to it might be two or three out um because there's a lot of other

[51:06] improvements that need to be made first in order to then get that improvement uh

[51:10] moving forward. >> Knowing that both

[51:15] the railroad crossing and the undercrossing

[51:21] require coordination with a railroad and or well I guess they're

[51:27] both with the railroad. Mhm. >> How much

[51:32] how much of a delay is that coordination would that coordination resulting and

[51:39] and how long of a decision point do they have?

[51:43] » I don't think that we could provide that information to you definitively. Every

[51:47] situation's going to look different. Uh, but I do know that like the fifth

[51:52] tokensman project um had it took a long time to do some work with the railroad.

[51:59] » I think that's my concern is the two our two our two access points. The only

[52:06] one that's really viable currently is the one that we're talking about on the

[52:10] north, >> which isn't there yet. Mhm.

[52:12] » Um, so we've got the two access points that we would well

[52:19] the one access point that we need on the south and the one that we would like um

[52:24] uh the new railroad crossing are both constrained by someone else. They're

[52:29] they're both in somebody else's control. >> So it's going to limit our ability to do

[52:34] anything. So, at what point do we say we have to

[52:39] get the ball rolling before we can kind of

[52:45] approve a master plan? Well, I would I would um pivot that maybe slightly,

[52:50] Commissioner Carr, and say that we create a master plan to then be able to

[52:54] put in motion those decisions >> because if we know that the that that is

[53:01] that this area, the planning commission and city council want developed out in a

[53:05] certain way and we have that framework adopted into our comprehensive plan and

[53:09] into a master plan, then staff have the guidance to be able to go out and do

[53:13] that work in order to initiate those conversations. ations in order to and we

[53:18] you know we wouldn't initiate conversations with the railroad after

[53:20] we've figured out a whole bunch of stuff for the right we would go out and we

[53:24] would initiate those conversations earlier as we're doing those other

[53:27] analyses um and doing the other plans to try to get these projects in motion.

[53:32] » So do we emphasize the new railroad crossing to give you the the legs to go

[53:37] to the railroad and say this is what we want?

[53:41] So both um currently right now as we were talking about West Railroad the

[53:45] Cahalen crossing was listed I believe as an opportunity um and I know there's

[53:49] been some preliminary conversation with the railroads just to see is it a hard

[53:53] no is it a maybe what that starts to look like and so as um as Miranda was

[53:59] mentioning identifying that within a plan as a potential future connection is

[54:04] is direction enough for to be able to at least start to look at that um you know

[54:08] the undercrossing Railroads will always look for least kind of impact to their

[54:13] systems and so >> they do take a long time um when you

[54:17] start to coordinate with them but that like really those connections however

[54:22] that comes to be in the future will be essential for that future development.

[54:25] Um and so I think showing both within the plan gives some flexibility in how

[54:31] that starts to come for West Railroad specifically. But as Miranda mentioned,

[54:35] the undercrossing is a broader question um that that project that engineering is

[54:41] looking at is trying to address as well. So it's not just about West Railroad

[54:45] area. There's there's other um kind of benefits that that project would provide

[54:50] even if it's a long-term project. And to just to tack one more thing on

[54:55] Alex touched on it, but our uh economic city's economic development manager has

[54:59] reached out and been having a couple conversations with the railroad already

[55:03] and they were actually far more positive than we might have expected. Obviously,

[55:07] it'll still take a very it'll still take a very long time, but the those

[55:11] conversations have started. So, um Okay. Yeah.

[55:15] » Switching gears completely. um the BPA um easements. Um have we done any kind

[55:22] of negotiations with them so that we can um

[55:28] take advantage of the real estate under their easement for uh trails, storm

[55:34] water, parking, etc. >> Well, as far as

[55:38] » And how long does that process take?

[55:43] » Time. Time. Always time, right? Well, uh, yeah, as far as building structures

[55:47] and whatnot, that's obviously not something they're going to let you do,

[55:50] but I believe we're allowed to do things that are gravel and trails and whatnot.

[55:54] I don't know if Miranda's been in those past conversations, so I couldn't speak

[55:58] to how much time it takes. Um, but that's something we've dealt with in the

[56:02] past. Yeah, I could note uh Commissioner Carr that uh during the Frog Pond East

[56:07] planning uh we did have conversations with BPA to understand what could or

[56:12] could not go in or adjacent to the easement as we were discussing things

[56:16] like the adjacency of the park um and the desire to make that regional trail

[56:22] connection. Um and essentially our discussions at that point with them were

[56:26] essentially what you just heard from the team, which is um that there you can

[56:32] have things like trails um but there's a lot of things you can't have. So things

[56:36] that have any height pretty much so no trees um no metal um and you also risk

[56:43] if they need to go in there to access their facility in any way, shape or form

[56:47] that what is there could be disturbed. Um, and so there is some ability to have

[56:52] improvements in that area, but it can be hard to really count on its permanency

[56:56] and the cost of replacement could be on not on BPA. Um, is typically how they

[57:01] negotiate those things in the easement. Um, and so a lot of times what we see is

[57:07] like with Frog Pond East, we'll work on having that regional trail. We'll

[57:11] partner to try to get um the rights to be able to have that regional trail

[57:15] there and understand that improvements might have to be done over time. Um but

[57:19] things like uh you know maybe parking that would be part of a what the

[57:25] developer may or may not want. A lot of those negotiations might be then with

[57:30] like the property owner depending upon what how they may or may not want to um

[57:35] coordinate with BPA on accessing that easement.

[57:38] » I just speak because there is a BPA easement right by my house and they just

[57:44] strip mine everything that's under their lines.

[57:48] Um, so I wouldn't want us to do any kind of improvements that would be

[57:55] altered. >> Yeah.

[57:57] » Right. >> Um,

[58:00] shifting gears even more. So the uh your question here is does the um the master

[58:07] plan reflect the long-term vision? I think it does. I think um adding the uh

[58:13] economic opportunity analysis and the economic development strategy

[58:18] um just further hits on I think the nine guiding principles that we got from the

[58:24] concept plan. Um uh and and I appreciate the work that went into

[58:31] um giving us the different concepts and then taking a couple of the concept

[58:36] plans and and melding them together. I think that was uh that did a great job I

[58:41] think again of of hitting those those guiding principles to answer your

[58:46] question. Um do the comprehensive plan amendments hit I think yes they're um

[58:53] you know the the key elements that we had were the land use and development

[58:57] transportation parks and natural resource and utilities and I think all

[59:01] of those were um covered well again under that um uh under the plan

[59:06] amendment. So, yeah, I appreciate the work there.

[59:12] What do I want you to work on? Um, I do have concerns over

[59:21] um the fragmented ownership and existing uses. I think we've talked about this ad

[59:27] nauseium. Um, I have a concern that

[59:35] without some proactive intervention by the city, if

[59:40] we if we wait for them to do something,

[59:44] nothing will happen. I think the city is going to need to do something

[59:47] proactively.

[59:50] I don't know if that has to be built into the master plan or if that's more

[59:54] of an implementation. Um, but I do have a concern that uh

[1:00:01] especially the um the um construction spaces um the

[1:00:11] unless we ask them nicely to move, they won't. Um

[1:00:16] and and that's a concern. Uh I also am a strong proponent of urban renewal. Um,

[1:00:24] and I want to make sure that that is utilized effectively in this area,

[1:00:31] whether it's an expansion of the current CPY Creek one or whether it's a new one.

[1:00:36] Um, I don't know what's the best way to do that, but I think there should be an

[1:00:40] emphasis on using that at least to uh fund the infrastructure.

[1:00:46] And then I think we've covered traffic and and

[1:00:50] wildlife mitigation.

[1:00:54] » I might need a little bit more work on that myself, but uh otherwise I I love

[1:00:59] the work that's been done here. >> Great. Thank you. Appreciate the

[1:01:02] comments.

[1:01:08] » I'll just add a couple things. So to echo just the major milestone and it is

[1:01:12] really neat to see the culmination of all of our conversations over yeah a

[1:01:17] long while come together into one document and so that's really neat to

[1:01:21] see and I do think it reflects where we landed in the conversations we had. So I

[1:01:25] I appreciate that and then the one area that surprised me was just seeing kind

[1:01:30] of the implementation phasing is like that first column is like the five

[1:01:34] within five years and most of the boxes are checked for first five years. So I

[1:01:39] immediately think of just yeah capacity to explore those things and also just

[1:01:42] the challenges that like these some of these things are really dependent on

[1:01:46] other partners and things like that. So I'm just keeping that in mind but

[1:01:50] they're good goals to set. And uh one thing on the comprehensive plan.

[1:01:56] So, I think yeah, those were great updates and yeah, some of the older

[1:01:59] language uh kind of surprised me just around the I think it mentioned like the

[1:02:05] need for just like one industrial type, right? And and we've gone we've kind of

[1:02:10] swung the other way. So, it's just interesting to see uh that change over

[1:02:13] time. And then a curiosity I had was there's a section in here on economic

[1:02:19] development that looks like it was it was added and then the the flow after

[1:02:23] that felt a little weird. some of the paragraphs felt just a little redundant

[1:02:26] or >> I I don't know if there could just be

[1:02:28] some cleaning up and that was on um the packet page 167 and 168 just felt it

[1:02:36] felt a little disconnected and so if there's opportunity u to just take a

[1:02:40] look at that and see if there's some refinement that can happen there. I

[1:02:43] think that would be a lot clearer and I think that's all the comments I had.

[1:02:48] » No, I appreciate that feedback. Thank you.

[1:02:53] Thank you for your hard work that went into this. Um, I'll answer some of the

[1:02:56] questions u about the draft materials. I don't I didn't I think all the great

[1:03:01] questions have been asked by our brilliant commissioners here.

[1:03:06] It's hard to follow but um I was curious um

[1:03:13] with with the coming analysis in the future for the infrastructure right for

[1:03:18] the utilities and and the capacity will that include the

[1:03:23] a comparison of what this master plan um how it feed feeds into the master plan

[1:03:29] for the entire city as well in terms of that cap uh capacity uh because we have

[1:03:35] growth happening you know, planning here and planning there and and how it all

[1:03:39] fits together and what that's going to mean for the citizens of the city and

[1:03:43] how it will impact them and what is being served now and what is forecasted

[1:03:48] to be served in the future and and what kind of improvements the utilities will

[1:03:53] need to build out. Um like will all that be included in the next work session?

[1:03:59] » So the the infrastructure analysis is pretty specific to the Basalt Creek

[1:04:03] planning area itself. Um we haven't looked uh beyond that for the master

[1:04:10] plan specifically. No. Is that

[1:04:13] » that's what would be helpful for me to see like the big impact when you put it

[1:04:17] all together. Um >> well maybe I'm not understanding that

[1:04:21] question either. So, I mean, so the the Basalt Creek master plan infrastructure

[1:04:27] analysis, we're we're looking at within that area, within that 847 acre area,

[1:04:32] what infrastructure is needed for future development,

[1:04:35] » right? Water, sewer. >> Exactly. Storm water, sewer. Exactly. Uh

[1:04:39] roadway buildouts, roadway widths, sidewalks, all the infrastructure

[1:04:42] necessary. And then, you know, what are the um associated costs of that,

[1:04:47] » right? and then trying to do so in a organized fashion, right? Um but it

[1:04:52] doesn't include say Frog Pond or So is that kind of what you're asking?

[1:04:58] » Yeah. But there's going to be this also additional demand coming from all these

[1:05:01] other developments, right? >> And so I'm curious how that all fits

[1:05:06] together and whether the like the entire system is going to be enough. How does

[1:05:11] that affect our our water master plan and our sewer master plan? And

[1:05:18] » yeah, commissioners, we can make sure that um engineering staff is planning to

[1:05:22] attend the next meeting alongside any of the technical um uh the consultants that

[1:05:28] we're working with to do the technical analysis. Um and so we can make sure

[1:05:31] they're prepared to discuss that. We even though we're planning for what will

[1:05:36] this system in this area like look like and be designed like it is taken into

[1:05:40] consideration how does that then fit into the broader master plans for our

[1:05:44] water and sewer and trans even transportation as I discussed earlier

[1:05:48] when we're looking at the modeling we don't look at just the model in

[1:05:50] isolation of this area but then at the same time we're only presenting here are

[1:05:54] the transportation projects for this area because the rest of the tsp covers

[1:05:58] everything else if that makes sense so it we will talk about there will

[1:06:03] probably some discussion about any potential downstream impacts and then

[1:06:06] how this is uh sized in relationship to the rest of the system. So sometimes

[1:06:10] you'll have like oversized pipes because it's needed to serve the rest of the

[1:06:15] system. >> So use of the word downstream

[1:06:21] » that would be really helpful for if we could cover that in the next work

[1:06:24] session. >> Absolutely. Like where I was leading to.

[1:06:27] » Yeah, we can definitely make sure uh engineering is prepared to discuss that.

[1:06:30] » Y okay >> 100%. Thank you. Um, and I do I do think

[1:06:34] it reflects the vision. I think it's really fantastic work. Yeah. And I look

[1:06:38] forward to seeing it continue to grow and develop.

[1:06:41] » Great. Excellent. Appreciate that. >> I I did want to make a comment about

[1:06:44] roundabouts. Um, the just something to consider. I know

[1:06:49] there's a way to build them to allow for free traffic, but I just worry about

[1:06:55] just because I this is where I work the PG yard and not getting them gridlocked

[1:06:59] in the roundabouts with pole trailers. Uh and because that's something that

[1:07:03] they've experienced with cities in development and putting a roundabout and

[1:07:07] all of a sudden you can't maneuver it with pole trailers and you're trying to

[1:07:11] go restore outages or build things and just, you know, something to consider.

[1:07:16] It's really big. >> Yeah. Right.

[1:07:20] » Which I don't know. Um Yeah, it could be difficult.

[1:07:24] » Excellent. >> Uh we have some Yeah, go ahead.

[1:07:27] » Um so this may have been answered a couple years ago. I like didn't see it

[1:07:33] in any of the um materials, but um the the guiding principles,

[1:07:42] two of them mentioned housing, >> but there's no housing here, although

[1:07:46] some of the area butts up to housing from Tolatin.

[1:07:50] » Correct. >> Is there a reason why we were just like,

[1:07:52] eh, for housing? >> Can you clarify what you mean by eh?

[1:07:58] » Like, well, there's there's no there's no house. There's no housing, right? But

[1:08:01] like there's no housing in in this version of the plan.

[1:08:05] » Correct. >> And I mean right now there's a few

[1:08:08] residential areas there. So it's not like it's completely industrial right

[1:08:11] now. And the new Twitin development really abuts or is adjacent butts up to

[1:08:17] I don't know the correct term either. >> Um where we have I think you know like

[1:08:22] high-tech employment district off of like Boone Ferry. So, I just wondered if

[1:08:27] there's a reason why there's no housing. Yeah.

[1:08:29] » Suggested in any of this. >> Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Candrian.

[1:08:32] So, uh, when the area was brought into Metro's urban growth boundary, it was

[1:08:36] brought in for the purposes of industrial development. During that

[1:08:39] time, there was a discussion by representatives from the city of

[1:08:43] Toalatin um wanting to have some additional

[1:08:47] residential at the northern portion of the planning area in order to create a

[1:08:52] better buffer with the existing residential neighborhood. So when it

[1:08:56] came into um the urban growth boundary, the ordinance that passed it had a map

[1:09:01] attached which essentially uh stated that there would be residential in the

[1:09:06] northern portion of the planning area adjacent to the city of Toalatin, but

[1:09:09] the rest of the area was brought in for the purposes of industrial and

[1:09:12] employment growth. throughout the entire planning process with our city council.

[1:09:17] Uh the city council maintained their desire for this area to be essentially

[1:09:23] solely and maybe I shouldn't use the term solely but to be industrial and

[1:09:27] employment land as we've discussed like with the craft industrial there might be

[1:09:32] appropriate times where you have either a business um related dwelling unit or a

[1:09:38] um live work unit. those might be feasible in the craft industrial area,

[1:09:43] but primarily the whole entire point for us was this was an employment industrial

[1:09:48] area and we wanted to maintain that. It really builds off of the Coffee Creek

[1:09:52] industrial area. We have that which is going to front onto Day Road. Um we have

[1:09:56] the formbbased code there that's creating this kind of business district

[1:10:00] and we wanted to the council wanted to see that mirrored on the north side of

[1:10:04] Day to our boundary. It also didn't make s much much sense to the council to like

[1:10:09] create an isolated neighborhood out there in Wilsonville for us to serve in

[1:10:14] more of a residential manner um versus adjacent to our existing residential

[1:10:20] areas. >> You didn't want like Charbano North.

[1:10:25] » Okay, that's fair. I just wondered because like it's called out as in the

[1:10:28] guiding principles, but then we don't have anything addressed. So

[1:10:32] » it was primarily in those guiding principles because of the city of

[1:10:35] Toalatin um and the fact that there would be housing in their portion of the

[1:10:39] planning area. >> I think it also if I could add to that

[1:10:43] is how if you look at the map how we've got certain areas designated as certain

[1:10:48] industry classifications. We kind of structured it such that the

[1:10:53] high-tech and the craft would be closer to the homes.

[1:10:57] » Um and we did more of the industrial a little bit off of that. And I think that

[1:11:00] was by design, but you're the guiding principles or the the concept plan which

[1:11:07] includes the tool and the Wilsonville area. So yeah.

[1:11:15] » Yeah. The the when Commissioner Car was speaking it triggered a question in my

[1:11:19] head around um like lot when you were talking about lot sizes. Um, I wonder if

[1:11:24] there's like a a sweet spot for the different kinds of development that we

[1:11:27] want to see in each of these areas. And is it different for the industrial area

[1:11:32] versus the craft area? >> Um, and would that help us kind of

[1:11:36] inform any any action that we do take proactively as a city to try to maybe

[1:11:42] maybe aggregate land or or facilitate property owners um adjusting their lot

[1:11:47] sizes, whether it's consolidating or splitting.

[1:11:52] That might be interesting to see. >> Yeah.

[1:11:54] » Um and that that dovetailed with another question that I had had when when we

[1:11:58] were talking about the natural resources and the um the the Coffee Lake area is I

[1:12:04] think pretty high visibility. I think most people that spend any time in the

[1:12:09] area are pretty aware of it, but the Tapman Creek is pretty invisible to I

[1:12:13] think most people. Even if you're up on day road and looking for it, it's pretty

[1:12:17] nondescript. It's >> hard to find.

[1:12:19] » Yeah. is um has is that an area that would need to be restored in order for

[1:12:24] it to be a functioning riparian area or is it is it actively functioning that

[1:12:30] way right now? How much does and I guess the the question beyond the question too

[1:12:34] is just trying to understand a little bit of how that overlays with the craft

[1:12:38] zone because on the map it looks like that Tapman Creek natural resources area

[1:12:42] overlays with almost all of the craft zone. And so I'm kind of curious like

[1:12:46] how do how do how do we interpret the craft zone with that Chapman Creek?

[1:12:50] » I'm happy to take this one uh because I'm probably the only person in this

[1:12:54] room who's actually been down to the creek.

[1:12:57] » Um so during the concept planning I was invited by property owners in order to

[1:13:02] be able to go and to see Tapman Creek and to experience what it's like at

[1:13:06] different seasons. Um and so it does actually function as a thriving wetland.

[1:13:12] Um most of those property owners um their property runs from um Boone's

[1:13:18] Ferry all the way across which is why you see that craft designation. We don't

[1:13:23] really anticipate if you start overlaying all the layers we have within

[1:13:26] the plan. We don't anticipate development within that area. That area

[1:13:31] will end up being part of our significant resource overlay zone. It

[1:13:34] will be protect that creek and the slope will be protected. So the development

[1:13:38] really will only be on the front end adjacent to Boon Ferry. But when you do

[1:13:42] zoning, you have to zone an entire property a zoning designation even if

[1:13:47] you then have an SRZ overlay. So all of that information is is within the plan

[1:13:52] itself. Um but I have been down there. Most of those property owners can't even

[1:13:57] access the backside of their property. Um, it has to be like the driest of a

[1:14:02] driest year for them to be able to kind of cross or to use like a canoe or a

[1:14:06] kayak to cross. Um, and uh, it's a pretty like if you get into that area,

[1:14:12] it turns into pure nature really quick. Um, and they've seen lots of different

[1:14:17] wildlife out there. There's I think only one property owner who has um, some kind

[1:14:22] of access to the backside of that property, but that's it. So, um it is an

[1:14:26] area that will take and does take significant uh storm water runoff as

[1:14:30] well. Um which is one of our um concerns or or things we want to make sure we're

[1:14:36] managing uh properly. >> Some of the some of the properties that

[1:14:40] basically the front half of it is developable and then just kind of

[1:14:45] » plummets I guess drops off. Yeah. >> Yeah. There's just steep slope. There's

[1:14:48] a lot of areas where you can actually openly see the basalt. Um, which is also

[1:14:53] really cool because I mean that sorry that area was

[1:14:58] uh you know a part of like the Missoula floods and there's a lot of really cool

[1:15:03] um just features in this whole kind of area of the region where you can see

[1:15:08] like the results of that and in a lot of areas our basalt is buried um but in

[1:15:12] this area the name reflects it. um you will have some basalt that's 100 ft down

[1:15:17] and then literally 50 ft over it could be like 5 to 10 ft down. Um so it al

[1:15:24] that will also create some interesting development challenges. Um but it is

[1:15:29] something that we did look at when we were doing the concept planning.

[1:15:32] » Yeah. And is that if I remember correctly that that's that informs some

[1:15:36] of the reason maybe why the tonkan the ice age trail goes maybe near those

[1:15:41] natural features. >> Yeah.

[1:15:42] » Yeah. Very cool. >> Yeah. and our consultant that's working

[1:15:44] on the storm water analysis. You'll see we just met with them a couple times

[1:15:48] this week. You'll see some of their you will see their work at work session 2

[1:15:51] Tapman Creek and and those flows and where that's going is all part of that

[1:15:55] work. So you'll in the packet you'll get to preview that and then they'll be here

[1:15:59] and available to talk a little bit more about it too.

[1:16:01] » Cool. Yeah. And thank you for for all that and and just emphasizing the first

[1:16:05] I I packed a lot into that, but I'd love to see more information about like

[1:16:09] what's the sweet spot for for lot sizes for the expected development maybe in

[1:16:13] the future work session as well. >> Okay.

[1:16:15] » I've got a note for it.

[1:16:22] » All right. No other comments? We're good. Questions? All right. Well, thank

[1:16:25] you so much. >> Thank you. Appreciate it.

[1:16:27] » Yeah. Thank you for your time. We appreciate it. We'll see you in a month.

[1:16:29] Thank you. All right,

[1:16:33] » cheer sea. I just wanted to We were conversing back and forth. We do not

[1:16:38] believe. Did we address the minutes? >> No, I was thinking dinner afterwards.

[1:16:42] » Perfect. >> Yes, I did. I do know that I went

[1:16:44] straight to business. >> It's okay. That's okay. Thank you.

[1:16:49] » Yeah, but thank you. >> Is that Is that all right?

[1:16:53] » Moving forward. It didn't even >> didn't even phase it.

[1:16:56] » Didn't even face that. I could be slack this time. you know, try to keep you

[1:17:01] guys on your toes. >> We can just do that work session again,

[1:17:04] right? Yeah. Just start over. >> All right. Um, our next

[1:17:11] » You want to switch back and do >> Yeah. Why don't you take care of the

[1:17:15] minutes while I get the >> Okay. All right. Sounds good. Um,

[1:17:19] consideration of the minutes. Where's my script to make sure? Do we um

[1:17:27] the What was that date? May 13th, 2026. Um, minutes were previously distributed.

[1:17:35] Are there any corrections to the minutes?

[1:17:37] » No. >> Can can I make an observation about the

[1:17:41] minutes? And I don't know that this needs to be corrected, but I know that

[1:17:45] there were a lot of people in attendance for that commented at during the citizen

[1:17:50] input about the later work session that we did. But the the minutes I don't

[1:17:54] think really um capture how much we I think made a really strong effort to

[1:18:00] directly address a lot of the comments that we had heard in the in the citizen

[1:18:04] input. So I think it might be helpful to maybe we need to revise the minutes

[1:18:08] here. I don't want to I don't want to be prescriptive, but I think it would be

[1:18:11] helpful for the the citizens who maybe didn't stick around to see the whole

[1:18:14] session to maybe have some record that we did really we really did make an

[1:18:18] effort to address a lot of their comments directly.

[1:18:22] » Um I'll just make a note because so uh the way that our minutes are structured

[1:18:26] are based on some on um updates to the Oregon public meetings law. All of our

[1:18:33] recordings are available for the public to view and um you only have to do

[1:18:38] either or. We do both. So it is available for um people to see the

[1:18:43] planning commission meeting online >> as well.

[1:18:46] » Maybe that's sufficient then. Yeah. Cool.

[1:18:50] » Thank you. That's a really good observation.

[1:18:55] All right. So there's no corrections that I needed otherwise. Okay.

[1:19:00] Uh here no corrections. The minutes are approved as distributed.

[1:19:09] The next agenda topic uh is a work session on the town center building

[1:19:14] height waiver. The work session is a chance to put for

[1:19:19] the planning commission to gain additional understanding of and provide

[1:19:22] guidance on ongoing legislative projects prior to a public hearing.

[1:19:28] Um,

[1:19:32] well, we took public comment. I don't think we need to do that again, right?

[1:19:36] We don't have any. But I can say as a courtesy, the planning commission will

[1:19:41] as time permits allow for limited public comment on this topic after staff have

[1:19:44] presented their report for the commission's purpose for continuing to

[1:19:48] understand the project. However, it should be noted that this is not a

[1:19:52] public hearing and any participants are encouraged to participate in future

[1:19:55] public hearings for legal standing purposes. So, at this time, I do call

[1:20:00] for city staff to uh present the information they've prepared for the

[1:20:03] work session. Thank you, Chair Seanova, Amanda Guy, Henman, city attorney. So,

[1:20:09] tonight we are continuing our discussion around the uh town center building

[1:20:13] height waiver project. So, as an agenda for tonight's work session, I'm going to

[1:20:18] start with a project update. basically where have we been, where are we now? Um

[1:20:22] then I will provide a review of the updated and new options for the waiver

[1:20:27] um for potential updates to the waiver as reflected in your packet materials.

[1:20:32] Then we'll go over the task force feedback and recommendations

[1:20:35] particularly around the preferred alternative for the building height

[1:20:38] waiver um update the discussion around elimination of the waiver to increase

[1:20:44] building height altogether versus that preferred alternative and then the menu

[1:20:47] items that are reflected in the waiver language and then we'll end with the

[1:20:51] questions for planning commission that are reflected in the staff report.

[1:20:56] So, as a project update, uh, at council's direction, staff, uh, formed a

[1:21:00] task force to look at updates to the, um, town center building height waiver

[1:21:06] provision. Uh, we've had three task force meetings. Um, that was all that

[1:21:10] was planned for the task force and, um, absent additional direction from

[1:21:16] council, we don't believe there will be another task force meeting. So, at this

[1:21:19] point, we're treating it as concluded. Uh we had a planning commission work

[1:21:24] session last month on May 13th and then a city council work session followed up

[1:21:28] on May 18th. From those two work sessions was the last task force meeting

[1:21:32] on May 19th where the task force discussed the options and um made its

[1:21:37] recommendation. So where are we now? This is the second

[1:21:41] work session with planning commission tonight and then we're having our second

[1:21:44] work session with council on Monday where we are presenting um to each body

[1:21:49] the task force's recommendation. One item I will just note as we go

[1:21:54] through the task force recommendations uh just as the planning commission's

[1:21:58] role to city council the task force role for the planning commission is to

[1:22:02] provide is to inform the decision that you all are making which is your

[1:22:06] recommendation to city council. That doesn't mean you necessarily have to

[1:22:09] accept exactly what the task force decided. If you believe that there's

[1:22:13] reasons for revisions to it, that's totally fine. Um, I think the most

[1:22:17] important thing is to the extent you either are supportive of the task force

[1:22:21] recommendation or want to make changes, it's clear to the council what is

[1:22:25] leading to that consideration so it can um further weigh in on it on

[1:22:30] its decision-m. So just again to orient you all and this

[1:22:34] is going to be helpful particularly as we talk about the different options and

[1:22:38] as the task force discussed them is really looking at the subdists that are

[1:22:42] at play in town center. So there's a overall town center zone and within the

[1:22:46] town center zone there's the four subd districts. CMU or commercial mixed use

[1:22:50] is the one that is closest to I5. It is the area where there's the outright

[1:22:55] allowed building height of two to five stories. MU or mixed use basically

[1:23:00] straddles the main street district um and it allows for two to four stories.

[1:23:06] The main street district which runs through kind of the middle of um town

[1:23:09] center allows also for two to four stories. And then neighborhood mixed use

[1:23:13] which is essentially adjacent to the current residential area only allows for

[1:23:17] two to three stories. The building height waiver provision only applies to

[1:23:22] mixeduse and commercial mixeduse subdists. So what's not at play are the

[1:23:27] main street district or the neighborhood mixed use.

[1:23:32] So getting to the options that um that the planning or that the task force

[1:23:37] looked at is basically there was of the four initial options that they looked

[1:23:41] at. We brought back two of them option two and three with refinement. And then

[1:23:46] we also added option five and option six. where option five and option six

[1:23:50] came out of arose out of really was option five um came from a discussion

[1:23:55] from one of the small groups of of the task force and then option six was

[1:23:59] essentially a further refinement by staff kind of taking inspiration from

[1:24:03] both option five and option um two uh kind of combining them together. So uh

[1:24:11] we brought these four options together for option two and option three. The

[1:24:15] main updates uh was to further um cl so the way the building height waiver is

[1:24:22] written right now essentially what it says is a waiver can be sought regarding

[1:24:26] floor excuse me building floor plate and or building height is how it's phrased.

[1:24:32] And so one of the things that we wanted to clarify um in particular for all the

[1:24:37] options but particularly for these updated options is the expansion of the

[1:24:43] floor plate is really contemplated if the building height is going down. So if

[1:24:48] you're going down to one story, you can go wider. I don't think anybody was

[1:24:53] anticipating you could go both wider and taller. So, um, we clarified kind of

[1:24:59] breaking those out that the wider footprint really only applies if you're

[1:25:02] decreasing, not if you're increasing. So, that was, um, that update was made

[1:25:07] to all the options essentially. And then a second uh item that was added as kind

[1:25:13] of in brackets for both option two and three was separating out and this is

[1:25:18] relevant also for option five and six is separating out how the mixeduse area um

[1:25:24] closer to I5 is treated versus the mixeduse area closer to the residential

[1:25:28] area is treated. So those are in brackets for options two and three.

[1:25:34] What option five did is um I don't think I put this on a graphic. So, what option

[1:25:40] five did is I'm going to go back to the subdists as a reference is all the area

[1:25:45] the CMU and the MU that is closest to I5. What option five does is it allows a

[1:25:50] building height to go up. It doesn't allow it to go down. So, it can't go

[1:25:54] down to one story in the option five. And then on the mixeduse area closer to

[1:25:59] the residential, it can only do go down. It can't go up. So, it basically does

[1:26:04] the exact opposite on each side. One goes down, one goes up. Um

[1:26:09] what option six does is it's the it allows only a decrease in building

[1:26:14] height. It keeps that only allowing the decrease in building height for the

[1:26:18] mixed use area closer to the main closer to the residential area. But what it

[1:26:24] also does is it essentially caps the um commercial mixeduse height increase. So

[1:26:30] essentially allowing only five stories in commercial mixed use except in the

[1:26:34] case of a bonus floor for affordable housing which isn't part of the waiver

[1:26:37] process. So um essentially option six is kind of the most limiting of all of the

[1:26:44] options that were that were contemplated at this point. So this is a chart this

[1:26:48] chart is basically taken out of the staff report. So it's um a further

[1:26:52] reflection of of um what I just described and the options as the as

[1:26:56] they're narrated in the um attachment. So what we did that we'll come back to

[1:27:02] this um for discussion purposes when when you all are talking about the

[1:27:05] options. So the task force feedback on the preferred alternative for the waiver

[1:27:10] is first and foremost they eliminated option three from consideration.

[1:27:15] um feeling like option three if if I go back to this chart you can kind of see

[1:27:19] it has it has the most flexibility of the remaining options in that there can

[1:27:24] be the potential for six stories. So they ended up uh um for both potentially

[1:27:29] both for a waiver or or a bonus floor. So they eliminated option three as a

[1:27:34] from consideration. Then what we had them do is we had them

[1:27:38] do a dot exercise with the remaining three options. So op option two, five

[1:27:42] and six. We gave them two dots. One is their number one their number one option

[1:27:47] and the second dot was their number two option. Um it's laid out in the staff

[1:27:51] report how those kind of played out. Um for option two, two people put two of

[1:27:57] the task force members put it as their number one option. Nobody put it as

[1:28:00] their second option. For option five, it got the most number one options at five

[1:28:05] and got one as it at one dot as the second um favorite for one of the task

[1:28:11] force members. And then option six got one number one and seven number twos. So

[1:28:17] from that um discussion you know the feedback that was

[1:28:22] portrayed from that was okay option five seems to have the most is people it was

[1:28:27] people's most the number one. Um so there was some discussion then around um

[1:28:33] people's number one options. The other thing that we had them do in the dot

[1:28:36] exercise is put a dot next to your number one and your number two. And if

[1:28:41] there's something that you would still make changes to that option, write it

[1:28:45] next to your dot. So that way we can document what change you want. So what's

[1:28:48] important is that for option five, one of the people who put that as their

[1:28:52] number one, they wrote in that they believe that the mixeduse area closest

[1:28:57] to the neighborhood um should not be allowed to increase at all. It should

[1:29:01] only stay at four four stories. The two people who put option two as their

[1:29:07] number one had that same comment. So of the eight people who are having this

[1:29:11] discussion, three indicated that for the mixeduse area closest to the

[1:29:16] neighborhood, they would want to see that area just capped at four

[1:29:20] regardless. Now what that means is is that actually goes a bit beyond the

[1:29:25] scope of this project because that then talks about the affordable housing bonus

[1:29:28] floor. But we did in excuse me include that information but in the planning

[1:29:33] commission packet um because if if that is the ultimate recommendation that is

[1:29:39] information that we'd want to share with council about whether or not they're

[1:29:42] interested in looking at um addressing the bonus floor, the affordable housing

[1:29:46] bonus floor. So um basically when we got into the

[1:29:52] discussion around option five um and whether or not to do this limit on the

[1:29:59] mixed use um capping the mixed use area to nearest the residential area um at

[1:30:05] all. Four of four of the task force members wanted to keep option five as

[1:30:10] is. So not do that cap. um three wanted it limited so to just the four stories

[1:30:16] and then one task force member was supportive of option five had option

[1:30:20] five as their number one but was undecided whether or not to limit the

[1:30:23] building height on the eastern um mixeduse area. So I would say that so

[1:30:29] the outcome really was that option five was the number one option but this

[1:30:33] discussion around what to do with the mixeduse area closest to the

[1:30:37] neighborhood there's still I mean it's very clear there's not there's not a

[1:30:41] majority consensus around that. Um,

[1:30:46] so then we got into a discussion around whether or not this preferred

[1:30:50] alternative, this option five, whether there was a preference for that versus

[1:30:55] getting rid of the ability to increase building height at all under a waiver.

[1:31:00] And the vote was 6 to2 to keep to go to recommend the option five as opposed to

[1:31:07] eliminating the increase to the building height altogether. And really the

[1:31:12] conversation focused um around flexibility and and basically not being

[1:31:17] able to, you know, this being a long-term 40-year plan, not wanting to

[1:31:22] limit the options that might be available um under the waiver process.

[1:31:26] But there was a really good discussion around this um around this preferred

[1:31:33] alternative versus the elimination of the waiver to increase building height

[1:31:37] altogether. So out of um the task force basically the recommendations that are

[1:31:43] now before you is that option five was the preferred alternative. It is also

[1:31:47] the preferred alternative even compared to eliminating the waiver to increase

[1:31:51] building height altogether. There is still an open question amongst the task

[1:31:56] force members around whether or not the mixeduse area subdist um closest to the

[1:32:02] neighborhood should be kept at four stories period.

[1:32:07] Okay. So then we get into the menu items.

[1:32:11] And as a refresher, basically these menu items, if some if a developer is seeking

[1:32:16] to obtain the waiver, they have to do one item from each of two menus that are

[1:32:21] provided in um the code. One of the menu uh one of the menus focuses on providing

[1:32:29] a community benefit and the other menu focuses on mitigating building impacts.

[1:32:34] So, um there was a lot of discussion in the prior task force meeting back in

[1:32:38] April about wanting to look at these menu items feeling like they don't go

[1:32:42] far enough um to they don't go far enough in requiring development to do

[1:32:47] something for the for the benefit of getting this waiver. And so, uh you'll

[1:32:52] see in your packet we put forward the same list of categories of menu items

[1:32:58] under those two broader um those two broader concepts. And then I also added

[1:33:04] in the feedback that we had received from if there was a particular menu item

[1:33:08] where there was feedback given um that's provided in the staff report. But one of

[1:33:13] the interesting um conversations that we had, so I would say the recommendation

[1:33:17] from the task force was definitely move forward with updating the menu items and

[1:33:23] what they really focused on were menu items where either there's permanence

[1:33:28] tied to it or um it really is furthering the what the benefit for Town Center,

[1:33:35] not essentially a communitywide benefit. They really wanted it to be you're

[1:33:39] making Town Center better. Um so for example like the one of the examples was

[1:33:44] around um like local hiring like that might be a good goal or a good thing to

[1:33:49] occur but that doesn't necessarily make Town Center better um which the idea

[1:33:54] being that the waiver might um impact how the feel of Town Center and so we

[1:34:00] want to make sure that they're doing something in in relation to making that

[1:34:04] to mitigating that. Um so one of the interesting concepts that came out to

[1:34:09] basically understand um is development doing enough was you know

[1:34:17] some of these menu items one of one of the task force members uh was talking

[1:34:21] about that basically some of these menu items they don't sh they don't have

[1:34:25] equal costs and so what that drives development to do is they're going to

[1:34:28] choose the items that are the least cost the easiest to do and so are you really

[1:34:34] truly getting a community benefit and are truly getting mitigation of building

[1:34:37] impacts if they're not somehow equal or proportionate. And so they started

[1:34:46] talking about this idea of either um developers paying a fee in lie of

[1:34:52] doing one of these um you know choosing from these menu items and that fee in

[1:34:58] lie being tied to the value of the development. So for example, when

[1:35:03] developers pull their building permits, we do an assessment of the value of the

[1:35:08] development, it it ties into some of the fees they pay. So we talked about as a

[1:35:13] concept, we could use that dollar figure as a way to figure out like a fee in

[1:35:17] Lou. And that fee could also then be the basis to say you either pay the fee or

[1:35:23] your value ads have to equal that cost. So either way, essentially, you're

[1:35:29] getting at the same cost. whether it's cash to the city or um doing these value

[1:35:36] ads. And one of the things we also talked about is that cash then could be

[1:35:40] put into a fund for these projects that are envisioned for town centers. So you

[1:35:46] think of something like a parking structure that is one of the

[1:35:51] implementation or parking solutions generally, but we've talked about a

[1:35:54] parking structure potentially as an option. You know, if you put money into

[1:35:58] a fund, if development is putting money into a fund that then the city can

[1:36:02] utilize to um find, you know, consolidated parking solutions or work

[1:36:08] on some of the transport transportation de uh improvements that um you know, we

[1:36:13] legally cannot require developers to build. That might be a good way of

[1:36:18] making sure that we have like developments also still paying for that

[1:36:23] that um those improvements. So it was an interesting conversation again not

[1:36:27] something that we had um thought through like that wasn't a concept that staff

[1:36:31] came up that was um generated from the task force. So, it was a really

[1:36:35] interesting concept and one that I think um also was good at least to talk about,

[1:36:41] you know, this sort of um proportionate um making sure that costs are

[1:36:48] proportionate uh for the value that people are that a developer might get if

[1:36:52] they're utilizing the waiver and making sure that they're basically doing their

[1:36:56] part um in as a result of getting that waiver. um that might you know impact

[1:37:02] the experience in town center. So, uh, with that, um, a few questions

[1:37:09] for the planning commission is first, if the, if planning commission has further

[1:37:13] questions or clarifications regarding the, um, four waiver options, and

[1:37:18] really, I mean, unless a planning commissioner feels like a burning desire

[1:37:22] for option three to be considered, I'd maybe say at least of the remaining

[1:37:25] three. um whether the planning commission is supportive of moving

[1:37:30] forward with a recommendation to city council and if so which option um the

[1:37:35] planning commission is interest interested in or if the planning

[1:37:39] commission you know is interested in having council further consider getting

[1:37:44] rid of the building height waiver despite that wasn't um for increasing

[1:37:49] building height despite that not being the recommendation of the task force. Um

[1:37:54] and then um any any um thoughts about the recommendations on updating the menu

[1:38:00] items and some of the concepts that the task force particularly thought around

[1:38:04] that. And then what I'll just note as next steps is while the task force has

[1:38:10] made its official recommendation, you all aren't making your official

[1:38:13] recommendation tonight. This is really just to get, you know, some feedback and

[1:38:18] um some indications maybe where planning commissioners are are falling. So that

[1:38:22] way we can give that feedback to the city council for its work sessions work

[1:38:26] session. But the ultimate um recommendation

[1:38:30] decision won't happen until your public hearing that we are currently planning

[1:38:34] to occur in August.

[1:38:41] where not this is beyond the scope of this conversation but background

[1:38:45] information where did we come up with the fivetory

[1:38:50] two to five in the CMU >> Miranda do you want to

[1:38:54] » because there's not there's not a city around us that goes up the five stories

[1:39:01] » I checked >> okay um thanks commissioner car so there

[1:39:07] was a lot of discussion during the original town center planning

[1:39:11] project about what kind of buildings do we want and how tall do we want those

[1:39:15] buildings to be and I would say it was a combination of a lot of feedback and a

[1:39:24] lot of discussions so we had some folks who wanted 8 to 10 story buildings we

[1:39:30] had some folks who wanted to keep it to like threetory buildings

[1:39:34] uh there was discussion about well if we're going to have some taller

[1:39:38] buildings for some of the market economics. We'd rather have those be

[1:39:43] closer to I5. Um there was discussion about the types of projects because we

[1:39:50] did you know not just visioning and discussions with people to understand

[1:39:55] what they wanted but we also did the market analyses that helped inform some

[1:40:00] of the task force's input into those decisions around building height as well

[1:40:04] in terms of the types of uses we want to see and what they need in order to

[1:40:10] actually pencil out a building and develop it like what is feasible for

[1:40:14] those types of uses. is to locate in our town center and then um having that

[1:40:19] discussion about okay so is that still what you want because this is what it

[1:40:23] would likely look like. So, it was a lot of feedback of the visual preference

[1:40:27] surveys that we had both um online in person. Um the design workshop where we

[1:40:33] had folks actually taking building blocks and putting them on maps and

[1:40:39] saying here's where we want certain uses and we're stacking the the blocks. I

[1:40:45] still have them back there. Um I see a future use somewhere. Um but

[1:40:51] st being able to stack them to say you know we might want twotory buildings

[1:40:54] here versus four or five story buildings here. That exercise was done public

[1:40:59] design workshop that exercise was done at uh various events in the city. We

[1:41:04] took those building blocks to all those summer events where we did the visual

[1:41:08] survey results uh studies as well. Um we also did that with the task force. a lot

[1:41:14] of sometimes the task force was the one as as we're hearing now. It's like

[1:41:18] they're hearing input from the community. They're participating in

[1:41:21] those and then they're kind of trying to help

[1:41:25] compromise the different things that they're hearing and ma and make space

[1:41:28] for the different uses and types of buildings that people want to see. So

[1:41:32] the two to five in some ways was a compromise of a lot of the different

[1:41:36] things that we heard. Um it was also related to the uses people want to see

[1:41:41] and how that pencils out. um allowing things potentially in the commercial

[1:41:46] mixed use that are more commercial in nature who need like a fifth story in

[1:41:50] order to make their project work. So um envisioning that if you have a hotel or

[1:41:55] if you have um a um office building, you might need that fifth story in order to

[1:42:01] really make it pencil and to work for what it is that you're trying to do. Um

[1:42:05] because if you have an office, you're probably going to have to have some

[1:42:08] underground parking or surface parking as opposed to sometimes when you have

[1:42:12] like an apartment building, you can do like a donut where the parking's inside

[1:42:15] and tuck under. So there's different economics for different types of

[1:42:19] buildings. And so that fed into the discussion as well. um final

[1:42:23] recommendation as you well not even just final recommendation but through that

[1:42:27] whole process things were going to the planning commission and the city council

[1:42:30] too to ensure um support um that that was the vision that was being met um and

[1:42:37] that that was the consensus that we ended up with. Can we be

[1:42:47] can we be specific in what building types can

[1:42:54] exceed or get a waiver? In other words, can we say a hotel can go up to six

[1:42:59] stories, but an office building can only go to four?

[1:43:04] Uh, you can make whatever recommendation you want for a building height as far as

[1:43:09] the building height waiver goes. Um, >> but does that make sense?

[1:43:13] » Well, and and I think what I would say is not I mean

[1:43:19] the planning commission should make the recommendation that it thinks is best

[1:43:22] for the community and for the implementation of the vision of the town

[1:43:25] center plan. Um that being said, the waiver really I mean it did come out of

[1:43:31] a discussion about making sure there's flexibility for development but where it

[1:43:34] started was around anchor retail tenants. Um

[1:43:39] so not to say that it I mean anybody can apply for it currently. Um but what I

[1:43:45] would say is um if anything it's that's what it was that's at least what

[1:43:51] initiated the discussion was around anchor retail tenants versus versus say

[1:43:56] let's say office space as far as the waivers concerned versus what Miranda is

[1:44:00] saying about the outright allowed building heights

[1:44:03] » because I think if if I look around like um like as we go westland can be

[1:44:09] Sherwood twatin pretty much all three stories about the

[1:44:13] closest they have. We have one group of four stories in Mentographic

[1:44:20] Seammens, right? Everything else is lower. Everything else is threetory. And

[1:44:25] so now we're going >> I would mention that the VUA project

[1:44:29] that was recently constructed is five stories. And

[1:44:32] » what's the building height on that? >> Do you know?

[1:44:35] » I off the top of my head, I don't know the exact height. Um, I do know the

[1:44:40] ground floor has a higher ceiling height to accommodate the commercial and ground

[1:44:43] floor uses um than the residential units have. I could get you that information.

[1:44:49] Uh, but it is a five-story building. And I would say that one of the things that

[1:44:54] we're looking at here is like a 40-year plan in terms of providing capacity for

[1:44:59] 40 years. And so it is quite possible that like the fivetory or even the

[1:45:04] commercial mixed use might not be a short-term development

[1:45:10] um and that maybe your fivetory buildings aren't the things that you see

[1:45:13] in years 1 through 15, but it's providing that 40-year planning horizon

[1:45:20] um interest and capacity for what people want to see. Well, then that gets to the

[1:45:24] point we made where it was, okay, do we not give variances for the first 20

[1:45:29] years? >> I Yeah. So, so a pause isn't an option.

[1:45:34] A pause is not an option in land use. Um,

[1:45:38] » what just to interject real quick, like you wouldn't be pausing building, you

[1:45:43] would be pausing the granting of waivers, right? Which would be a

[1:45:45] different thing because a waiver is you already want special treatment.

[1:45:50] So under Oregon land use law if you have something in your code that people are

[1:45:54] allowed to do you have to let them have the ability to do that. The only other

[1:45:57] option is either a moratorum which we cannot I don't think we could legally

[1:46:01] justify here or you remove it and you can remove it and say

[1:46:06] t 5 10 15 years we'll come back and decide whether or not it's something we

[1:46:10] should add back in. >> So in 20 years we could come back and

[1:46:13] have the same discussion and allow for >> you could come back and have this

[1:46:16] discussion in a year. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Now, I would say that like it's not

[1:46:22] necessarily just in that horizon because the first approval that we have is five

[1:46:27] stories. I understand. >> So, um I would say that really the

[1:46:31] reason for that outright allowed us use is because that's what we heard support

[1:46:34] for. >> If we had heard support for like ending

[1:46:37] at three stories, that's the information that would have moved forward. Well, but

[1:46:42] when you did all this public discussion, did you add a sixth floor to

[1:46:48] those buildings and have them do the stack ranking that way? Were you already

[1:46:53] considering the variance when you were doing that or were you doing the two?

[1:46:56] » The variance as as we've previously described, the variance came at the very

[1:47:00] end. It was not a part of the public discussion. The public discussion was

[1:47:04] just about like what do you want to see in Town Center and here are different

[1:47:07] buildings, here are different heights, like what are you comfortable with? and

[1:47:11] the majority of people landed within what you see ended up in the plan in

[1:47:15] terms of the range of heights that are outright allowed in each of the

[1:47:19] subdists. Okay. >> Um the waiver really was designed for

[1:47:23] shorter, >> bigger footprint retail specifically.

[1:47:27] That is technically what it was the discussion as we've shared with you came

[1:47:32] from. It was actually not >> designed to go up. um that wasn't the

[1:47:38] initial intent of the discussion. How it got written and especially as we were

[1:47:42] modifying things during public hearings, which is never great. Um the language

[1:47:48] didn't end up being as specific to the lowered building height.

[1:47:54] » Yeah. >> And I do just want to note that I think

[1:47:58] I just to be clear is that when Miranda says it wasn't part of the public

[1:48:03] discussion, she's talking about the outreach. This absolutely was part of a

[1:48:06] public process. >> Yes. Yeah.

[1:48:08] » Yes. >> It wasn't part of like the workshop to

[1:48:11] talk about a waiver because at that point we were not at that specific part

[1:48:15] of code, but all of the discussion did happen during um public meetings.

[1:48:20] » Yeah. But and Miranda's right. If you look back at those timestamps from the

[1:48:24] planning commission, it it started in August of 2018 with a particular

[1:48:29] commissioner talking about um being concerned about proh what we were

[1:48:35] talking about was it was actually about floor plate and whether it should be

[1:48:39] 30,000 square feet or 40,000 square feet or 50,000 square feet. And what the

[1:48:44] commissioner was concerned about is once we put this number down, that's the

[1:48:48] number, right? What happens if we have this great anchor retail tenant that

[1:48:52] wants to come in, but they only but they're not going to do 30,000 square

[1:48:57] feet. They need 35,000 square feet. They need 40,000 square feet. And so that's

[1:49:02] what started the conversation around the waiver. And as Miranda pointed out,

[1:49:08] really the language the the technical language was not was written at the kind

[1:49:15] of at the end. And I think that's what that's why we're I mean that's why we're

[1:49:19] undertaking this process is we recognize there's um it there's refinement that's

[1:49:25] needed there.

[1:49:29] » Commissioner Candy. >> Okay. Um so uh I don't know why I

[1:49:35] decided to do this but I did watch the the task force meeting. Um although I

[1:49:40] watched it after it was done so I could watch it on one and a half times speed.

[1:49:44] Um, so I was a little bit disappointed in

[1:49:47] watching it because I felt like some of the things that we addressed were not

[1:49:52] accurately portrayed to the task force during the meeting. Um, specifically the

[1:49:56] the discussions we had about maybe changing the Sher subdist because that

[1:50:00] was explained to us as one of the reasons why we had to allow for five is

[1:50:04] because we already did. Um, and that seemed to be just very curs like had a

[1:50:08] cursory discussion but not much. The second was on kind of this hiatus um

[1:50:15] moratorum piece which again it was kind of like well you know we just can't do

[1:50:19] that. Um and then there wasn't also much discussion um from what I saw again at

[1:50:25] one and a half times speed on um what we talked about even with like

[1:50:31] building down um instead of up. So just from my perspective I think um

[1:50:37] I think I mean I would recommend one or two things. One is that um it seems that

[1:50:42] people are either very passionate about not going up or they're ambivalent. Um I

[1:50:49] personally ambivalent. Like I don't care if a building's taller. Um but I know a

[1:50:54] lot of people are passionate like they do not want that at all. And it seems

[1:50:57] like everybody else is just kind of like whatever. I haven't heard anyone who's

[1:51:01] like we need 10tory buildings or else this plan's not going to work. So I

[1:51:06] would suggest again to kind of what Commissioner Carr was saying then if if

[1:51:10] the cases that we either have to allow waivers or don't allow waiverss then we

[1:51:15] start off without allowing waivers and see if there is a push in five six seven

[1:51:22] years where there's some developer who's like hey I really want to come here but

[1:51:25] I have to have that six story for some reason. Um

[1:51:30] again that's just my thinking on it. Alternatively, if we are going to allow

[1:51:35] for waiverss, um I think the menu items are still very uh subjective and they

[1:51:41] need to be very objective so that you know I mean not to be like

[1:51:48] too silly, but like one of the menu items was I think um

[1:51:54] uh what was the one like um promoting environmental stewardship. Like someone

[1:51:58] could be like, "Well, I put out some pamphlets in the foyer that said like

[1:52:02] here's how you can be a good environmental steward." And you're like,

[1:52:04] "Well, in theory, someone could say that met the standard." So, I would like to

[1:52:08] see if we move forward with the waiverss, um, that those are very

[1:52:12] specific as to what each category means and what we'd like to see from them. Um,

[1:52:19] I think the fee idea is interesting. Um, I wonder if

[1:52:27] that would cause some of the same problems that we're running into with

[1:52:30] the discussion about urban renewal where there is the discussion that, hey, we

[1:52:35] need to put this infrastructure in place because the builders aren't going to

[1:52:38] want to pay for it, but we're like, but if you want to build an extra floor, you

[1:52:43] can pay us more money that we'll put into this pot. like that that almost

[1:52:46] seems to kind of defeat the purpose of us saying you need urban renewal to do

[1:52:50] this because if you're going to pay all this extra money like maybe you could

[1:52:54] use it for for for different things. So while I think the fee idea is

[1:52:58] interesting I wonder if that would just have the effect of either look it be

[1:53:04] looked upon by some people as like paytoplay. So, if a very rich developer

[1:53:07] is like, "Oh, well, sure. I'll chip in a million bucks." And then someone else

[1:53:11] who's like operating on more of a shoestring, especially when it comes to

[1:53:14] something like affordable housing, and they're like, "Well, we can't build up.

[1:53:17] We can't afford to chip in." Um, I think that that could look problematic, even

[1:53:21] though I I like I don't want to say I like fees. Um, but in in this instance,

[1:53:28] I I like, you know, the building the the people who are developing contributing

[1:53:31] to what they're developing to. So those would just be the couple things that

[1:53:34] that I saw is either we say because of the passion from some people like let's

[1:53:41] just not do waivers for a while and see if that works or if we are going to do

[1:53:44] the waivers um I definitely think we need to have them better defined with

[1:53:48] the menu items. Um, and you know, I I it's not a I don't it's not one of the

[1:53:55] five options, but again, per my understanding from our meeting last

[1:53:59] time, the reason why the MU needed to go up to five stories was because of

[1:54:03] sheries. I would like to see the sheries moved over to the CMU and then the other

[1:54:08] ones could stay at four stories. >> So, I'll Okay, I'll answer first off. I

[1:54:12] probably should have clarifi clarified this with the menu items. The list there

[1:54:15] are categories. they are not what would be described in code. Um, also though

[1:54:22] you do want to be careful about not having what we call clear and objective

[1:54:25] standards in discretionary criteria because then you basically negate the

[1:54:29] ability to have discretion. So while it it won't say promote environmental

[1:54:34] stewardship, that is the concept of one of the ideas because right now like one

[1:54:39] of the waiver um one of the menu items talks about um getting lead certified or

[1:54:45] um earth advantage getting the earth earth advantage certification and one of

[1:54:48] the things we talked about is basically under Oregon energy code right now you

[1:54:52] can almost you can basically get it without with just meeting code. So what

[1:54:56] that for example that category what we would look at is if that's a category

[1:55:01] people are interested in is going and finding what are the programs that

[1:55:05] actually require them to do more than what our building code is and put that

[1:55:10] in as the language. So a certain level of a certification something like that.

[1:55:16] Um and then I will just say so part of this also is kind is informed somewhat

[1:55:22] from the task force discussion is informed also by the council discussion

[1:55:26] that happened on the 18th the day before. One of the things that we

[1:55:29] discussed with council is so we are um the prompt from council is

[1:55:36] look at the waiver provision and in discussing with council about the sherry

[1:55:42] site in particular that will require other legislative processes that go

[1:55:50] beyond this and also what we talked with council about is if you think the waiver

[1:55:55] is bad policy the way it's written it doesn't matter matter that somebody has

[1:55:59] already gotten it then it should be it should just be changed and council was

[1:56:04] um generally I think supportive of that of like of and that's why what was

[1:56:09] brought forward to the task force was should the waiver for building height

[1:56:14] increase just go away um a moratorum is not a mechanism that can be used and if

[1:56:19] it is at least at this juncture bad you know something that we don't think that

[1:56:25] the policy makers think is not in the best interest of the community and for

[1:56:29] town center. Then the decision should be get rid of the building height increase

[1:56:34] and then kind of like with our industrial formbbased code have staff

[1:56:38] come back in five years and present on whether or not it's something that

[1:56:43] should be reconsidered to bring back in. >> I appreciate the clarification. I think

[1:56:48] that's good. >> Yeah.

[1:56:51] » Which one would you win first? >> I don't know. Did I Okay. Um, but I

[1:56:57] appreciate the questions from the the fellow commissioners and the responses

[1:57:01] and clarifications. I think one of the things that is

[1:57:05] um, one of the things that commonly comes up is is whether Wilsonville is

[1:57:10] doing something that is abnormal for a city like ours. You like when we when we

[1:57:15] when we have a plan that says we can build buildings up to five stories, are

[1:57:18] we an outlier? Um, I don't think we are. When I look around at cities like

[1:57:23] Toalatin, Happy Valley, I think Tiger and Oregon City also these are the

[1:57:28] competi these are the cities that developers are also looking at to build

[1:57:32] um developments right alongside Wilsonville. So if Wilsonville is

[1:57:35] looking for a developer to come in and build um in our town center, we're we're

[1:57:40] competing against other cities like that. All of those cities have plans on

[1:57:44] the books, if I understand correctly, that also allow for buildings up to five

[1:57:48] stories or or greater. Um, so I don't think we're an outlier in this regard. I

[1:57:52] don't think that the core of the plan, especially in the highest concentration

[1:57:58] zone that we have, is an outlier. Um, I think we're we're in good company with

[1:58:03] the cities that are around us. It doesn't mean that we mean mean

[1:58:07] » that I'd like that validated because my research found that was not the case.

[1:58:11] Three stories was the highest and I think like us, we had four.

[1:58:15] » Let's look into it. It'd be interesting because it's just Chris research on my

[1:58:18] part. >> That does make sense. um and and not

[1:58:20] what exists today. If you go around and look today at at what what exists in a

[1:58:24] lot of these cities, you're going to see three and four stories are are common or

[1:58:28] the maximum in some cases. And I think that's that's where we're at right now.

[1:58:32] But we're looking 20, 30, 40 years in the future. And I I think it'd be

[1:58:37] interesting to to for staff to help with this narrative a little bit about is

[1:58:41] Wilsonville doing something that's abnormal here or is this very much in

[1:58:45] line with how development is headed in our region. Um and I I think we've heard

[1:58:50] a little bit of it. I think director Bashel, you've you've um you've said

[1:58:55] this a couple times that where I've heard that the sweet the sweet spot has

[1:59:00] changed. It used to be a a four over one was the sweet spot and and it's shifted

[1:59:06] and it'd be interesting to understand why has it shifted. Is it that those

[1:59:11] developers need to build they're considering economies of scale and as

[1:59:15] costs go up they need to build bigger in order for it to make to be worth their

[1:59:19] while? Is it something else? Is there a different factor at play here? Um, I

[1:59:24] think that would help with with framing the conversation so that we can

[1:59:28] understand we we as the commission but also as uh we as the public can

[1:59:33] understand why the building heights were recommended at the at the at at what

[1:59:37] they are and not just not not solely based on u maybe the arbitrary public

[1:59:42] input of six or seven years ago. Um is there something more concrete that we're

[1:59:46] using to to base these building height targets at? Um, I think that would be

[1:59:52] helpful. Um, but then when it comes to waiverss, one of the other things I

[1:59:55] think would be helpful for us to remember is that this is a discretionary

[2:00:00] process. Um, we we're saying the target is one to four or two to five. And

[2:00:06] that's that's what we're expecting developers to build here. And if they

[2:00:10] can come to us with a good argument for why there is exceptional circumstances

[2:00:14] for them to go above that, then we can consider that and we can we we being the

[2:00:18] city or or um our planning director or the city council or the ones that are

[2:00:23] making that discretionary call based on qualitative

[2:00:27] um guidelines, right? So, this isn't meant to be an objective standard. the

[2:00:32] objective standard is baked into the the the non-waver process and it's only if

[2:00:37] somebody needs to um through through for some exceptional circumstances to to to

[2:00:43] increase the height. I think that's where the waiver process comes into

[2:00:46] play. Is am I understanding that correctly?

[2:00:47] » Yeah. Yes. Exactly. Um we have our essentially our objective criteria which

[2:00:52] is the outright allowed building heights and then the waiver is the discretion.

[2:00:57] And one of the things that um is not necessarily unique to Wilsonville in its

[2:01:01] waiver process, but we have we have what's called essentially a better meat

[2:01:05] standard that basically says if you're asking for a waiver in our discretion,

[2:01:09] we have to determine that you better meet the policy objectives of whatever

[2:01:14] that that outright allowed uses is trying to get at that you better meet

[2:01:19] that through your waiver. Which is why we also call out these menu items to

[2:01:22] say, okay, you not you need to better meet and also what we want how we want

[2:01:27] you to better meet is by benefit to the community and mitigating your building

[2:01:32] impact by getting a height waiver essentially.

[2:01:35] » Yeah. So I I think there's a lot of opportunity for us to use those menu

[2:01:39] items as as a higher bar for for making sure that whatever the qualitative

[2:01:44] discretionary decision that goes into granting or considering a waiver is

[2:01:50] guided by a very high bar for what those menu items are. um rather than it being

[2:01:55] I I think the the task force I think uh hit hit on something really valuable

[2:01:59] that if the if the menu items are cheap then developers will see that as a as a

[2:02:04] loophole to go through if they if they're trying to abuse the waiver

[2:02:07] process or game it. Um, so can we c can we protect the waiver process to protect

[2:02:12] the qualitative and discretionary nature of the waiver process by establishing

[2:02:17] menu items that are reflective of the high bar that we expect developers to

[2:02:21] meet if they're going to even ask for an exception.

[2:02:28] » Can I continue on with that? Yeah. And I think that's why the fee and loo option

[2:02:32] was interesting to me at first and then I think about that high bar of like,

[2:02:35] okay, what are specific things we want to see? even if we just say, "Oh, you

[2:02:38] can pay a fee." I don't know if that really gets at what we're trying to

[2:02:42] achieve. So, that's why, yeah, my my first reaction was I'm not I'm not so

[2:02:46] sure about the fee and loop for this for this case. I I I do think where the task

[2:02:52] force landed overall with the option five seems appropriate. I think the one

[2:02:55] thing that I'm struggling with a little bit is the there is a section in there

[2:03:00] with the CMU option of so six stories. It's the waiver or a bonus floor. And

[2:03:06] I'm really struggling realistically with like in what case would a developer

[2:03:11] choose a bonus floor? Like financially when does that how are we going to

[2:03:15] incentivize them to choose in my mind is like affordable housing or an extra

[2:03:22] story based on like meeting those menu items. And so that part I think is where

[2:03:27] I kind of lean more towards I think option six in the CMU. It just says only

[2:03:31] bonus floor. So you can only get that six story, right?

[2:03:34] » Yes. if if it's affordable because if you give them the option of the waiver

[2:03:40] or the bonus floor, I don't I don't see why they would

[2:03:43] choose the bonus floor. Um, and maybe that's a policy discussion for council

[2:03:48] is how much are we really wanting to push affordable housing opportunities

[2:03:51] because if they really want that as an opportunity, then I don't think you

[2:03:55] should give uh the the choice. Um, so that's just something for for additional

[2:04:00] discussion. Um, but I I I'm supportive overall of that option five. And then

[2:04:08] so just to get into specifics, so attachment C for the code draft

[2:04:14] language. I'm I'm wondering if there should be an asterisk. Is that how you

[2:04:19] say it? Asterric a little. Yeah, sure. Sure. Not quite. Sorry. Um, so on the

[2:04:25] the building story height row, the maximum, so for CMU it says five, but

[2:04:32] really should that little note say well it could be six if you meet a certain

[2:04:38] just to note it in that table that's in there um just for clarity because then

[2:04:42] you you'd have to go in and kind of read through to understand that like oh

[2:04:46] actually it could be six in certain situations. So there just might be

[2:04:50] opportunity depending on how conversations go for clarity on that

[2:04:53] table. >> Are are you talking specifically about

[2:04:55] the affordable housing bonus floor or >> just generally for that table when I

[2:05:02] look at it I see like maximum story fee for CMU says five but it could be six,

[2:05:08] right? >> Yeah, we do have a note for it that

[2:05:12] » Oh, it just not on the same page. I see. >> Yeah,

[2:05:16] » thank you. Yeah, I I missed that. So that let me just read it really quick.

[2:05:21] Yep, that makes sense. >> And that and that is one of the items

[2:05:24] that we talked I'm again talking about scope of the project.

[2:05:30] Staff has tried to make it clear throughout that talking about the bonus

[2:05:34] floor isn't within the waiver. But if you're truly going to talk about what is

[2:05:40] an what is a building height that may occur, you have to talk about both. You

[2:05:44] have to talk about the outright allowed use. You have to talk about the bonus

[2:05:46] floor where it's allowed. and you have to talk about the waiver. So, it's it

[2:05:51] » it's basically out of full transparency. And what that did lead to is the task

[2:05:56] force having some discussion around >> should there be places where it's only

[2:06:02] bonus floor or in places like um some of the planning uh the staff task force

[2:06:07] members saying, you know, in the mixeduse area closest to the

[2:06:11] neighborhood mixeduse, you shouldn't get a bonus floor or the waiver to increase

[2:06:14] building height. Um that was all discussion that was had around the bonus

[2:06:19] floor in particular. >> Okay.

[2:06:21] » And I would say like I said that's kind of an open question still.

[2:06:25] » Okay. And then shifting kind of to the menu of

[2:06:30] options. So there were a lot of comments in the task force conversation around

[2:06:36] kind of trying to maintain a small town feel and the sense that you know the

[2:06:40] higher the buildings go we lose I the sentiment I get is that the the higher

[2:06:44] the building the more of that small town feel we we lose and so I'm wondering if

[2:06:49] there's a way in like the menu items to get really specific about a bar set of

[2:06:54] are there certain design elements or ways to encourage a small town feel um

[2:07:01] and require that or somehow kind of incorporate that feedback into the menu

[2:07:05] of options. And I I'm I'm not Yeah, like I don't know how that would look

[2:07:10] specifically, but >> like maybe even a different set of menu

[2:07:12] options for the different zones maybe too to kind of reinforce the the idea

[2:07:18] about like there being a slope. >> Um if that's something that we we end up

[2:07:22] wanting to go with. >> Could be. Yep.

[2:07:25] » Yeah. I'm having flashbacks to the planning commission discussion where it

[2:07:28] was all around how do we make it feel cozy?

[2:07:30] » Yeah. >> I don't know how cozy works into a

[2:07:34] development code, but we'll try our best.

[2:07:35] » Well, and yeah, I mean there are certain ways like you think about like I don't

[2:07:40] know your little pocket parks or I think there was conversations about just even

[2:07:44] outdoor seating or covered areas like certain opportunities to run into people

[2:07:49] and have conversations and know each other and that's what creates people

[2:07:53] create the small town feel, right? So the cozy feel. Sorry. Okay, I'm done.

[2:07:58] Um, so yeah, that was just a thought. And then

[2:08:04] so I guess I'm unclear then for the conversation around

[2:08:11] the MU East, right? So closer to the neighborhoods and the fourstory

[2:08:16] conversation. So that's something that's not within the scope of the work that

[2:08:20] we're doing or is that something that we can say, "Yeah, we want to talk about

[2:08:23] more later down the line." So we have got so the the affordable housing bonus

[2:08:28] floor is not part of the waiver provision that is directed for that

[2:08:32] council directed staff to look at okay through this process. That being said,

[2:08:37] we staff in our last work session with council did flag that this bonus floor

[2:08:42] is part of the conversation and um so we've continued to talk about it. And

[2:08:50] so, um, we flagged for the task force that it was outside the scope, but also

[2:08:54] wanted the task force feedback because if the feedback really is, hey, we

[2:08:58] understand it's outside the scope, but council, we really think you need to

[2:09:01] look at this in conjunction with the waiver, then that's the feedback we're

[2:09:04] going to tell council. Um and so that's where the discussion around maybe no inc

[2:09:10] no increases allowed either through a bonus floor which would change the table

[2:09:16] » um note >> or the waiver was something that was

[2:09:20] discussed within the task force and so it's part of the planning commission

[2:09:24] discussion and will be part of the city council discussion as well.

[2:09:27] » Okay.

[2:09:30] So if people have particular thoughts about that, I'm happy to report those to

[2:09:34] the council. >> So what's the what's the purpose or

[2:09:38] definition of a bonus floor? >> So um

[2:09:45] if I remember right, so the purpose I mean the purpose is it

[2:09:49] was to promote affordable housing. I mean that's the purpose behind the bonus

[2:09:53] floor. >> We're using those two as counterp

[2:09:56] proposals. You're saying you can have a bonus floor but not or you can do

[2:10:01] variable or affordable housing but not a bonus floor. So you can't we can't use

[2:10:05] affordable housing as a definition of a bonus.

[2:10:08] » So in all of the in all of the options that were presented to the task force,

[2:10:14] the bonus floor is not being removed because it's not part of the waiver

[2:10:17] provision. What the task floors task and the bonus floor is only tied to

[2:10:22] providing 25% of affordable housing for the number of units that would equate to

[2:10:26] that bonus floor. So if the bonus if you think about a com a residential complex

[2:10:32] that has 12 units on each floor and they want a bonus floor they can put an

[2:10:36] additional 12 units but four units need to be affordable housing and those four

[2:10:39] units could be spread they don't necessarily have to be on the top floor

[2:10:42] they can be spread throughout. >> So that's how that concept would work.

[2:10:47] Um that is part of the t that's part of the table for what's outright allowed.

[2:10:53] Um, and then this waiver allows for, you know, building heights to change um, up

[2:10:58] or down. And so what the t what some of the task force members talked about was

[2:11:03] discomfort in um, you know, this idea of if the taller buildings are supposed to

[2:11:08] be closer to I5 and it's supposed to taper down as you get closer to the

[2:11:12] residential area. does a five-story building that is five stories because of

[2:11:17] the bonus floor, not because of a waiver, but is five stories because of a

[2:11:21] bonus floor, like even if we limit the waiver and don't allow an increase of

[2:11:25] building height um because of the waiver, there's still the opportunity

[2:11:29] for a five-story building. And is that something that we want to see that close

[2:11:34] to the residential area? And it was split. I mean, it was basically four

[2:11:38] were fine with option five leaving in that bonus floor, three were not, and

[2:11:42] one was undecided. So we didn't have a majority you know which would be five.

[2:11:47] We didn't have a majority consensus coming out of the task force about what

[2:11:51] to do with I mean if you just think about it in number of floors for the

[2:11:56] mixed use area on the eastern side should it be four should it be or should

[2:12:02] it be five essentially and four is what's outright allowed

[2:12:08] » and if we say four then we can't be prescriptive that 25% has to be

[2:12:13] affordable housing. >> Correct. That's what's outright allowed

[2:12:17] right now regardless of affordable housing.

[2:12:19] » So the the two to four that's outright allowed has nothing to do with afford

[2:12:22] has no clause for affordable housing. Okay.

[2:12:24] » Correct. >> And are we allowed to require more

[2:12:26] affordable housing to get the bonus level?

[2:12:29] » If that is feedback that planning commission would like me to take to

[2:12:32] council. I can take that. >> I mean because it seems kind of I don't

[2:12:34] know. It seems almost like a cheap out again if you're like well if there's 12

[2:12:38] 12 oh now on this one you get eight full rent and you get four. I mean that's

[2:12:43] kind of >> it. That doesn't really seem fair to me

[2:12:46] to be like I would say like the whole floor would have to be like affordable

[2:12:50] and then you're like okay cool like you can have an extra floor. I mean

[2:12:54] » maybe they wouldn't want to do the whole floor but like

[2:12:56] » you I would see it should be more >> 12 out of 48 units would be

[2:13:01] » as opposed to just four out of 48. When again coming back to that idea of like

[2:13:06] let's let's make sure that the bar is high for like for people that want to

[2:13:10] exceed what our vision is. Um they need to be they need to meet a very high bar

[2:13:15] and it may and it is meant to discourage people from just

[2:13:20] on a whim wanting to exceed the the the vision that we set.

[2:13:24] » Yeah. I mean I guess that was my point on the waiver items, right? Is if

[2:13:26] they're not more prescriptive, then that can set the bar pretty low and people

[2:13:30] can try to find loopholes. Same thing with the the housing affordable housing

[2:13:34] bonus floor is like if it's only four units. I I would assume most developers

[2:13:39] would want to do it because they're getting eight more. You get an extra

[2:13:42] floor, you get an extra, you know, you get an extra 2/3 um to rent out, but so

[2:13:47] I would like to see that to be higher if it's something we consider. Um

[2:13:52] and then yeah,

[2:14:00] » that's okay. I have all sorts of thoughts running in my head.

[2:14:03] » Yeah. >> Nothing I put words to you.

[2:14:05] » I mean, just in that the the phrasing of the question of it's it's kind of a

[2:14:09] choice of four or five for the the east area. In my mind, it's still the policy

[2:14:16] question of like how much do we want to push affordable housing or not? Like

[2:14:20] that is kind of the direction I would want from council is if you're really

[2:14:25] passionate about getting more affordable housing, you would allow for this bonus

[2:14:30] floor. So the five story option. Um and if you're not, then

[2:14:35] it's then it would be four. That that's how my mind's working right now.

[2:14:38] » But then would you make it 25% of the total building? Well, and this this goes

[2:14:42] back to the question earlier that I mentioned of like if they have options,

[2:14:46] I I feel like and I I don't know all of the

[2:14:51] financials around this, but I imagine the reason that we would offer the

[2:14:55] option of a waiver or bonus floor for the other area is because like the

[2:14:59] affordable housing probably doesn't make a lot of sense financially for these

[2:15:01] folks. So if it's a smaller barrier just to get at least four more affordable

[2:15:07] housing, I would rather have that than none, right? So but I don't know I don't

[2:15:13] know what the demand or I I guess I'd need more information on like what that

[2:15:19] looks like. Um >> yeah, I mean I think they would still be

[2:15:23] able to qualify for like some of the tax incentives even if they were going up to

[2:15:27] going up to four stories, right? like just

[2:15:30] » or I meant like four units or whatever we were talking about for the Yeah.

[2:15:34] » But if you know we said there were just no bonus if we suggested that there were

[2:15:37] no bonus floors like that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be affordable

[2:15:41] housing. Um if right because there's still a lot of tax incentives for

[2:15:46] affordable housing to be built. It would just mean that it wouldn't go above

[2:15:50] » four levels in certain areas. Um, >> yeah. I just I question how much

[2:15:57] incentive there is generally. >> Yeah.

[2:16:03] » Yeah. And I and I think balancing that against the the like the apparent will

[2:16:08] of the the people of Wilville, too. Like there's the the incentive for the

[2:16:13] developers to come in and build and there and and we want to get affordable

[2:16:16] housing, but we also have a very loud group of of of the population. um a

[2:16:22] substantial group of the population that seems to be really

[2:16:26] uh strongly opinionated as councelor Gandrian said that's that's like a lot

[2:16:31] of people seem to be kind of like me ambivalent

[2:16:33] » either ambivalent or passionate about not going too high right like I don't I

[2:16:37] mean I I could be wrong but I don't think anyone is like super passionate

[2:16:41] about like we have to go higher um so that's kind of like I said

[2:16:45] » you know to me if if someone wanted to come build like the Burj Khalifa

[2:16:49] Wilsonville and it and they were going to finance

[2:16:53] it, I'd be like, I mean, cool, I guess. Um, but I'm probably in the minority on

[2:16:58] that opinion. Um, it just seems to me most people are like either ambivalent

[2:17:02] or against going too high. So, if that's the case, like we have a lot of options

[2:17:06] to make most people somewhat happy, right? Because the ambivalent people are

[2:17:11] just be like, "Oh, whatever." Like, but the people who are very passionate are

[2:17:14] going to be like, "Oh, thank you." like we get that extra like

[2:17:18] you know 10 minutes of sunshine because of how the rays will hit or something.

[2:17:24] » Yeah. And I and I would say um if anything at least um from some of the

[2:17:31] task force members how they talked about it was not necessarily that about height

[2:17:35] but around flexibility. That being said, I go back to the point

[2:17:39] about where this arose where this whole language even arose from from the prior

[2:17:44] planning commission was around um flexibility for anchor retail tenants

[2:17:51] was how that discussion started back then. That's not to say it can't be

[2:17:55] different than that. Um but that's really where I mean if you think about

[2:17:59] where this originated from was from that flexibility discussion around anchor

[2:18:02] retail tenants. And then I would suggest if that was kind of the genesis of this

[2:18:06] is to have the flexibility to have a larger footprint

[2:18:11] if needed, right, for a specific waiver for specific reasons as opposed to going

[2:18:15] up. like if you want to go out, if that was the genesis, then that seems like

[2:18:20] that makes more people happy or less upset than well, if you're going to go

[2:18:25] out, you have to also be able to let them go up. Like

[2:18:34] I I want to make sure we're clear because I

[2:18:38] think I heard Amanda earlier say we wouldn't allow

[2:18:43] out and up together. Um, so that is not a consideration. I

[2:18:49] think that that probably the discussion point we're talking about is that when

[2:18:53] we put in um building footprint or height could you could get a waiver for

[2:19:00] that. The idea was to be able to go out shorter and wider. We just failed at

[2:19:05] saying you could get a height waiver to reduce because I we didn't really

[2:19:11] anticipate the situation of somebody asking for a height waiver to go taller

[2:19:17] at the time that it was written. >> But you but the what's proposed is not

[2:19:24] out and up together. Correct. >> I just want to make sure that was clear.

[2:19:29] » Yeah. No, I just meant that like if the original genesis of this was that people

[2:19:32] could go out and then because of how it was written, you could go out or up, but

[2:19:38] really the point was that you could go out. Then maybe

[2:19:42] » we allow >> not having up waiverss.

[2:19:45] » We allow out but not up. >> Yeah. We would allow out but not up and

[2:19:49] then it can be revisited if in five, six, seven years, you know,

[2:19:54] » and allowed down then. >> Yeah.

[2:19:56] » Yes. >> Yeah.

[2:19:59] So option seven is option six but limit the CM to five

[2:20:07] limit the MU. >> I feel like I I don't know if everyone

[2:20:10] has expressed what their thoughts are in terms of

[2:20:15] » I was just stating another option. >> Yeah. So what what you're saying is

[2:20:18] option seven is essentially the conversation that was had around

[2:20:23] eliminating building. So the discussion that once the task force got to its

[2:20:27] preferred alternative they then discussed eliminate the building height

[2:20:30] waiver to increase height not eliminate it alto together. Your option seven is

[2:20:35] » yes that's my option seven. Yes. >> Yes.

[2:20:37] » And this was their vote. >> Yes. It was it was 62. But again that's

[2:20:42] that's to inform the planning commission you know about

[2:20:46] about how you want to then inform council. So,

[2:20:51] » does everybody want to kind of state what their recommendation is?

[2:20:56] » Well, and just for clarification, just to be super clear, that vote was saying

[2:21:00] that of the task force participants, six, it was a 6 to2 vote in favor of

[2:21:04] keeping a waiver for increasing. Okay. >> Correct. That where there was not a

[2:21:11] clear consensus. So, option five was the consensus. Um

[2:21:16] what was not a consensus was whether or not in mixed use east should there be no

[2:21:25] ability to increase building height. Um but option five was the preferred over

[2:21:31] eliminating the the ability to increase building height altogether.

[2:21:35] » Yeah. Thank you. >> Which option seven would be option five

[2:21:39] but limit the ability to up. Yes. Yes.

[2:21:50] If if it helps maybe where we start is kind of how we started with the task

[2:21:54] force of do people have a preference if you had to choose between we'll save

[2:22:00] option seven if you had to choose between two five and six is there a

[2:22:05] consensus around preference on that or and it doesn't even have to be a

[2:22:10] consensus I can literally report to council one person like this one, one

[2:22:14] person like this one, so on and so forth.

[2:22:18] » Yeah, I don't know if we're going to have consensus,

[2:22:21] » but that's okay. >> But that's what I was saying. I was

[2:22:23] maybe we do, you know, kind of I'll state what

[2:22:27] » I I recommend. >> I do I like option five of these four

[2:22:31] options presented. I like option five. >> Yeah, I agree.

[2:22:35] » But I like option seven better. >> We'll get to that one.

[2:22:39] » We'll get there. Um yeah, I guess I think

[2:22:44] well I guess actually I would prefer option six

[2:22:48] um just because I don't think the waiver uh up to six stories. Um I I think if

[2:22:55] we're going to have it larger, there should be some community benefit and I

[2:22:57] think that the the um affordable housing would be um something that would be a

[2:23:03] good community benefit. Um, so I guess I would go with option six, but I'm also

[2:23:09] with Commissioner Carr in that I feel the community is more pushing towards an

[2:23:14] option seven. Um, and so I guess I would lean towards that.

[2:23:21] Yeah. I mean, the only reason I lean more toward five because I I see what

[2:23:24] you mean and I I really agree with the sentiment there. The the only reason I

[2:23:27] tend to lean more toward five is um well, I guess there's two. one is that

[2:23:32] they seem to be the one that was a little bit more favored in the task

[2:23:34] force. But the main main one personally why I'd lean more toward that is just

[2:23:38] the flexibility that it affords. Um be because we don't know what's going to

[2:23:42] come down the pipe five or 10 or 15 years from now. Um allowing for that

[2:23:47] waiver in in the CMU gives us a little bit more flexibility and it's still a

[2:23:53] discretionary process. So we have to we have to trust that the bar is high

[2:23:56] enough and and and will be respected. Um, but I think that flexibility gives

[2:24:01] us it leaves the door open for us to be able to accept more options when it

[2:24:06] comes to developers.

[2:24:09] » I would agree. I would agree with that. And then I'm also thinking almost

[2:24:13] reversely of we can start with these option option five, the waiver or the

[2:24:17] bonus floor, but if it's really if the waiver is not panning out the way that

[2:24:22] we had intended it to, then it's like, well, maybe we need to re reevaluate if

[2:24:26] we need to remove the waiver or not, right? And I think yours was kind of the

[2:24:30] the opposite of like don't start with the waiver um and then we can evaluate

[2:24:34] and see if we need it later, right? Is that what you were suggesting?

[2:24:36] » Well, yeah, because I think right if like using kind of Sherry's almost as an

[2:24:40] example, >> one of the reasons we said we have to go

[2:24:43] to five now is because we already kind of like let a building go to five. And

[2:24:46] so if we're saying so, you know, so say someone comes in, they build a six-story

[2:24:50] building and for whatever reason like there's like pitchforks in the streets

[2:24:55] and like riots because that was like the worst thing ever. But now we've already

[2:24:59] allowed a six floor sixf flooror sixstory building to be built, right? So

[2:25:05] then it's hard to put the genie kind of back in the box there. I see what you're

[2:25:08] saying >> where

[2:25:10] I'm kind of saying okay it sound again my personal opinion aside on how tall

[2:25:15] the building should be. Um, if we say, well, let's see what happens over the

[2:25:20] next five, six, seven years. Is four stories, maybe a fifth working for

[2:25:26] people, are we getting development? Like, are we having people come in?

[2:25:29] Like, we have all these projects lined up. Then maybe it's almost like a moot

[2:25:32] point, right? But if like people are like, hey, it just does not work at all

[2:25:36] unless I have six floors, you know, then maybe we can revisit that. But I think

[2:25:41] if we allow it to start, then you're kind of setting the precedent that like,

[2:25:45] hey, you know, we already let people do it at this height. So then you're going

[2:25:49] to kind of have a harder time saying >> we're not going to let anyone else. And

[2:25:52] then you have like this one albatross building, you know, the white whale of

[2:25:56] Wilsonville. >> Well, except for to to the point earlier

[2:26:01] from Amanda, I think we can always take the waiver away. Just because there is a

[2:26:05] building that that has met some previous standard doesn't mean we always have to

[2:26:09] have that standard. Um I think that where I where I would agree with you

[2:26:14] though is that once a building is built, it's built and it's there. And so um it

[2:26:18] might disrupt the if we do decide in the future to say actually we want our

[2:26:22] building heights to be lower and we've already got a six-story building, then

[2:26:25] now we've got a unicorn and it's it changes the feel of the whole area. So

[2:26:31] um yeah, we we we commit to it once we get a building built. That's cement in

[2:26:35] the ground that's not going to go away for a long time.

[2:26:37] » But that also gets to your point is what are the surrounding city what are what's

[2:26:41] our competition allowing >> so to speak.

[2:26:44] » Yeah. >> Right. What are the what are the cities

[2:26:46] around us allowing as far as because if you drive down the I5 corridor, right?

[2:26:51] The tallest buildings you're going to see is four.

[2:26:54] » I don't see any five story until you start getting into downtown. Right. But

[2:26:58] all along the corridor there's there's nothing. I mean, I I work in a building

[2:27:03] that's right by I5. It's a four-story building. It's in Lake Lake Grove, Lake

[2:27:07] Asiggo. >> Mhm. For Yeah.

[2:27:10] » Looks just like Metroraphics building or CEO's building.

[2:27:13] » And Yeah. And I think um I think that's where

[2:27:18] I think it's good to be aware of kind of what what what are the surrounding

[2:27:22] cities like us? Um what are what do they have planned? What are they doing? what

[2:27:28] is the what does the landscape look like if we're trying to attract development?

[2:27:31] How what are we competing against um so to speak? That's probably not quite the

[2:27:35] right language to use in planning circles. But um but then also there's we

[2:27:41] also don't want to go too far down that road. Like we don't want to compromise

[2:27:45] we we don't want to compromise our values as a city in order to win

[2:27:48] development at at all cost. So there is a there is a threshold that we need to

[2:27:52] establish and respect as far as and I think that's kind of the what's

[2:27:56] communicated a lot of times in the sentiment of like the the Wilsonville

[2:27:59] feel or the the feel of the city. Um there's a balance between the two

[2:28:04] because we we we we need to anticipate growth. We need to attract the kind of

[2:28:10] growth that we want. We also need to kind of the whole purpose of a plan is

[2:28:14] to put shape around it so that we can guide what kind of development comes in.

[2:28:18] Um but if we put too much shape around it then the developers will go somewhere

[2:28:22] easier. Um if we say you can't build two stories or you can't build above two or

[2:28:27] three or four stories but it's not economically viable to build anything

[2:28:31] lower than five then we get no developers unless we change our our

[2:28:35] format drastically um as I understand it. So I think just

[2:28:40] the that I think the idea of option five and option six that both of them are

[2:28:45] appealing to me even if I'm leaning a little bit more toward option five or

[2:28:48] option seven maybe eventually um is just the flexibility it gives us a little it

[2:28:54] leaves the door a little bit more open for us to be able to navigate what may

[2:28:58] be a really shifting environment over the next decade or more

[2:29:05] » since it's come up uh quite a bit I would like to address for the commission

[2:29:10] that Wilsonville's plan was really guided by

[2:29:14] Wilsonville. And so I think it is important to some degree to acknowledge

[2:29:19] that to acknowledge our neighbors, but maybe also not put too much weight on

[2:29:24] our neighbors because Wilsonville is Wilsonville. And if there's one thing

[2:29:27] I've learned being here, Wilsonville is Wilsonville and we don't compromise our

[2:29:30] way related to what our neighbors are necessarily doing. That being said, we

[2:29:35] do want to be cognizant of it and understand it for the very reasons that

[2:29:40] you all are talking about it. I can offer a few things. You know, I haven't

[2:29:44] been um studying up on my neighbors exclusively. I've been pretty busy here.

[2:29:49] Uh but I can say like I'm pretty sure the Tiger Triangle um has and maybe

[2:29:56] somebody else in the room can help me, but um I believe the height limit there

[2:30:00] is like 75 ft. um so allows six and sevenstory buildings and is planning for

[2:30:06] that. Um I know that Beaverton I believe that down in there like the round in

[2:30:12] downtown also allows fivetory buildings. Um I can't remember if the building

[2:30:17] that's in the round is four or five but it's around the same height as the

[2:30:21] buildings that we're talking about in our town center. Um, you know, Lake

[2:30:24] Owiggo, I don't know the limit, but I know that the buildings right now that

[2:30:28] were redeveloped were four stories, but I think it's also four stories over a

[2:30:32] parking garage. So, the height there might be a little bit taller um than a

[2:30:36] standard fourstory. So, I think from my perspective, a lot of what we're doing

[2:30:41] and planning for is consistent with the types of plans that we're think seeing

[2:30:45] throughout the region. Um, Hillsboro uh definitely allows fivetory buildings.

[2:30:50] They may even allow taller um in certain areas including their downtown and I

[2:30:56] believe Amber Glenn might even allow up to seven or eight um which is another

[2:31:01] town center area of theirs. So um Gresham I don't remember but it probably

[2:31:07] also is around five stories. So kind of what we're doing here in terms of our

[2:31:11] town center is comparable to other town centers in the region. Um but also a lot

[2:31:16] of what's in the plan is unique to what we heard from this community which I

[2:31:20] also think is valuable. The other thing too that I would note um and um I think

[2:31:25] this is I think this is understood is there there's a difference between what

[2:31:29] is already been built and may have been built many years ago when the economics

[2:31:34] were different versus what is allowed or what has been I mean we

[2:31:38] » if you look at I mean like if you drove around town center right now you'd think

[2:31:42] we don't allow anything over two story maybe three stories right

[2:31:45] » but we do and so it's that built environment versus what is on the books

[2:31:51] And the other thing that um what was the other thing that I was going to note,

[2:31:57] if I remember it, I'll say it. >> It's it's already 8:30, so my brain's a

[2:32:02] little fried. So,

[2:32:06] » okay. >> Did you want to say something else?

[2:32:09] Okay. >> Well, I So, okay. I have three

[2:32:12] commissioners at least on the option. And Commissioner Hendricks, you

[2:32:15] previously you went back and forth between five and six. So I'm wondering

[2:32:18] if you >> I'm still I'm still in the middle there.

[2:32:21] » Okay. Middle of five and six, >> which is not helpful. I um

[2:32:26] » is maybe this is helpful. Uh Chair Seanova, are you a firm option two

[2:32:31] person? >> Can I at least tell council we've

[2:32:35] narrowed it down to maybe five and six or are you a

[2:32:38] » You can say that. I would um I I I don't have a strong preference between five

[2:32:43] and six, but a part of me does want to keep the waiver for going down, but stop

[2:32:49] the waiver from going up until we get more defined criteria on what that

[2:32:55] waiver criteria is that needs to be met to set those high standards. I think

[2:33:00] everybody's in like the renderings showed you know two three story

[2:33:04] buildings the coziness and then everybody with the with these waiverss

[2:33:09] are envisioning all these sixstory buildings popping up everywhere and and

[2:33:13] where do you you know draw that line and then on on the mixeduse east like in

[2:33:19] Vibal we already have I think some fourstory buildings going up right now

[2:33:23] and it I drove by it today just to specifically see how that feels and and

[2:33:27] it's a lot that little area all of a sudden becomes comes really closed in

[2:33:31] and like one more story and you like the sky falls out of your peripheral vision.

[2:33:38] Um, so that's that ambiance that feeling really gets impacted if you're

[2:33:43] surrounded by anything above four stories.

[2:33:47] » So >> I would note Oh, go ahead. just um for

[2:33:50] folks to know that with the waiver, I can't remember if it's with the waiver

[2:33:55] or if it's four stories and above um there's a required step back. Um and

[2:34:00] that's an important design aspect from an urban design element in order to help

[2:34:06] that light and air to still be able to perminate permeate an area. So, for

[2:34:10] example, the um Sherry's building would have required a step back. I think it

[2:34:15] was either between floors three and four or between four and five. Um, they ended

[2:34:20] up opting to do it lower on the first between the first and second floor,

[2:34:24] which actually is even better. Um, and so I just wanted to kind of provide that

[2:34:29] information that where we do even call for some of our taller buildings, there

[2:34:34] is a requirement for a step back in order to help offset some of that

[2:34:39] height. >> So, can you go through

[2:34:46] examples maybe of the difference between five and six.

[2:34:49] » So the main the main difference between five and six is on the CMU. So on the um

[2:34:55] in the CMU for option five, it can go up to six stories either through a waiver

[2:35:00] or through that bonus floor that's allowed for affordable housing. In

[2:35:03] option six, it can CMU can only go to six stories can get that additional

[2:35:08] floor through for affordable housing. It can't get the waiver to go up

[2:35:14] » and the waiver you >> for the CMU.

[2:35:16] » So the waiver would apply the items >> the menu item.

[2:35:20] » Correct. >> The menu items.

[2:35:21] » Correct. >> Yes.

[2:35:22] » The option six would not allow for any of the menu items. It would only allow

[2:35:27] it for affordable housing >> for for CMU.

[2:35:31] » Right. And then the other uh MU West and MU East are the same for option five.

[2:35:36] » Between option five and six, they're the same. So the the main discussion or the

[2:35:40] main so option six was developed by staff after we developed option five. So

[2:35:45] option five arose out of the task force discussion and then as we were talking

[2:35:49] about the this discussion okay we what was coming out of it is option five

[2:35:54] allows for six stories potentially in CMU that's the area closest to I5 either

[2:35:59] through a waiver or bonus floor. And so one of the things that we talked about

[2:36:02] as an additional because you know we just love providing options as an

[2:36:06] additional consideration is well everywhere else the max is five stories.

[2:36:12] So then um what we talked about was maybe what we offer is essentially the

[2:36:18] max will be everywhere five stories and the only exception

[2:36:23] would be if you're providing affordable housing

[2:36:25] » in CMU >> in CMU where it could go up to six. So

[2:36:30] that's option six is a more is more restrictive than option five because of

[2:36:35] the CMU. Otherwise it's all the same. Um yeah that's

[2:36:42] » and even then even within CMU you can't do that right next to I5 if I understand

[2:36:48] correctly. Right. I thought it had to be I thought it had to be right next to I5.

[2:36:51] » It's on the close side of I5. Correct. >> But that was something I think needs to

[2:36:55] be defined, right? Is what because it says adjacent to I5 and I think adjacent

[2:36:59] was never defined as to what we were describing as there.

[2:37:02] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[2:37:04] » It's a pretty narrow strip that allows that they would ever allow for a sixth

[2:37:09] floor even even with all these restrictions. So that definition I'm

[2:37:13] probably more on option six than five >> but more so option seven.

[2:37:20] » Okay. So I think I have good enough notes to talk about the options with

[2:37:25] council. So may from planning commission and um to be respectful of time let's

[2:37:30] get to the option seven eliminating the waiver to increase. Um again you're not

[2:37:37] making a your recommendation now. This is feedback and generally I think what I

[2:37:42] would say is if you think that this is a worthwhile discussion um about

[2:37:47] eliminating the waiver to increase if you think that's a worthwhile discussion

[2:37:51] that should go to council that is feedback that we can give them is that

[2:37:56] however many of either a consensus or however many of the planning commission

[2:38:00] at least felt like this is this option of looking at eliminating the waiver to

[2:38:05] increase building height altogether um should be further explored.

[2:38:09] My dot number one is seven. My dot number two is six.

[2:38:14] » Okay. >> And I'll concur from from the standpoint

[2:38:19] of I think that's the most likely option to get the public support needed

[2:38:24] » to get it funded. Um again because I I just feel like the passions on the lower

[2:38:29] side outweigh I haven't seen any passion for the high

[2:38:34] side >> for the high. Yeah. We we have

[2:38:38] » so I would go same seven and then six. >> I I think there's a there is a lot of

[2:38:42] passion for for lower building heights. I I do think there is passion in the

[2:38:46] community for higher building heights but they're rather quiet lately and for

[2:38:50] whatever reason. So um but I think regardless I think that it's worth

[2:38:56] respecting where the people who are being very vocal right now and and the

[2:39:01] sentiment that seems to be pervasive in the community. I think it's very

[2:39:04] important to recognize that and respect it. And so for that reason, I I would

[2:39:08] totally agree with you. Um >> yeah, just

[2:39:13] » does that mean you would prefer >> Sorry. Does that mean you would I just

[2:39:17] want to make sure we're clear for our recommendation. Are you preferring um

[2:39:21] that the height be removed altogether? That would be your first choice and then

[2:39:26] option five would be your second choice or the reverse?

[2:39:32] I guess I'm a little bit confused about what the task force is saying on this

[2:39:37] slide still because it feels like what this slide is saying is that when you

[2:39:41] ask the task force if they want to remove the ability to increase,

[2:39:45] » they said no. Correct. >> There's a 6 to2 vote saying we should

[2:39:48] keep the ability to increase. >> So I would not I wouldn't go against the

[2:39:52] task force on that. I think that that and so that would that would be more in

[2:39:55] support of five, right? >> Correct.

[2:39:57] » If I'm understanding that correctly. So I'm I' I'd remain more aligned with

[2:40:00] five. So, and and I don't want to put words in

[2:40:04] your mouth, so I want to make sure that I'm being accurate in how I talked to

[2:40:07] council on Monday. Is um more supportive of option five

[2:40:13] open to consideration of the option seven that we're talking about?

[2:40:17] » Yeah. Recognizing that maybe option seven wasn't uh offered as a as um as an

[2:40:24] explicit option to task force, but it seemed to be reflected in their notes,

[2:40:28] right? Is that what I'm hearing? This item was specifically discussed.

[2:40:32] » That was specifically discussed. >> We didn't call it an option.

[2:40:35] » We didn't call it option seven, but we specifically asked, do you want

[2:40:40] » if if there was an option cuz that wasn't the option that we were given

[2:40:44] really from council, the direction originally given to council, but we

[2:40:47] heard some people saying, I don't want any height increase. So essentially we

[2:40:52] specifically asked them to go through that the option voting but then after

[2:40:57] that said would you rather have an option where there's we eliminate the

[2:41:04] waiver altogether to increase building height or stick with the option you

[2:41:09] voted for essentially options one through six

[2:41:13] » and they said we would six of them said I would stick to my top choice in the

[2:41:19] options one through and two of them said, "I would rather

[2:41:23] have us get rid of the waiver to increase."

[2:41:26] » Yeah. >> They didn't call it option seven, but

[2:41:30] Commissioner Carr has kind of coined it option seven. I mean, it wouldn't be

[2:41:34] forever. words until we define the waiver criteria like we like and maybe

[2:41:41] do what what is the I don't know if I'm assuming there's going to be a study for

[2:41:45] each of these buildings that get get approved as to what the impact is to the

[2:41:48] community services you know all the things that are the citizens are

[2:41:52] concerned about like is it going to put a strain on the police the fire the

[2:41:56] school whatever and and how is that going to be mitigated like like putting

[2:42:01] more um defined criteria on on the waiver and the study of of the approval

[2:42:05] of each building. >> I mean, my understanding is that um we

[2:42:09] would be updating the waiver menu during this process,

[2:42:13] » not at a later date. >> Yeah. So, the direction So, two items

[2:42:18] that really weren't contemplated, well, several items weren't really

[2:42:21] contemplated when we started all of this. one was looking at the menu items

[2:42:25] that that I mean it's part of the waiver language but originally when we were

[2:42:29] talking with council about this the wa the menu items weren't something we were

[2:42:33] discussing that arose out of the task force planning commission said yes we

[2:42:38] want that looked at council said yes we want that looked at so that has now been

[2:42:42] incorporated into this project even though it initially wasn't and refined

[2:42:46] language would come before you um if the waiver I mean we're well the waiver will

[2:42:51] stay in place it I mean the waiver is going to stay in place in some capacity

[2:42:54] at least to go down and out. So those menu items will be refined

[2:42:59] » as part of this process. >> And then the bonus floor also got

[2:43:03] incorporated. And then this discussion about eliminating the increase

[2:43:07] altogether came out of the council work session on May 18th that they wanted the

[2:43:14] um task force to weigh in on that question. What we did do, what we talked

[2:43:18] with council about and this is why we did the process of choose your preferred

[2:43:22] alternative and then do the elimination discussion is because if ultimately the

[2:43:29] decision is eliminate the building height increase and then 3 years, 5

[2:43:34] years staff comes back and says actually this waiver is needed then we have a

[2:43:40] preferred alternative already documented as a recommendation from the task force.

[2:43:45] » Yeah. Um and so that was the impetus behind behind why we had them go through

[2:43:50] the exercise of the 2356 and then say okay now that we have that how does that

[2:43:55] compare to an elimination of the increase altogether.

[2:44:00] And essentially that's what we're doing with you all now too is is is that same

[2:44:04] discussion because then we have that documented for the record

[2:44:08] » if ultimately the decision is to get rid of the increase that we have that for

[2:44:12] the record if we ever come back to it. So my my obser I guess what I'm trying

[2:44:18] to reconcile is the notes on the dots for option five and six were

[2:44:23] specifically saying that they that they would want to remove any any increase

[2:44:27] allowances for east for MU East. >> Yeah.

[2:44:30] » But then later they were asked would you would you be in favor of removing the

[2:44:34] waiver altogether across the board or having a preferred alternative

[2:44:38] » and so they weren't really given like an am I correct in understanding

[2:44:42] » 78? >> Yeah. Is there seven and a half or eight

[2:44:46] » or would seven just be like let's let's acknowledge the the notes that we heard

[2:44:51] and say like let let's remove the building waiver alto together and the

[2:44:54] building and and in the building allowances altogether for MU East but

[2:44:59] keep them for >> well the waiver up.

[2:45:01] » Yeah. >> Yeah. The waiver up. Yeah.

[2:45:03] » So that was um to your Yes, you are absolutely correct that there was not a

[2:45:08] consensus one way or another around around that discussion from the task

[2:45:12] force. they did not um come to a consensus around that. Um so that is

[2:45:19] what so the um so of the three people who made that note two of the three are

[2:45:24] the no are the are the two in the six to2.

[2:45:28] » So one of the people um voted for option five over the elimination of the waiver.

[2:45:34] That is also the same person who put option five as their number one but with

[2:45:38] the note. So, the two people who voted no were the two people who put option

[2:45:42] two as their number one. >> So,

[2:45:44] » gotcha. >> Um,

[2:45:46] » were those the task force people that were in the public for our discussion?

[2:45:51] Because I believe there were either two or three task force people here that

[2:45:55] spoke on the topic and told us they only want four floors.

[2:46:00] » Yes.

[2:46:04] » Do you have recommendations from everybody?

[2:46:07] » I think I have Well, okay. So, the only thing is about option seven. I think I

[2:46:10] still need to hear I I think I still need to hear Well, Chair Seanova, I

[2:46:15] think you're I'd like to hear from both Chair Seanova and Commissioner Hendricks

[2:46:20] where you two land between >> eliminating the waiver to increase

[2:46:24] altogether versus option five, option six.

[2:46:30] » First, go ahead. I I think where I'm leaning is towards where the the task

[2:46:36] force votes kind of landed, which is would which would not be option seven,

[2:46:42] right? So because that would eliminate the waiver. Sorry, my brain's getting

[2:46:45] foggy now because it's getting a little later. Um so so yeah, I I would prefer

[2:46:51] to kind of lean where the the task force landed. How however I think it's worth

[2:46:57] the council disc like what I'm hearing here. That's I think it's worth for

[2:47:01] council to discuss. I think that makes sense. Um

[2:47:04] » yeah, obviously it's not clear, right? Like there's no consensus. Like

[2:47:08] everyone's kind of like >> So that's where that's why council makes

[2:47:11] the big bucks, >> right?

[2:47:16] » Those dinners at the council meeting

[2:47:21] » and chair, where where are you? >> I'm leaning more towards

[2:47:26] option seven. for reasons stated, but if it the goal

[2:47:32] is more affordable h is like what are the priorities? If it is more affordable

[2:47:36] housing for the council, then that's going to have higher weight. So, you're

[2:47:40] going to have to go through, you know, value mapping in a way. uh they should

[2:47:46] as to like what is the higher priority, but I I do worry about having these

[2:47:50] waiverss and then having a town that doesn't feel like Wilsonville and being

[2:47:55] different from what we see in renderings versus what ends up being built and

[2:48:09] » cozy. >> Okay,

[2:48:10] » cozy. I was on the cozy. Um, I feel like I have good guidance for our discussion

[2:48:17] with council on Monday. Um, and I'm also very aware we are well beyond the time

[2:48:23] that was allocated for this discussion item. Um, but I'm happy if there's any

[2:48:27] other feedback that um, planning commission wants to make sure is

[2:48:30] conveyed to city council. I'm happy to take any final I think we got I think we

[2:48:35] got through all the questions that were the prompts. So,

[2:48:39] » I think the the menu items I'm a little still a little

[2:48:43] » so concerned with going with Rob about the

[2:48:48] » they're not prescriptive enough, but they're designed not to be prescriptive.

[2:48:52] So, that's a little hard for me to say these are valid menu items when I don't

[2:48:58] know what the menu items really mean. It's like

[2:49:00] » here's a big bucket. >> Do you like this? Do you like the red

[2:49:03] bucket or the yellow bucket? Well, I don't know what's in them, right? So

[2:49:06] » yeah, that's >> more clarity around that.

[2:49:08] » Um, so depending, so we do need to draft language around the menu items. And I

[2:49:15] think, um, unless anybody, so I'll I'll just run through them really quick. So

[2:49:21] these are the categories that we would use to inform how we write the code

[2:49:26] language is that what we heard from the task force. So this is basically tell me

[2:49:30] if you disagree is don't do a menu option for local hiring for development.

[2:49:36] Do include an option for a plaza with some programmed improvements. So it's

[2:49:42] basically active space that can be utilized. I like that.

[2:49:45] » Uh they were not in favor of a public rooftop amenity mainly because they felt

[2:49:49] like um that would be exorbitantly expensive and highly unlikely to occur.

[2:49:54] So essentially >> agree

[2:49:56] » why include it. um they currently public art is something identified at the time

[2:50:01] that the um menu items were written. Our um arts, culture and heritage commission

[2:50:06] did not exist. So what we um put as an option is to further refine that to say

[2:50:11] that the public art would run be approved through our public our arts,

[2:50:16] culture and heritage commission. Um, we talked about inclusive design and

[2:50:20] in particular this was um, this was motivated by what we're seeing our parks

[2:50:26] department do in that they don't just make a park meet ADA standards, they

[2:50:31] make inclusive design for all abilities and ages to engage in our parks. And so

[2:50:37] what we talked about there was looking at some design some design elements that

[2:50:42] would be inclusive beyond what is required by ADA. Um so they were

[2:50:46] generally supportive of that particularly if it was paired with you

[2:50:50] know an active open space. Um so where the supporting existing

[2:50:55] local business and town center came from is so one of the items that we hear all

[2:50:59] the time is that people want restaurants. Well tenant space needs to

[2:51:03] be built a certain way to be able to support food preparation and cooking.

[2:51:07] And so one of the items that we put here was um that the development would either

[2:51:12] have to make tenant construct their tenant improvements to allow for those

[2:51:15] types of uses or that they would provide a subsidy for tenant improvements to

[2:51:19] occur because that is a very high cost barrier for tenants to go into um

[2:51:24] commercial space. >> Was that the same for like child care

[2:51:27] establishments or is that a >> consideration? That's our next

[2:51:32] » category. Um so the next bullet point was eliminated because uh the task force

[2:51:37] didn't move forward with option three. So on m mitigating bu building impact

[2:51:42] um we talked about best practices for ground floor design for pedestrian

[2:51:47] experience. Um best practices on building form to create more air light

[2:51:53] and air. Um so those would be again getting to design standards. Those are

[2:51:57] more design standard type of elements. um creating a community gathering space

[2:52:02] internal to the building. One of the things that we particularly talked about

[2:52:06] was that would need to be structured in a way to make sure that that stays in

[2:52:10] place and is available to the whole community. So essentially it's like

[2:52:13] don't have a community room that only the people in the building can use

[2:52:17] » like an atrium that's accessible by everyone.

[2:52:20] » Yeah. um promoting environmental stewardship by already highlighted this

[2:52:24] is basically change the language that talks about have a lead a lead

[2:52:28] certification or earth advantage look at the actual categories and get to like

[2:52:33] list out the high probably you know the highest category that you can achieve

[2:52:38] and put that in as the standard and then to your point um commissioner car is

[2:52:42] building tenant ready spaces for desired businesses particularly restaurants um

[2:52:46] smaller spaces for local businesses that don't that can't afford you know a

[2:52:50] larger footprint and then child care facilities. So I think everyone was

[2:52:56] supportive of the things that we talked about in the mitigating the building

[2:52:59] impact. There was just some things that got eliminated from the community

[2:53:02] benefit one. Um so that is where we would write code language around. Now to

[2:53:09] your point um we don't have another work session currently planned for the

[2:53:14] planning commission. So it may be, you know, if it makes sense that what we may

[2:53:18] do is instead of having a public hearing on at your August meeting is that

[2:53:23] depending on the direction from council, it may be that um that turns into a work

[2:53:28] session to talk about the menu item language and then the public hearing

[2:53:31] gets pushed to September. >> And I don't mean to restart any debate.

[2:53:37] » Um just putting that out there, but a comment maybe for council and or maybe

[2:53:42] it doesn't work. But the first one that was eliminated was like hiring um local

[2:53:47] local >> people which would probably be pretty

[2:53:49] hard to enforce, right? Because you know if you can't hire somebody like you know

[2:53:54] you're just you're going to go out of business. On the flip side, could there

[2:53:58] be a requirement or a waiver for renting apartments, not lowinccome, but to like

[2:54:06] people who are teaching at the high school, people who are on the police

[2:54:09] force here, people who are on the fire department here, so that it makes them

[2:54:13] more part of our community as opposed to having to live farther away and commute

[2:54:16] in. And then that also solves some of the congestion problem. like is there

[2:54:20] something where they could put in like preferential leasing to people who are

[2:54:24] employed in Wilsonville in the public sector?

[2:54:28] » Um I'd probably have to look into that because that might run a foul with um

[2:54:32] the Fair Housing Act, but but it's something we can look at. Mhm.

[2:54:38] » talking to a lawyer.

[2:54:42] » I think um one of the one thing I'd like to throw out there around the rooftop

[2:54:47] bar, I while I agree that that's probably pretty unlikely to be selected

[2:54:52] as an option because it's prohibitively expensive. I I would suggest that we

[2:54:57] should be looking at raising the bar for the minimum of our menu options and not

[2:55:02] negotiating against ourselves for the maximums. So, like I I wouldn't remove

[2:55:07] that from a menu option. If a developer comes along and they just really like

[2:55:10] rooftop bars and they want to build one, even if it's exorbitantly more expensive

[2:55:14] than the other options, awesome. Like, cool. Why would we why would we remove

[2:55:18] that from a menu option? Um, unless we don't want rooftop bars in Wilsonville.

[2:55:24] Like, I I think that that's I don't think I would recommend removing menu

[2:55:27] items on the basis of us speculating that a developer wouldn't want to choose

[2:55:31] it because it's too expensive. I think we should be looking the other direction

[2:55:34] and elevating our menu options that are maybe a loophole for a developer to

[2:55:39] exploit.

[2:55:43] So, and just to be clear, so we would talk more about menu of options and like

[2:55:48] this kind of discussion if only if

[2:55:54] I'm trying to figure out like so >> cancel.

[2:55:57] » Yeah. So, but but if like if we move forward with option seven, then we

[2:56:01] wouldn't need to have that conversation. >> I think that if council's if if the

[2:56:07] direction coming out of council is um what they want to advance is language

[2:56:13] that eliminates the increase for building height. I the other question

[2:56:17] would be >> do you want us to still

[2:56:19] » okay >> adjust the menu items or do or not?

[2:56:24] Because I think a lot of these a lot of these items really do contemplate a

[2:56:28] taller building. >> Yes, that's what Yeah.

[2:56:30] » So, >> rooftop bar on a two

[2:56:36] » looking looking into the windows of the neighboring building.

[2:56:42] So, so it would be a question for for council if and and I guess um I'm trying

[2:56:48] not to repeat the mistakes of the past and then give the planning commission

[2:56:53] the language on you language that may need some adjustments during a public

[2:57:00] hearing that we're trying to address on the fly. So that's where I say if if we

[2:57:05] need to further refine menu item language that we may need to push back

[2:57:10] some of the actual public hearing so there can be dialogue around that.

[2:57:13] » Yes. Thank you. >> I don't want that addendum as we're

[2:57:17] doing a public. >> It is very challenging to write code in

[2:57:22] the middle of a public hearing. >> It's been done before.

[2:57:28] » Sounds good. So look, sounds like we've had our discussion and

[2:57:32] » can I do >> I think so. There's one one little like

[2:57:37] clerical recommendation I'd make is sure between options five and six if the MU

[2:57:42] West >> uh like ver if the verbiage is different

[2:57:46] but the meaning is the same. So if if they're meant to be the same, can we

[2:57:50] make sure that the verbiage actually matches between the two?

[2:57:53] » We'll do definitely.

[2:57:58] Any other comments or questions? Okay. All right. Uh hearing no further

[2:58:04] discussion. Thank you so much. That concludes our work session. Thank you.

[2:58:09] Okay.

[2:58:12] Next we haveformational item

[2:58:17] our agenda and that's city council action meetings.

[2:58:21] Uh there's no staff presentation on this one. Um,

[2:58:26] did anybody have any questions or discussion about the council meeting?

[2:58:30] No. No. Okay. All right. In the 2026 PC work program, planning commission work

[2:58:37] program. Things are good. >> Yep.

[2:58:40] » Yeah. Looks good to me. >> All right.

[2:58:43] Then I motion to adjourn our meeting. Thank you.

Planning Commission Meeting, June 10, 2026

Transcript