Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

One. Progress.

Good evening and welcome to this March 9 Camby Planning Commission session. We will get started with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Thank you very much. On to consent items, we have draft meeting minutes, 03/24/2025. Do we have a motion to adopt the draft meeting minutes?

I make a motion that we pass the meeting minutes for what what which month?

03/24/2025.

March March 24? Mhmm. 2025? How can that that's not right, is it?

Yeah. We had that. It was it was a straggler from

It it is a straggler.

From last year? Yeah. Woah. Okay. Good. I'll make a move that we go ahead and pass that. Get it off the table.

And do we have a second?

I second.

And Judy second. Okay. So by a rote, do we need to do roll call for these ones?

No. You know, just unanimous.

Alright. So all in favor of, passing the draft meeting minutes 03/24/2025, say aye. Aye. All against, zero. The ayes have it, four zero. Draft meeting minutes, 04/14/2025. Do we have a motion to adopt draft meeting minutes from 04/14/2025?

I make a motion that we adopt the, minutes from 04/14/2025.

And a second. Thank you, Judy. Alright. So, draft meeting minutes 04/14/2025. All in favor of adoption?

Aye.

Aye. All against? Zero. Draft meeting minutes will be adopted as written. Okay. Moving on to citizen input on non agenda items. This is an opportunity for the members of the public to address the Planning Commission on non agenda items. Each person will be given three minutes to speak. Staff and Planning Commission will make every effort to respond to questions raised during citizens' input before the meeting ends or as quickly as possible thereafter. Do we have any citizen input on non agenda items?

We do not. So we will move on to old business. There is none. New business, there is none, which then takes us to our public hearing section of the meeting. Tonight, there is a matter before the hearing body that requires a public hearing.

All interested persons in attendance shall be heard on the matter. If you wish to testify on these matters, please fill out a public testimony card and and give it to the recording secretary. When your name is called, please step forward to the microphone at the front table, state your name, address, and interest in the matter. For longer presentations, proponents and opponents may buy time from one another. In doing so, those either in favor or oppose may allocate their time to a spokesperson who will represent the entire group.

All questions must be directed through the chair, that is myself. Any evidence to be considered must be submitted to the hearing body for public access. All written testimony received both for and against shall be summarized by staff and presented briefly to the hearing body during the staff report. The public hearing will be conducted as follows, staff presentation, then questions by the hearing body or staff. Chair will open the public, hearing for testimony.

Applicant will present then the proponents and then any opponents and then any rebuttal statement. And, times will be given out for each one of those. And then the chair will close the public hearing, questions if any by the hearing body at that time, and then discussion by the hearing body. A decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing on each matter, or it will be continued to a date certain in the future. This will be the only notice of that date you will receive.

Does anybody have any questions about the procedure of the public hearings? Seeing none in person or online, I will then turn it over, to, commissioner Hardy, to discuss, I'm sorry, planning director Hardy to discuss the CAMBI comprehensive plan.

Good evening, Chair Ellison and Planning Commissioners. Great to see you all again. And just wanted to kick this off. I have Steve Faust here from 3J Consulting. He's gonna be helping us through the presentation. And Ryan Potter with our group, he's our planning manager. Tonight we'll be addressing that can be comprehensive plan update. Just I wanted to say a few things about that and I'll kick off the discussion. This is a three year culmination effort to update the comprehensive plan. It's been completed with robust community outreach in the process.

We're looking for a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council. Their hearing will be on April 15 for their City Council hearing for adoption. So tonight we're looking for a recommendation from you all to forward to them. We'll be going through our presentation. This can be totally interactive if there are questions as we go through the presentation items.

So, with that, I'm going to start out with our code criteria on comprehensive plans and what we base that on. We'll then be going into the statewide planning goals and how this is consistent with statewide planning goals. There's also some minor map, comprehensive plan map changes, not zone changes, comprehensive plan map changes. We'll be going through as recommendations as cleanup items to make for consistency between underlying base zoning and development and the comprehensive plan. Some of these we're not sure what the history is as to why there there's inconsistency.

Some of them may be Scribner's errors, but the base of this goes back to the eighties. So we do not know completely where the reasoning was or if they were just not picked up before. So that we'll be touching on that towards the end on those those comprehensive plan map changes. So with the staff report, go ahead and launch into that next slide, Ryan. So there's a number of items that are part of the evaluation criteria and I'm just gonna go ahead and go to the next slide, Ryan, on the approval criteria.

I'm gonna go through these one by one. The remainder of the comprehensive plan of the city and the plans and policies of the county, state, and local districts. And this is to be consistent with that in order to preserve functions and local aspects of land conservation and development. The there there needs could you go back one slide, Ryan, please. Sorry.

So the legislative amendment standards and judging whether or not a legislative plan amendment shall be approved, the Planning Commission and Council shall consider the remainder of the comprehensive plan of the city and the plans and policies of the county, state, and local districts in order to preserve functions and local aspects of land conservation and development. Next slide, Ryan. And so that, just to cover that basically, this comprehensive plan update, it's consistent with county, state, local school district policies. It's integrating a number of things you all have already seen which have been adopted by the City Council which are the housing needs analysis, housing production strategy, economic opportunity analysis, historic preservation plan, and natural resource plans that have been adopted through the process. So there is consistency with the conference of plan update with these plans and it is internally consistent with those items that are listed there.

Next criteria. A public need for the change. So the basis of the comprehensive plan goes back to 1981. And so that process is a public need for the change. We see that as an obvious thing since many things have been updated.

And now we're reflecting those updates of the housing needs analysis, housing production strategy, economic opportunity analysis, historic preservation plan, natural resources plans and hazard situation, adoption of hazards plans within the comprehensive plan. Those are all integrated into the plan. There's been a significant community outreach, as I mentioned, over a three year period to develop goals, policies, and strategies for the comprehensive plan. So we see that there is a need for the change to update the plan. Whether the proposed change will serve the public need better than any other change which might be expected.

And again, the comprehensive plan resulted in a large community visioning process, including a mapping process, which we sought input from the community over many different public forums. We're gonna go into that a bit and with the stay away planning goals, we'll go into the detail of that. But it was a large robust outreach. We did seek community input throughout the entire process and including the mapping process. Looks like Craig is coming on as well.

So next slide, Ryan. Whether the change will preserve and protect the health, safety and general welfare of residents of the community, the comprehensive plan is reflective of the prior adopted elements and preserves and protects health, safety and general welfare of the community and reflects community input. So we believe that has been met as well. Next slide, Ryan. Consistency with statewide planning goals. I'm going to turn it over to C. Faust to go through those and then I'll be back to the mapping once that's done.

Good evening, chair Allison and planning commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. My name is Steve Faust, with three j consulting and I

was

fortunate to to be chosen to work with staff in the in the city on this comprehensive plan process. Just a quick reminder, the comprehensive plan is the long range plan that guides future growth and development in the Canby urban area. It establishes a framework to guide all land use and related activities in line with the community's vision and aims to ensure orderly and efficient development that meets the community's needs. This slide just illustrates the components of the comprehensive plan. As Don mentioned several times, we engaged in a robust, visioning process that resulted in a community vision included in the plan.

We updated, where possible, background information with some of the reports that Don mentioned earlier, the Clackamas County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Economic Opportunities Analysis, Housing Needs Analysis, and Housing Production Strategy, utility master plans, and the transportation system plan. The comprehensive plan is implemented over time through a variety of tools and measures, including Canby's development code, zoning map, annexation of land, urban renewal plans, urban growth management programs, capital improvement plan, and other city plans and programs. So, if you recall, we met with you back in October 2025, and from October through, and, you know, at the meeting and following the meeting, you all, had an opportunity to submit comments. Thank you very much for doing that. Following your meeting, city council met twice to go through the the goals and policies and strategies, in December, excuse me, of 2025, and we also received comments from the Department of Land Conservation and Development.

And what I'll be presenting to you tonight is, how we we addressed the comments that we received from, all of you and those two other bodies. Start with goal one, citizen involvement. I think from this group in particular, there, was a desire to to show that citizen involvement efforts are designed to reach all can be community members, so we clarified that. Excuse me. Outreach for this, for this comprehensive plan update included six community summits, six pack meetings, four TAC meetings, planning commission and city council briefings, community conversations, tabling at community events, and online questionnaires, and that's all included.

And I neglected to mention last time you had kind of a crude word document, but hopefully, you all got a chance to look at the new, formatted version, which hopefully we succeeded in designing to be attractive and and easy to read for the community. We also clarified that the city, that I believe this was a city council request. The city will strive to make meetings accessible, including tran translation services with advanced request. And then we added a strategy, for city staff and planning commission to review the comprehensive plan at least every ten years. Goal two, land use.

We added language about preventing, minimizing, or mitigating conflicts between land uses, in particular, talking about noise and light pollution and traffic impediment and impacts. We modified the language to encourage preservation of downtown urban form through overlays and historic preservation. We modified there was a a a strategy, I believe, that, spoke of ensuring areas of higher density that was modified to say encourage areas of higher density. And then, just a language issue. We replaced land use map with the term comprehensive plan map to make it very clear that we were talking about the comprehensive plan map versus the zoning map.

Next slide, please. Natural resources. This is goal five. Scenic and historic areas and open space. We added, some language.

Some of the information is is a little bit old, but, DLCD asked us to add back in, some information about soils, wildlife habitat, groundwater resources, excuse me, and pre settlement history in Canby. We reduced consolidated and clarified content from the historic preservation plan. That was a major point of discussion of the planning commission when we met, and we really, did a lot of work, and Don did, with the, commission to, narrow down, how how that plan was represented in the comprehensive plan. We added mention of the Canby Historic Landmarks Commission and its role and added information about the Canby Historic Preservation Plan to be adopted as part of this comprehensive plan. We acknowledged, and this was a discussion with the Department of Land Conservation and Development that the Canby Wetlands and riparian in inventory has not been it was adopted by the city, I believe, but it has not been approved by the Department of State Lands and that a local wetland inventory approved by the Department of State Lands is needed.

And that's something that staff will be working on, securing funds for it to do in the coming years. Excuse me. We added information about how riparian areas and wetlands are protected through overlay zones and added language about adopting floodplain regulations consistent with, the FEMA biological opinion for Oregon. Goal six, again, reinforcing what we added in in the land use goal two. So for air, water, and land resources quality, we strengthened policies to address noise and other nuisances.

Noise, pollution was a common theme that we heard, at the public open the last public open house that we held on the draft comprehensive plan. Goal seven is natural hazards. We added a policy to require more than one ingress and egress for evacuation in and adjacent to natural hairs hazard areas and added language about using, the Canby Public Works design standards to ensure safety for development of steep slopes. Goal eight for recreation needs. There was an error in the the city's standards, so now it reads the correct standard, is a minimum of 10 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents.

We added a policy to for the city to identify and pursue grants for park development and maintenance, and we modified, I think per city council direction, a strategy that referred to creating a parks district, and now it, refers to creating a parks funding source. Goal nine, again, is part of that effort to to modify modify the the policies and reduce the number of policies regarding historic preservation to consolidate those. We removed some from goal nine since they are primarily located in the goal five chapter. For goal 10 housing, we removed a strategy related to encouraging compatible design. We added some language related to fair housing.

We added a strategy to encourage medium and high density residential zone designations in areas being annexed by the city, and we added a strategy to develop sufficient utility capacity to accommodate, future growth. Goal 11, we added a strategy this is public facilities and services. We added a strategy to notify the Department of Land Conservation and Development when updating adopted public utility plans. We modified a strategy to provide clarity on annual budgeting. We added a strategy to modify the system development charge fee schedules with scaled charges based on home size, and we added a strategy to coordinate with the Canby School District on long term facility planning.

I'll also just mention briefly that the Canby Public Utility is updating its five year strategic plan. That draft is not ready. We really wanted to get that information into this draft plan, we still hope to do so, but it's all contingent on receiving the information from Canby Public Utility. Goal 12, transportation. We added some more information that was requested from DLCD about the Malala Forest Road Trail, and, our sub consultant, DKS Associates, went through the policies and added some language, added language to make some of them more specific to Kandi.

DLCD felt some of them were too general in nature, so we did some work there. Goal 13, energy. We removed and modified language regarding historic preservation, again, in alignment with those changes to goal five. We added a policy to address electric grid issues, removed references. There were two strategies, I think, related to electric vehicles that have been removed, and then broadened the strategy about solar panels to include alternative generation sources.

Just a language change there. And then finally, goal 14, urbanization. Again, in alignment with goal five, we removed strategies referencing historic and cultural resources. We added or modified information about the Clackamas County and City Of Canby urban growth management agreement and management of our urban growth areas, and then added a strategy to notify DLCD of annexation and urban growth boundary amendments. One final note is that we have, we will be adding one page to the end of this document that lists all those plans that Don mentioned and I mentioned.

We're gonna, track those, the the dates and the names of those plans, all that, have been adopted by the city and therefore are are part of this comprehensive plan.

We're gonna pause there if there's any questions on any of the material that we've presented so far. We'll continue. Okay. So we'll now jump into the comprehensive plan map changes and again, that summary that I gave before I'm gonna give again. Most of these changes are clean up.

They're to reflect existing conditions. These are comprehensive plan changes, not zoning. Most of most of these are to clean up and basically represent the underlying land use that's there and also the underlying zoning. So that the zoning and the comprehensive plan would be consistent. That is an aspirational objective of the state is to have consistent comprehensive plan and zoning.

And we'll dive right into that here and go through this. So just kind of as an overview, I touched on the first bullet point. The second bullet point I'm going to dive into a bit more in detail. The Area J area, which we're that's the area out by Jarbo's restaurant. That area has not been an extended the city yet.

It's in our urban growth boundary. Our current comprehensive plan from 1981 back in the day still had a designation of a desired designation of that area to have a mixed use area which would include high density and medium density along with commercial development in that area. And it even called out in specific what the acreage was that was supposed to be in those areas, 12 acres of high density residential as a minimum, and a minimum of 15 acres of medium density residential. And then it does recognize it called that the Stern Wheeler at the time, not Jarbar's Restaurant, which it now became, but it recognized the commercial activity in that area as well. So that part of the discussion is gonna dive into a bit more detail, but just as a prelude when we get to that, many things have changed over time.

We have Walnut Street extension that's out there. We've had housing needs and housing production strategy adoption. And there is definitely a need for more diversified housing. And that area was designated as well as being an area for that in the current comprehensive plan. We would like to carry that forward.

And there's also been housing efficiency measures that have been adopted as well that would be supportive of that. So with that, I'm going to dive into the changes. The first change we're identifying here is near Knightsbridge area. And you see on the left side, that's MDRs, medium density residential on the left side and then on the right side is LDR, which is proposed to go from medium density residential to low density residential. Just a bit about that area and I have an air photo that will follow here that will give more detail.

It's a change from medium to low medium density to low density residential. There's one parcel here. The site is extremely constrained. There is a home on it. There is repairing and protection and utility overhead lines on a chunk of the property and part of the site is within the hundred year flood plain. So in our view, there's really no room for further development of this and it's constrained. It's also the zoning would not change.

It would

be low density residential zoning is what it has. We are proposing low density residential comp plan designation on this area. And this again is to better the idea behind this is to clean up and better match up with the current conditions and the fact that we see no capacity for a change there that would be more medium density and it's in its nature. So that's the first one. Dan, Commissioner Ewer, did you have questions?

Second area is near Redwood. Off of Redwood Street and that would again be a medium density residential on the left current designation going to low density residential. This area is fully built out. It is zoned low density residential and that would the comprehensive plan change would be to be consistent with the current zoning in that area. Again, we see this area largely built out with no space or capacity for infill.

So this is the area you can see pretty clearly. This is fully built out. All those low density residential. We don't really see a need to have a medium density residential comprehensive plan designation on top of this property. So that that's the second one.

Third one is off of Ivy and it's in the area near between 7th between 8th and excuse me between about 8th and 10th off of Ivy. This area is again zoned highway commercial, but it's comprehensive plan designation is low density residential. Not sure why that happened or what the history was behind that, but the existing uses out there are highway commercial and their nature consistent with the zoning. There is a sign company on the South end, a locksmith and auto repair company, and a pump and drilling company. All those uses would be highway commercial uses.

And so the comprehensive plan change would end up just being reflective of the highway commercial zoning out there. The zoning is the driver here. So I mean, on the lane use perspective, it would just make the zoning consistent with the comprehensive plan designation. I think this one feels to me like it's a scrivener's error, but that again is just to make this consistent between the comp plan and the zoning. Next one is area J.

And again, I talked a bit about this in the beginning of this. This is about changing the mix of medium density and low density residential that you see on the left hand side of the screen here and kind of reshaping that, that mixed density that's called out in our current comprehensive plan, it's something that would work well in this area. And what we've done here is try to shape those boundaries so that they're actually following the comprehensive plan boundaries, follow property lines instead of this irregular shape that is on the left, which is our current boundary between low density and medium density. You can you can see the shape of Walnut Street extension going through this property. That's that right away that's through there.

It kind of s's through. That shows where that's at. And the piece that you see on the right that's in red that's Highway Commercial that's not on the left. The northern piece of that would be Jarbo's restaurant. The southern piece where it splits, the road splits is the Lions property And that's where that intersection is going to be there.

So that whole area was looked at as consistent with highway commercial activities and because it has the access point there. We looked at the other areas that just spread out along property lines and make them a bit more consistent with medium density and low density. And then we put in some high density as well along Haines. And the end result is that the net changes are about five additional acres of high density residential, 12 acres of medium density residential from the baseline and about eight acres of highway commercial. So those are the designations.

Again, these are comprehensive plan designations. They're not zoning. They would have the applicants would have to go through future annexation and rezoning of their properties to be consistent to actually get the zoning in that area since it's outside of our boundary. But that area is going to be changing with Walnut Street Extension and access through there. We see there is a strong need for diversification of housing that's based on our housing needs analysis and housing production strategy.

Also with the fact that there's a road going through there, Walnut Street Extension provides a really good access point for a newer development in that area that is more of a greenfield than many places and can be where things are already pretty well built out. So that's that's area j. And this is again a photo of that. You can see the s shaped of where the right away comes through there and the county actually because there was that dedication show showed that. The road obviously hasn't been built, but that's where it would go.

So that's area J there. So did we go wanna go to next steps here? And so as I mentioned at the beginning, the next step would be for you all to review this and make a recommendation to the council for the April 15 hearing. There is a state acknowledgment process, which is a twenty one day appeal process once the council approves the comprehensive plan, which we are not expecting. We work really closely with Department of Land Conservation and Development on the entirety of the plan.

They have a strong liaison person that works with us on this and they're aware of all the pieces that are part of that. So with that, we're gonna stop there and ask you all if you have questions or input for us before we get into the public testimony.

Are there any questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Geroche, we can't see you and commissioner Llewelling, we can't see you. But if you have any questions, speak to time.

I have one quick question if I could, Don. On on Slide 33 On the Ivy South Ivy Street

Sounds like she's talking.

Hang on, Judy. The volume is down in in in in the chambers here. Hang on a second. We're gonna try to fix that.

Sorry.

Yeah. It is can you bring that up, Brian? Yeah. There you go.

Judy, do you wanna say try again?

Try again, Judy. I'm sorry.

Oh, no. I'm sorry. Is that okay now?

Maybe it's her volume.

Hold on just a minute. We've got the, audio visual guys jumping in to help. I apologize.

That's alright.

Judy, one more time. Let's see if we got you.

Can you hear me now?

Yep. That worked. Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Quick question on slide 33, Don, the South Ivy Highway Commerce discussion. So South Ivy in that area, you know, it's like there are some houses along there. 33. Yeah. There's a few houses along South Ivy, and then there's this, like you said, a group of, like, a pump company and a church and a couple others.

So that area to me, it's ripe for high density housing, but how would and I you know, so those are existing businesses that have been there for a while, but how do we reconcile? I know you said we need to change the zoning to match the existing use, but what it how does that affect us in the future if we decide, no, that really is a better area for high density housing?

I mean, this is designated as highway commercial in this area. They have a zoning right based on highway commercial regardless of the comprehensive plan. And great, great question about, you know, if we had some vision for that area. I think given the fact that these people invested large amounts of money into their businesses, I don't think those will go away quickly. Even if there was a designation that we wanted on that property, so it would not be a quick fix and would probably be rather expensive to buy that property out to redevelop it.

I mean, great, great point. I mean, in the end here, if the council and the Planning Commission decide they don't want to do anything with this, that property still has highway commercial zoning at the end of the day. And so this is more of a cleanup, but it's a good question. If we were to suppose that we wanted to make it something different, then I think part of that would be it'd be a bit easier if it was more on the vacant side than it would be if it has buildings on it, which I think is gonna be super difficult to transition someone out of those areas. And then you have the building to deal with, which you probably don't want to tear down and it probably is not going to work for housing.

How much of a building?

Yeah. Know

there's I'm some sure that businesses are great and they've been there a while, but it doesn't look to me like they put a lot of money into that those spaces. But anyway, so I didn't, what's the change we're proposing?

So this is an oddity. So for some reason, this is low density residential comprehensive plan designation. Currently zoned highway commercial. So we're proposing a comprehensive plan designation of highway commercial to match up with the zoning. That's really the gist of this is it's a cleanup.

Okay. All right. That answered. Sorry, Don. Thank you.

Yeah, no worries. No, all good questions.

So I have two questions, Don.

Yeah.

So first of you know, this town's gonna grow like weeds here in the next few years. Are are we set on every ten years for the company? I I almost think five years should be, at least initially. That can always be changed, but that's what I would push for is look at this again in five years because I think the changes here in this town with this high density is gonna it's gonna explode. The other question I had is these maps are a little hard to read, but it helps with you putting in the other aerial maps with the streets and stuff, so it gives us an idea of what we're talking about.

But anything north or territorial I'm sorry I was late. I my Internet went down. I had to reboot the thing. But did we talk about that? You know, I I don't understand what's going on North Of Territorial, how this how this how the growth boundary is gonna go north. Have we talked about that? Are we gonna talk about that?

Other than for these map changes, Commissioner Llewelyn, this is the only thing we're gonna talk about tonight. This is this is the comp plan. Mean, we will we'll get into that with the comp with the UGB expansion piece when we start to get into that. You all will have a really strong role in that. We're gonna be getting into concept planning. We just started that work with ODOT and they're funding a fairly large grant for us to do the concept planning. But this is gonna be really just focused on the current city limits and the current urban growth boundary only.

So, yeah. So I guess my next question would be, and I would be for having comprehensive land use planning, looking at this plan every five years versus ten years. Because I think growth is gonna be on steroids here with this. That's just my personal thought.

And it's we we can absolutely pass that along as as a as a thought to the council or that's gonna We wanna make that I mean, we could do it We could target five We could do maybe five to ten years, so that's the bookend. There's many things going on, and I think it is good to not wait ten years on these items. I think that out of the comp out of what your question was, out of the conceptual planning, there will be other discussions I believe counsel will be getting into as well, which is we will know what the infrastructure needs are for those areas and we will probably need to get into discussions around whether there'd be a reinitiation of the URA issues on those for those areas because that would be a lot like what happened at Pioneer Industrial Park where we had Sequoia and it got built through those funds in the past. That would be my vision of what this starts to look like. So that's again more about the boundary expansion piece than it is about the city limits.

Steve.

Just just for reference, I believe previously to this change to ten years, it was at seven years, just for context.

A good point. I think that, you know, I mean, I think in in terms of, like, keeping it fresh, I think that's important and instead of, like, a document that it doesn't have its value, it's a good point.

And just just for clarity sake, who is it this body or is it the city council that owns the review timeline, whether it be seven, five or 10?

The council will make that decision. I mean, we can obviously put that in there and have them weigh in on what they think that should be in terms of a timeline for a review. They'll ask staff what our recommendation is on that. I think we would be open to a five to ten year horizon. My only hesitancy is five years seem, you know, it's pretty short. You know, once we have this done, I mean, I understand it. Think, I mean, could it be six years? I mean, we target five years and and it ends up being six years, you know, I I just don't know if it'll actually be five years exactly. That would be my concern.

So you could initiate

it at five years, but

it wouldn't be done until seven years. Is that what you're saying?

Or I I I really don't know how long that would take, but yes. Yeah.

I think that would but I think that would make it it would force it to be shorter than

longer. Yes. Yeah.

You know, they can always change and say, oh, you know, when we look at

this year, we can look at it in a year or two.

But I think if we say

ten years, they're gonna wait the full ten years. That was the problem before, and I Mhmm. I'm telling you, I'll be shocked if we're not looking at this again in five years.

And the the strategy is just to review the document. You wouldn't necessarily go through a three year process like we just did. It would more be it it's the review that the strategy requires, not necessarily any updates. It's it's the review.

Yep. Okay. No. Good point, Steve. Yeah. So we're taking notes. That will be passed on for discussion.

Commissioner Welling, is that was that everything on that point, or did you have another comment? I'm good. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Alright. For this body, go ahead, vice chair.

I am going to go back to the transportation thing. I know it's kind of beating a a dead horse, but here we go. On slide 22 of 38, we talked about transportation, and I realized that we're probably gonna be forwarding our recommendation on to the city council without the transportation piece of this being completed, which I get it. But being that we have an opportunity, I would really, really like to see verbiage in here, and I brought this up before when we were talking about the transportation plan, I would like to see verbiage in here where we talk about the city's desire for outlets, as far as future, connections, so we can we have the the groundwork so we we can start conversations with the county and the state as far as radio road connections to get us out of town and to get us in town. You know, if we keep this eighty eighty thing that we've got going on where 80% of our people are leaving town in the morning and and 80% are coming in, you know, we got this thing going on.

If that persists and we can't seem to get that fixed, need better roads. And so I think it would behoove us to add into this, even in the comprehensive plan, short list of of roads, you know, and just just, you know, pick four or five, you know, whether they be Barlow, Territorial Township, 13th, Ames, a list of roads that we would envision that someday we'd like to see those roads continue on, you know, to Woodburn, Oregon City, Wilsonville, different places that that we were putting it out there that we we see a need for connections and that we we would be able to start those conversations with the county and the state and that we have it in our plan so that we can start those conversations at some point. And I realize that it needs to be in our transportation plan, but I think it should also be in this document also. And I I just I just think that that's really, really critical that that people see that and and we have those that verbiage in there. It just gives us another another leg to stand on as far as our intent and our need.

It's just it's just gonna be critical moving into the future. So I think that's important. I also agree with Commissioner Llewellyn. I think we should put that in there at five. It might get done at seven. It probably won't get done till ten, but I think five would be a a great flag to to shoot for. So

Great, great comments and I the part I think we could add, I know you all have not seen the transportation system plan, that will be March 23 for the transportation system plan. There is a list of aspirational roads that I think largely address planning commissioner Ewart's comments. And I think that there could be some language that we could come up with on those aspirational roads that you will all be discussing. Those are roads that are not really within the funding package because they are so far out and we don't always control what may be in the county or state obligation pieces of it, but they are. We asked DKS associates specifically for that to say there's been a large amount of commentary on this about that.

And so we don't wanna lose that in the transportation system plan, but to have that information in there as to what those are. And I I think something about tracking those, and I don't know what the exact verbiage would be, but I think we could add that into the transportation system plan. Really? And to the comp have the consistency. Yeah.

That that that's all I've got.

Okay.

Commissioner Hutchinson, any any questions from you? Comments?

None from me. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner McCarthy.

I'd like to say I agree with commissioner Luelling on the five year review.

I think that's a great idea. I don't have any questions though. Thanks.

Okay. So does that conclude the presentation portion or is there still more No, to

that was it. And before we lock in, when we open it up for public commentary, would like to read the letter that you all received in hard copy for especially for those online just as the beginning before we do any more testimony. Oh. Yeah. Yeah. So if you if you you you could just do you wanna open up the pub

Open open up the public hearing? Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So at this time, we will open up the public hearing for testimony. Planning director Hardy, you would like to read the Yeah. Letter from Planning Commission staff.

Thank you, Chair Ellison. We just received a letter this morning from the Fair Housing Council on Housing Lands Advocates, and it's very positive. It's nice to receive these these kind of letters. And as dear commissioners, this letter is submitted jointly on behalf of housing land advocates and Fair Housing Council of Oregon. Both HLA and FHCO are nonprofit organizations practices that ensure an adequate and appropriate supply of affordable housing for all Oregonians.

Both the HLA and FHCO command the city of Canby and support the adoption of CPA 26 dash o one TA twenty six zero one. Those are aka comprehensive plan update. Planning staff created a detailed staff report with goal 10 findings that made a compelling case that this new comprehensive plan will help the city meet its housing needs. This will be used as a good example for other jurisdictions. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, John Miller. So I'm very pleased to receive that. That was unexpected, that we were gonna get comments from them and I just wanted to read that in the record.

Thank you very much. And at this point then the applicant has for all intents and purposes, spoken correct. So we would move on to proponents. Yes. Absolutely. Yep. And if I'm understanding this correctly, we have, Ethan Manuel as a proponent. Please come on up and, address the hearing body.

Thank you very much. My name is Ethan Manuel. I live at 1664 North Sweetgum Street here in Canby. So chair Ellison, vice chair Ewart, commissioners, appreciate you giving me an opportunity to to come talk to you tonight for a few minutes. I'm here in support of this process in the in this comprehensive plan update.

In addition to being a long term resident at Canby, I was also one of the early members or at at the beginning of the public advisory committee. So I've got to watch this process over the last three ish years that Don's describing. And so I wanted to come forward and and kinda speak to you from that perspective of having watched this all go by. That public advisory committee has dealt with some things that you've already approved, like the housing needs analysis, the economic needs analysis. It's dealt with things that you're hearing about tonight, as well as what you'll hear about in a couple weeks in the TSP update.

So that body met a number of times, which you saw in the presentation, and got to provide input. In addition to that, I attended all of the the community summits, did the survey. I saw many of you at the community summit, so I appreciate your participation as well. One of the things I'm proud of in this process is the community participation. I know at times when you look at the sheer numbers of people who did the survey or participated in the community summits compared to the total population of Canby, it may not seem like we've done enough.

Have we reached enough? But for the people who participated, it was important. And we heard from some of the consultants that said that the participation for the CAMBI process that we went through was at the highest tier of what they see for other communities around the state. So they do this all the time. They get to see kind of, you know, how communities respond, and they can can be responded very well.

And that that's not just the public advisory committee, but that's Don and his team, that's the consultants, that's this body, yourselves, it's the the city council. I mean, I think it's been a very robust process, as Don mentioned, and I I think we've ended up with a good product. So with that said, I'm I'm just here to voice my support for having participated in it and got to see it kinda go by. So, I appreciate that and ask you to recommend you know, advance your recommendation for approval to city council.

Thank you very much for, making time and Yeah. And sharing your comments with us. Appreciate that.

Don't have any questions, that's all I wanted to express. So I appreciate the opportunity.

Before we cut you loose, do we have any commissioners that have questions or comments? And none online.

I I have a question. If you were to do it any different, would you have any any suggestions as to how we could do it differently?

Honestly, I'm not an expert in this space. The consultants have a a pretty good idea of the framework. From my perspective, it worked well. I think one of the challenges that we had, and Don probably knows this better than anybody else around, is how many things we've got in motion right now between the urban growth boundary expansion, conference plan update, the TSP update. I mean, he he is a man that can clearly juggle because we've had to deal with all of these things.

And getting all of those things sequenced in has been challenging, I'm sure. I do think from having watched the process, he's and the team and the consultants have done a pretty good job of trying to bring us as the advisory committee, you as a body, the city council as a body along in the process. And so it's not like he showed up one day and said, here, let's approve this. It's really a lot of work sessions and those sorts of things. So I appreciated that. I thought that was useful. I don't have any recommendations for changes. Honestly, I thought it worked pretty well.

Okay. Alright. Good. Thank you.

Yep. Any other commissioners? Nope. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you very much for making time for us. Appreciate it. Any other proponents? I don't see any online or no submittals anyway.

Nope.

Nope. Okay. At this time, we will open it up for any opponents. Are there any opponents that would like to speak? I don't see any online and none in person, which I take it there's no rebuttal needed at this at this point as a result. So, director Hardy, unless there's any objection, I'm gonna propose that we close the public hearing portion at this time, and open it up to any questions amongst the hearing body. So at this time, we will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any any comments or discussion items that we'd like to have now that the session is closed?

I'd just like to say that I I I agree with commissioner Ewart that, I'd like to see more in the transportation plan, and I think that's clearly in the first one. All this stuff gets set but never happens. I'd like to see that different going forward. So I I think this needs to be spelled out as much as we possibly can here.

Okay. I just wanna make sure I'm tracking with you on that one, commissioner Luellings. So you're saying more discussion around the TSP or more discussion before we adopt this phase of the or make our recommendation on this phase going to counsel?

I don't know why we couldn't move this forward, but put in there that we want more discussion on the TSP.

Oh,

okay. You know you know, the the first one that happened some how many years ago, forty years ago, none of that stuff ever happened, and we're paying the price for it today. You know, this stuff needs to happen. Mhmm. This isn't a this isn't a dream.

So that that's my argument from the first time. It's like, this also sounds great,

but if you have people that start fighting it, then

it never happens, and that's what happens. So So I I think we need to have more discussion on this.

I think we need to have

a a better plan on the transportation.

So is that something, director Hardy, that we can dive into a little bit deeper?

With the transportation system plan and and maybe the bridge here, commissioner Welland, I we we're gonna come back with you're echoing what Commissioner Ewart said. We're going to come back with some suggested language that we can add on as a strategy for the transportation goal for the comprehensive plan that links the aspirational road projects that are in the transportation system plan, which you all have not seen yet. You're gonna see that on March 23, which talk about those things that commissioner Ewart talked about. And you will have a full opportunity to review the transportation system plan on March 23 as well and in detail. We'll have DKES associates there to discuss that.

But for this comp plan, takeaway I believe is to come up with some language about linking the aspirational road projects that link this community to other communities as a strategy in our comprehensive plan.

And if I heard commissioner Llewellyn correctly, your concern is around not just talking about it, but the actual implementation. How do we how do we set a plan that we can be assured will be implemented? Is that what you're after?

I think

if you look at forty years if you look at forty years ago when they did this, nobody ever thought growth was gonna come to Cambie. Well, growth came to Cambie, and it's gonna come even faster now. I I think we gotta get real on our transportation plan. This can't be just verbiage that, oh, in twenty years, oh, yeah. Well, that didn't happen. It's like, there's a real problem. We better get on this. We better have some real solutions that we can get on top of right now.

Heard.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions at this time? Commissioner Diruch?

Yeah. I just wanna say thank you for what a fantastic effort. I'll tell you a quick story. I printed this out and so I could look at it and take time and write notes, and a couple of my neighbors thought and said, what is that? And I told them, and they said, I had thought you lived in a little kind of smallish town. The town we have a home here is 40,000 people and growing at lightning speed. So we looked online. They don't have anything even close to what you all just did. Not to mention that very comprehensive document, but then you boil the ocean so well in this PowerPoint, so thank you very much. But I'm proud of Canby. You know? I'm so proud. It's wonderful. Thank you. Wonderful work.

Thank you. Thank you, commissioner Drosh. Vice chair, any comments? No. Commissioner Hutchinson?

So are we are we at a point where we're willing to move this towards counsel or are we adding more language?

That's your your prerogative on on your is planning commissioners?

I'm I'm ready to let transportation be part of its own plan. I mean, there's references to it in this, and as far as I'm concerned, that's good. And there's plenty of tooth gnashing and fighting and pounding the table coming between our $50,000,000 worth of finance and our 150,000 $150,000,000 worth of wishes. And I'm sure that when we start talking about connectivity and building out Area j and other things like that, it's gonna get more expensive. And so we're gonna have to decide where we put our values into our budget or or, or not. And I'm I would rather that all those fights stayed there, honestly. We've worked on this for three years, and I'm ready to see it move to counsel.

Very well. Commissioner, McCarthy. Good. Okay. So seeing as we are at that place, of ending our discussion at this point, I think next steps are, is it a formal, motion with a second to send it as is to city council for adoption or review and adoption?

And I would say with the commentary you all have spoken about the five year review and also about connectional adding some strategy on the connectional piece on the aspirational roads to the transportation chapter, transportation gold chapter to the comp plan, which we will do. We'll suggest that to counsel for their consideration and approval. That would be great if you all wanted to go that direction and make that as a unanimous recommendation. Or we can take this differently and do it by commentary of topics that there, you know, there were really no objections, but there were a few items that, you know, if you wanna take a vote, that would be fine as the first round.

Okay. Yeah. So, I guess I would say discussion before we do that. So just to I I wanna make sure I get my, verbiage correct. So there's one where we just move it forward as is. There's another version where we move it forward with the suggestion of or the the request of a five year comp plan review and

how So we will link in what I'm speaking of which you haven't seen yet, you'll see on the twenty third the aspirational road elements that address this radius road issue that commissioner Ewart was talking about. That's where that section is in the TSP is on that aspirational road section and it talks about those items. I think we could support that with a strategy and the comp plan saying that that will be a I'm not sure what the language is exactly, but it would be something like will review and that's an ongoing thing. I don't know what that says exactly, but it would have to be something about monitoring the aspirational road and monitoring and coordinating with agency, county and state agencies for the road system that joins KMB, we would come up with some language around that. I can't give you that tonight because we're gonna need to think about what that is.

But it will link back to what the TSP says and that's the aspirational road piece that is in the TSP. Okay.

So then, again, it would be to put this forward to forward for adoption or with our recommendation to, city council to adopt the comp plan with a proposed, review process in five years and, a further examination of monitoring and coordination for aspirational roads in and out of town. Does that sound about right? Vice chair, are you on board with that one?

Yeah. I, I'll make a motion that we move this forward to the city council, and that the planning staff would make a summation of our discussion this evening and forward that also to the city council.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Alright. By roll call vote, commissioner Diruch. Aye. Commissioner Luelling? Aye. Commissioner McCarthy?

Aye.

Commissioner Hutchinson? Aye. And I am an aye, and, our vice chair is an aye, so the ayes have it. And we are ready to move this forward to city council as specified.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is going to be the planning director's update.

So as we were talking about so March 23 is our next planning commission meeting. We'll be talking about the transportation system plan and same process going through that in detail and then getting your input and recommendation to go to council for that first city council review which would be in April. That's our next step here. We do have some hearings coming up. We have one on April 27 from memory care.

We're also we're dealing with a couple other things that are kind of starting in motion here. We were successful with a grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development on several fronts. It's money for urban growth boundary expansion work, continued urban growth boundary expansion work, for code audit, which we are gonna match with our code audit money that we set aside last year. So that process is going to be taking off and Planning Commission will have a significant role in that process. So this grant is about ready to be signed.

We have I just got it today and that would contracting for that work through council will be I'm hoping April 1, which will start that work off and we'll be we have consultants that will be working with on that.

When do you expect Planning Commission to see that? Is that gonna be more towards summer?

Well, I think it well, we need to we need to figure the schedule out on that, but that's something that we that I think we're wanting to be getting your input on at the, you know, the front end, I would say, not maybe like May.

Okay.

May that's probably where it's gonna be at. Also, the concept planning work that we're working on, there'll be some updates for that as well. We're building out the schedule with three j on that work. And there'll be some updates that will be happening in likely in May as well. So there is stuff coming down the pipe.

I wanna keep you guys all in the loop. I'd like to have a bit more consistency and apologies about the lack of meetings, but they're just we were building up for the comp plan, the TSP and we didn't have any hearing items and the code audit funding now we will have in its entirety not in part and so that felt like we should wait to match that up versus starting and stopping something. It's theoretically seems logical to do it you know, separate, but not really when you're dealing with a consultant. So that bottom line is we're gonna have more more meetings and they'll be more consistent.

Okay. And then again, you said March 23, we're back on for that. And then Yeah. Items of interest or guidance from planning commission. I don't really have anything. Do any of the commissioners have anything to discuss before we take a motion for adjournment?

I just have a quick question. This is Judy. So if we were looking at transportation system plan, do we ever do that with like the traffic safety commission in with us? How does that work?

That's a great question. There are folks on the Traffic Safety Commission, Commissioner Yeah.

Commissioner Rosh that

actually are on our project advisory team and technical advisory team. So, we do have representation from that group, but we that I think speaks to that issue to a degree on that. These are really focused on a narrowing band of issues, mainly arterials and collectors versus local streets. And not to say the traffic safety focuses on local streets, but there is that as well that goes on in the Traffic Safety Commission. Our focus is less on local streets and more on the larger streets and connection, but there are representatives that are on the Traffic Safety Advisory Board that are that have been on the traffic, I'm sorry, the Technical Advisory Committee and the Project Advisory Committee for the TSP.

So we have received their input indirectly.

Okay, thank you, Don.

Sure.

Okay. Any other comments, questions from planning planning commissioners? No? Commissioner Luleling? I'm good. Thanks. Okay. Alright. Well, with that said, if there's no other items, then I will make a motion for adjournment. I move we adjourn. All in favor?

Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. Bye.