Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to our regularly scheduled Canby Planning Commission meeting. We will call the meeting to order and begin with a 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. Thank you. In consideration of one of our commissioners running a little bit late, we're gonna move the consent items toward the end and then move right into 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 the planning commission will make every effort to respond to questions raised during citizens input before the meeting ends or as quickly as possible thereafter. You may speak on non-agenda items via Zoom using the provided Zoom link. Are there any citizen input items on non-agenda? I'm seeing none. Okay, on to old business, none. New business, none. So that just fast tracks us right over to the public hearing portion of the evening. Tonight there's a matter before the hearing body that requires a public hearing. 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. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the applicable review criteria contained in the staff report, the comprehensive plan, or other land use regulations which the person believes to apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision makers and the parties the opportunity to respond to the issue may preclude appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Conflicts of interest. At this time, I would like to ask that any member of the hearing body who has a conflict of interest please indicate the nature and extent of the conflict and whether you intend to participate in or abstain from hearing the present matter, beginning with Commissioner Llewellyn. No conflict. Commissioner DeRose.

No conflict.

Commissioner Driscoll.

No conflict.

I have no conflict. Commissioner Ewert. No conflict. Commissioner Hutchinson. No conflict. And Commissioner McCarthy. All right, very well. Ex parte contact. Also, if any member of the hearing body has had any ex parte contact with anyone prior to this hearing, including a visit to the site, please declare the nature and extent of such contact at this time, starting with Commissioner Llewellyn. Just drive by it regularly, but that's it. Okay.

None.

Commissioner Driscoll.

Just driving by. Okay.

I also drive by it almost every day. Commissioner Ebert, sorry.

I've driven by the site, I've drawn no conclusions.

Commissioner Hutchinson. No contact. And Commissioner McCarthy.

I drive by twice a day.

Okay. Does any member of the audience have any questions for any commissioner regarding ex parte contact or conflicts of interest? Seeing none, we will move to the public hearing, which will be conducted as follows. Staff will do a presentation, followed by questions, if any, by the hearing body or other staff. The chair will open up the public hearing for testimony. The applicant will have 20 minutes to present. We will then open it to proponents of the project, three minutes each. Opponents will have three minutes each. And there will be a rebuttal period offered for 10 minutes. The chair will then close the public hearing. and questions if any by the hearing body at that point will be taken and any discussion by the planning commission will be had at that time. A decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing or the matter will be continued to a date certain in the future. This will be the only notice of that date you will receive. Does anyone have any questions about the procedure of the hearings? Okay, as they say in the UFC, let's get it on. Let's turn it over to Brianna and she is the associate planner and presenting the Senior and Memory Care Center DR25-03 slash CUP25-02.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Ellison. Welcome. Hello, everybody. We are back. This is a bit of a unique situation in that this is a continued public hearing from April 28th, and some of our commissioners were not there for that hearing. This is how my presentation will go. I will point out the issues that the commissioners at the April 28th hearing took issue with, but I will also be covering the project as a whole. And I do want to just affirm that everything that happened at the April 28th hearing is also part of this project. don't cover here or mentioned as having been changed does still apply. And all of that is public record and on YouTube and so all of that still stands. So this is not a brand new project, but I am gonna focus sort of on the changes that were made for the most part. All right, so here we go. So the existing conditions for the site. Site is at the southeast corner of Ivy and 13th, 1300 South Ivy Street. It's approximately two and a half acres. It has two existing largely unimproved driveways, has a house and a storage structure, existing curbs but no sidewalks, And I do want to mention historically, this was designated special area K for folks who have long memories in the city of Canby. That special area designation was removed in 2019, so it no longer applies, but I wanted to address that. The zoning, it's zoned R1 low density residential, and it is surrounded by like R1 and also R1.5, which is medium density residential. It's adjacent to, as I showed in the last slide, actually, let me... Jump back really quick. So adjacency here, we have single family residential to the east and to the northwest. We have Canby Swim Center and the Ackerman Center to the north. We have a small specialty retail establishment and more residential to the immediate south. And then we have a senior and assisted living campus to the west. There's the zoning and here are the applications that you'll be reviewing tonight. It's a conditional use for a nursing home in the R1 zone and the type three design review for a new structure and an access spacing reduction. So originally the proposed project was a two-story 56 and a half thousand square foot senior care facility, 80 assisted living beds, 22 memory care beds, and 54 parking spaces designated for the facility. The original project also had four independent living senior style duplexes, cottage duplexes. Those were eight units and two parking spaces designated per duplex unit. and they were requesting a parking exception as well as the access spacing exception. Here's the original proposal. You can see this is what we talked about on April 28th. The concerns identified by the Planning Commission at that hearing included the duplexes themselves, the parking count, the conflict between the loading area, the trash enclosure, and the emergency access point. Site design elements as found in the design matrix. and the driveway access off of 13th Avenue and its potential conflict with the South Ivy left turn lane. So the applicant team did revise their proposal and have come back with the same primary facility, two story, 56 and a half thousand square foot. Same number of assisted living and memory care beds. Now they are proposing no duplexes and in their area instead is more parking and more landscaping. And now they are showing, it's actually 100 parking spaces for the facility. We had kind of a last minute landscaping consideration. So it's 100 parking spaces total for the facility proposed. Again, no duplexes, the parking count now exceeds the requirement, which we'll get into more. The trash enclosure has been separated from the loading area and truck maneuvering and emergency access vehicle maneuvering exhibits have been provided. They revised the design matrix and added additional site design elements and staff did another review of that design matrix independently. And they were also able to shift the southeast 13th Avenue driveway access a bit further east. Here is the new plan. As you can see, again, primary facility largely the same. The biggest changes are gonna be on the east side of the parcel here. It's essentially But also quickly, I'll point out the loading area, trash enclosure, and emergency access detail. We'll go over that a little bit more, but I know that that was also a concern, so you can see that they separated them and made the loading area slightly larger. Here are the applicable criteria that the commissioners can review the application against. Essentially parking, zoning, signs, lighting, access, design review, and conditional use compatibility. So we'll dive right in to the content. First up is the traffic analysis. The analysis at the intersection was evaluated with the current proposal using a 2031 horizon, which assumes five years of background traffic growth beyond the expected year of occupancy this year. So just a comparison of what a no-build scenario versus a build scenario looks like. Both contain the existing traffic volumes for the intersection and the background traffic growth. The build scenario incorporates the traffic associated with the proposed use. It was found doing that study that the intersection is expected to continue to meet the mobility target during the peak hours up to and including in 2031 with the added project traffic estimated to increase the VC ratio by 1% during peak hours. What does that mean? Volume to capacity ratio measures intersection sufficiency by dividing actual traffic demand by maximum sustainable capacity. So essentially we're talking about level of service here. Ratios below 0.85 indicate adequate capacity while values approaching one signify congestion. So you can see here that the build scenario gives you a volume to capacity ratio of 0.62, which equates to a level of service B. If they were to not build, it would still be a level of service B, and it would be a 0.61 instead of 0.62. I went ahead and provided the raw numbers. The red is the removal of the duplex units and their associated trip counts. So slightly lower numbers. You have about 26 fewer weekday total trips there. Raw numbers are interesting, and I think the folks who live there definitely have a sense of number of cars, but I also do want to just keep in mind that the level of service will remain a B. We're gonna talk about parking. So our use designated by the code for nursing home requires one space per two beds, plus one space per employee. Total required parking spaces according to our code, you could see here, and including peak shift with overlap plus outside employees would be 96 total parking spaces. Their revised proposal shows 100 parking spaces. One excess parking space was removed and converted to landscape island as required by our code. They were showing a bank of... I believe 16, but more than eight adjacent parking spaces. And once you have that many, you need a landscape island. So they had the extra parking spaces to go ahead and convert one according to our standards. Off-street loading. This is kind of an interesting use because it's not strictly commercial or industrial, right? It's sort of a facilities type use, residential facility. I will just kind of point out the differences here from their original proposal is they made their loading area larger and they moved the traffic out of the loading area completely. So I know those were the primary concerns. And I do have the graphic here. So you can see the trash enclosure and loading area have been separated. Trash is to the south. The loading zone is larger than the original proposal. I don't have the turning analysis in my presentation. I believe the applicant does and it was also included in their supplemental materials. They showed maneuvering both for emergency access and a loading truck and they also showed how the trucks can enter both of the access points. And we did affirm after the last hearing that sufficient emergency access was determined by Canby Fire District. In terms of meeting the base zone dimensional standards, They overall do. I will point out that they are proposing pervious pavement to meet the impervious surface maximum. And they are also requesting a fairly minor 2.2% reduction in landscaping. And that, I think, is in an effort to kind of balance landscaping and parking. Again, that's kind of a reiterating theme here. In terms of signs, Planning Commission, when it comes to conditional use, essentially we ask the applicant to give you as much as they can, but it is up to the Planning Commission to determine whether this is sort of in line with the community, the surroundings, and to give staff the ability to approve signage kind of in keeping with the use and the compatibility of the area. So this is what they've shown in their plans. And I would say it's pretty comparable to other residential facilities. They have the Asteria Senior Living that is kind of incorporated into their entrance portico. So that's not going to be sort of its own piece that'll be incorporated into the larger building. And then a small, the actual sign will be three by three and a half, but then a small freestanding sign there as well. Outdoor lighting standards, the plan does conform to the LZ1, which is the residential lighting zone. Essentially, they provided a lighting study that shows foot candles, which is the amount of light that reaches a surface, while our code regulates lighting in terms of lumens, which is the amount of visible light emitted. So you have to do a little bit of math here, but I can confirm having done the calculations and looking at their details for the actual fixtures and the space they cover that they do meet LZ1 lighting zone. And you can see there will be very little overspill in general, not even a full foot candle. Access limitations, they are proposing one full access driveway on Southeast 13th. That has not changed, but they did move that access a bit to the east. And they are still proposing a one right in, right out restricted access driveway on South Ivy Street. I want to mention that this is a restricted corner sort of remnant lot. There's no other way to provide access except off of these two streets which are both arterials and the standard spacing for arterials is 330 feet and the lot is 330 feet at its widest. So essentially a deviation from the standard would be required regardless of what is proposed here. Here is a diagram. This has been updated to show the minor shift on Southeast 13th Avenue. And I'll point out that there are existing driveways, both private driveways to the south and a local neighborhood drive to the east, South Large Street. Oh, and I'll mention that vision clearance was evaluated at the traffic study level and it will be evaluated again at pre-construction. So after the last hearing, we did reach back out to DKS and associates for additional information according to the concerns of the planning commission. So specifically for the driveway, which we did not have DKS analyze the first go around because the volumes were so low. We asked them specifically what the level of service would be for the driveway and they confirmed that it would also be a level of service B. So left turns from the 13th access. I specifically pointed out the 1 a.m. peak left turn and the 3 p.m. peak left turns. So total daily four left turns during peak hours. And I know that commissioners asked about further restricting access. Can we make them both right in, right out? DKS confirmed that a left-in is required for at least one of the accesses for safe and stable flow. If they were both restricted right in, right out only, it would cause issues. It would also require substantial right-of-way infrastructure and the low number of trips Making that turning movement daily doesn't justify kind of in terms of proportionality for land use purposes doesn't justify requiring that restriction. We also confirmed that the ITE use data for trip calculation, the nursing home or the assisted living ITE code does include emergency vehicle trips incorporated into their calculations. The site and design review matrix, if we're talking about just numbers here, they do meet the thresholds for both total points and LID points in terms of their percentages. We did, staff did go over again and analyze the project with the revisions. So these numbers here are slightly different from the first time around. And I worked with the applicant team as well to make sure that we agreed and kind of were on the same page with the scoring this time. So I'm just going to highlight some of the questions that were brought up about the matrix the first hearing. The first is provision of public art, mural statues, fountains, decorative bike racks, et cetera. Here they've shown renderings of the bike racks, of the matching benches, and they also show what the gazebos will look like here.

And there will be more than one bench.

This is just an example of the design, but they're throughout the site. So here's a list of the questions that were brought up the last hearing. Use of pervious paving materials in terms of percentage of total paved areas, 36%. Landscaping, their plan was stamped and signed by a landscape engineer who reviews appropriate plantings in terms of size and drought tolerance. We confirmed that the conditions of approval address our stormwater facility and downspout requirements. And they do show those on the plan, but Public Works will ultimately review those as well during the pre-construction phase after land use. So the conditions are there to make sure that after land use, those standards are held and Public Works also knows what to expect. All right, jumping into the criteria for a conditional use. The first addresses consistencies with the comp plan and the development code. And there are no policies in the comp plan or other codes, development code, that would be inconsistent with the proposed use. And the same conditional use has been approved in the R1 zone, elsewhere in the city, including fairly close by. The second criteria is that the characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use. They do meet the development standards of the R1 zone to the extent possible. I'll mention again that slight reduction in landscaping in order to provide that parking. And they're also proposing the frontage improvements required for that corner parcel. Conditional use is continued, public facilities and services consideration. The agencies providing those facilities and services have commented that service is sufficient for the site and the conditions of approval have been included pertaining to connections to the system as well as adherence to our public works standards. The proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding areas in a manner which substantially limits or precludes the use of surrounding properties. The surrounding properties are developed, so I would say adding this use to the area would not preclude the use of any adjacent parcels as they're already being used. And in terms of compatibility, there is a senior care campus across Ivy Street. Just mentioning once again that this is sort of a constrained corner remnant parcel, everything around it is essentially developed. So comments received specifically on the project revisions. I did address all public comments that we received for the initial review in the April 28th hearing, but just in consideration of time here, I want to focus on any comments that were received for the revision. We didn't receive any additional public comments. The revised project and staff report was published 10 days ahead of this hearing. The site was also posted with So it was posted on site with the A-Frame board as well, just to let folks know that wasn't legally required, but we did wanna go ahead and just try to cover all of our bases to make sure folks knew that this hearing was being continued. We did receive additional agency and service provider comments. And I did include the DKS and Canby Fire District comments in my supplemental memo and this presentation. But I also wanted to quickly address the additional comments from the city engineer. And I just wanted to daylight that because the duplexes are no longer proposed, We did request, this was a request of the original proposal as well, but it wasn't quite as large because the duplexes were proposed. The sanitary sewer line was going to run and be relatively close to the parcel to the south, which is constrained in their connection. And we offered a credit to their system development charge to provide that connection. Again, now that the duplexes are not proposed, that connection, we are still requesting it be made because there's physical barriers for the site to the south. And this is really the best way that they will be able to connect in the future. So we're still asking for it. And we are still going to propose that we give them a system development charge credit specifically for the sewer. So this is... you know, apples to apples here, sewer connection to sewer credit. And there's a letter explaining it better than I can from our city consulting engineer, Pat Cecil, included in the supplemental information, but Again, I just wanted to daylight that because it is a change that came from the revision of the project. So again, not strictly applicable to land use here, but we're conditioning it and it establishes the requirement here. So I just wanted to daylight that. So based on the revised application materials and the facts findings and conclusions of the staff report and the supplemental memo, I guess I'll mention now that the conditions of approval were slightly altered primarily to include that sewer, that sewer stipulation. So we're specifically saying recommend that the Planning Commission approve the applications subject to the conditions of approval included in the supplemental memo, which again are largely the same and I did outline sort of their specific changes in the memo, but I wanted to make sure that everyone knows that those are the ones we're looking at tonight. And that's my whole presentation. I can answer questions.

Thank you, Brianna. Any questions from the Planning Commission?

I've got one minor one just kind of for the record. When we were doing the matrix, one of the items that we'd questioned previously was because this is a arterial intersection and it's supposed to be at least 330 feet away, there is two points given for how far away the... entrances are from the road, and basically they get two points for being 100 feet away from the intersection, or not from the intersection, but from the closest road. Yeah, so basically we're giving them an extra two points for being not even a third of the way to where they're supposed to be, and that to me seems like something that should have just been considered non-applicable because it does not really... It doesn't get you bonus points for not even being a third of the way there. So just for future things in this case, I don't think it's going to change anything at this point, but I don't think that we should be awarding points for things that aren't where they need to be. And it is no fault of the applicants, but it just shouldn't be incorporated into the matrix calculation.

Thanks.

Any other comments or questions at this time? Nope.

Okay. I've got one question for staff. So in our traffic studies, when they do the traffic studies, when we're in close proximity to a school, especially a big recreation area like this one is, do they take into account the sporting events that happen there? in the traffic studies and I say that because my grandson plays lacrosse and we went to the lacrosse tournament this last weekend. I personally counted over 1,500 cars that were parked in around the adult center, the swim center, the schools, on the streets. I just did a walk around and I didn't get them all but there was a lot of them. And that intersection was just totally jammed, especially during the switch off during the games. So do our traffic test studies take in account for things like that? Because this is kind of a unique area. We're gonna run into this at later points. So my question was, is do they take in account when the, schools do tournaments like that, which they do fairly often in lacrosse and soccer and different things like that. Do they take into account that much traffic? I mean, it was a lot.

The study does specifically take into account what happens at that intersection. It's not what just happens at an intersection where two arterials meet. So the study is specific to the area. I would kind of counter and say the site which was over-parked, what study did they have done? It sounds more like an adjacent use issue. Folks who work on the property will be parking on the property.

Well, I understand that. I'm more concerned about emergency vehicles getting in and out of there. I think a fire truck would have had

We do actually have Mark Johnston with CFD here tonight, so he can comment on that better than I can.

Okay, any other questions or comments from the Planning Commission?

I did have one other quick one from before. How did the demand for the EMS and fire services get calculated into the charges for the development?

How do trips specifically from emergency vehicles get counted in to?

I mean, yeah, we have the SDC. Yes. And I believe the number was somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 or so trips a year to be expected at a facility like this. So that increased demand. There were some open questions about how that got tied into the SDC. Yeah.

So those trips are incorporated into the ITE and the transportation SDC is calculated using that same figure.

Okay.

So the incorporation of the emergency vehicles falls into that. Okay.

Yeah. Thank you.

Okay, any other questions? No, no, okay. At this point, I think we will now open the hearing for public testimony. I'd like to give the applicant an opportunity to come up and speak. You've got 20 minutes for your presentation.

Can you hear me? Maybe? All right. Hi, I'm Danelle Eisenhardt, Eisenhardt Consulting. I am the applicant representative. We have the applicant here behind me, the team, and we have our civil engineer, Brian, online, and the architect, Eddie, is also online if we have questions for them later. So they are here. Thanks, Brianna, for that. I'm going to basically be regurgitating a lot of what she just said. So again, the plan has been revised since our last time here in April. The duplexes were removed. We did add parking. Like she said, it is 100, not 101. And 96 is what is required. The access driveway onto 13th did move about 10 feet to the east in order to provide the parking on both sides of that drive aisle and I can point at that at the site plan on the next slide. The loading space did change it turned 90 degrees makes it a little easier and I will go over the turning movements as well in this slideshow. So that helps and it's further away from that access door and I know that was a concern for them to get in and out of the door. So there's a clear path there. And then the design matrix, as she said, we did update and go back and forth a few times to make sure we had the numbers very cleaned up. And it's based on parking spaces. We now have more than needed, so that number changed. Trees we did have as not applicable, but they do apply, so those changed. And the percent previous payment. And then the public art stated for and we just showed the information on how we're providing the art. Site plan, let's see if I can remember how to do this. There we go. So this is that loading zone. So now it's a right turn in. And the area is striped bigger than the actual loading zone so that there's two rectangles. The smaller rectangle is the size of the loading zone that's required, kind of. And then there is more space in there for them to maneuver, so they have a little bit of play there. But it's clear of the door here, and there's a clear walkway. So emergency access... for them coming in and out of the fire truck or an ambulance that can get in there. And a truck is never in their way. All right. We already went over the parking, so we can go back to this slide if we want to look at numbers. Updated landscaping plan was... And I know there was a concern with landscaping to the east and to the south. The trees have been looked at by the landscape architect to make sure that they fit in the space. We do have a little more space over there now on the east side and more of a hedgerow there for privacy. So for those residences and there will be a fence as well. This is just the utility plan just to show the fire hydrant here that fire department wants. Oh, by the access. So that's here. And the sewer line extension is shown in there as well. Okay, so this is fire truck ingress turning plan, so this is them coming into the site, and it just shows that they can get in that right in, right out, and in from 13th, and through the whole site, no matter which way they come in. And we can go over it if we need. And this is them getting out of the site. So using the hammer hand turnaround, and you can see how they're clear of the loading zone doing that. And then they can go out at the right in, right out, going north on Ivy. I didn't include the turning movement plan for the box truck because it's much smaller and so it can go around without any issues, but it is in the packet. Brianna had these, but here's the bench and the bike racks. They complement each other with the LEAP design and the gazebo that is directly east of the ride in, ride out. And then just so it's easier graphically for you guys to see, kind of an aerial with a colored plan to see landscaping in the green, pavement. And then the parking spaces themselves are shown in a little bit different gray. That's pervious pavement. Just to graphically kind of help you understand the different areas and see this. So that's basically it, and we're here for questions if you have further questions.

Any questions from planning?

I have one. I have one. What you just showed and then also in the revised narrative, you're showing how a fire truck can maneuver, including the ride in, ride out along Ivy. So do you know, can our station 65 respond to your site? And I'm asking the applicant that question. So can our station 65 respond to your site?

That I don't know personally.

Does anybody in the application team know that?

But what I do know is fire has responded and said they can serve the site.

Okay. I mean, last time you were here, we asked questions about fire calls and things, and it didn't seem like there'd been a lot of research done by the applicant. So I was kind of hoping you'd come back this time and have a better idea of how this impacts, you know, where the fire trucks come from and how it goes through the town. That sounds like that. Okay. That answers my question then.

Any other questions from planning? No? Okay. So if there's no other comments or presentation notes, we will then turn to the proponents, correct? Okay. For proponents for the project? We don't have any at this time, okay. So.

Sorry. Would this be a good time for CMP to provide comments?

I suppose maybe if that question could be answered, that'd be great. Sure. I was just curious first if the applicant.

Come on up.

I wasn't really sure what I was going to be doing, but happy to answer. So I believe there were two questions, so which. What would you like? Do you want to restate your question?

Yeah, can 65 respond to this site?

So the main station or?

No, station 65, can be Markham.

And so part of the conversation that we had had about this was, yes, were there to be a need on Ivy, the pork chop, and I don't know if, is there a laser I can borrow?

Yeah.

So this would be a mountable pork chop. It's a curb that still precludes people from making the turn in the wrong direction. But were we to need to access it, we could roll over it. And so depending on where we're coming from, we could potentially come in from either direction. So if we were coming from down here, make the turn and then back up and then be able to go out. If there were to be some kind of emergency where we needed to come from the other direction for whatever reason, it would kind of function the same way. Come in, back up, and then we could still make that turn. Same coming from this direction. Ideally, this is our access for medical. The nice thing, this is a 70 foot space. Our largest vehicle is 40, so we could fit our truck in here. The transporting vehicle would be a smaller 20-ish foot ambulance, which could then be in the loading zone. So both could take up the same space reasonably well. Ambulance could load the patient, get out, and then fire truck would. So, yes. Okay. It's hard because we're always running around in different areas to be able to say where we're going to be coming from. But from the requirements that we have in the fire code in Section B and based on the building size, this meets all the requirements. From the firefighter perspective, sometimes there are headaches, but it's still accessible. We can still package patients and get them out relatively quickly. and we could still access 150 feet from the engine and get around all spaces. So even if there were to be some kind of fire back here, we could still park here and get to that space within 150 feet, which is the length of our hose from our cross lay. So all points are accessible.

Is there a hydrant there south on Ivy to hook up to, or would you have to use the water in the truck for that?

I don't know the water system in this particular spot too well. I know that there's something across the street. I'm not sure about this side. I know we were adding one, and then we were gonna have access for our FDC. So... were there to be a need. The other thing that we have is, and in this space, it won't be as much of a requirement, but if we ever needed to drop a tank, we also have a space that's wide enough that we could drop a tank. for our engines and then there's also access on the road to keep us from having to go in. So if there were to be a larger emergency, people needed to get evacuated and we needed to keep this space clear, there is still enough of a cutout that we can divert traffic and park our vehicles on the road.

I had a couple follow-ups to your, thank you. So I wasn't aware Station 65 could respond to those types of calls. Is that fairly recent, do you know?

So starting in the summer, we're going to start upstaffing our station. Start upstaffing, okay. Yeah. Okay. As far as the medical level and the type of responses they're going to have, that's still to be seen. So if during a drill it's staffed, there are periods that it is fully staffed. And then when we get more into the summer, the hope is to be able to staff it for wild land. So there won't be as much of a medical response there. But depending on the need, if all of our medical staff is on other calls, as was stated by our chief, 61% of our calls are overlapping calls. So if we needed to have our wildland crews, they're also medically trained. So they could go there while waiting for transport.

And so would there be occasions when a fire truck would be coming south on Ivy and they would make a left into that spot and ride over the pork chop, as you said? Okay. So it might not always be a right in, right out. It would be on occasion, maybe. For the emergency. Yes. Yeah, right. Okay.

Yeah, and that was part of the discussion with Pat Sissel was, No matter what, we definitely asked for that to be mountable because we never knew what the potential could be.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you. I have one question. Yes, sir.

On this building here, on this side here. I'm going to get your mic. And this is more for my clarification than anything else. When we have a building like that that's butted right up against the property line and you have a fire in the front half of that building and you need to evac How do you accomplish that in this kind of a scenario?

Sure. When you're looking at evacuation potential or fire potential, part of it is sprinkler systems and existing systems that are in place. So this one has... I'm sorry, I want to make sure I don't hurt anybody's eyes. So we've got egress here, egress here, multiple points of egress here. And so the ideal would be to have them coming out through here. We also have windows that'll have egress. So part of our conversation was the plantings that are going to be between these parking spaces and the windows to ensure that that is a viable secondary egress. We don't want to have holly or high growing bushes that are going to potentially cause problems. As far as going around the back, we do have other facilities that are difficult to traverse back here, and the hope is get them, if we need to, assist them out a window through an egress there, and then there will be some kind of, depending on where the egress, getting out from, a rally muster point, In this situation, most likely it would be kind of in the grass area. We don't want to have it near where we have hydrants, FDCs, where we're going to be working, especially with this population. And so I don't know if that was it. Okay, I was just curious. Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. If there's no other questions, oh, there's one more.

And I believe it was in the diagram before this that the hydrant is located on the west side of the driveway, but you were asking to have it located on the east side of the driveway, so we would just be scooching it to the other side.

Yeah, either is fine. The reason I was asking for it on the east was just because of positioning. We could position ourselves over and then vehicles could pass us rather than if we had on the other side, we might have to drive over hose.

Yep.

Okay.

Works for me. Thank you.

Okay. Final, final?

Final, final.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate it. Since there is no proponents, we'll move to opponents. And we have Craig Carpenter at 325 Southeast 13th Place who submitted a comment card. So Craig, Mr. Carpenter, would you care to join us? You're the first and the last, I guess. There's no other speakers after you. You got the whole theater to yourself.

I'm a resident. I'm a resident of Densmore Estates. I live on 13th Place. I use that entrance in and out every day. And while I do applaud efforts to take care of this problem, all I see is this turning into another situation like we have down on Berg. It's a cluster down there as well. I've seen people do six point U-turns in between 99 and the entrance because they missed the driveway, getting into the tight corner. They just do an Austin Powers type U-turn there. I've also noticed a increase of traffic on 13th. People who don't want to go through 99 with the traffic lights, it's much easier for them to go down 13th Street. Anyway, the Berg issue is big for me. Large Street is becoming a freeway. During these big events, I do appreciate Dan marking the number of cars during high-use things. Not everybody's there, but there were a select. I do have photographs, if anybody's interested in looking at photographs. That vacant lot was about half full of parked cars. No one's going to really keep them out of the designated parking places, I don't believe, at the drivers being what they are. there's no easy access out of Dinsmore, period. Even during the beginning of school classes, sometimes I've waited 10 to 15 minutes just trying to make a left-hand turn out of Dinsmore onto 13th. Most people will run up Larch to 16th or 18th and then come down that way. One gal was reported to, she was late taking her daughter to one of the lacrosse things, and she whipped into a driveway, dropped her off, and then backed out of the driveway into a parked car that was there because she was in a hurry. Not a gender thing, but just any person. You know, people get in a hurry and... do stuff like that. If you re-pinstripe the roads for left-hand turn lanes and stuff, everybody knows that that only applies to everybody else. If I need to make a right turn, I'm going to do that. Right or wrong, that's what happens. I just don't see where... where the traffic is gonna be solved. 13th is just becoming a major artillery, arterial, and it's hard. We get people, and I'm not against having those activities. We need to have those activities, but it needs to be monitored better and routed better. 1,500 cars is a ton. And you've got people, we have kids on our street, little kids, and we have old people as well. And I just think it's not solved yet. It needs to be addressed. I don't know how to do it. I'm not an engineer. I just point out the pulse. But anyway, that's how I see it as a resident. It isn't, you know, anyway, I could belabor that forever, but... That's my big concern is the, is the amount of how it affects my community, my quiet little street, and I get progress, but, dot, dot, dot, it's not doing me any good as far as my value in my home and so on and so forth if I have to deal with extra traffic and unavailability to get out of major arterial. So that's my concern and hope it made sense to y'all.

It did, thank you, Mr. Carpenter. We have a second public testimony and please forgive me, Dennis. It says there's a check mark in pro and con. Okay, just want to make sure I'm understanding the duality.

Well, my name is Dennis Rich. I live at 315 Southeast 13th Place. I'm his next-door neighbor. And my testimony is going to be a little bit different. First of all, I want to hit one of the most important parts, and that's about the fire. You have a tall facility. You have people very slow getting out, unloading. I'm... I've been on advisory committees for the police and the fire in both Lake Oswego and Westland at different times. And so I look at some of the details. I really think there ought to be another fire hydrant on Ivy, almost on the other side of the development. I know the fire engines can do marvelous things, but they can't carry that much water that quickly. and it would really, I think, be a safety concern to have that extra hydrant, and it's not that much of a cost. Handicapped parking was a big thing for me in 2019, and getting rid of the cottages I hate to see them go because I love to see the fact that someone can live there and have their loved one in constant care and just be going back and forth. But parking was a real issue and you seem to have taken care of that. Handicap parking though, as you see, I'm a little tuned into that. handicap parking, the number, is something that needs to be approved over the four that were originally proposed. One of the things that the neighbors along the east side, the only neighbors for this, are concerned about the setbacks. And now the setback is greater because there's not the cottages there. However, It depends on what you plan on your planning. They said they're gonna plant the trees along that side. That's fine. If you have them, all those fences belong to us and we are the ones that have to keep them up. So we would like to be able to get back behind there to do the care that wooden fences need every now and then. Plus the fact that any deciduous type trees make a real mess and some of those people are elderly and they don't need the extra stuff. We'd like 14th to be dead ended permanently right now. it looks like it could be opened and it would really cause a whole lot of traffic through the neighborhood and it would actually encourage parking for this in the neighborhood nearby. So most of the other things, I think they're fairly well handled and I wanna thank you for what you're doing. I've sat in that seat for a number of years and I appreciate what you do, thank you. Thank you, sir.

And just real quick, if you want to bring up the concern about 14th being dead-ended, there is a Traffic Safety Committee meeting at 8.30 on Wednesday, and they would be able to help work with you about that.

Thanks.

Mm-hmm.

Okay, at this point, we have an opportunity for rebuttal to any of the opponent comments. Would the applicant like to present a rebuttal comment?

I'll do it on the speaker.

Not really. The one thing to clarify on the fire side is the building will be sprinklered. So sprinklers are going to be going off whether the fire truck's there and it's adequate. And that's just normal for a facility that size. So that will be there. Oh, and then they've got fire doors. So there's between the different wings and stuff, fire doors will be shut to limit where things... That's normal for a building, a commercial building like this. So... I think that's it for that.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, at this point, we will be closing the public hearing from any more testimony and turning to the hearing body for discussion. All right, hearing body, discussion time. Any questions, concerns, comments at this point? No. No? Any concerns, any reasons for or against that you...

I feel like the biggest concerns have been addressed. I think taking the cottages out really improves the flow and the access for the things we were most concerned about previously. I don't know if that's something that we can address, but I do have a concern for the folks who live on the east side of the building who are going to have emergency lights potentially going all hours of the night on a frequent basis. Something I didn't think to ask when we had fire up is what the policy is regarding EMS and fire truck lights once they're parked for a call. If they leave them on or turn them off or just how that would affect the community immediately adjacent to the facility. I can say only from personal experience in my neighborhood because there's quite a few they're usually on yeah I mean that's what I that's what I've seen myself when I was dealing with some stuff for my mom is they were always on and so that's I don't know that any if there'd be any kind of screening available to minimize that in the parking area something to just kind of tone it down so the lights aren't splaying as far. I don't have any great answers to that. It's just a concern that crossed my mind I want to throw out there for everybody.

Okay. Noted. Any questions, comments, discussion items? Yes, sir.

And I'm going to direct this more towards staff than anything. So the driveway that goes out onto 13th. We don't have a picture up here of it anymore, but we got rid of the duplexes. Was there a reason why we couldn't have swung that driveway a little bit further down? The distance between, is it Larch Street, and... the driveway coming out onto 13th. Is there some reason why we couldn't have brought that out a little bit further down to alleviate the congestion at that intersection a little bit more?

It is 10 feet further down than the original proposal.

It's 10 feet.

I know, it's not much, but it's further.

Was that discussed at all?

We're gonna bring up the one that shows the spacing between driveways. I mean, there's kind of this balance point. I don't know if that would put us too close to large street or not. That's the balance point between the driveway spacing for the driveway to the east. I think that's the issue and Brianna will address that.

Yeah, Emily is bringing it up. Thank you. I also wanted to point out the emergency access. So I think we would lose the depth that Mark Johnston was so happy about. We would lose some of that depth of the emergency turnaround. So I think that that was also a big consideration for them. Here, let me bring up. Pardon me.

I'm just talking about shifting it a little bit. There you go.

So there's a 100 foot, because that's a local street.

140 feet?

Right. The standard is 100 feet separation.

Okay.

But I think really what, and I have a more accurate, I believe.

It just seems like those parking spots could be reconfigured a little bit. The landscaping could be reconfigured a little bit. And that entrance could be moved. Down 13th a little ways to just take a little bit more pressure off of that. Are you saying move east toward March? Yes. Okay.

So how would that drive with the fire truck turnaround concerns that the commissioners had? Because right now...

This picture doesn't show the...

It doesn't show the entrance, no, but it shows the sort of landscape bump outs and where the parking spaces end. That's the drive aisle. And you can see on the east, that's the property line, just east of the fire turnaround.

I'm talking about going on to... 13th. 13th.

Yes. So this is further down 13th. So if they were to scoot the access further east, it would either cause the turnaround to be shallower, which I don't think is ideal, or it would... push the fire truck turnaround to the property line, which I also don't think is ideal.

So does the drive aisle have to be straight from the driveway where you go from 13th into the facility straight down? Because what I hear from you, Dan, is that you're asking the entrance can't be kind of scooted over a bit.

So that driveway going out onto 13th, I'm just talking, I'm just thinking about functionality here. I'm thinking about the pressure on the intersection of 13th and Ivy. Is there some reason that we couldn't move that driveway closer to Larch East? It's not gonna affect the... fire truck turnaround there at all. It might put a little bit of dogleg in the entrance in there. We could take those parking spots that we would be eliminating and move them over to the other side, and the same with the landscaping, but to get that driveway further away from that intersection. I'm just, that's probably my biggest issue with this project.

I mean, you're kind of jumping into an alternatives analysis, so it's difficult to say sort of the A to B, what that would be. I would say that the driveway was specifically determined to be a level of service B. So in terms of that driveway specifically, we did go back and ask the EKS about the operability of that and the level of service for that, and they said it would be a safe and steady flow.

So it wasn't discussed in your talks with the applicant, that wasn't discussed? The traffic study said it was okay, so that's where we went with it.

Well, they pushed it 10 feet to the east, so I accepted their proposal as they proposed it.

There would also be, it looks like the storm drainage facility that they have there with this plan, we would probably end up starting to dip into that in addition to possibly not being able to make up the parking.

Yeah, the stormwater facility would be closer to the property lines to the east, and then I don't know if we could do the screening trees.

I mean, your suggestion could work, but I think it would be compromised with... parking that may not be able to be made up and it's going to start to jeopardize part of that stormwater facility. It would be my concerns on that. And I do agree with Brianna about the lack of traffic in terms of like the actual operational movements are not very many. It is level of service B, which is really good when you have a spectrum of A to F traffic. is pretty high in terms of mobility. I do appreciate the comment. I mean, I think that is worth asking the question. It's that pinch point there that's difficult to really provide an exact answer to. ideal spacing situation there, so it is an important question, but I think it's with the limited traffic that's happening there and the fact that we'll end up reducing overall parking, in my opinion, on the site, I would not recommend doing that.

Okay. All right, so at this point, Barring any other comments, Commissioner Llewellyn, you had something.

I guess just a concern, really. Because I look at this, it just seems to me like we're trying to take a really big thing and put it in a really small spot. And I look at some of the other things we've done in the industrial park and approved, and I think the traffic is only going to get worse. I think this is just a traffic nightmare to me. I mean, it's better than the first one, the first proposed one, but... I don't know, I have concerns on traffic flow, the parking, and it just seems like we're trying to shove something in here. To me, that's my concern, for what it's worth.

Any other concerns, comments? Okay, at this point then, I think it's time to entertain a motion. Do we have a motion?

I move we accept DR 2503, CUP 2502, including the supplemental memo as stated by staff. Do we have a second?

Second.

Discussion?

Yes. Okay. There was a couple of points brought up. Number one, the addition of the fire hydrant on 13th. Is that a possibility? Is that something that you guys would need?

So there is a hydrant proposed on 13th. The member of the public brought up Ivy. I believe the hydrant is across the street on Ivy. And I think that there is a physical barrier perhaps. And that's why it was not proposed on Ivy. But that is something we can double check at pre-construction. Okay.

Yeah.

I didn't quite understand what the conversation was on the dead end on 14th. Well, that comment, I think we should at least... Yeah, it's kind of unrelated.

It's just traffic diverting through the neighborhood and problems around that. Okay. So I don't think it specifically is going to have to do this as much.

Okay. Okay. So we have a second. And the second was, again, on... the approval of DR 2503 slash CUP 2502 with supplemental memo from staff. We're gonna go take a roll call vote, starting with Commissioner Llewellyn. No. Commissioner Drozd.

Approve.

Commissioner Driscoll.

Are we adding an amendment for the hydrant on Ivy?

No.

No.

Now that said, she did clarify where the hydrant was on Ivy, on the other side.

Yeah, it's a really busy street. The bigger it gets, the harder it's going to be to use it across the street. We should have it on the same side of the street as this large facility.

Okay. I'm going to approve. Commissioner Ewart? Commissioner Hutchinson. Approve. Commissioner McCarthy.

Approve.

Okay, by a 5-2 vote, Planning Commission approves DR25-03 slash CUP25-02 with the supplemental memo from staff. Thank you very much. Okay, moving on to the next consent item, or the previous consent item, which we moved in order to get Commissioner Llewellyn an opportunity to get here on time. And that would be the draft meeting minutes. We need to... We need to take a vote on approving draft meeting minutes from February 10th, 2025, continued from, let's see, no, yeah, February 10th, 2025. I don't have the draft in front of me, so I don't have all of the attendees of commissioners from that meeting.

I apologize. I cannot vote on either of them.

I happen to be gone for both of them. Okay. Okay, so on February 10th, we had myself, Mr. E, the circled or we're not here?

Well, it was before Craig came. Yeah, I was counting before, so we waited now.

Okay, so circled is who was there? So we have Commissioner Ewart, Commissioner Ellison, Commissioner DeRoche, and Commissioner Llewellyn. Do we have a motion to approve draft meeting minutes from February 10th?

I move to approve the draft meeting minutes from February 10th, 2025 as written.

Any second? I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Draft meeting minutes February 10th are approved. Now moving on to draft meeting minutes from May 23rd, 2026. We have myself, Commissioner Hutchinson, and Commissioner DeRoche, and Commissioner Llewellyn all present for those. Do we have a motion?

I move that we approve the minutes of May 23rd, 2026. March 23rd. Oh, sorry.

Do we have a second?

I second.

All in favor? Aye. All right, meeting minutes. May 23rd, 2026 are approved. Actually, no. It says May on here, but it's March on here.

Because I had May too.

I'll write myself up.

We got good at getting those meetings.

We approved it. We approved it. Okay, then from there, I guess we bounce back to items of interest and report from planning staff, planning directors. Update, Mr. Hardin.

Chair Ellison, just a few items for next meeting. We'll be doing the final findings for the memory care that was just approved tonight. And then we don't have really any hearing items for that agenda, but we will be doing a refresher. Brian Potter will be doing a refresher on planning commission procedures at that meeting, our next meeting on June 22nd. We're, at this point, not 100% sure that we will have meetings in July. We're kind of waiting on some applications to get through our fully complete process to set those. There's a possibility we may cancel one or both of the July meetings. We'll let you know as soon as we can. I'm trying to really just give you a heads up. Please don't make that gospel yet. But I understand you guys are volunteers and I don't want you to be like, oh, by the way, it's kind of irritating to hear that at the last minute when you could have other plans and be enjoying your summer. We will be coming back. We have this very aggressive kind of schedule to go through our urban growth boundary expansion process, and we're targeting August 10th for a work session with the Planning Commission for the urban growth boundary expansion, and then a hearing on August 24th with the Planning Commission. We are not sure there's an exact deadline on getting this adopted, but our sequential urban growth boundary process is, There's several overlapping state laws. We were like vested to like having another year to do this and then there was another overlapping law, it's with the Department of Justice in Oregon. They've had it for several months and haven't given an opinion on the provisions and the state doesn't, it's not clear to the state that do we have to have this completely finished or just through the city's process, which should be planning commission and city council. Ultimately, we have to go through both those steps and then the Planning Commission at Clackamas County and the Board of County Commissioners. So urban growth boundaries are very intensive. They've gotta go through multiple layers, but that's on the horizon. If you all are interested, there's other things coming up on the urban growth boundary process. There'll be a listening session in this council chambers on June 24th. Postcards for that are coming out. That's really not a public meeting per se, a community meeting rather. I mean, it's a public meeting. It's not really a community meeting is what I really meant. It's for those people that live primarily outside of the current boundary that's being studied. It's really targeted to those folks. And then we will have a community meeting open house sometime late July, early August for the entire community. And that'll probably be at Baker Prairie. There'll also be a project advisory committee meeting on the urban growth boundary on July 16th as well. So we're really gearing up and you'll be starting to get more involved with that. We have had a work session with council. We had it last week on the urban growth boundary expansion process. So all that's kind of really moving forward. The comprehensive plan made it through its final adoption with the council last week. They did make some minor changes to septic tanks and when septic tanks are required to be converted over to sewer, there were some discussion around that issue. The transportation system plan has also made it all the way through and has been adopted. Both those documents are going to go to Department of Land Conservation and Development for a 21-day review. I'm not expecting anything really come from those reviews other than their final approval. DOCD staff has said if they had an issue, they would have brought it up already. So those should be completed. We're also gonna be starting to get a little bit deeper in our code on it. So we have a grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development plus city funding that has made us whole on that. Ryan Potter's leading that process up. We have a lot of stuff on our plate right now though. that we're not sure when we're going to come back to the Planning Commission, but you all will have a definite role in this process about, you know, we have a consultant on board for that as well. The code audit is to address things in the code that we want to change, and then the code update that will be the following year that we'll do, but we're recognizing there's some things in the code that need to be updated, and clearly you all have experienced that. So that's pretty much it for us for right now. There's lots of stuff going on, just trying to keep track of all the dates that are flying through.

How about that walnut extension, eh? Pretty good. You can almost drive on it.

If you had a four-wheel drive, you could get on it. Feeling good, feeling good.

See how that works.

I got my bucket of dirt.

Nice. Okay. So that was it. That's the full extent. Unless you guys have questions. That's quite a bit. Questions?

I do. I just wanted to say something about tonight. I found it really frustrating. I didn't think the applicant had enough skin in the game. And when they came last time, they didn't even have a presentation. They said, oh, the city did such a great job, which is true, so we didn't have one. And then I had specific questions about fire and number of responses, and they said, I don't know. If you're gonna be in our community and you're gonna be a good neighbor, do your research. And it just felt like they let the engineers do everything. And then thinking about the impact to the community, I'm sure that was something. And then this time when I asked about Station 65, she looked at me like, why are you asking me that question? Because they made a big deal in their narrative about coming in that right-hand turn off of Ivy. And that's going to be rare. And the reason I'm all over that is because I have a premium on my homeowners because Station 65 can't respond to my house. So the minute it can, I want to know, man. And maybe that's some homework for me to do. But anyway, so I just think if they're going to come in with no presentation, or like tonight, their presentation was less than half as long as yours, I think it should be flip-flopped. They need more skin in the game. And I just felt like... I'm sure they did a lot of work or their consulting firm did a lot of work, but in terms of them plopping themselves into our town, I thought they could have done a much better job. Anyway, that's my opinion.

All right, the thing I wanted to bring up is kind of ties into our code audit and edits that are coming and the matrix and the points that we're giving applicants. I would really love for us to revisit this four points for provisions of public art. Like to me, when I read IE murals and statues and fountains, I'm thinking something grand. Your tiny little gazebo and you spend a couple thousand dollars on some leaf bike-accented bike things and benches, that's really kind of half-assed to me. Like, that doesn't speak for points. Like, maybe two at most. So I feel like we're being way overly generous for things that they're using aesthetically to sell a service to customers, and they're not doing it for the community. If they had a really nice mural, if they had a statue, if they had a fountain, I'd feel differently. Those are much more grand. Just making the place that you're trying to sell to people look nicer It feels a little iffy to give them so many points towards something where other design elements of the building itself get so much less consideration than that.

Maybe something like how they do the percent for arts, the percent and a half for arts for public buildings in this state, that we could come up with some similar rule that... You know, a mail order gazebo doesn't qualify.

Yeah, I just feel like, you know, it really was just kind of... But we let them take the box for that. And, like, we... Where we fell short, the reason I didn't bring it up in the hearing is because it's not their fault that our matrix gives you the option of zero points for no or four points for yes. It should not be... you know, one or the other. It should be either a scale or you max out at something more like two.

What's the mechanism for addressing that? Is that in the later code discussion again?

It could be part of this. There's several layers to this. There's what we have to deal with for state law, which is ever-changing, and that's really targeted heavily at housing. This is a commercial development, so we have some abilities to have discretion when we're doing commercial and industrial developments. And so that, I mean, that's something we can absolutely, we're looking at things that aren't working, things we want to get rid of that completely, there's some things that we want to get rid of completely, things that we could do better, and then the state law overview, which is another layer. So we have to come completely into compliance with state law. Unfortunately, it's really a bit of a... on the housing side of things because the state never really came by and really said all at once, here's what your standards are for review process and criteria. They've kind of done this fruit salad and it's a bit of a quandary. I just was corresponding with our attorney today about what we need to do on that part of it. So it's gonna be layered and Ryan can speak to some other issues too.

I was just going to say that some design matrices include examples, like they'll have the actual scoring sheet, and then off to the side or below, they'll have lists for each categories that are acceptable examples of what that scoring is for. So I think that's definitely something we'll look at when we're reforming what that design review process is.

We list decorative bike racks. That's where they're like, sweet, that's a cheap and easy thing to do. So yeah, it's just, if we hadn't given them four points for that, they wouldn't have qualified. And to me, that's worth looking at because I feel like that was a very large bump for something that's not bringing a lot of value in reality. Sure.

Thank you. So can we add that to future? Yeah, we need to talk about this.

We've made a note of that. So yeah, so there'll be other, this obviously is just the very beginning of that conversation, but just, and then we can go through and, you know, we will have to guide you all. Some of this stuff is off limits now because the state has said you cannot touch this. I mean, there's like 10 layers of this House bills and Senate bills that are just, that's part of it. And, you know, again, that part, some of that we will be not able to address. Our goal, and Ryan brought this up, which is a really solid point, is to come up with an alternative that we can have discretion on in addition to providing the state-allowed process, but can we incentivize this to give other things in exchange for being more traditional and allowing us to shape things a bit more? That's a challenging thing to do, but we're trying to find two paths where, like, more traditional path where we've And whether the planning commission has a role, and that's the challenge here is that's kind of being stripped away too. It's all becoming administrative, but like having a path that allows us to have more of that influence on character and design that's optional from the path that we, we have to allow the path that the state requires.

The house bills you're talking about, you said are largely pertaining to the residential communities.

They're totally focused on residential. They're really not so much on commercial and industrial. That has not been a target of the state so far.

So can we have two parallel lanes then when we're talking about the code and we have code for commercial and we can address things like that? Okay. Yep.

Good.

In this case, I'll just give my two cents. This one was a little bit interesting because it is kind of a residential use, right? But we're using the commercial design matrix here. So point definitely taken. But that is the goal, Chair Ellison, is to make it more clear.

And just to that point, and Brianne erases another point, we have not fully studied, there's two pieces of legislation that are coming. So these may in the future be considered more residential in their nature. I mean, I'm not sure where that line is. That'll be interesting because the code for sprinklers on, on certain sizes of facilities. Because it is really a residential. Right now, it is a commercial development as of tonight. But as of July 1, there are two pieces of legislation that are coming through. We're trying to keep up with all this stuff, which is like it's being narrowed down. So I'm not sure where that lands. Brianna's raising a really good point. Do you know those House bill numbers by heart? There's a Senate Bill 974 and there's also the other one, hold on, I can give it to you. Give me a sec here. There's two and just give me one sec here. And we're just, again, every year there's something coming back to us. And it's a bit crazy because we're, I mean, there's a lot of other things we're working on. But then, like, by the way, here's some more stuff to deal with. So, yeah, hold on here.

That's going to really suck if we settle out some of our rules and then another Senate bill comes in and just, you know.

There will always be another Senate bill.

Yeah. Senate Bill 974, and the other one is... And the attorney brought this up. He said if you weren't aware of this, House Bill 4073 is the other one. So... whether you're red or blue, these bills will continue to come to us. I mean, you know, I just, that's the nature of this issue. And again, I mean, the intention is, I think, underneath that all is believing that it's going to help with the housing issue, which we support fully. The challenge is it's so layered, it's become almost... somewhat of an obstacle to try to implement because we have people that are doing this that are not really planners. They're legislative people. So I'm not going to beat up that any further, but it becomes very challenging.

It's a well-known challenge when legislators are doing things that specialists would be better suited to do.

And fire, Canby Fire is dealing with the same thing. We're working with Mark on these same issues. He's aware of what's happening on housing. And so it relates to their work too.

And thanks for making time to offer your input. I really appreciate that.

Thank you.

Okay, items of interest or guidance from Planning Commission. Do any of us have any more guidance or interest?

No, I've given most of my guidance. Just a heads up, I am out of town on July 27th. Okay. 22nd or 27th? 27th.

27th, okay.

Yeah, thank you. Second meeting of the month, if it were to be held, I will not be available.

Got it. Okay, thank you for that heads up. All right, if there's nothing else, do we have a motion to move if we close? Second? I second. All in favor?

Aye.

Let's get the hell out of here. Have a good night, Camby.