Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We're going to call this Camby Planning Commission meeting to order, and we will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you very much. First, consent item up are the draft meeting minutes from November 25. Those in attendance were commissioner Ebert, commissioner Geroche, commissioner Hutchinson, and commissioner Luelling. Of those four, can we have a motion on the meeting minutes?

I move we accept the minutes for 11/25/2024.

I second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. All against? The ayes have it. We've adopted finally the 11/25/2024 meeting minutes. Well done. Next up, draft meeting minutes for 09/08/2025. Those in attendance were commissioner Ellison, commissioner Ewart, commissioner Hutchinson, commissioner McCarthy. Of those attendant those in attendance, do we have a motion to adopt meeting minutes?

Mister chair, I make a motion that we accept the, minutes for 09/08/2025 as submitted by staff.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? None. We have adopted those meeting minutes as well. Next up is citizen input of non agenda items. This is an opportunity for 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 citizen input before the meeting ends or as quickly as possible thereafter. Do we have any citizen input on that? We do not have any. Moving right along. We have no old business. We have no new business, which then takes us to our public hearing.

Tonight, there's a matter before the hearing body that requires a public hearing. All questions must be directed through the chair. That's 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. At this time, I would like to ask 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. Any conflicts of interest? None.

Ex parte contact. Also, if there 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. Obviously, we're all neighbors or many of us are neighbors and have driven by it. We kinda covered that in the last hearing, but, we're looking more for any other ex parte contact.

Nothing else, but I wasn't here last time. I also am a neighbor who's familiar with the area and drives past frequently.

Very well. Anyone else? Seeing none. Moving on. Does any member of the audience have any questions for any commissioner regarding ex parte contact or conflict of interest? Seeing none, we will move into the public hearing, which will be conducted as follow follows. Brianna Adada will be presenting. There'll be questions, if any, by the hearing body or staff. The chair will open the public hearing for testimony. The applicant has a designated amount of time to present, then there'll be opportunity for proponents and opponents and rebuttals.

Chair will close the public hearing at that time and, take any questions by the hearing body, that's the planning commission, and then we'll move into any discussions by the hearing body. 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 questions about the procedure of the hearing at this time? None? Okay. So at this point, we will turn it over to Brianna, to present Canby Christian parking lot expansion CUP 25 Dash 01 Slash V A R 25 Dash 01. Thank you, Brianna.

Thank you, planning commissioners. Good evening. My name is Brianna Dada. I'm an associate planner with the city of Canby, and we'll jump right in. Before we look at the content of the project, I wanna go over the land use timeline because this item was continued.

So, originally, the applications were deemed complete in July and the staff report was issued August 15. The first planning commission hearing for the item was August 25. It was continued and there was a request for more information from the applicant. Supplemental information was provided October 10. The staff report for that information was provided 10/17/2025, not 2027 2025, party.

Pardon me. And then we're tonight, second planning commission hearing 10/27/2025. Alright. Here are the existing conditions. The parcel in question is 489 North Ivy Street.

The house you see in the aerial here has been demolished, and the site is currently vacant. The entire block is owned by the applicant, Canby Christian Church. There are four existing access points to the parking lot off of 5th Avenue, and there's also through alley access from Ivy to Holly. The zoning for this campus is unique. The south side is zoned downtown Commercial C 1, and the North Side is zoned high density residential r two.

This is a very long standing camp campus. The CUP was officially granted in 1966. I believe the church actually predates that permit. That was just the first time they came to the city and it was actually sort of a modification of their original campus. So, it was further expanded in '75 and '92.

They do have some historical variances for building setbacks and the CUP for the religious facility has not been extended to this particular parcel that we're looking at tonight. So, that's one of the decisions you'll be making tonight. The proposed project is to expand their parking lot onto that remaining parcel. Their proposal shows a total of 33 spaces, but there are a few existing spaces on that parcel right now, so it would be a net of 26 new spaces. They're also proposing one additional access point onto North 5th Avenue.

The conditional use approval is specific to expanding that religious facility use and the major variance is required because there are six individual numerical standards that their proposal does not meet from the development code. Here is their proposal. Could you maybe just scoot the online folks just a little bit? Thank you. Just in case I'm covering up anything. That's great. Thank you. So here is their proposal. You can see the 33 spaces. Again, 26 net new.

The new access off of Northwest 5th Avenue here. Just to orient you, north is right to the right, and And you can also see the alley, which is on the south side of the parking lot in between the parking lot and the the church facility. So this is their proposal. And here are the applicable criteria for the proposal. General provisions is where we keep our traffic study information, so that's why that's up there.

Obviously, parking standards of the r two high density zone, access limitations, site and designer view, the conditional use, the variances, and the type three application procedures. So, starting with the traffic study findings in sixteen o eight, the applicant states that new parking would serve the existing demand and, therefore, the proposed parking wouldn't result in any net new trips. So, therefore, an off-site impact analysis was not warranted. Ivy Street and 5th Avenue, arterial and local respectively, both meet the city cross section standards for their classification. The proposed access off of 5th Avenue would not meet the spacing standard, which is one of the variances they are requesting and will be addressed later in this presentation.

And preliminary site distance is adequate, but it would be verified before final approval. So, off street parking standards, they actually do per our code have enough parking spaces to serve the ratio that is in our code. Again, it's one space per four seats and they have 238 seats, so it would be required to have 80 parking spaces. Right now, they have 82 and they are proposing a total of a 108. The parking stalls that they are proposing would meet the dimensional standard of nine by 18, but a standard drive aisle width is 24 feet, and they are proposing 21.5, which is another of the variances.

And don't worry worry, we'll go through the list of variances consolidated at another point. Next up is the access limitations. So, that new access onto 5th Avenue that they are requesting. The proposed access on 5th Avenue would be 13.25 feet closer to the intersection than standard, and they are proposing a write in, out restricted access, which DKS traffic consultants state that this would address any safety concerns that may pop up due to that shorter separation. I wanted to point out for this request specifically, the exception standards also apply on kind of on top of the variance standards and criteria.

So, just some some thoughts here. So, the applicants need to prove that their indirect or restricted access cannot be obtained. They are proposing the restricted access, so they are trying to address that there with the right in, right out. No other solutions can be reasonably applied to mitigate the condition and no alternative access is available from a street with a lower functional classification. Thank you.

Next up are the r two zone standards. This one is unique because, again, it's a conditional use and it's a parking lot. So, technically, it would be expanding that religious institutional use, which they have approval for on the rest of the block. But because no structures are proposed, the setbacks and minimum density of the r two zone don't apply here. What does apply is the impervious surface maximum, which is 70% in the r two zone.

The applicant is proposing a 92% coverage, which is another one of the variances. The final three variances here are covered under site and design review. There are three numerical standards out of that section that would not be met from their current proposal. The first is that 30% landscaping is required in residential zones and 10 is proposed. The second is 15% landscaping is required in parking lots no matter the zone and 10 as proposed.

And, lastly, specific to parking lots again, landscape islands are required every eight parking stalls. And, instead of those, they have shown perimeter tree islands to match the rest of their parking lot. Moving on quickly to the conditional use. This kind of concept is a little bit simpler than all of the variances we'll be covering, but important as well. The conditional use for expanding the religious institution accessory use parking lot is the planning commission shall weigh the proposal's positive and negative features that would result from authorizing the development.

So these are your approval criteria, consistency with the policy, the comp plan, development code, and transportation system plan. The characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, design, location, topography, existence of improvements, and natural features. Required public facilities and services exist to adequately meet the needs of their proposed development. The proposal The proposed use would not alter the character of the surrounding areas. Because this is a existing use on the rest of the block, I think, general, the proposal does meet a lot of these characteristics.

You're more than welcome to discuss these in detail, but in terms of some of the facilities, they actually are They have more facilities than they need on this parcel because it used to be a home, which was hooked up to utilities. They're proposing a parking lot, so they actually are looking at the opposite there, where they'll be capping the utilities. So they have they're over serviced, you could say, on that parcel for their proposed use. Okay. Going into variances.

Alright. So the planning commission may authorize variances from the requirements of the development code where it can be shown that owing to special and unusual circumstances related to a specific piece of property, the literal interpretation of the regulations would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship. There are six standards and criteria which must be met in order for Planning Commission to grant a variance. Planning Commission shall consider each variance request against the six standards and criteria. So, are six variance requests and six standards and criteria to be considered for each variance.

Here are the variances requested, one through six. I'm gonna read them all. Number one, reduction of the required parking lot drive aisle width from 24 feet to 21.5 feet. Reduction of the minimum driveway separation for North Ivy Street from 50 feet to 36.75 feet, and that is the criteria where you'll also be looking at the access limitation standards. Number three is to increase the maximum impervious surface allowed in the r two zone by 22%.

Number four is to reduce the minimum required landscaping in the R 2 zone from 30 to 10. Reduce the minimum required landscaping parking lots from 15 to 10. And the last request request is to increase the allowed number of parking stalls in a bank before a landscape island is required from eight to 11. Here are the standards and criteria. Again, there is a total of six, they are lengthy but I'm going to read them verbatim because they are important.

Number one, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to the other properties in the city and within the same zone. These exceptional or extraordinary circumstances result from track size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of their property have no control. Actions of previous owners do not constitute other exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Number two, the variance is necessary to assure that the applicant maintains substantially the same property rights as are possessed by the owners of the of other property in the city and within the same zone. Number three, granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the intent or purposes of the city's comprehensive plan or the land development and planning ordinance.

That's our development code. Granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to other property within the same vicinity. The variance requested is the minimum variance which will alleviate the hardship. And lastly, the exceptional or unique conditions of the property which necessitate the the issuance of a variance were not caused by the applicant or the applicant's employees or relatives. After the first Planning Commission hearing, the applicant team did provide supplemental information, five alternative layouts were provided after that hearing, none of them met all of the design standards and the applicant team will discuss each alternative scenario in their presentation.

My supplemental staff report did cover them in as much detail as was possible given the information provided. In terms of public and agency comments, notice was sent out July 23 and no public comments have been received. That that includes in between this hearing and the previous hearing. We didn't receive any sort of additional comments during that period either. Agency comments were received from several partners and are included in the staff report on page 17 and in an attachment to the supplemental staff report.

I wanted to point that out because we got a few conditions of approval. They're not too unusual, but I did want to point them out that we do have additional ones attached to the supplemental memo. And where applicable, the conditions of approval have been included. Here is just an overview. This isn't every single one of the conditions, but the ones I thought I would point out.

Again, the utilities would have to be capped or otherwise decommissioned. An ADA parking stall would be required due to the number of proposed additional stalls and that's actually reviewed by Clackamas County, but it's a condition of approval for us. The fire district conditions of construction, confirmation of site distance, confirmation of storm water facilities on-site, parking lot site plan application, that's basically a type one that wraps up the process. The public alley is to remain functional and unobstructed during any construction, and the Ivy Street driveway that served the house that was demolished has to be closed. So, staff recommend that the Planning Commission consider the alternative layouts provided by the applicant and determine the minimum variance is necessary to assure that the applicant maintains substantially the same property rights as are possessed by the owners of other property in the city and within the same zone.

Planning Commission can make decisions on the individual variance requests and can make motions to approve or deny them individually. That is not a requirement, but because there are six different ones and there are seven different folks on the planning commission, I do want to tell you that that is an option. And lastly, you also have to make a decision on the expansion of the conditional use permit to include that parcel that we're currently reviewing, adding it to the rest of the church campus which has already received the CU approval. And, this is my last slide here. It's just the variance requests. Again, same exact verbiage, but I thought it would be smart to have them up while you discuss.

Thank you, Brianna. Yeah. So, just for the benefit of all the commissioners because we did have a clarifying conversation about this. So the applicant is coming to us with plan a Yep. Which is what you presented in the in the first slide.

But if for some reason, plan a and approving the variances that go with plan a doesn't work, then we're up for debate on the other four, proposals, for the layout, which are some hodgepodge of some variances will be satisfied, some won't. But neither case, all of these have variances that would need approval regardless of what plan. That's correct. We approve them.

That's correct. The applicant team is still seeking approval for the original plan. They provided these alternatives essentially to show you why they think their plan is the best option. Yep. Again, yeah, all of these alternative scenarios would still require variances, so you're not voting to approve one of those alternative scenarios. Those are more that's evidence that they are providing to you to strengthen their original plan proposal.

Understood. Thank you for that.

Thank you.

Are there any questions, comments, items of discussion from the commission?

I had a question about the engineering report that we were provided back in August. It said something about that the original space number 23 from the original plan needed to be set back further or restricted in size so that it wasn't in the sight triangle. I didn't see any reference to that requirement.

Yes. That is, one of the conditions of approval that was actually added to the supplemental report. Okay. So it is in there now and, you know, it's kind of nebulous right now, but I think my recommendation would be to make it a compact space Mhmm. And just push that wheel stop a little bit further because it's, you know, it's just a little bit of the corner. Yep. So I do think that they can they can amend that, But, yes, so it's in a condition of approval, so it will be addressed. Great. Just wanted to make sure we Yeah.

Included that. Thank you.

Commissioner Luelling, from the World Wide Web, do you have any questions at this time?

I do, Tom.

Commissioner Jarosz, do you have anything to ask of Brianna at this time?

I don't. Thank you.

Do any other commissioners have any clarifying questions, comments at this time? No? Okay. So with that, we will then, open, the public hearing for testimony. We'd like to welcome the applicant to come on up and present.

Mr. Steele as chair. Thanks for hearing us again.

Thanks for coming back.

My my representative, Kurt, these are two pastors from the church, Rob and Cody. But, yeah, thanks for hearing us again. I'm gonna turn it mostly over to Kurt since he's the expert in language on these things.

I don't know about that. Again, Sounds we appreciate the opportunity just to talk to you again about this. The we sent you a few supplemental items. First of let me go back and clarify what our options are tonight. We can meet all the code.

We can develop our lot without any variances, but the impact to our lot is pretty substantial. So, you know, it's by definition we can meet the code. So, I don't want you to think that we're we're leveraging ourselves into some kind of variance approvals. So, what I tried to present to you in that supplemental information was just some concepts and I didn't address all of the variances at once. What I tried to do is just address one variance only and show how can we address for some reason how can we address the driveway separation, for example?

Not thinking about any of the others, but just that one. How can we address the aisle width? So we looked at those individually and that was the only reason, just to give you tools if you wanna consider a combination of those. But in a general overview, first of all, the conditional use is the absolute necessity. The rest of these discussions for variances don't mean anything without the conditional use.

So assuming we will have a conditional use approval, then we would talk about the variances. Now, variances one and two we feel are essential. Those are the two. One of them separates the driveway from the Ivy Street and the other one is the width of the aisle. So, you saw a little earlier in Brianna's presentation that the driveway separation actually has some code exceptions that say if you can come up with an engineering design that mitigates the problem, which we have.

So we hired DKS engineers to look at that. They gave us a recommendation on signing concluded that the traffic would not be impacted by that reduced driveway width separation. Then the aisle width, the second of the two that we feel are essential variances for efficient use of that site is 21 and a half feet. We have two other aisles. I believe one of them is 20 feet, the other one is 21 and a half feet.

They've been functional for years and we haven't had any issue with those. So, we're requesting approval of those first two variances as essential to our development. Variants three and four were both applying standards and they're both kind of the same standard. I believe number three was for 70% impervious area max and number four was for 30% landscaping. But both of those criteria are applicable to a residential zone.

So, I guess my thinking is if we get a conditional use that remove it should remove concerns of meeting the residential zone requirements. So, in my perspective, we would ask that variants three and four really are not pertinent to what we're doing. And then variants five and six, five is the maximum landscape area, we can meet that. That's subject to your approval. Our goal would be to develop our lot to be consistent with the rest of the half a block, which is I think what we presented initially to you.

But we can meet we can meet landscape requirements. Can meet both number five is the landscape requirement and number six is the islands. Of course, we can meet both of those. Those are just arbitrary and we can we can allocate parking spaces for aisle, for landscape. We can provide as much landscaping as you deem as necessary.

Now, couple of things that we can do also. I don't know if you saw in that overview, but we have two access points off of 5th Avenue that don't have tree islands that I think if we would get consensus, we would go back in and put tree islands on those two access, which adds about 500 square feet to our landscaping. But it also give us a consistent appearance for all of 5th Avenue's frontage. The other couple of things I wanted to mention was the ADA standards at right now we have four ADA accessible spaces. Whereas for the number of lots we have, the number of spaces we have, we only had a requirement I think for one or two accessible spaces.

If we exceed a 100, we will need to have two accessible spaces. We will provide four, but we will need to provide one more ADA parking space. So, if the variance is approved, one of the things we would be proposing is additional handicap parking. So then the last thing I meant I wanted to mention was the site distance and that type of thing, the site distance encroachment in that space number 23 is just something that will show up in the final plan. So we will prepare plans to submit for Planning Department approval before anything is built and the plans will just address all of those conditions of approval. So, with that, we just wanted to come before you and discuss the options and what your interests are. So,

just a quick clarification then. In the supplemental that we have, I just hate to beat a dead horse here, but figure one is the is the requested layover? No. Is not.

Figure one is, if you notice, that's a reduced stall depth. Okay. From 18 to whatever it was to get the aisle width further apart. Got

it. Okay. Thank you.

But but that doesn't do anything but divert the variance to a different

It just moves it. Yeah. Gotcha. Yeah.

Thank you

for that. Okay. Do the planning commissioners have any questions for the applicant at this time?

I do.

Go ahead.

So looking at the variances that were proposed, it seems like you kind of self selected to take out variances one one, one two, and one three, but that variances two one and two two seemed like potential proposals that you could work with?

Well, actually two two and two three or two one and two two were pretty dramatic changes, you know, to eliminate that driveway. That allows us to provide additional landscape area very easily, but it's pretty we we don't we don't desire that option. We think it's a feasible option, but it's not a desirable option. Yeah, it's not intended to we're not promoting that for acceptance. We're promoting that as just one more tool for you to consider to see what the impacts could be. How could we meet that without a variance?

Thank you.

Commissioner Jarosch, anything for the applicant?

I do have a few questions if you don't mind. In the original packet, there was a neighborhood meeting. Did any neighbor attend?

Yeah. We we had one lady. She was a block up and one house over, and she came literally with no she had no comment. She just wanted to hear what our project was, And so she had nothing to say. She was just interested in what was going on in the neighborhood. And we submitted minutes for that, I believe. And and her name

I didn't get them in my packet, but that's okay.

Okay. Her name yeah. We we have the minutes for that. Yeah. There's one lady.

And how many people normally park on this? How many cars park on the street during a service?

That's a good question. It depends on the Sunday. Not everybody comes to church every Sunday, but we have two services and that's kind of one of the issues of why we're adding more parking is because we can have everybody there, but if one service leaves and another comes, that transition time gets a little bit difficult, But for the most part, we've been filling up our parking lot and and, you know, it fills up fast within a matter of ten minutes and then it empties, you know, fast and then more people come. So, I mean, to answer your question, we fill it up every Sunday. And that

doesn't include my question.

How many people are on the street?

How many on the street? Yes. I would say the ones right on the on the block. Yeah. Probably almost all of them are filled up.

No. No. How many people park on the public streets during your services?

I I don't know how many. We have

about I would say there is eight spaces along 4th Avenue and maybe another eight along or maybe 10 along Holly Street. Holly Street. And then another four park on 5th Avenue. So, most all of

But those that's spaces

not how

many spaces? That still doesn't answer

Oh, the they're all used, I think, every Sunday. I think they're an easier parking spot than the ones inside the lot. That's why they get taken early. Yeah. They're angled parking along 4th Avenue and angled parking along Holly Street and the parallel parking along 5th Avenue is they're isolated. They're pretty they're kind of one car between driveways. So, I think all the spaces get used and there's probably a total of 24 perhaps on street parking.

Yeah. I see that a lot with other churches, people park on the street so they have a quick exit. Easy. Even though there might be parking in the parking lot. Of the two thirty eight seats in your church, what percentage is full during each service approximately?

That's a good question. Right now, we're probably about a 170, 180 adults per service in the worship center, But then in addition, we've got kids and all of that in other areas. But, yeah, to answer your question, about a 170 or so each service. Okay.

Let's see. I have a bunch I have a few more questions. So having been on this commission for a while, landscaping and trees is a real hot topic, especially in town because like it or not, you're in a neighborhood. And even out of town. I mean when there are commercial developments, it's a hot, hot topic and I don't know which is more, trees, sidewalks, or fences.

And so I know that, you know, based on the CUP maybe technically you're you're, you know, kind of convert being to not be in residential, but you are in residential. And one of the things I did just because I was curious, I looked at a satellite view of town to see where there were areas that kind of stuck out. And of course, you know, if there's a shopping center with a grocery store or something, yes, and schools a little bit, and churches. I looked at every church and frankly yours kind of sticks out like a sore thumb because of the lack of landscaping. And I think now what we're hearing is that will be increased with a lack of standard landscaping.

And recently we've seen at least one development that the developers tend to be pretty, I think, sensitive to that because people speak out a lot and if we have people come to the room there, I'm talking citizens, they're often talking about trees. Nothing brings people to the table more than trees. So anyway, a development we saw recently, they're doing more than what was the standard because they're very sensitive to their next door neighbor who, you know, they have some special anyway, need to be thought of as a good neighbor to that neighbor and they know that. And so they're putting in actually more landscaping than than is needed because they want to be a good neighbor to their neighborhood. So I guess for me, and I don't mean to be rude, but I think you need to get with the program.

And I don't I don't remember, and I did look at all the materials and I watched the previous meeting, but if there are no variances other than the CUP, how many parking spaces can you get from that?

Well, I think that some of the conceptual options I presented to you would easily get us another, what, 10 or 11 spaces, maybe maybe more like instead of 33, probably about 15. You know Okay. By the time we provide the 30% landscape, I never did really take a look at what 30% landscape that probably take out four spaces by itself. And then Okay.

So we really don't have that No. In our packet? I didn't.

No. I didn't. Okay.

Alright. So we don't have a visual of that option. Let's see. I guess that's all. One other thing, and this isn't for the applicant so much, but we've seen in the last few years several applications from nonprofits and they at least one church, and they said it'd be very variance forward, I would say. I don't know what that's about. You know, know, sidewalks, we've seen that and others, so I don't know. It's something I it's peaking my interest. I'm gonna look at it just because I'm curious because it seems like we get a lot more variance requests than those we do from other commercial or residential developers. So anyway, just something I thought. Thank you. That's it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you to commissioner Jarosz. Commissioner The Welling.

I don't I don't really have anything. I I think it might stick out like a sore thumb, but I think downtown can be needs that parking for a lot of other things. Any other venues, it gets pretty tight down there. So, Kurt, I would assume you landscape that as best as you can based on what you have, You know, we start planting trees and stuff that starts up rooting in sidewalks and parking lots pretty quickly. What kind of landscaping do you have in mind, Kurt, to having this minimal of size?

Well, I think that in an overview of that entire half block, we would expect to have a row of vegetation along Holly And Ivy Street. And then we were able to have the planters trip along 5th Avenue 4th Avenue, sorry. And not only the planters trip between the sidewalk and the curb, but then we also have those nine foot deep tree islands along the south side of the sidewalk. So the entire 5th Avenue would have landscaping. So what it does is it kinda caps all three boundaries of the sidewalk, of the parking lot, so that the appearance from the neighborhood would be the parking lot would be encapsulated, circled by the landscaping.

So trees along 5th, shorter vegetation along Ivy and Holly, like arborvita, something we can keep trimmed down.

Yeah. Think I'm fine with that. That's all I have. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Luelling and Jerush. We'll open it up for Commissioner Driscoll.

Alright, guys. I got one other question for you just to make sure I fully understand what the existing state is. There are four twenty one foot wide entrances existing on 5th Street. Yes. And there is one twenty foot wide alley entrance, one on Holly and one on Ivy. So we currently have six ways in and out. Yes. Thank you.

Commissioner McCarthy.

Thank you. I have a question about the the signage for the right in, right, the right only in and out, is there any kind of island direction there or what what would that what does that look like or what does the signage look like that they proposed?

DKS engineers quantified that and they just wanted us to put a do not enter sign, I believe, and a right out only. And so, they they told us the orientation of that sign, but it's just a sign that faces 45 to the northeast, so it faces towards Ivy Street. So, no island, no separator like that. It's just a sign, just signage.

There there's that way on the on the left side of the block too, those same signs do not enter and then a right only turn as you're leaving the parking lot.

I think their letter is in that packet, their transportation report, but they did try to quantify all the requirements for that sign.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Hutchinson.

No questions for the applicant at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Ebert.

I just wanna go over the, wanna go over the variances again, with you. So variance one, you said is important to you as far as the the 21 and a half foot aisleways are critical, and you're saying you're working with those widths now?

Yes.

Okay. Variance number two on the on the access onto 5th Avenue is fairly critical even even though you did submit in number five, I think it was, an internal drive.

Yes. I I think that those are just inconvenient for people, confusing for traffic patterns, and I think we pursued that route that the code asked for if there's an engineering alternative that could mitigate the condition. So, that's what I think the DKS letter report, I would think, addressed that. Okay. So

so if we I I guess just thinking about that a little bit. If we if we kept traffic inside the parking lot, we didn't do the drive out onto 5th. We kept the parking parking on the street, so we would keep those, what did you say, on 5th? 10 parking spots on 5th?

Fewer than that, but we'd we'd save maybe two more parking spaces on 5th Avenue.

Okay. So we would we would we would save we would add those parking kinda overall to the to this even though we'd lose a few in the in the parking lot, we'd save those parking spots. So overall, we'd be probably a plus as far as parking spaces are concerned. But we don't like that. We'd still rather have that access on the fifth.

Well, we would lose some because we'd have to direct the card through somewhere else to one of those already existing ones. So we would exit, so we would probably lose some spots in our lot somewhere else.

I think we quantified that we would lose maybe four or five, but we would gain, like you mentioned, two or three on the street. Right. Okay.

And then going down the list, number three, was that a you were able to work with that? Or

Well, that was I felt like that wasn't applicable. Know, when that's talking about impervious area, there's alternatives to pave parking lots with permeable material. I don't know what the point is. I mean, we've experimented that with the city quite a bit over the last twenty years and Right. They all seem to fail very quickly. Yeah. So the the point of that, I guess, is to minimize runoff. Mhmm. But we're proposing to contain all of our runoff on-site anyway. We have a good dry well that would take care of all of the runoff. So I guess I don't see that that is

You're not really seeing where an impervious surface really applies to this

I don't see that it applies and I think that we could meet it, but I don't see the point in meeting it if we're gonna contain our runoff anyway.

Okay. And number four, you feel that you can meet the landscaping one

way or another? By definition. You tell us how much landscape we need to provide and we'll figure out how to do Okay.

And number five

Landscaping also.

Landscaping also so you can meet that. Number six, allow the 11 parking spaces without an internal landscaping island. And you figure you can give us a landscaping island somewhere in a parking lot?

Well, no. If it's mandated, we can do that. We can do the eight stalls with an island. If it depends on what you mandate to us, we can do that. That's arbitrary.

Okay. Okay. That's all I've got.

Alright. If there are no other questions or comment from staff or the planning commission, we can relieve our applicants and then look for proponents if there are any to speak on behalf of the applicant. Thank you, gentlemen. Those are big shot pastors. Are we are you guys coming up as proponents? No? Okay. Alright. Seeing no proponents to speak, are there any opponents to the project in the, crowd or online? We have none.

Therefore, I don't see a need for a rebuttal. So at this point, we will close the public hearing and deliberate amongst the Planning Commission body. Questions or discussion among planning body? Yes, sir.

So as the dissenting vote last time, there were two major issues that really caught my attention across most of the variances. One of them is, sight distance and safety when coming out of the parking lot. I have some personal experience with large vehicles coming out of there while I'm walking nearby with my dog that there was a lot of obscured sight lines, and a lot of the what I was worried about was a continuation of that issue. And the other one is tree cover because it's a large expanse of asphalt, and I think that we owe it to the people who live in the neighborhood to cover up as much of that asphalt as we can. And also, I think that the the congregants are gonna fight over the parking spots that have tree shade on them just like they do at Fred Meyer and everywhere else where there is shade in the parking lot.

So I'm thinking about this. I decided I might as well go and dig and look at the code. So I spent a little time with 16.49.120 and talked about parking lot landscaping. And a lot of the issues that I have with the psych distance has to do with screening requirements, which are have to be planted around and it's to protect the surrounding neighborhood from having headlights poking into their house on a regular basis as everyone navigates through the parking lot at this time. And so, you know, after looking at that, I I felt like despite all the discussions that we have about trees and fences and alleyways and being able to see kids when we pull out across the parking lot or I'm sorry, across the sidewalk to get, you know, from point a to point b, to a degree is a moot point here because I feel like the city in a in a certain way is is telling them two separate things.

And and one is is that we like to have sight distance when we come out of any sort of driveway, but we also have screening requirements. And if you screen for the tallest truck, you can completely hide a sports car underneath that. And so, to a degree, I feel like there's only so far I can press that point because the city itself seems to be a bit schizophrenic on its point of view. However, as far as the shade is concerned, you know, the requirements for an island is 48 square feet, minimum width of six feet, and it's considerably smaller than a parking lot spot. And section f has a standard for what the trees need to be when it goes in.

I mean, it's, you know, we're looking for something that can grow to 40 feet tall, but needs to be a two inch trunk when it goes in. All of that seems fairly easily accommodated with the loss of maybe two spots. In addition to what is taking place around the perimeter, it seems to me like that would be enough to get some shade on that asphalt, be kind to the neighbors, and be kind to the patrons. And so that's kind of where I land at this point. I'm not necessarily I mean, I think that we can go back to the original design.

And if we can just get a couple of shade trees in there, then they could probably lose a maximum of, I don't know, maximum of three spots if we stuck with the code. You know, like spots six, seventeen, and 28, for example. But I myself am thinking with the way that things go around the perimeter and that there's other trees from adjacent properties that something in either six or 17 would probably solve the problem. And 48 square feet is dinky. I mean, that's, you know, it's that's one spot. Less than one spot, actually. So that's kind of where I land at this point. So I've revised my attitude with visibility, but I'm kinda sticking with it on keeping the shade on the

And to your point on visibility, commissioner Hutchinson, the the vision clearance zone that looked like it was a condition of of use on this. Is that correct planning?

That is correct.

Okay. So really then would just come down to the the trees.

Well, yeah. I mean, and yeah. For me, exactly.

Okay. Commissioner Ewart?

I'd like to reserve my comments until I hear what the commissioners have to say.

Very well. Okay. Commissioner Driscoll.

Okay. So for me for me, my number one concern is exemption two, considering a 36.75 feet from the intersection with Ivy because everything, this 50 feet gets measured to the middle of the drive aisle. So 36.75 feet is actually 25 feet from the intersection with Ivy, our largest and most significant arterial street in the whole town. Holly is also a very busy road and most people take that up to Territorial. So we already have six ways for people to get into this parking lot or get out of it.

And to me, it seems irresponsible to add another one roughly 20 feet from an intersection with our busiest road. I don't see that as exceptional or extraordinary need when we have so many other ways in and out. And when we're looking at some of these different proposals, while I recognize that we're not voting on a specific scenario, I don't see that we proved a point that figure five doesn't work. I feel like figure five proved that it is the smartest way forward. It we lose four spots, but we keep at least two more on the road, maybe even three for a net loss of one to keep people further away from a very busy intersection with limited visibility.

So, for me, I can't see any scenario where I personally would be able to get behind approving variance number two because I see that as being, like, really irresponsible for moving forward. They've already got one that's really close to the intersection of Holly And 5th, and then we've got these ones midway with the Alley's. And it's just too busy for me to see how that makes sense.

Can I ask commissioner Driscoll a question? If we made it a, say, a right hand turn out of that parking lot, would you be okay with that?

My concern is that they can only control signage on their property, which means when you're a car that's turned off of Ivy onto 5th, it's either it's up to you to be paying attention to see that do not enter sign on just one of five entrances. I feel like it's really easy to miss potentially and lots of people ignore signs. I mean, I don't know about you, but I see people rolling through downtown and ignoring stop signs all over the place. Who's gonna really care that much about one do not enter on a park or, you know, on a church parking lot? And, you know, one of the it's something that's a double edged sword with the flexibility and support of the community from the church itself as they're saying, they'll open up their parking lot and let people for events and different things park in their space, which is really, you know, kind towards the community, but that's also kind towards visitors and kind towards people who don't know how our streets work and might not be familiar with things and might just be more inclined to do slightly irresponsible things because they're just focused on, oh, look, there's a spot I can park here.

So for me, anything that's, like, not even 30 feet away from a stop sign really makes me nervous.

And would that be your only variance concern?

The secondary one that I could be convinced on potentially is I am concerned about the impervious surface. Not because I recognize that they're planning on containing everything on-site, but when we're looking at the existing standards that we hold new development to, we're seeing a lot of flooding after the fact, particularly in residential development where our threshold might not be sufficient for real life water accumulation, and we might really need to be seriously considering revisiting those thresholds at some point in the future because as we've gotten more rain, we've seen more flooding on things we've already approved at these thresholds. So increasing it by so much, I'd be a little bit concerned about runoff off-site.

So, my only retort to that would be, you know, in our lane, if we hear from the utilities that the need is met based on capacity existing or proposed future, we kinda gotta go we kinda have to roll with that.

Yeah. I mean, we do.

You know what mean?

But we're kinda talking about revamping just part of the parking lot and, you know, are they gonna redirect from the other 70% of that lot to keep it coming into this area that's been beefed up with its drainage? Because we're we're kinda talking about this, like, small area

Yeah.

Meeting the drainage, but does everything else already sufficiently meet the drainage?

And that would be

because we always look at everything in these tiny little silos

Yeah.

And not as a whole.

I don't know. I I feel like that might be a little out of our our lane if utilities have already commented.

And I was just gonna say, you know, Kurt is an engineer, civil engineer. I mean, I think that, I'm gonna take his evidence and that we could put a stipulation, however, if there was a concern across the board that he provide that evidence as a condition of approval, that the dry well that exists on that site can absorb the 92% proposed and previous area of the site. I don't have a reason to not believe that to be the case, but if we ask him to provide a a signed statement to that effect, obviously, that would be something, you know, he could put his credentials behind. He's licensed to do that kind of work.

And the and the inverse well, in a in a different scenario, let's say this project didn't exist and his drywall fails. Well, he's gotta go put in a new drywall. Right? And so so the fact that he's adding a certain square footage with catch basins, and I'm gonna guess slope from the catch asphalt to the catch basin catch basin to the drywall. I mean, at at that point, to me, that's gonna be on the applicant if he wants to flood his turn his parking lot into a bathtub and flood his congregation out. You know what I mean? They they're supposed to be by definition accessible and serviceable and you're supposed to maintain them.

Yeah. They're supposed to maintain them part. You never know. Yeah. But They actually does.

That's but that again, you know, as somebody with dry wells, that that's that's where for me that that the lane definition we're talking about of, do we approve it on this on what we know and what we see or do we approve it on what could be? And that's where

Sure. And we don't have public works here to comment on stuff like we have flooding

Well, but

on Holly and on Ivy if it's specifically right next

This to is an on-site issue and storm drainage and can be as addressed as a private on-site issue via storm drainage review for dry wells. When you get into the public street system, then that is actually the purview of the city at that point, and that's another review, but that's separate from the on-site facilities.

Right.

I mean, I think the one advantage in Canby is most of the soils are excellent compared to the metro area, which is rest of the metro area is not great. A lot of clay, etcetera. You basically have farm soils here. That's what the town is built on. So it's it's some of the best soils in the area for drainage. So the point well taken on drainage, but I would say that I I think trusting that, you know, if we ask a condition of approval that we get up, you know, evidence to that effect in the record. Staff is comfortable with that, that evidence.

Yep. I'm not gonna die on the hill of the drainage. You've heard my concerns, but for for me, it's variance number two that I can't be convinced on.

Okay. So hearing from all the commissioners, I think our first order of business is to entertain some sort of a motion on the extending the CUP to, the new area, proposed parking area. Do you have any thoughts prior to that, vice chair?

I'm having a little bit of a hard time on Number 3 as to why it is even applicable to this. It is a private parking lot, and so I'm I'm I'm and and and the whole impervious

It's in the r two zone. The zone dictates that 30% pervious surface standard.

And half the property is in

the zone. So is your

They come up with townhouse developments too.

Yeah. The the full parcel that you are currently reviewing is all r two. So the C 1 portion is south of the parking lot, which has different impervious surface standards, but this specific parcel you're looking at has a 30% threshold because it's r two. The only way they could change that technically is to rezone it. The applicant's argument was that if you agree with the conditional use of an accessory parking lot, then you can consider this variance kind of within that realm of the conditional use.

I would add to what Brianna mentioned, the nature of this activity is more commercial, in my personal opinion, than it is residential, to your point. So I would say, and the applicant has provided that as evidence as well, I would agree, we would agree with that as well. This is more of a commercial development than it is a residential development. Okay.

Okay. Alright. So, commissioners, at this point, does anyone want to come up with a motion regarding extending the CUP?

I'm gonna hopefully, I'm gonna do this correctly. I think that we first need to make a motion on including the lot located at 489 North Ivy Street to be included in the conditional use permit that is presently granted to the Camby Christian Church. Correct? Simple enough there. That's my motion.

So one more time. The lot at

The lot, the lot presently at 489 North Ivy Street, to be included in the conditional use permit that is now granted to Canby Christian Church.

I'll second that.

We have a second. Okay. So any discussion on this before we put it to a vote? No. Alright. So by roll call vote, motion is to, add Lot 489 North Ivy to be included in CUP currently granted to Canby Christian Church. Starting with commissioner Deroche.

Aye.

Commissioner Luelling. Aye. Commissioner Driscoll. Aye. Commissioner McCarthy.

Aye.

Commissioner Hutchinson. Aye. Commissioner Ewart. Aye. And I am an aye. So the ayes have it. We have, extended the CUP, to include the lot at 489 North Ivy. Okay? So next up, the variances. Okay. Do we have a motion, I'm just gonna put this out there, to accept variances one through six, or do we have a motion or discussion around adopting or voting on each one in the independently?

I would move that we adopt variances one through six with the condition, as Don was saying, that have Kurt confirm on the dry well issue.

Is there a second? No second. So the motion dies. Do we have another motion?

I move that we go through each variance independently and see which ones we think should stand.

Alright. Do we have a motion or a second to vote on the motions line item or variance by variance?

I second.

Okay. So we have a second to vote on the variances one at a time. Roll call vote starting with commissioner Luelley.

Do we just wanna do one all around?

Well, we have to have a motion that is everybody in favor of doing these line line item by line item?

Yeah. That's fine.

Okay. I

would just do a motion to I I I'd like to make a motion to approve variance one second.

Okay. Just do

it like that.

Just do them sequentially? Alright. That just made it easier. So do we undo the motion that was just seconded? Motion falls flat. Okay. Alright. So do try this again. Do we have a motion to adopt variance number one to allow two drive aisles at a width of 21 and a half feet, two and a half feet fewer less than the standard drive aisle width of 24 feet.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve variance number one to allow drive aisles with a width of 21 and a half feet, two and a half feet less than the standard drive aisle of 24.

Do we have a second? I'll second. I'll move. Alright. By roll call, commissioner Llewelling. Aye. Commissioner Drosh.

Aye.

Commissioner Driscoll?

Aye.

Commissioner McCarthy?

Aye.

Commissioner Hutchinson? Aye. Commissioner Ewart?

Aye.

Pause for dramatic effect. Accepted. The ayes have it. We accept variance number one as written. Do we have a motion on variant to accept variance number two?

I think we can have a motion to either accept it or not accept it. Isn't that correct?

Or you can just say name?

Alright.

You can make you can always make a motion to approve or deny. And if you have, like, a condition of approval that you'd like to add it, you can also add that just add that while you're making the motion after.

One more time. Sorry.

Like, for

just Been hitting that a lot.

Just for example, for, like, variance two, if you would like to approve it, you can start, I make a motion to approve variance two. If you would like to approve it with conditions, Say, I'd like to approve this with conditions of approval or variance two with conditions of approval. If you would like to deny, you can do the the same thing. I'd like to make a motion to deny variance.

So I still need a motion? Alright. Do we have a motion on number two?

May I ask, do you guys have a preference of who if we ask everyone to approve each one even though potentially something might get denied or do you want something? Like, for example, to like, I personally would frame it as something that I would like to deny, but I can put it out there as a who approves it and then we see. Let's do it that way, please. I would like to make a motion because I now have to vote for it. We'll make the motion to approve variance number two.

Do I have a second?

Because just because I make the motion doesn't mean I have to vote that way. Correct? Dan's making a face at me. I wanted to make sure I wasn't screwing this up.

Alright. Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay. So roll call vote. Commissioner Jarosz.

You're muted. No.

Commissioner Llewellyn. Aye. Commissioner Driscoll.

Nay.

Commissioner McCarthy. Nay. Commissioner Hutchinson?

Aye.

Oh, man. It's not good. Alright. And I am an eye. So in the case of a You didn't ask me. Commissioner Ewert. Sorry. I was still waiting from the previous pause. Sorry. Go ahead.

I'm gonna have to vote no on that.

Alright. So, variance number two, the nays have it by a vote of four three. Variance number three. Do we have a motion?

I move to approve, variance number three with the condition that the planning department is provided with information demonstrating that the on-site storage is sufficient for the amount of impervious surface proposed.

Do we have a second?

I second Okay.

By roll call vote, commissioner Drosh.

Aye.

Commissioner Luelling. Aye. Commissioner Driscoll.

Aye.

Commissioner McCarthy. Aye. Commissioner Hutchinson. Aye. Commissioner Ewart. Aye. And I'm an aye as well. So variance number three is approved by a vote of seven zero. Variance number four, reduce the landscaping required in the R 2 zone from 30% to 10% of the total lot area. Do we have a motion?

I can do it unless you want to, Michael. Do you have conditions?

No.

Okay. Then, I move that we approve variance number four without condition.

Do we have a second? Second it. I second it. Alright. Roll call vote. Commissioner Jeroche.

Nope. Nope. I

just wanna make a comment on this. The next three motions or the next three things, the applicant said that they can meet these. So just

Okay.

I'm just gonna throw that out there just

Okay. Well then I was May I withdraw?

Making your motion, you might wanna keep that in mind.

Okay. Just wanna throw that out there. Thank you for that.

So I only had that as five and six. You have it as four, They five, and

were saying that three and four were pretty pretty much the same to them and that five and six they could meet was The the

applicant said that number three, they felt that it didn't apply, but we we did we in our discussion, we said we didn't agree with that. Four, five, and six, they said that they they they can meet those.

Okay. Did anybody else also hear they're they're shaking their heads. So three and four, they saw as being basically the same thing. Mhmm. And five and six were the ones that they said that

they can meet.

Yeah. That was the that's what I had to my note. Okay.

Okay. So four, we had a motion and a second. Can we do we move forward as is? You good? Okay.

One more time. That was with condition. Is that correct?

No. Four was just, a motion to approve without further condition.

Okay. And we had a second. From Craig. From Craig. Alright.

Correct.

By roll call vote, commissioner Geroche?

No.

Commissioner Luelling? Aye. Commissioner Driscoll? Aye. Commissioner McCarthy? Aye. Commissioner Hutchinson? Aye. Commissioner Ewart? No. And I'm an aye. So by a vote of five two, number four is approved.

Alright. For number five, I'm gonna switch it up a little bit in the spirit of already being told we can meet these things and say that I move that we deny variance number five.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Alright. And by roll call vote beginning with commissioner Luelling. No. And by no meaning you disagree with their motion or you agree with their motion? Sorry. I just wanna clarify.

I disagree with that. Okay.

Commissioner Drosh?

Yea.

Yea. Commissioner Driscoll?

Yea.

Commissioner McCarthy?

Yea.

Commissioner Hutchinson?

Yea.

Commissioner Ewart? Yes.

And I too am a yes. So variance number five is denied by a vote of six one. Now for variance number six.

Alright. One last kind of backwards one, guys. So, I move that we deny variance number six.

I second. Okay. By roll call vote, commissioner Luelling? No. Commissioner Deroche?

Aye.

Commissioner Driscoll?

Aye.

Commissioner McCarthy? Aye. Commissioner Hutchinson?

Aye. Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Ewart? Aye. And I am also an aye. So variance number six denied by a vote of six seven. Six. I'm sorry. Six one. Six out of seven.

It's okay. Okay.

Yeah. V eight.

Don't we need the motion to include the submission of staff and things that you have in in in your staff report also?

The supplemental staff report? That those are all covered. So we were looking at the same variance requests and our recommendation was actually also the same.

Okay. And the original conditions of approval continue for They stand. Yes. Those stand. I probably should have been a bit clearer on that, but those all stand. So when they come in for site plan review, we will look at the two variances that were accepted. The other ones that were not, the plans will have to reflect that when we review that or we will not be signing off on the site plan review.

We got three that made it through.

Three. Three. Three that made it through. Yes. Alright.

So that concludes our public hearing portion of the evening. Thank you. Thank you all very much for attending. We appreciate the input.

Thank you. Thank you. Next

up.

Great job. I'm very impressed with you guys.

Thanks. I have to say in twenty years of doing this, that was probably more than more complicated. You

got through it. You got through it.

I'm thinking how I'm gonna make those

write those now. I'm sorry. That's why I was on

the fence.

Do we do approve or deny all the way through, like, consistency's sake? I didn't know what would be better.

We're just giving you reciprocal reciprocal complication. Yeah. Next up is items of interest

from planning staff. The first thing is I do have items, but I was gonna bring Ryan Potter up to speak about our code update. Yeah, Ryan. And I just wanted to give a just very brief comment. We are very fortunate to receive another grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development, up to $75,000 grant, which will be complimentary of the money that we set aside in our budget this last fiscal year, which adds to that.

And so Ryan will be taking us forward into that code update. There'll be a work session on November 24 to go through and ask the Planning Commission, not your only opportunity, but to ask the Planning Commission about code elements and with guidance about what there's some parameters around the code.

You're stealing my thunder, Don. You're Okay.

I'm pulling Ryan. Ryan, you got it. Here's the floor.

I I was basically just gonna say the same thing. So, this is, you know, we don't have a consultant yet. We don't have a scope yet. This is the very, very, very first step in updating our code. So, because this group is so important to that effort, we wanted to have a very early work session with you guys on basically leading into our code audit.

So, the audit is what what works in our code, what doesn't work. I think we all have our, you know, our personal, like, things we hate about it. There's there's good stuff in there too, so it's a complicated discussion. And so, I just wanted to just plant a seed in everyone's mind that on November 24, is it, Don? November 24.

November 24, we're gonna have a work session. It'll be very open ended. I'll give a brief PowerPoint, but there's not a lot of value in that discussion if we kinda haven't thought about it before. So, I just wanted to plant the seeds, start thinking about things that you've been frustrated with the code about or things that you think do work, you know, things in other codes that you would like to see us replicate or just really anything. It's an it's an open, flexible discussion, but I just wanted to start you thinking about it, before then because we we'd love to hear what you have to say.

Now, I know I'm gonna have to miss that one, which I'm very disappointed. Should I submit something ahead of time to say, hey, these are kind of my high points just to get it out there?

I think you Well, yeah, it's a work session. Yeah, I think that think that would

Okay. Be And

this is the beginning. Again, this directive here, this will be a code audit first. Going to be looking for an advisory committee. I know you all are really busy, but planting the seed again on that piece. There'll be an advisory committee that will be part of this process.

First is identification of issues, which is the code audit, and then the update will be the following year. It's nice because a lot of the information we have now on housing production strategies, economic opportunity analysis, parks master planning that we've done previously. A lot of these have set tones for code elements that should be included in the code. You all deal with code every day on the the details and what doesn't work and what does work. There's that piece of it.

There's a number of housing bills that senate and housing bills that have come through that are state law now that we can't change, but memorializing those prop those things and procedures. There's just a lot. There's limited land use decision authority that's the state has adopted in the last year. And so all this would be kind of marrying up with the code and and bringing us up into compliance with what we're doing, you know, going forward.

And another thing is, you know, some cities, you know, including we should be doing this going forward is doing something like spot checks and sort of like limited updates and that's not what this is. We are envisioning this as a complete overhaul of our code. Our code is super old, so we should take what's good but re envision what we think it should be. And like Don said, there's a lot of other inputs that go into it. It isn't purely what we want, it's also what we have to do, but we want as many opportunities as possible to get everyone else's input, especially you guys on what that new code should look like.

So we're gonna have multiple opportunities. We're just kicking it off in a few

For sure,

for sure.

Probably January, February ish is the and that'll run for roughly a year, and then the code update will probably run for a year. I mean, there'll be some things that we'll identify. And I don't think we're gonna parcel this out and do them both overlaying each other. But some of this is even about about possibility of new zones that we do not have now. So that would be also in light of the fact that we're doing an urban growth boundary expansion and what that might look like in terms of its zoning may have different zones than what we have now.

And there might be opportunities there to look at that spectrum of should three residential zones be all we have, for example, should there be more? Most jurisdictions have more than three zones. You know, that's the kind

of thing.

Industrial, is that something that really should be what we've traditionally had, which is manufacturing and large warehouses? Or should it be a smaller should they should these be, you know, a smaller scale? I mean, there's these are the questions that we have. We have elements that we need to consider. There's other inputs in that process as well. Obviously, utilities are important, but that's all part of this kind of directive forward kind of thinking about what this might be, not necessarily like replacing zones, but actually having other opportunities for zones that might make more sense than what we have now.

So

that's all part of that discussion. I mean, it's just it's kinda opening it's a refresh of what the code is. I think it's lasted a good amount of time, but it has challenges with it. And we we as staff would like it to be a bit clearer on some of these things as well. Sometimes it's difficult to, you know you have to really read intent in some of this, and some of it's pretty crystal clear and some of it's not. And so it's just it would be helpful to have a bit more direction on this.

So Thank you.

Thank you, mister Warren.

So I have a few few updates real quick. So that'll be Ryan on November 24. Again, more opportunities on that. I did wanna thank, commissioner Ewart and Jarosz for their comments on the, goals, policies, and strategies for the comprehensive plan. I would encourage you all to provide those back to us. Again, deadline November 4, but if you can get it to us sooner, that's great. If we have questions that from what you've provided, we'll get back to you on that. But I do really appreciate the early commentary. It's very helpful. This is leading up to the November 19 city council work session on the comprehensive plan goals, policies, and strategies as the next step on that.

And the transportation system plan, we will have a work session on December 8 for the transportation system plan work session. That'll be the list of projects and going through and bringing you all up to date on that. Then we will have the meeting. We will not have a meeting on November 10. We're gonna cancel that meeting. We don't have any hearing items. We don't have any other things to really update you on at this point. So our next meeting will be November 24, and then we'll have the December 8 meeting. Probably unlikely that we'll have the December 22 meeting because it's the week of Christmas, and I'm not sure if we have any items really to bring forward to you all. Just giving you an advance warning of that.

On some sad news, we're losing our associate planner, Emma Poracolo. She took a job or she's taking a job in the city of Hillsborough, and it's great great to work with her. Really good opportunity for her. We are advertising for her position. She'll be leaving in November 6. She's not left permission? Well, I I jokingly said when her they called up for a reference that I was gonna and I won't tell you what I told her, but but I didn't say those things. So no. She's great great to work with. And it's always sad to lose people.

But I can you know, there's reasons, you know, I mean, Camden is a great community. We can't compete for in some areas that that other larger cities is all I'm gonna say can provide. So yeah.

We have her until the sixth or the twenty sixth?

Sixth, November 6. Yeah.

Okey dokey.

Hillsboro is smaller than Canopy is now.

Yeah. It's Hillsboro. I mean, it's crazy. Like, you know, and they're kind of an outlier on, like, you know, what their benefit package is. It's like I think they're going bankrupt. Well, I not heard that.

The rumor's Rumor, Bill.

But Well,

I see

it's the same.

Yeah. But it's you know, anyway, we're we're happy that she's felt you know, in her career moves, it's it's it's a bittersweet situation, but we are advertising. So we'll be going and hiring somebody else for to replace her. And with all the other work we're doing, what's badly needed on this keeping up with everything. Going on.

Three people to replace her.

Yeah. Yeah.

It's good to know people in other departments and other cities. Like, it's actually good networking if we have to lose her. Hopefully, her commute gets better.

Yeah. She's actually moving there, which was also the first question we asked, which was like, yeah. So Well,

you know, if it works for her.

Yeah. Because that's the first question on Washington County are, you know, how's your commute?

It's not an answer you

want. Yeah. Yeah.

So Okay. And that was it. That was all I had unless you all have questions, for me.

Will there be a a little farewell card or anything that anybody can sign?

We we're going to yeah. We're I will we'll make that happen. Okay. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Taking her out to lunch and and so there's other things happening internally. But Cool. Great idea. Alright.

So moving on to items of interest guidance from planning commission. Planning commissioners, anybody have parting shots before we adjourn?

I was kind of curious, do we have an update on the PGE energy situation?

There's more coming. What we've done as staff is we're putting together a pipeline, set of pipeline projects, meaning that these are projects that have been through land use, projects that have both commercial residential projects that have been through been through our land use process that have not been built, projects that are in process of being approved. We actually have some that are coming to the planning commission. And then we have projects that likely would come through that have been through pre apps, but we're not obviously, we don't know for sure if they're gonna go through, but within the last three years. So that's all been assembled.

That's step one that's been provided to Canva utility for their review, and we're building kind of a model with this so that we can figure out what the needs are, those electrical needs, what load growth, which is the natural growth can occur. And most of that we believe is load growth that's in pipeline. Secondly, we're looking at vacant lands, partially vacant and vacant lands within the current city limits and current Irma growth boundary. And then we will sign with assistance from Camby utility and PGE anticipated will be doing anticipated, like, residential densities and type of industrial development that might happen, for example. And we have some of that information from our economic opportunity analysis on what the mix of that would likely be.

Again, it's a bit speculative, but it gives an idea of what that generation of electricity might be. Third, we're going to look at the urban growth boundary expansion areas, even though those have not been determined by what is being studied, and we'll do the same thing there. So the idea is to give a a very kind of looking at this broad brush estimate of what the overall global needs for the community are, and then that would be circulated back to PGE and Bonneva Power for a request. Mhmm. That's that's the solution piece of it.

So we have a near term piece, which is this pipeline piece, which I think is near term and hopefully with a few very few exceptions, that would not be an issue to serve. Secondly is vacant land. And then third, what where we're going with our urban growth boundary, is gonna take several years for that to actually come to reality in terms of being available for development. That has to go through the boundary initiation process and then concept planning and then through our comprehensive plan update process yet again as an addendum and then into annexation, which would be the following steps. So these are large or long time frame, you know, looking at probably three years for that to go through all that exercise.

So you I don't know if this is something you have the answer to, but with kind of like the interagency agreements between Bonneville, which gives the power officially to Canby Utility and PGE whose lines bring power into us, is PGE obliged to provide power if we need it?

So the PGE I'm sorry. Bonneville, we have their my understanding on this is the power is coming from Bonneville. It's being routed over PGE lines. The question becomes the capacity of those lines.

Yeah. That's why.

So it's not electrical generation. It's the capacity over the lines of the issue.

And evidently, we have to remember to ask because I saw that during the presentation and evidently, we forgot to ask. Please, may we have more power? And so they they, for some reason, completely ignored the PSU projections and were completely surprised that we might need some capacity for our industrial park. I was not impressed with that at all. And, I've been watching the power grid for years as I've been watching all of the server farms roll out and have been displacing other needs.

And I gotta tell you, talking as a commission and as a community member, the smug expression on that fellow when he tried to tell us that it was because we didn't we failed to request the power. I find that to be pretty weak sauce.

And it, you know, it is a bit of a challenging thing. All I'm going to say is the statutes in Oregon do not really focus on land use providing electricity. So the land use department entities are not about that. That's not how the statutes are organized is all I'm going to say on that. But with that reality check that we now have them at the table and we're trying to work together cooperatively together to come up with a solution.

And it's gotten a bit more interesting because there's articles in the paper now, and the papers now about not only the issue we're dealing with, but this whole global issue on electricity in general and availability of electricity. My personal bent on this is I think we need a national electrical policy, which we do not have, and that would help greatly because doing it state by state, I don't think is working so well.

China has twice twice the capacity they need Yeah. So nationwide. Yeah.

So so yeah. So I I think there's, you know, there's definitely more to that discussion.

But yeah. Do wanna say something?

We're just giggling about the furniture rearranging happening there.

So yeah. Okay. So that's what I've got. I mean, there'll be more you'll be updating. We'll give you more I mean, I I wanna end with a more positive note, but, like, we are working collaboratively. PG and E has been PG and E has been at the table, working collaboratively with them and with Cub and and Bonneville. It's it's not great news. I agree with commissioner Hutchinson. It's not great news. Timing's not great, but we're trying to make it work within that, you know.

How how does this happen near term while a long term solution is being completed is really the reality here in the situation. Mhmm. It's not completely doom and gloom, you know, in the situation, but we are trying to figure out where that bright line is on generation of, you know, transmission and Transmission. You know, that's the line which we don't know where that line is exactly. That's still being evaluated. Yeah.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

So you've got an interesting public hearing coming up on the fifth visit for the extension of the work

not really a land use activity. They're really in our nuisance code, and so they're really through the administrator on our city attorney's office. But that is, something that is on the agenda, to be looked at. Not uncommon for large industries to request noise variances. They have especially for foundations, etcetera, they they have needs that are not your typical like, for a home, you don't have the same needs that you do for a large, building.

OLCC just went through and was granted a noise variance, for example, in June. That's Oregon liquor license control. So these are not uncommon. I think part of this is there's more interest in this particular one. And so I think part of this is some of the other industry that's around that, that's operational is not necessarily helping that discussion

Sure.

In my opinion. So that's that's part of this issue that is being discussed. And so yeah.

Are the variances specific to the construction phase or operational?

So it's construction, not operation, but construction. Construction. I I mean, mean, operational operational should be really limited in terms of, like, what that means normal for industries, but they're, you know, they're not manufacturing anything. It's everything's inside of a building, etcetera. So, yeah, so it's the construction. But it's a very large building. So, you know, that's part of the challenge. And so, I mean, really the questions for counsel are, you know, do we stick with the normal 7AM to 10PM, which is authorized completely as the hours, or could it be something earlier than that? You know, it's early morning hours as well what we're talking about. So yeah.

And for what duration versus not granting it and over what duration does that mean and then what is better and the council needs to weigh that stuff out. So that's that's part of the the council review.

So What do we have at Walnut?

Walnut Street extension, they're, I think, fairly I think they're pretty wrapped up with ODOT stuff. I Ryan and I were talking briefly about that today on the I think the access permits are all done. I think there's coordination on the signal that's happening. We still have the IGA that's not solved with the county. So just another refresh here.

That property is still in the county. Even though it's in a urban growth boundary, we've not annexed it. So the county has to release us to be able to deal with that based on our standards with their commitment that that land will end up the annexation will be happen subsequently, and the city will end up annexing the road in particular what after it's built. I mean, that's essentially it. And that we're interested we obviously are interested in annexing that area, but it the, you know, the road in particular because we didn't annex that area beforehand, it has to be released by the county for us to build it to our standard.

Yeah. So basically, it takes too long to annex. The quicker path is for this IGA to be approved by the county to allow us to build it, but we still have to wait for the county to sign off to allow us to build it. That's the holdup right the number one holdup right now.

So the near term, it's it's soon. I mean, we're like really close on this IGA thing. I know we've been saying that for a while, but it you know, our administrator has been talking to the administrator of the county. It's been sorted and resolved. We have the it's written. It just needs to be signed, and that's really where it's at on that. And, you know, so construction should be starting. If Kurt would have stayed, he could have responded to detail because he's managing that project. So more to come.

Thank you for that update. Any other questions, comments before we, motion to adjourn? None on mine. Alright. Do we have a motion?

I move we adjourn. I

second it.

All in favor?

Aye. We

are adjourned. Good evening.