Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

here everybody. We uh the first time on your face it's it's actually for me I'll speak for myself it's kind of nice to be at ground level I feel more like it's a conversation up an entire feel like I would be using without gels and just kind of a conversations it really is us trying to pick up what's going on what we're trying to do and then apply the city code so far you're too far off agenda but nice to be here with Um, one more thing off agenda, but I'm just going to keep coming back to it. Um, a lot of times people say they can't keep up with all that's going on in the city, and there is a lot going on with the city right now. A lot of projects going on. Uh, certainly the website is a great place to place to find that information. But, uh, recently, I think just two months ago, the city added, uh, the Hannon Beach Community, and that can also be found online. And if you don't like navigating the website, uh you only have to navigate it one time. Sign up for the mailing list and you'll get that bulletin has some really useful information about what's happening, you know, like announcing construction starting on the police headquarters. I'm trying to think what else this month. Um discussions about a couple development measures. Those are certainly lots of questions that that are out there vote. So, um, you just want to keep up on what's going on with the city, that's a great place to go. All right, now we'll get to the formal stuff here. Um, I'll call our meeting to order. May I have an approval of our agenda this year? Move to approve. I'll take that as a second, please. Um, any further discussion about the agenda as we're set up? You said Ray Miller is going to be online. Yeah. Yeah. Nothing on that. All right, let's vote for the agenda.

Commissioner, yes. Yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Yes. Okay. We'll move to consideration of the minutes from our last meeting March 27th. Are there any amendments to the minutes? If there are no amendments or no further discussion, may I have a motion to approve amendments? So motion. Any further discussion? Call the role, please. Commissioner W. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Bates. Yes. Commissioner, if that was me. Yes. It's hard to hear. Commissioner Sinclair. Yes. Commissioner Orla. Yes. Chair Newton. Yes. Can we do a mic test really quick? Tessa, will you talk speak again? Commissioner Matusk, will you let us know if you can hear Tessa? Okay. When she speaks. Testing. testing. Can you hear me? Yeah, she's just going in and out. I mean, I can hear for the most part. It's just couple words here and there are muddled. Okay, got it. I don't think it's her. I think it's the room, but whatever. I'll I'll be fine. I'll move to public comment. Um, at this time, I'll take public comment. If you have something you'd like to share with us that you believe is within the perview of the planning commission, um, we'll offer you an opportunity to speak with us. Uh we do ask that you limit that um testimony to three minutes. Is there anyone who'd like to speak under the public comment? Anyone online who'd like to

speak? No. Okay, then we'll move on. We'll move to our action items. So, we have a number of items here tonight. Uh we we will be we could be here for a little while. Um we will take a few breaks. Um the the restrooms are to your left, to our right. Um probably after an hour and a half or so, we'll take a break. Um, we have a couple quasi judicial hearings tonight. Inevitably, these are, you know, this body serves as a as a quasi judicial body. We're making a ruling. Inevitably, someone loves a decision and inevitably someone doesn't. Um, if you don't agree with our decision, you have the right to appeal. Appeal this our decision to the city council. Um, we're going to afford uh applicants the opportunity to make their case before us, if you will. Uh, we'll listen to that. We may have questions for the applicant or the applicant's representatives. Um, we will ask if anyone's opposed to the project. They may come forward and speak. The applicant or the representatives are then offered the opportunity to come back and and rebut anything they've heard, offer any additional testimony if they have anything that they'd like to have, if any they forgot. Once we close the public records, we can take no more public testimony. So, make sure you get in what you want because it's closed not only with this body, but it's also closed to the city council and should further than that is also totally closed. We'll do our best to ask any questions we have um that we think are pertinent to the decision. You are afforded the opportunity to answer any concerns you have. Okay, let's jump into it. Our first item is a quite judicial hearing continuation of C2501 regular for conditional use permit for a residential build in a weapons buffer area. CU2501 Ray Miller applicant for a conditional use permit for residential construction in the inventoried weather sub. The project is located at 415 Chillcube Trail Road Tax Lot 117 map

51032B and is in the residential lower density RL zoning district. The application will be reviewed against the criteria of the municipal code 17.102 overlay zone and 17.86 conditioning use. Does anyone object to jurisdiction planning commission to hear this matter at this time? Does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or personal bias? Has any commission member had any expartite contacts or made a site visit? And I we actually that question's been asked before and we have um anything additional to the staff report. Uh no, there's no new additional information for the staff report. Um we have received four new exhibits uh since the previous planning commission hearing. Uh that includes a supplemental storm water report, supplemental wetlands report, a supplemental engineering memo, and additional uh plans. Those all been distributed. Is there any additional correspondence that's coming? Thanks. Great. I'm reminded that I did not check my phone. Make sure it's turned off. If you all just make sure your phones are turned off, it will keep us from awkward moments later, including the person who's supposed to know what they're doing. At this time, I'll call for public testimony. The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports and listed in the criteria sheets on the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed towards those criteria or other criteria in a comprehensive plan form of the code to which the person testifying to apply for the decision. An issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and parties an opportunity to respond. The issue concludes appeal based on that issue. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair state their

full name and mailing address and if appearing in a representative capacity identify person they represent an application or excuse me is a representation by the office um so I guess if there's no formal presentation by the applicant we just consider what's been submitted are We then the applicant is here. I'm not I I don't want to assume I know. Um I think um if um I know the applicant is here, Miss Miller. Um I don't I'm not sure if she has other people that are also representing her some of the documentation and I think there was some questions at the last meeting about the mitigation efforts and the landscaping of storm drainage. So, I didn't know I if if we wanted um we could ask questions or we could have those people that provided those documentation uh go through them. I don't know what's easier to to ask them specific questions about what we've received or let forward to let them present the information. I see a hand up by Orion. Yep. Hi. Can everyone hear me? Yes. Hi, this is this is Ryan Sheen. Uh I'm the civil engineer uh working with Ry. Um I'm just here to answer any questions anyone has and um provide any insight. May we have your address, please, Mr. I'm sorry. Your mailing address? Um 622 Southeast 18th Avenue, Portland, Oregon. Perfect. Thank you. Um, and Anita has her hand up. Yes. I'm Anita Kate Smith.

I'm with Westbrook Science and Design. My address is 1370 13700 Southwest Ascension Drive in Tiger, Oregon. And I prepared the wetland documentation. Great. Uh, is anyone else here on behalf of the applicant? Okay. So, um, by the fact I've heard you both say you're open to questions, open for questions, but no presentations, uh, by the applicant or any of the applicants represented. Is that fair for me to say? Yes. Thank you. Okay. You're welcome. Uh, are there presentations by any proponent favor of this? Okay. How about opponent other opponents? Okay. We'll move back to the applicant and their team. This may seem a little redundant, but there's a procedure we have to follow. Anything you'd like to add before we move to um well, I think we should questions. I'm not going to close the record. I think we should just offer the opportunity for the applicants and the applicants representative to respond to any questions. Do any commission members have questions for the team that is representing or the one comment? Um, I noticed in the wetland mitigation report, this is um, page six of exhibit A9 or page six of the wetland science and design report that it looks like you are suggesting herbicides be applied to limit invasives, but under our wetland code, it does say that herbicides are not to be used in wetland and wetland buffer areas. So, I would be concerned about maintaining this section with herbicides, but I'd be interested to

know why you felt herbicides would be necessary. I considered using herbicides in this limited fashion um because everyone in this area who's tried to control blackberry, it is difficult to control. But there are ways to mitigate the diff the potential of that herbicide to cause problems. um the ODOT's roadside management guide and other documentation. These are this is the type of guidance that we use in when we have to do control within wetlands themselves as well as adjacent sensitive areas. So is an accepted use elsewhere. If the commission would prefer it not be done that way, that can be removed and it can be a hand removal. But recognizing that that is a less effective way of removing it quickly and re you leaving it to potentially regrow either from the seedbank or from pieces of root that would be left behind. So it's a discretionary piece of this. It it can potentially be controlled, but it is less likely to be successful in the short term. question. I I have a question actually for Mr. Chin. Um so I I tried to to go through your or I did go through uh your submittal. I think I was the one who expressed the concern about um runoff mitig mitigation. Um it looks to me like if I understand correctly that u the infiltration trench it is designed to handle what would be considered a maximum event. Is that correct? Yeah. And I and I didn't understand at that time but now that it's the trench is actually runs parallel to the planned um

parking area. Yeah. Yeah. I thought um I thought that was a good location to have it. Um it could it could receive and treat runoff from from that parking area as well as the house. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure I understood a lot of neat scientific stuff that I didn't understand. Thank you. No problem. Any other questions? I actually had one more question. Miss Miller, could you please clarify again? I think you said there were no tree removals, but there is one tree that appears very, very close to the parking area and structure. Could you clarify again? Is that tree going to be removed or not? No, there will be no tree removal. Thank you. Anyone else? any uh final comments the applicant or applicants or representatives would like to make. Okay, we will close the public record at this time and move to our deliberation. We'd like to start. Well, I appreciate the additional information included with uh the new information we received uh for this meeting. uh it has answered all the questions that I had from the previous meeting. Uh I really appreciate that. So um for me this this record is complete and uh done everything or answer the questions that I had. Good. Any other comments?

Yeah, I I agree and I Mickey, thanks for the the herbicide comment. I I think removing Blackberry by hand is very effective. I I don't see any problem as long as you stay on top of it. You pick the new starts when they come up and they they go away. So, I I would I'm okay with approving this subject to not using any herbicide pesticide for blackberry removal. I agree with Aaron. Erin, that almost sounds like we got a motion coming from you there. You want to make a motion? I move to approve the application contingent upon uh uh the applicant not using pesticides to for blackberry or any other invasive or non-invasive uh species. for Riverside. Riverside. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? I believe there were three other conditions attached to the city the city's report. Do we need to read those? I think it' be 14. Okay. I I move that we approve this application subject to the following conditions. One, erosion control measures shall be installed by the applicant and approved by the city prior to the start of work. Two, the city shall be notified in no less than 48 hours prior to on-site disturbance. Three, the use of motorized equipment shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 700 p.m. or I assume that's the interval between 7 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

for municipal code section 8.16. And then fourth um I don't know exactly how it was worded previously, but exclusion uh excluding the use of herbicides. So there's a motion with a second on it. Um are we all okay moving away from that motion with second to the motion that has been proposed uh that has not yet been seconded? Yes. strike first motion and go with the second motion is proposed the first and the second nominees of the earlier motion in favor of that commission. Uh sorry yes uh I I missed the the the previously imposed conditions so less thanks for reading those in. All right. So, we have a second. Okay. Any further discussion? Yes. Commissioner Gates. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Would you uh just one second? So, Miss Filler, you uh received your approval um this evening with uh those conditions. We'll follow up with you, but uh you'd be free to uh leave if you'd like, but

uh your application was approved. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll move to our next item. That's administrative appeal. A2501, Doug and Sue Fell are administrative appeal. The city's denial of the tree removal permit through Fidel for an administrative appeal. The city's denial of the retreat tree removal permit at 379 Hope Avenue 353C. The appeal will be reviewed to code section 17.18 request for review. Does anyone direct the jurisdiction of the planning commission to hear this matter at this time? Does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or personal bias? I have a possible conflict of interest and I'd like the advice of my fellow commissioners city attorney. I was the original design on this project in 2019. So I have knowledge of the project of the tree removal. Uh I also provided the credials with additional the original information that we had submitted to the city at the time of the application 2019. I I do not really know where I stand on this one. So I'm looking forward to well before my commission. So, but I still had to that's sort of where I come. I can see how this could do this in an office. I I do have some questions about the initial approval process and how that relates to the subsequent

approval process. I know we are today and I think it there's a possibility we could be biased by any fewer comments. I that's my own personal opinion. [Music] Um, and I haven't thought it through entirely. That's my first hit. I think we're close to a conf. That's why I'm asking. Yeah, I understand. I'll be specific. It's fine. Yeah, I think you may have questions on J also. That's fine. I may bas although I will say I'm not sure um we may have to go to counseling on this one. But if we could ask questions of you introuse yourself in yourself actually it would be great if you could come and sit in one of those briefly and and not not participate I think abundance of caution. I appreciate you. Oh yeah. I'm less concerned about it maybe than um some of the other members here, but I appreciate the fact that you did. Oh, okay. Anyone else? Has any commission member had any exart contact or made a decision? Do we have a staff report? Yes. The appellent Doug and Superell are appealing the administrator to deny an application to remove two [Music] susp. The tree removal permit application materials indicate the subject trees are in close proximity to the foundation of a house and have the potential to cause structural damage as the trees naturally grow. It is noted that the house was expanded in 2022 and the trees in question were estimated or evaluated at that time. During the

expansion, the house expansion of the house post foundation is used in order to minimize encroachment into the critical room zone. During review of the 2025 tree removal application, the city arborist found that conditions of the property do not yet warrant removal of the trees. His evaluation dated March 11th states, quote, "There are still several years before the trees will grow into the residence. I estimate the tree is growing in diameter at a rate of 1/8 to 1/4 in per year." Close quote. And that concludes the sale. Okay. Is there any additional correspondence not seeing these things unmuted? There was one letter I think everyone retrieved from me. I believe that was sent that out. So I think everyone has that. Yeah. Okay. Public testimony. Pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports listed on the criteria sheets on the meeting page of the city. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed towards those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan on municipal floor. The person testifying believes applies to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue includes appeal based on that issue. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments or evidence regarding the application. The planning commission shall grant such requests by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for additional written testimony, arguments or evidence. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair, state their full name and mailing address and if appearing in a representative capacity identify who they represent. Is there a presentation by the Yes.

I'm Dr. D. My local address is at 379 Elkrun, Canon Beach, Oregon. My mailing address is 168, Washington 98027. Kind of nervous tonight, so please bear with me. I have the record is long and I have a few I'm not going to go through, but I just have a picture of things I'd like to talk about. I made copies for everyone. Is that okay if I pass them in? Um, do you have enough copies for everyone sitting here? I have enough for everyone that's And Mr. Fredell, just for the sake of the people sitting here who did not have the opportunity to read this before you speak and people, can you give us kind of a quick summary of what you're hoping to accomplish with what you've given us here or are you just going to read it or what was your thought? I am going to read to you and this is some of the stuff I'm gonna read today and I'm hoping you'll change my mind in the city. Okay, go ahead. Okay, so the the first paragraph that's at the top here is quoted from the city code and I don't think you'll find it anywhere else in the packet which kind of surprised me but this is this is what the code is. The city shall issue a tree removal permit if the applicant demonstrates that one of the following criteria met. Removal of a tree which poses a safety

hazard. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents foreseeable danger to the public or foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure. And such hazard cannot uh or danger cannot be reasonably alleviated by pruning or treatment of a tree. And so you know that's the standard. And then in addition to that the code um adds the um by reference the certified arborist code and that's the second paragraph there and it's certified armorous responsibilities concerning public health and safety certificants and candidates must one follow appropriate health and safety procedures in the course of performing professional uh activities to protect clients, employers, employees, and the public from conditions where injury and or other harm can be foreseeably reasonably foreseeably unforeseeable. And so the what I think is so important about that is again both of those the question is the issue is a foreseeable hazard. That's that's what the code is written on that there is a foreseeable hazard. A foreseeable hazard means something that happens in the future as opposed to a current hazard which means something that's happening right now. And that's really what I think the key is to code is that we do not have to wait for our home to be damaged for us to be injured to take action. We can take action based on a foreseeable

hazard and that's in the code absolute right. The next on my talking sheet, I took the top line off of the two reports that we've had done on the trees that they are rated as nine. And on the first one, which was done by Harbor, the concern is fun failure leading to a whole tree failing. So that's what keeps me up at night because if that happens, that's the end of our house and possibly the end of us. And the next one was done recently by limb walkers and it says same thing hazard 9. And so I want to know what hazard 9 is because that's what I'm learning. But when I look it up, what it says is a tree hazard evaluation form rating of nine indicates a severe risk. This means that a tree with a rating of nine has multiple and significant defects posing a high risk of failure and potential impact on people and property. And so that's what we're living with. That's what my son, he's with us, that's what we're living with. And when the grandchildren with us, that's what we're so that's that's a concern to me. And so when the city denied our application based on the hazard not being current that that's not the code. That is not what the code is. We do not have to have a current hazard for us to be able to tax take action. It's a foreseeable hazard. And when the cities are also says that he wants us to have a current hazard rather than a foreseeable hazard. Now the I believe that everyone

all all three of the arguments have acknowledged a foreseeable hazard including the city's office and the reason why I know the city has agrees that it's also a foreseeable hazard because he's set out a formula on how to when it becomes a current hazard. Now that just by definition is a foreseeable hazard. So, in my view, all three arguments agree there's a foreseeable hazard. The code absolutely allows us to remove the foreseeable hazard. And so, there should have been no reason why this was refused. Now, for some reason, if you disagree with me and you uh you believe that we need to wait until the uh however, if you agree with the city that we have to wait for our house to be damaged and our family to be injured, then I have included several images that shows the current damage to the home from the currently hazardous And so in the package uh you'll find pictures of stress cracks on the on the concrete foundation. You'll see where the the pillars are leaning over. You can see where the floor system is shifted towards the house away from the uh tree and that it's we have sheetrock damage and cracks that are happening. So, and as far as the injuries, hazards to people that, you know, we have to live in that house and it creates a lot of stress and concern when we have to live in the house knowing that to our west consider this an extreme hazard that should be taken care of now and that the city seems to want to wait until we're damaged and

injured before any action can be taken. And so I'm hoping that you will help us get rid of this hazardous situation so we can continue to use our home the way it's intended to. Thank you for your consideration. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are there questions for a couple questions? I have a question. Uh Mike, you could just hold on one second. We have one here. Um, your letter talks about how the original uh, arborist put something in the wrong place on the property when that expansion of the home was made. Can you elaborate on that a little bit for me? So, yes, that the the house as designed and approved by the city had 12 in eaves on and you can actually see that in the pack. You'll see a there is a page like this and you can actually it's hard to see but you'll see that on the new building there is a 12in ease but if you look at the picture as built that's also here that there is no ease and the tree is right up against the the house and so the arborist who wanted these trees saved put the boundary so we could not remove the tree that needed to be removed to build the house room as it was designed and approved by the city. And so as a result of that, we got a call from contractor and said we can't build it as designed. And then we discussed well okay do we stop work or do we go ahead with what pending and and

that also has to do with the um in the arborist report that they want us to accommodate the tree uh which is also done but there's nothing we can do because there's no ease. So the only way we could accommodate the tree, which we don't have to, that's not a thing, is to structurally change the wall of the house there, make a little room or something for the tree to live before it has to be taken down. That's just that's not as the arborist also wants us to plant trees now so that when the tree falls down, they'll be mature trees. That's not it's just so much of what's in the arbor. Uh the other question I had for one of the arborists says that uh the removal of those trees may damage the potentially damage the other trees or inhibit their growth or their health by removing these tree trees. Are you concerned that I wasn't concerned about it? uh that the tree that the it's the city arborist who made that and the other arburists we've had come in feel those that tree is healthy there isn't any problem it's not like these two trees that have uh hollow parts underneath of them and when too close to the roots are there so that tree that he talks about isn't a concern to me um if you know that's something that I'm going to want to think about in the future but the arborists that we've look at it and say that tree is not a problem. But the the concern is is that you know these two trees are the ones that are affecting our house. this other I mean I'm confused about it because the city arist almost makes a point that all three of

them and you know if that's something you want to decide I you know we want it to be safe but to me you know putting our family at risk so this other tree can stay there is not is not what we want our Do you uh do you have any plans in future to to replace these trees at a different location on your property so that they based on what I thought the code was is that the city would have approved this and then told us what and we would do that. Okay. Thank you. I have I have a question but I don't think it's fair to ask it of you really it's a question of the various artists but at least I have to make an observation one of the big differences between the their report seems to me uh the evidence of you know roots I think there was even some decaying um you know decay that was noted in in at least one of the arborist reports, but it seems to be a difference of opinion. I certainly don't read that out of the city arborist reports at all. I I would believe those to be perfectly healthy viable trees. Um what reason that's important to me is that our code clearly clearly gives us reason uh to remove diseased trees or dying trees. It's a little harder to do in my view when it's a perfectly healthy tree. You know, you you the the reasons to remove it are a little bit more subjective, although I'll grant you you've got some pretty good evidence that you've got property damage. If in fact the trees

are diseased, then that would be an important factor for me. Just an observation I think really more than anything else. May I respond to that? Sure. So, if these trees were in uh the middle of our yard, like many of the other trees, we've only developed about 25% of our because we like the trees. We haven't put a yard in. We have gravel driveway. We've done everything we could to save all the trees. So, all of the trees there, I would completely agree with you that there's no foreseeable hazard for them because they're healthy trees growing in an area where they can't cause a problem. Having a healthy tree that is so close to a house that's causing damage that with a 15 foot sway of the top and inches at the bottom, it can hit the the structure of the house, push the room in, snap the tree. Those are all reasons why it's okay to take a healthy tree down. And the code does allow that because it's a foreseeable hazard. Yeah. And I'm not disagreeing and I'm not unsympathetic at all. Want to leave you with that. Uh I just wish that our experts would agree a little bit better in the record than what I read. You know, I'm disappointed in the process that we used. I would have liked it if we would have sat down with the city and the arborist. Maybe the city could have talked to the city arborists about what the code actually says so that he wouldn't put a bunch of stuff in there that's not even in the code and make decisions on things like current hazards as opposed to foreseeable hazards. I mean, that's what I think. I don't see how any other decision could be made because you you should not be able to hold me that I have to wait till the foreseeable hazard converts to a a current has it that's not in the code

and you should the city should not be doing that. So I would have loved a different process where we could have sat down and talked about it but that I was asked about that and I was told that's just not the city's problem. Commissioner Bates, you had a question. Just a quick question of the applicant. I'm just wondering what the design considerations were uh in leaving that tree in place when you built the the addition. the there wasn't a design consideration. We were we were stuck because the city artist had put the area the stayout zone in a place where we could not complete the project as it was approved by the city. And so you know that was a design change that was forced on us by the city artist which he should not have been able to do. He should not have been able to force an approved change to a plan. Nonetheless, you knew the tree was there when you selected the footprint for the addition. So to some extent, you knew exactly how close that Yes, those trees were supposed to be removed. And so why did you not follow through with that process? I think that's where I'm getting lost in the narrative. because we were stuck between having the project go forward or sending all the subcontractors home and argue with the city and the city arborist about whether or not they should have stopped us from building it as designed. The contractor had a workaround and it was to leave the eaves off the house and that way we could keep going without incurring any additional expense sending everybody home and waiting for whatever the process was to get the city owners to change the decision that he had made. So ultimately you did make a decision to

build close to trees knowing that because you do like you say you had the choice to say stop work deal with the trees in a way that would not create a future concern but you decided to stick with the plan and just adjust your eaves. So you knew you did make a decision to build close to those trees. Well, so in my view is that the city owes us the ease and so we can come back and say, "Okay, those trees need to come down so we can go ahead and finish it as approved by the city." And so I, you know, I get your point. We went ahead and and built it anyhow knowing, but you know, we have lived with those trees for years now. And as they creep closer and closer and closer, it was always known that at some point those trees were going to come contact the house. So you've had this addition here for three years and over that time they've probably burned by an eighth to a quarter inch per year, something like that. Can you elaborate on on and by the way the the purpose of these questions while you're here is to give us as much information as we can really is to give you every opportunity to give us as much information as part as we can get before we close you. We really want your opinion on this stuff so that when we go to delivery we have as complete a picture as we can. I've had a tree hit my house that fell from me to this microphone to my wife and I. It's a terrible thought to have. I have all the in the world. At the same time, I sit in this chair with the responsibility of taking my personal uh experience and trying to tie it together, if you will, with this code that we're responsible to. You said something that caught my attention. You believe the city owes you the trees removed based on the location of the east. Why do you believe that? Can you elaborate on that? In response to being asked why we went forward with a

project, didn't we accept the city's armorous decision when he decided not to let us put the views on the house? And so I believe that since the design has been approved and it's still approved that, you know, we should be able to come back to the city and not have to show that tree is hazardous. We should be able to go ahead and put the eaves on and move trees because that's what the city said. It's the city arborist that more or less undid what the city had proved. And so that's the reason why I said that. Now whether or not we actually want to put those eaves are on that's kind of not key in my mind. What's in my mind now is that the trees have grown that the hazard is real that arborists are telling us that we're at danger and I believe the city needs to take action now to address the hazard. Can you make a distinction for me? This is something I was thinking about. Um, the tree is 100 feet plus or minus tall, I believe. So, it was a danger when you had your initial your initial structure and it continues to be a danger with your addition. It becomes more of a danger each day. So, was a danger, now it's more. Is it more of a danger based on what you built or is more of a danger on just this tree aging? So I believe it's a combination of the tree getting closer to the eaves, us being a you know when the when the everyone is just looking at a piece of paper that's not the same as standing out and watching the tree sway towards the structural wall. I mean I didn't have that opportunity. Now I can see it

happen. when we went forward with the project, there wasn't any talk about, oh, you know, you're going to start seeing structural cracks in your in your foundation and there wasn't any talk about, well, you know, these these peers were having a bill to prolong the life of tree that they're going to start leaning over at some point. So, there wasn't any of those types of discussions. So, whether the risk has actually changed or our awareness of the risk has changed. I had a question. When I look at these pictures, I wouldn't know the difference between tree roots and simple settling. Cracks happen in concrete and in drywall. I know from my own home. Have you had a structural engineer actually come out and say that what you are seeing that you're calling damage due to the tree is due to the tree as opposed to natural settling? We have not. Are there other questions for the anyone online? Do you have any representatives? I have. Okay. Anything further you like to thank you. Thank you. Are there any presentations by 364 Avenue. I'm a full-time resident neighbor obviously across the street. And I just wanted to say that I believe that uh this should be approved if anybody went and looked at the situation particularly the one tree that's done so far from the fascia on the

gable just a common sense say this is a very bad situation and we have had a number of trees in our neighborhood that have fallen and caused damage to houses uh at least at least a couple of them and pretty severe and the Dallas have also had some damage from a fall tree. So we live up there and these very tall trees and sometimes it's a little scary when winds blowing hard. So, I've got a couple trees myself that are pretty scary. But anyway, just like to say I believe that there's a serious hazard there and the commission should approve the request. Thank you. Are there other components? Anyone online? Okay, we'll move to opponents. Is there anyone opposed? The applicant has uh the opportunity to come again with any additional thoughts. Anything you'd like to add? No, thank you. Okay. Any last questions for the applicant before we close the record? Okay. Close the recordation. find this a complicated one because the code envisions damage to an existing structure but in essence that structure didn't exist until Fell's placed it there. The tree was a clear clear concern at the time and choosing to move forward. I'm having a hard time balancing um how this code envisioned that pre-proction would work.

Anyone else? I think I had similar concerns. It's the code it reading it is is focused on risk to a structure from a tree yet because the tree was there first and then the addition is almost risk to the tree from a structure because of which came first and it doesn't really deal with that. I wish I wish we were here in 2022 talking about this, right? when we could really make a good decision that would help everybody. But that's all I'm knocking on water under the bridge. It's not the facts we have to deal with today. um I believe uh subject to requiring you know a true engineering study to verify that the damage actually is due to the tree which I believe um I think they do have sufficient justification for making requests for Mike I see your hand up yeah just a couple things um you know it points out that we have a pretty bad tree code right and we need to get that tree code fixed quickly. But, you know, in response to the applicant, um, you know, there were a lot of pot shots taken at the city arborist. Um, and the reality is, you know, two two experts can disagree on a matter and it can be totally legitimate. Um, so I'm I'm not I'm not happy about a position of of uh having to overrule the uh the opinion of somebody who represents the city and has done it um well for a number of years. On the other hand, I get what the applicant's going through here and I understand their concerns. The difficulty for me and it and it's pointed out by the letter that came in and that you know that letter says, "Yeah, it's a problem. It's really

close. And by the way, if that tree falls, it's a problem for me, too. Um, you know, we can talk about every tree in that neighborhood being re uh have being a hazard as being reasonably foreseeable. And where do you draw the line? I mean, if it's a matter of the tree across the street looks like if it blows hard enough, it's going to fall on my house. Yeah, that's a risk we take in this environment. And I'm not so crass as to say that, you know, if you don't like trees, uh, don't move to a forest. But, you know, I almost feel that way in some cases, particularly when letters like that come in or when, you know, somebody takes a shot at the city arborist for a decision that was legitimately made. So, I just want to defend the city arborist here. That doesn't mean that I don't feel for the applicant. I understand their problems. The problem occurred though when they made a decision to design in that direction toward the trees as opposed to another direction. Um, and that's what our a new code would fix. So, yeah, I guess I'm up here rallying for something that doesn't exist. But, um, it this is not an easy question and it's not a matter of the city being bad or good. It's that the applicant put them put us in a position of having to make a difficult decision. And I'm just going to leave it at that. Well, I will be as crass to say if you don't if you don't like trees or don't want to live under a potentially hazardous tree, don't build in a forest. U so thank you for that uh for teeing that up for me, Mike. But um I don't think you can cause a problem and then benefit by taking trees down to fix it. You could have built in a different direction. you could have built a little bit smaller. Um, you didn't. You made the decision, you know, because your contractors were

available. And I know what a pain in the neck contractors are out here. You know, if they if you would have told them to go away, you might have never seen them again. So, you know, kudos to you for building. But now, I I don't see approving this as um as being reasonable under the circumstances at this point. You made the decision. Here we are. And and you know, I personally live I I love trees. I don't love the hazard that the trees in my yard present. I mean, when the when winds get above 60 miles an hour in the winter, uh my wife and I sleep in the basement um because we had a tree fall on our house. And yeah, it's scary, but you know, it's only a few times a year. Sleep in the basement. Don't don't sleep in the house and you know, hope for the best. I mean that that's a oversimplification of the problem, but you built there, you made that decision and and I I just don't see taking the trees down at this point without something further from a structural engineer being being reasonable. I I came in with a lot of my questions kind of centered around the way you guys are thinking, but having looked at the tree, which the city did approve a structure next to and hearing a few key things uh this this evening from the applicant, I am moved more toward away from my initial thought. The city did approve it. How we let a tree be that close to a house even or not, it's still that close. And whether you know a 100 foot tree is a danger, as you said, Mike, to a lot of people besides just the danger when they built the house, it's a danger to the structure. But there is the

question of the tree moving, that base moving potentially. I can't say unequivocally it is the cause of the damage although it seems very possible. Is it possible then if the tree hit the house it could snap? I heard that tonight. I don't know. Is that house is that structure there possibly acting in a way that would cause the tree to maybe not be able to sway in the wind as naturally as it ordinarily would? That's a question I don't have an answer to that I did not come into this conversation thinking about. Um I I the idea of having an engineering report around you know the cause of damage I think is something that is giving me a little pause. I think it it may be a good idea. The idea that again I don't mean to be crass but that tree's coming down. It's 100 ft tall. It's going to do a lot of damage. But if it's coming down because of the structure that the city approves, if that could be shown to me, then this is an easy decision to knock on. We should we should allow this this tree to be taken out. And I love trees as much as anyone here at the table. See me in them two times a year in the 11 I have in my yard. But we did have a process and I think you were touching and it's my that was flawed to let a tree be that close to the improved structure. To be the counterpoint though, I think that we also know we get advocates in here all the time saying, "I know there's a tree there. They want to take the risk. They want to build close. Why are we putting that in the city?" The applicant has the information. There are harbors. So to say that the city did something. I find that a mischaracterization because you know as well as I do that we get applicants in here who will do anything it takes to make the building footprint be what they

want it to be and often place the planning department in a really like complicated place when they know that something's not right but the applicant basically exists. I thought about that too. Just the precedent is really dangerous. If if we have if we allow that sort of action where someone just kind of bullies their way into it and I'll come back and get it later. Nonetheless, they have the right to do it. And we have a code that will allow that. And I think that's as Mike said, there's room for improvement in our code. and we're we're being given evidence tonight of a very uh specific example of room for approval. I think I can't see overturning the city's decision unless there was evidence from an arborist who actually could come in and talk about the questions you had. Just what does it mean if it's that close to the building? Does that actually mean it's more likely to fall over or snap? There's no mention of that in these are reports. No one said, "Well, because it's close to the building, it's more likely to fall over." The conversation has been around damage to the building, but I would need a little more information both about what that dam whether there is actually damage and whether we are talking about an increased risk of that tree actually called. Did you also like or what did you think of lesson's suggestion about the engineering report on what would the damage right and missionary feel better about a decision to come over right I think to say that there's a hazard I would need more information or even a foreseeable hazard and I think I would say that foreseeable doesn't mean foreseeable anytime in the future it's a somewhat near event

So I'm not I don't buy that just because a hazard could happen in 5 years from now it's foreseeable. I think we need to say a little closer to time. Anyone else? Well, you know, I mean I started with with this. I was concerned that the pre arborists and the discrepancies I read in the reports and until that gets a little better cleaned up I don't know they probably are not the right people to to determine whether or not the the photographs and damage we've seen are due to the tree or not but I it just seems to me that that three arborists ought to be able to come closer together than what it and My concern is kind of like what I think I've heard. Sometimes our the arborists that work for profit are not always the best. They sometimes want to do what their clients want to do a little more than they want to adhere to a code. That's the reason we have a city argu. And he's he is not allowed to work for individuals for that very purpose to to ensure that there's no potential bias. And that's why I'm going to give our city arborist a little bit more credit because of that. That's the way the city has set it up. Well, but I'm I'm waffling here, but I would like to see a little if we're going to request anything, I'd like to see a little more information on the actual condition of the trees. I see pictures of hollows on the roots. I don't know what that means really. I don't know if that means the tree is going to fall down soon or if it's just the way it is. I don't know. Anyone

else? I saw that comment or I thought about the it was brought up, you know, why is there a need for city? I agree with you and I would add if that same company also cuts trees um on top of potentially it it does add an undo potentially as an undo stick. I have no evidence of that. I I have no evidence either. Actually, I do have personal evidence of someone doing that, but I have no evidence that the parties or any groups involved, but I have seen it. Um, are we feeling like we might be close to a motion here or anything? Uh, a question for you. Uh, does it have to be a motion or can be a request to go and bring in those arborists and perhaps give us the report? the, you know, a brief engineering report. I mean, we don't have to make a decision today. I would love to, but if we're if we're short of information, um, I can't see a motion fixing that. Um, well, with the record closed, I think we are sort of a decision point. No, we are. Somebody if if somebody were to ask for a continuence, we would not be at a decision point. Correct. No, we're past continu. Are we close? Okay. [Music] Um so, but we are we are voicing we have voiced the concerns. It's out publicly. What would be great to see about as good as we can do at this

point? The my problem with a motion is it would be a conditional. It would be bring in bring in the arborist and bring in um an engineer report. Um show us that you know that the trees are actually causing the damage and um sure enough you can go cut the tree. But does that work? I don't think it works well. that that that sets us up for an open that's an open-ended um that's an open-ended process. What arbitrists do we agree on? I mean, there's just a lot of questions around that. We would be setting ourselves up and the city up for um a decision without a a lot of gra. All right. Would it be worth reopening the record to ask if the applicant would like to continue? Because I would hate to say It feels nice. Come back and paint again. My gut says yes. I just council weigh in. Uh yes, thank you. Uh the uh Canada community book procedures to apply to this appeal allow the plan commission to either hear the matter denovo or admit additional testimony without holding a denovo hearing. Uh you can grant a request for a new hearing findings. You do have some leeway here to accept additional testimony and evidence and potentially hold. Can it be more simple than I do know? I'm just say we're opening the record.

We've done that before. The only reason I'm hesitating I don't keep coming back to opening the record, but I also want to be fair and think it's a great point. Um uh yes, I think you can. This this is a a little bit peculiar because it's an administrative decision that the city planning department made. So you already appealed on here which I think is different from normal. You have the first move on. All right. We're going to open again and allow you to come up and address a question the council has. So the question who would like when um after you have the question could I have some input after that first would you is your input better um yeah maybe the one the one thing that I would request of you is if we're going to ask the applicant to bring this information in and it's going to take some time that we would ask the applicant or the plan commission would ask them to extend the dates um that are involved in the time period that we're required to hear that. I don't know how quickly it is to get information but it should be extended at least 60 to 90 days and the applicant would need to agree to that. If the applicant would not agree to that then I would suggest you make a decision. Okay. You've heard us deliberate. We are um there's a few areas we're not entirely agreeing or we're not entirely sure of the problem. It would be helpful to have additional information, additional information such as an engineering report suggesting that it's the tree coughing that damage that was represented in the pictures that you

showed. Um, and I'd like someone else to comment on the specifics of another arborist in the detail that would be helpful to have in a yet another arburist coming forward that is not me representing. Yeah, I think for me one of the concerns is that I am not seeing anything in these reports that discusses the concern non-concern around tree sway and whether the the sway is limited by the building it makes it more likely to fail etc. So, a little bit more detail from an arborist on, let's say, tree mechanics in a windstorm. Um, as well as again, I think you'd need another opinion on just what is the health of the trees? Are they actually hazard trees or not? Because we're not receiving a clear message on that. Yes. Anyone else jump in? Well, I'd like to know if the roots are growing faster than the trunk itself, whether that might be something to consider. Um, the uh the other thing is I'm not sure even with an engineering report, we've already seen the photos, they show the damage to the interior and exterior of the home. I'm not sure if that's soil movement uh like the other commissioner has noted or whether that's actually the root growth and I'm not sure if one or the other of those reports from either an arborist or an engine can tell us which is because the tree root growing faster than maybe the trunk size would result in you know earth movement anyway. So do we know if it's seismic or do we know if it's the the roots of the tree? I'm not sure we can determine that the report will determining that. So, it kind of comes down to a

question for you. If you'd like us present your decision tonight, you provide a video. If you'd like to give this body additional time and yourself additional time to provide us the additional information through the reports we've outlined uh and questions we have, we will grant you that. Which direction would you like to go? So I would like the the more time. Okay. I would like though some more uh specifics as far as what it is that you will consider as credible evidence. And so for example, for me to pay for a third arborist to come in and say something, you know, I don't think that's going to help. I see that this group has a lot of confidence in the city arborist. I have nothing against the city arborist. Uh when we put our when we put our permit in, we mentioned several things including the sway of the tree and those were all in as being concerns. City arborist could have spoke on those things. He could have talked about oh yes they were listed. If you look at what our um our request came in, we listed all these things up and he could have spoke on each one of them. Um but he didn't he spoke on none of them and all he did was a calculation based on how fast the tree grows. And so, you know, in my view that it would be good for the city arborist to come in and speak on each of the issues that was originally put in the application and maybe after the city arborist spoke about them, maybe we wouldn't be concerned about the treaty. All we know is that we have two arborists that we were required to hire to pay. the city

wouldn't let us bring in city artists to look at it. And so we paid for it. We got the information. We acted on it. And so that's what we believe. And then we go to the the city brings in the city arborist, which is an option. They didn't have to do it, but they did it. And the city arborist said, "Don't cut him down. You'll need to cut it down later." I think that's an important thing. is that he acknowledges the trees coming down. It's just a matter of whether it comes down now or what he lists as several years, which is when I Google that that's 3 to five years. I mean, he wasn't specific on how many years it was. And then he didn't talk about the sway of the tree. He didn't. He took pictures and that's the reason why I took pictures because when he took the pictures and it's in his report, those peers are leaning over and I thought, "Oh my goodness, I had noticed that." And that's when I went to the measurement. And so, you know, the city arborist, I think, should talk to the city about whether if any of the things I brought up are valid and go on the record and to say, "Nope, Doug is wrong. Trees don't sway. Nope, those puddings are being pushed over by something else." And at least he should be able to be put on record for each of these concerns. So, so yes, I want more time. Yes, if you give me specific things to go do, uh, I'll try to do. But I think some of the stuff you're talking about is like doing some sort of ground radar to find out whether or not roots happen to be under those peers that happen to be leaning or not. And and so if you want to make something that specific, I'll look at it to see because, you know, it's it's it means a

lot to us because we stay there. We want to be saved. We want to do what's safe for us. We want to, you know, if it turns out those trees aren't a problem and the other ars were just plain wrong, then I I mean, I'd be happy to know. So So that would be my answer is yes, we'd like more time. Um, if you give me specific things to go do, I'll try to do it. I'd like to encourage you to think about whose opinion you would value and maybe ask that person. I can't I can't get the city arborist to come work for me because that's the conflict. And if the city arist is the one you want to hear that says everything's fine and that all of these things I brought up is just plain wrong and he's willing to do item by item. Then that's I think that's great, but I can't hire him and it seems like he's the only person that you want to have confidence in. So that seems pretty fair. I see people nodding. That seems like a fair question. Uh how about the engineering report? Is that what what level of detail can uh we add to have that be a um additional information? To me it's it's a black and white question. Is the is the movement caused by the tree or is there something else going on? So I I don't know enough about it to know if it's black or white. You better say, you know, it depends, I guess, on the equipment the team comes in with. You know, the comment that you'd have to go with LAR for boots. I I just don't know. Um I think at the end of the day, you're looking at a body of people that are I don't think I'm speaking out of term, not aristers, not engineers. Um, we're a

pretty common sense group of people that if a report is put in front of us that makes common sense, we can interpret that. We're looking for something that says that the tree is the cause of the damage to your property that we're seeing. Um, in terms of the the danger from the the tree, we can talk to the arborist about that. But in terms of structure itself, I think it would be helpful to have anything from a third party saying this is what's causing or not. I think that could be a structural engineer. It might be a geoccientist who can look at soils and understand movement etc. So I don't know between those who we're talking about but I would be dealing with a structural engineer. Yeah. First comment I would say is you know anytime a permits submitted the burden is on the applicant to you know provide documentation and things like that. So when you talk about the city um arburist coming in typically he reviews what you provide him. So that was the information provided that was the decision that was made on. Um with regards to the other information I think you know whether it's a structural engineer possibly talks to his arborist gives them some information. Arborist may also know of others who could speak to that and whether it's a structural engineer along with your arborist that does a report with something information that's been requested that would need to be submitted. And like I said, it it's going to be important that um Mr. Fidel agree also and I would send him paperwork on that 90day extension. Sure. I know pivoting here a little on you in terms of a process. Um, has that helped you at all in terms of a framework for the additional information that would be

helpful for this body to render a decision based on a broader set of information? I I just want to make sure I'm keeping up with conversation. And so I believe that there's a request that we see what we can do to find out if there's a way of determining whether uh the roof systems are actually causing the um the shifting of the foundations. And so that was what I heard. I have heard I believe I heard um the commission say that you have a lot of confidence and you'd like to hear what the city arborist has to say about the issues that I've raised and I'm not sure but I think I heard the city staff say that's not the way things go that I need to bring in another arborist. I didn't say that at all. I said arborist reviews what you submit to him. Okay. So, when you talk about all these other things that he should be looking at, really that's on you to find that documentation because he's strictly reviews requests. He's not out doing the work and saying this is what you should do. That's not what any city staff does. All the people that are here this evening, as you can see, have people that bring in their experts and provide the documentation that the plan commission's to consider. So he strictly just reviews the requests that come before him. And so from my perspective, it would be important. I'm not I don't think anyone's saying that. We're not saying get another ARS. I think we're saying you can bring your armrest. I probably make sense to have him or a structural engineer. I don't know if you noticed on the previous hearing um the person had um uh they would request them to bring in additional testimony. They

had their wetlands expert as well as a storm water engineer here to testify and provide additional documentation to them. So I would strongly suggest that when you do that, you also have your experts that you're working with available to testify and answer questions. So if I'm if I'm understanding correctly that if one of our arborists come in and says there's concern about tree swaying and the roots and the growth of it and and these issues that I've raised that this time the city will address each one of them. Steve, couldn't the city are first now that this is an open appeal come in and provide information? We could have him here as well. That's I think that's what I think that is the thought that rather than ask the fell's to hire someone Yeah. to just ask the video arborist if he'd be willing to come speak to this at the next Okay. All right. But still wanting the structural. So the structural would be separate and that would be the responsibility of the applicants. But the tree questions would would be for our helpful it is. like a lot there. Um, this is recorded. Go back. Exactly. Um, what's a reasonable time in terms of uh how how long do you think you need for uh to get these reports put together? And Steve, well, this probably starts with you. Did you have something you want to add? I'm Sue Fredell. And so my question is, will there be something in writing as a followup to this meeting that will lay out

the amount of time or are we just taking with us what's been said and as far as what what the expectations and and all will there be a followup like leather to us so that we can I don't think what's planning doesn't normally provide that. So what I could do is I could send some information in terms generally speaking of what was discussed and then I will send you the information on signature needing the extension the time period extension. Thank you. Uh let's let's pin down a time frame. Um, how much time do you think you need to get this additional information and and thereby grant additional time for the city to make a decision? I I'm at a loss because I have idea how long it gets takes to get things done. I mean, I'm, you know, could be a year. I don't know how long it'll take for me to get a engineer out that thinks that they can render a decision on something this because as far as I know that's kind of not it's not the typical thing. It's kind of something that or paleontologists do and they look for fossils. I mean that's so so I I don't have a good idea. I might be able to give you are you comfortable with so and I'm just I I don't know but in our experience a report can take from two weeks to 30 days you then have to get back on the docket with the city and the best case for the reports being done and you have to find someone but my hunch is we could pretty quickly go through 60 days it might make sense to add a little cushion on that. Uh but you know this is just me talking out loud.

What kind of credential do you want the engineer to have? Engineers have a standard of licensing that um you know they need to be licensed engineer professional engineer that structural ideally home inspector kind of engineer uh typically home inspectors. I mean it's amazing if you found one but um we don't typically see that we do see structural engineers um you want someone like I mean I just found that a lot would be a good place to start they may have a specialist there and if they don't know who you should call uh they may have some suggestions I thought I thought I heard someone say the arborist or arborist might be a good place to start I can't imagine that you know people that deal with uh trees and foundations. Don't sometimes have to deal with engineers to talk about the impact of the root system on the foundations like the soils engineer without soils engineers may have an idea might they may be able to speak to it. I'm just worried I'm gonna get something and you're going to look at it and say you know that's not what you know Tom Horning with Tom Horn Tom is what he does. I I have a sense that he's his specialty is not that. He's I think other geologist. Yeah, I think if you look up structural engineering firms, you might be able to track someone down pretty quickly. Can I submit the name of who it is I'm going to do it? Sorry for no understanding, but we do we can look at the reports. Um, I think an engineer will tell you whether you've come to the right place if you explain what you're looking for. I'm not so much worried about that. I'm worried about bringing something in and you'll look at it and say, you know, that really

doesn't do it. And so, it's like I'm more interested in part about when the city artist will come back and talk about the things that are in the record. and pretty much address them and say, you know, this this isn't right. This isn't right. This is right. I'm going to sign my name. Here's my seat. That's kind of what I'm going to see here because that could just make everything perfect for everybody because if he's willing to put all of it in, this is not a tree and stand with his ceiling and not put his caveat on it that says, "Oh, by the way, you know, we we don't stand behind it." May I offer May I offer uh an insight? your own tree arborist said if it's not the tree now it will it might be the tree later. So um you know it's not like Jeff is going to or the city arborist is going to come in and say it's the tree or it's not. Um your own arborist couldn't make that determination. Um so you know it's just get a structural engineer. If it's not a structural engineer somebody will show you the but but people deal with houses moving all the time. in this city. It It's a fact of life whether it's a tree or it's land movement. So, you know, maybe a geotech, who knows? Um I I just But it it won't be it won't be the city arborist saying you're right or you're wrong and going down with a list of questions. He will he will respond. He will be in the hearing at the same time that you bring in that information and we'll reach a decision.

Is everyone quiet or or or did the audio go dead? The audio went dead. Can you hear me, Erin? I'm like, what's happening? There he goes. Can you hear us now? I can a little bit. Um, sounds like you can hear us. Yeah, loud. Um, I'm just talking out loud a little bit. So, I I guess the point here is the city is the next professional to come before us. We'll have questions there. If we still come back to the question of whether we need an engineer or not, the question for the artists, we can come right back to this position we're at with you now and say, "Do you want it more time to go get an engineering report or we may be satisfied? We're not going to blindside you with something that we haven't given you an opportunity to address. Um, it just may take some time to get there because it is, as you said, it's a unique position you're in. Um, we want to make sure we're handling it carefully and really letting you know what we're thinking and do that in cooperation with you so that you don't feel like it was some one-sided process. Sound like a sound like a game plan? It does. Okay. Do you have any opinion on whether I would be able to ask questions? Um, I think what we what we will do in that I think what you could do is you could come up and put your questions to us, okay, that you have for the IRS and we will consider those questions and the questions that we think are pertinent to our decision, we will ask. Um there there may be some that we don't we may there may be some that we think are could be inflammatory in some way or another and we might not go down that

road. But if you if you play nice if if you if if if you put those questions to us we will we will ask those questions as we think necessary for decision. Sounds like a great plan. Thank you for coming. Yeah you're welcome. So um 30 days we're in we're at the next meeting and we'll have to meeting you just have to continue to certain okay and we probably need to verify okay um do we want a tenative motion then on that note just uh no let's just do it and uh let's hope for that is available otherwise we'd have to come back and switch it for another time. Okay. That's I don't know how else to do it. Okay. Who would like to put a motion up? So if I could just say we're in no hurry. We just want to get it right. Sure. So that doesn't bother us. We want to get it right. Sure. Thank you. Yeah. And I think and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. It's just after when we continue a hearing we have to give it to a date certain. So that's why I was just if for example we do it the next 30 and it's not available then I guess at the next meeting I let you know that and let everyone know that and we'd have to extend it to a date that is available. So you're going to send a couple things. You'll send a summary kind of of what we're talking about here and something where Mr. Fredell Mrs. Fidel decided on to extend right. Okay. So you that that'll be a part what you receive is an acknowledgement. I'll probably just mail that stuff to you guys at your address. We'll just send it that way. Yes. Okay.

Do we have a motion? I will move that we extend the signing by 30 days to the May 22nd meeting. Further discussion has followed. Next item is well we have two items here. Um well I'm going to run through them just as we can maybe after we get started. Our next item is a conditional use CU2502 J Olaf on behalf of Eric Pertie for a conditional use permit for a residential build in weapon buffer. CU2502 J or Design LLC on behalf of Eric Certie for residential construction in an inventoried wetland buffer area. The project is located at 196 Ross Lane, tax lot 10,200 map 510DA and is in the residential medium density R2 zone district. The application will be reviewed against the criteria of municipal code 17.102 while no relay zones and 17.86 conditions. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the planning commission to hear this matter at this time? Does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or personal violence? I am representative so I have to myself presentation. Okay. No objection. Has any commission member had any exparte contacts or made a second? May we have a staff report, please? Yes. This application is for the construction of a single family dwelling for an undeveloped parcel that is partially

within the 50oot area of localtory site number 22 in the corner of Ross Land and South Straight Street. In December of 2022, the planning commission approved setback reduction SR2203 which reduced the front and east sideyard setbacks in order to preserve trees on the subject property. After authorization of this setback reduction, the property owner applied for a building permit and started plan review. However, the permit was not issued due to the design build contract becoming defunct before the plans were finalized. Subsequent to these events, the property owner has revised their plans for the proposed development of the property. The current application is for a 2,112 square ft house with a 1,56 ft footprint that conforms to the standard setbacks of the R2 zone property. The total lot coverage for the proposed dwelling is 31% and the floor area ratio is42. The buffer area for local home inventory of site 22 was increased from 5 to 50 ft. As a result to changes in rule making that became effective in July 2024. Prior to this change, the property was not considered while effective. Under the revised code, approximately 3,590 square ft or 72% of the 5,000 foot lot is now considered a wetland buffer area. Municipal code 1710220B allows for a wetland determination to be used in lie of a delineation during circumstances when an inventory wetland is not on the subject property and the applicant does not have permission to complete a delineation of

the offsite wetland. The applicant has exercised the option to use a determination instead of a delineation with this application as the protected wetland is on a property that the applicant has not had permission to access. Moving into the applicable criteria, the Can Beach Municipal Code requires that development activities such as residential development within the wetland overlay zone require review and approval by the plan commission for the development standards. The staff comment is due to the configuration of the map boundaries, there are no significant opportunities for development outside of the wetland buffer area. The proposed structure will have a foot will have an area of 1,56 square ft of which 977 square ft will be located within the map area. No fill or removal of material from a weapon will be required and the total amount of material to be displaced is estimated to be approximately 10 cubic yards. There are no identified stream corridors on the subject property and the wetland determination does not indicate that stream corridors are present. The subject property is not considered to be part of a web of record as it does not meet the definition established by 17102 and was not considered a wetland affected par until July of 2024. Moving into the approval criteria for development subject to wetland water requirements. The proposed development will result in

a structural footprint of 977 square ft within a map of the buffer area with two covered protects gravel walkways in a portion of the 9 by18 off street parking area providing additional lock coverage within the ber area. The application is not proposed to alter the batteries of the map buffer. Uh due to the configuration of the lot in the proper area, it is not it will be possible uh to excavate for utilities in the upland portion of the property uh between the dwelling and across street. Uh moving into the development standards for education management, the staff comment is that application materials indicate that the owner will be responsible for monitoring of trees that will replace those intended for removal by the project. No significant amount of vegetation removal is anticipated outside of the outside of the need to clear and grade the area within the building footprint. uh and for walkways street parking areas. Restoration of vegetation within the bunker area is to be carried out under the supervision of the of a fence wetland specialist. And moving into the development standards for construction standards, application materials provide details regarding excavation and tree root protection practices that are to be implemented in order to minimize defects during construction. prints off problematic unless I was dozing. I

think we left off one short comment on 070 storm water management management here for storm water management. The application materials indicate that storm water will be collected and discharged into the city's storm water management system. Moving into conditional uses, the staff is the subject property. This is a residential medium density R2 and a single family dwelling is permitted use in that zone. Ross Lane is residential in nature. The proposed development is consistent with other single family dwellings in the immediate area. The proposed development is small in scale and will not generate a significant amount of traffic or demand on public infrastructure. And that concludes the staff report. Okay. Thank you. Any additional correspondence? No. Great. Move to public testimony. The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports and listed on the criteria sheets on the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria in a comprehensive plan or the municipal code, which the person testifying believes apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements are evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to represent the issue precludes appeal based on the issue. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments, or evidence regarding the application. The planning commission shall grant such requests by continuing the public hearing and leaving the record open for additional written testimony, arguments, or evidence. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair, state their full name and mailing address, and if

appearing in a representative capacity, identify whom they represent. Is there a presentation by the applicant? Yes, please. Leavon design PO box 563 Candy Jordan uh and representing the Puran. Uh thank you Robert. You your SC is fairly substantial and inclusive. Um uh before I present my u information I would like to give Eric Perie the owner a chance to speak to you all. I also have our specialist Christine Donald who's available for questions as we go. Eric just um as J said Eric Curry mailing address is 14988 Southwest Lookout Drive, Tiger, Oregon. Um and uh I'm just going to start by saying I did not pass Toast Masters. Uh if I speak too fast, just let me know. Uh that's what I have a tendency to do. Uh three and a half years ago, we started the endeavor of building our dream home in a town that I've been coming to since my early childhood. Uh the only town we really wanted to look at for our family. Uh the last time we appeared before this committee, we were praised for our additional work in attempting to preserve trees. Uh obviously, we have several large trees on our property. I believe 11 or 12 very mature trees. Um unfortunately our setback reduction that was granted at the time lapsed due to the dissolution of our builder and we're not able to move forward with those plans. Uh we have worked closely with an independent arborist who came at the recommendation of the city arborist to do our best to preserve the trees on the property in a way that far exceeds current code and even meets code that

will be soon implemented. This has come with the adding consequence of us losing the ability to build a garage due to the new wetlands code that was uh implemented last year that we're going to be discussing today. However, the benefit of us going through the tree protection process is that we had already performed the late work of doing everything possible to preserve the wetlands uh on the property to our west and mitigate any possible uh negative consequences. Uh so given that we asked them to take all this into consideration when making your decision uh and we're at your disposal to answer all your questions along with Jay and our web inspections. Thank you. Uh as you see on our agenda we have multiple or applications pertaining to this lot. So uh as we go through this the first one we'll sort of explain the next couple as we go on why we separated these uh these applications due to the nature of the mass amount of material that I provide you today. I have been read a narrative which I encourage you sort of to follow which I will be following as well. where I sort of went through and did specific code requirements uh in the wetland buffer area. As uh Eric's pointed out, this has been a project of some duration. Uh unfortunately, they had a little bit of poor council prior to my involvement. Um where I came on, they had gone through the step reduction process once already. Unfortunately, that didn't produce desired results. uh one of the conditions was that stumps were to be left 24 in high which would make the structure have to be well above that and and would not allow per cove vegetation being removed any structures. So, first

thing I did was to meet with the city's arborist and Todd Prager, our our arborist, and sit down and talk about the project and what could we do to meet the city's requirements. Uh, not just at the time of our initial investment, but also knowing of things that are going to be coming up and that sort of directed the orientation of the house and where it stands. We uh as you can see in the in some of the material that a lot to serable amount of trees are right in the middle of the site and the site is darn close to fully completely being wet wetland bubber area. So we had close to a trifecta difficult in this project. uh on the determination of the location of the house and where uh we went forward with our structural engineering and okay we know where we're going to be at what's going to be the least impact to one roof structure and also taking consideration wetland areas. So we have gone with a pile configuration of foundation small footings. They're either square or slightly larger. Uh so and all these are going to have to be more most more than likely hand dug uh initially as per the city per our arborist direction. Um the arbor report is very in depth. It explained very clearly on how we do protection and excavation. Um, we're not looking to to disturb this. We're looking to disturb the site as very little as possible. In regards to trees that are in the building foundation, they are going to be ground to to grade level. Root structures are going to be retained. Uh, excavation are going to be hand dug. Any roots larger than 4 in will be notified at the arbur. uh we do not have to have our specific arburist there on site but we will have arburist there on site for excavation as noted in this

report so just getting to my um my narrative we'll start as Robert started out with the use of permitted we are single family use permitted our two zone we meet all our standards for lot size dimensions lot coverage lot and calculations are up to th00and square feet not. So, we're we're really keeping it on the small side. We're not looking for anything extra in here. And going into our 17102 for our wetland overlay zone, as noted, roughly 72% of this ped site is in the wetland buff area. However, no wetlands are located on the site. uh we have chosen to go with the wetland buffer determination accepting the city's uh mapping and we have our report included from Christine McDonald uh based on site acquired observation again no residents were identified moving into our 171250 development activities permitted uh as noted our buffer takes up 70% of the 5,000 foot area and 96% of the Villa area. So we are right in the thick of it. As a corner lot, we have 15 foot steps on the street side and 5 foot in the rear. Um we have positioned structure uh on the southwest corner as far outside of the wetland buffer as possible. So we are actually not we are not completely in there. area around roughly 9 some square feet outside of it. Uh we have provide site analysis plan uh in there in our package which um which uh provides you with the location of where the structure is the

what is in the buffer line of the wetland buffer as well. Uh we have site photographs included in our um in our report weather specialist. Our site development plan is on our is within our uh our site plan and our um construction documents uh also showing uh further information. And one thing that we also included was our site analysis showing that um moving the house to the south would even less impact to the wetland buffer. Moving it north is just going to push us further into it and moving it to the east is going to impact the established trees that are within the setbacks. So we felt that this location uh was pretty much the best one and our and city arburous again working with city arous is what determined that location we've also provided a landscape plan. We're going to uh replant four trees 12 shrubs are included with this package. Plant selection has been made on the device of the our arborists and wetland specialists invasive holly, blackberry and ivy underbrushes to be burned to be removed as part of our mitigation plan. Uh we also um in regards to construction I spoke about our foundation being as small as possible and we are using a product called diamond figures for the non heavy load bearings which are basically surface peers with small pines that are driven in. So we're looking to lessen our impact to one the wetland area also treatment structure around it. Um we have all our construction details within those within our documents for your review as well. Getting to our storm water management

plan due to the nature of the site with all the trees doing something like a drywall or or something within the ground is not possible. We would inevitably impact the infrastructure. So we've opted to collect and dispose directly into the city storm water system. So all roof runoff will be directed into pipes underneath the house into a trench that will exit two connection. I review this public course and add their approval. moving our development standards. Um complete appointments of the Wland buffers possible as noted were 90% this contains 9 96% of the area building uh single family residence and limited foot,000 foot,56 ft at 977 ft in the wetland buffer which is under our court uh housing. The house will be elevated from 24 to 48 inches following natural uh allowing the natural free flow of water. Rain water exists prior to construction. Excavation was only to occur at pin pile locations no overgra be done on site. Um just to note that had we been required to go through DSLC the qualification for a no permit the removal of 50 cubic yards of material this project is less than 10. So having gone through hands review we more than likely that receive a no permit required letter. Um trees are to be removed only under the building footprint areas. Uh any ground grace are maintained. No impervious surfaces for pathway patio parking are to be installed uh outside inside or outside. Also note stated this is not a wetland. Uh utilities are to install

trench located in the same sort of pathway as the wetland or the storm water. So we're looking to do a single pathway for all utilities and uh storm water to lessen the impact. Again, Ross lane connection seems mo most obvious. We do have connections on both Ross lane and spruce. So, we do have options, but to due to the 50oot screws and the other 46 in spruce, um there we may be limited there. Uh but again, we have options for our for our utilities and water from water uh trenching. uh our wetland mitigation. We have a very complete report um with uh Christine McDonald. Uh if you have any questions after my initial presentation, I welcome you to ask her those directly. Vegetation management uh as noted by Robert, replacement trees are monitored by owners. Uh trees scheduled for removal or stump ground. Uh root structures will be maintained and undamaged. No grading is going to be scheduled. um excavation only to the extent of pile foundation and under supervision license arrest per tree protection uh surface vegetation under the footprint uh to remove other surface subsurface treatment structures as are required by organ structural code not that we cannot have any organics near the structure itself even though it is tolerated replanting restoration buffer to happen completely construction by our residents uh specialist. We are going to follow our standard management practice set forth in this section. Erosion control measures are identified on our site plan 1.0. Estavated materials removed or returned is in the back fill. No on-site storage distribution excavated excavated materials are to occur on site. Our ground elevations need to return to its

original state after pile excavation. Uh and for root protection, we have a plan to include a thick layer of bark ships over landscape fabric if there is required we'll have to get a machine in to run the pile. Um that is to be removed after after excavation pile installation. Uh we have additional information on that included in the tree protection form. So at this time that concludes my narrative. I'm open to any questions that you may have for myself, Mr. Birdie or Christine. You mentioned a little more color on the reason for two applications or two um well [Music] um yeah our our goal here is to gain conditional use for the house. Uh our followup application is for a setback reduction to uh allow us to have a small shed uh on on the site. Uh, and that is due to,000 square feet in weather involvement. Our original intention is to have a twocar garage, but that would far exceed our allowances for 1,000 square ft of structure and 400 ft of um additional car space. Um, and that's why we have separated this because we did want the setback reduction and shed to be a determination of the house itself. So by having that gross square footage in the tube, it might jeopardize the main goal. I'm sorry. By having the the larger footprint of the tube, if you will as well, that might jeopardize the main goal. Exactly. I um we didn't want the we didn't want the conditional use of house to be bare on the the request for a sh. Go ahead. Go ahead, Mickey. If we did consider the two together, if

you do the setback back reduction, that does mean the house moves to the south and further out of the buffer. Is that correct? Yes, it does. Actually, it does mean that the house moves further south. To me, it does help kind of consider altogether in the sense that if we're talking about wetland impact, that allows us to to bring it into the conversation. Yes, it does. Um the setback reduction does allow us to have a reduction to to lessen the impact on the wetland. Um but then with that setback reduction, we also have a conditional use request for the ship. Um those are separate applications. They can be judged on separately. Um that's why we're putting them as three applications. Um again, I didn't want everything to be tied in together. Um the ultimate goal is to get a condition for the house. Setback reduction only helps us with that. In fact, it would help us with um locating the house. So it would give us some flexibility because of the the roots and the structures in there. Um there is inevitably that we will probably have to make some structural changes on those locations of those piles. Uh but we won't know that until we put a shovel on the ground and that setback reduction would definitely give us some some leeway. But in for this conversation right now administratively I think I understand why you've done what you've done. But did I hear you say that actually you prefer the southern war location just from a feasibility stand? Giving us the need additional uh the setback reduction will definitely help us with the construction of the house. At least having the flexibility of being able to move pines or move the house forward and back. We're still staying within the channel of the trees that we're trying to preserve. It's just giving us a little bit of offer some play. Um, is is it okay to go ahead and ask questions really of one of the subsequent

uh things that are before us? We haven't even opened the the other applications. U if I'll hold my questions till later or we can just continue on with the whole M. I happy be happy for another opinion here, but my hunch is we have to consider them separately. So, we as a body determine that we are okay considering them together. Let's do that. I'll take them. I'll take questions on for each application. I will I'm not going to present the whole thing again for the next two because I probably could not repeat it. Um, but I think you have you guys know where I'm just a couple of questions and I don't know it looks like Mike's got his hand up. I don't want to take him. No, go ahead, Nikki. I can wait. I had one about the runoff. Obviously, our wetland code says that all water that falls in the buffer is to remain in the buffer so it can return to the wetland, but yet you're taking runoff and you're sending it into the sewer. So, it's leaving the site. Can you explain to me again why you had to do that as opposed to allow it to be dispersed on the site? Typically, a dispersement would be into a um like a a dispersement tank that's surrounded by a forever. I I wouldn't want to just let roof run off come down a down a pipe and go right into the right in the system. I would need something to uh slowly disperse that because it is a coitative collection. Um normally I would put a a dry there. Yeah. um something that we'll be able to collect, suck it up and disperse it. So, because of these root structures and the proximity of these trees, I don't believe I have that opportunity to do so. Um and I wouldn't want to do it as point distributions because it would be

a considerable amount of water coming down another one pipe. Uh so that's why I chose to send it into the city storm and allow the natural rainfall around the structure to continuous flow. Is there a way to do it? And again, I'm just kind of throwing this out like a French train where you had point, but the point distributed out in a wider area. Again, a French drain would be a um a perforated pipe fairly ground surrounded by gravel. Again, a major ground disturbance that I don't think I can get a 20 foot run without being treated. And in addition to having a foot of backfield gravel backfill adding not natural soil added to the wetland buffer. What about having no rain gutters at all just uh protections over the entry entries of the house and let it just disperse itself. Um typically for a foundation system I wouldn't do that. This one I could consider it and let it fall naturally or use rain chains to let it sort of come down. Um I was thinking of the more drastic measure to control. Uh but if that condition that would allow us to let that fall these are deep deep pile foundations. They are not going to be affected by water or ground surge or or pre-roots for that matter. Um these guys are are stiff. So uh we had we had full we had drilling out there. things went down um and found out where you know what our capacity was and we designed around that would certainly keep the furies from having to clean their gutters in that

area for no problem so because um trying to get all those pipes running in the house is not it's going to be a challenge in itself and it'll increase the size of our trench that we have to run for our utilities. So if if you guys are okay with it, I'm I think Eric would be and myself would be. Do you have any idea where the uh city um storm drain goes from the Rossland location that you would tie in? Do you do you do you have information? Uh no. I I went to Karen and said, "Okay, where where is my connection?" you know where I don't know where is Karen told me I I have access on on both streets and I can choose which sorry from the site visit I I noticed the one actually on Ross Lane is closer than the one on Spruce the one on Spruce I think is right there at the T where Spruce and and Ross meet in the middle of Spruce whereas the one on Ross I think is is uh to the north center of Ross Lane. So that would probably be a viable choice if the RE groups weren't affected. The uh yeah, the least the pastor is Ross, that's for sure. Um because we we don't have as many um and many of the larger trees right there. Um and we would be affecting trees that would be preserved. Mike, I see your hand up. Do you have a question? Yeah, just a quick question again. Um, you know, I want to thank the produce for bringing in a very detailed proposal. Uh, help me understand, Jay. Um, that north driveway, how much you going to have to elevate that in that path?

I I I'm losing you, Jay. Turn around and look at I'm not looking to make it perfectly flat. I would like enough that uh we we uh have a flat area. We we I'm not looking to elevate it to uh say uh elevation of of Spruce Street. Um we're just looking to fill just as much as we need to have a a decent parking spot and a pathway to the house. Do we did we miss an opportunity by not just elevating that on piles like we did the house? um that's going to be in direct conflict with that 50inch screws and and that's why I went with a per permeable surface. Explain that. I didn't get how that would be in conflict with that. I'm looking at that. If we put a say a concrete pad there uh and elevate that then we have back fill. We have uh impermeable surface on top of tree roots. Um yeah, I I was saying on top of um posts like you do the house the piles. Oh um that's a additional cost that I don't see necessary where we could just park on grade. So the water that uh seeps down through from that um east end of the property on on the wetland lot of record, what happens with that? It just just pipe through or what? The the the natural runoff would occur and it wouldn't g it wouldn't gather on that elevated path. No, that's a permeable path. Okay. Yeah. We are we're not putting any any hardcape, any concrete, any asphalt. This is all compact and crushed gravel. Yeah, it's hard to tell with the uh elevation that was provided, but it

looks like there's at least a foot or two difference between um the edge of the property and about the place where the path it goes across. So, you're going to have to raise that quite a bit, are you not? Park on a slope surface. I'm not looking to have it completely flat. and and we have steps down from the house to get to that to that rate. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Jay. Couple questions about plan. So my first question is I didn't see mention of herbicides but I want to make sure that mitigation plan is not involving use of herbicides for removal of the invasives. Um I think Jay might be able to answer that. Um I I they could easily be taken out by hand. Uh, we're talking about Ivy and um well, I'm not sure about Blackberry what Jay had in mind, but um Jay, do you want to answer that? I would I just a natural picking up. way that um with with um attention the blackberries can be controlled everywhere including my property and and it's just this intention to take them out as they come it will be we all fight it doesn't matter where you are um I think my other question is so the code requires onetoone mitigation for disturbed area. So you have 977 under this application. Looks like it would be 911 if you got setback reduction potentially square feet. I see

the planting plan but I don't see a calculation for how that equates in terms of area for that mitigation. So have you done that process of saying making sure that there's that one to one mitigation? Well, there's and I'll let Christine talk more on that. That's the challenge of the site is that we don't have a lot of upland outside of wetland area or wetland buffer that we can mitigate. Oh, no. Mitigation can occur within the buffer, but it would mean improving the buffer. So, so for instance, the removal of the invasives, planting more species, it can mean improving the soil structure so that it drains water better, etc. So, it would be within the buffer. It's and that is intended that it can be medication in the buffer, but just that you've got an area in the same square area as the household that's also being targeted for that improvement to enhance the biological viability and benefit. So I just don't see a calculation like that here. Uh I don't have a specific calculation. Uh we did we did do a very inclusive replanting. Uh we're one of our trees were falling on the site. Yeah, we are. We're dropping it on site to encourage what we lost there. Um um with the replanting, we're going to be working with song bird rafter. the falling of the tree is going to help the amphibian species that we're going to that's in that category. Uh Christine, do you have any additional information you can provide to us? Um I I know we're planting and um you know, we're actually increasing diversity by getting additional species in there that currently aren't aren't growing. Um, I think that's a form of mitigation.

But, um, you know, eventually there are sub trees on the site that are seedlings. They're about, I don't know, 15 feet tall. And once you remove some of that u some of the overstory, those guys are going to take off. And, uh, the plan is for some of those trees to be left as well as planting additional trees. Uh, but like Jay says, it's not a big lot. There's not a lot of room to work with in there, but I think, you know, we're doing the best we can with the small lot. I wonder if I could share my thoughts on basically the same subject. I was trying to to read that the wet your wetlands report. I really enjoyed doing that, but trying to understand how what we were mitigating, right? How did we get back to where we started? And I didn't really see it, but um there was a tape in three. It's on page 160 uh that I believe uh came from uh it Christina, I think. Did I name right? Anyway, anyway, and I think she's got 17 different parameters, a before and after snapshot. I think I don't think you're taking enough credit for what you are achieving. But what I basically what I saw is that we're slightly degrading two areas, song birds and mammals and carbon sequestration. And then the other think 15 parameters, they were the same. And yet I think if you think about it, some of the things that you're you talked about doing surely would improve some of those. So I I don't know how you do what we're asking for to say, you know, what you started with is what you ended up with, but that's what I was looking for it, you know, just in those, you know, characteristics that a wetland expert knows and uh and wondered if maybe that

was a place that we could expand on it a little bit. So um basically the the process I used was to take someone should mute their speaker you're you're live. Okay. Please go ahead. Is that me? Uh, it is right now, but I don't know if it was or not. It wasn't your voice that was talking. It was sound like talking to someone else. It's good now. Whoever muted. Okay. Um, I I was just going to say that the process we use was one that's used um in mitigation projects with DSL. And so there are 17 different functions that they want you to look at. uh in a wetland and so we're extending some of those functions into the buffer area. So you first look at the existing conditions and then the post project conditions and you're right there were two of them that um would be difficult to mitigate for and many of the others um like water storage and and delay very important function uh I mean it's just not going to change because of the way that the project is designed um the fact that we're you know leaving the root structure that's another you great thing to do of those big trees. So, a lot of these functions just aren't really going to change much. Uh, but something like sequestering carbon, I mean, trees do that. And, you know, it's going to take a while for the trees that will be planted uh to return to, you know, what

those trees are doing now. Um, and Songberg raptor and mammal habitat. uh you know there are you know when you take away the big trees you're taking away some of that habitat. Um so those those were the two that did uh did actually that are really difficult to mitigate for. Um and I'm not sure I'm answering your question. So go ahead and ask me another question if I'm not. I will admit it wasn't a very well asked question because I don't know the right words but I was still trying to I mean way I appreciate what we're trying to do is if we give away something in a buffer we want to get something different back to somehow keep us whole and that's what I was looking for and and I didn't really see it not not in a way that I could understand. Yeah. I mean it would be I one more thing. If you had tons of upland that you could add on, I I could do the math. I understood that, but you can't do that. So, I'm just trying to learn as much as anything about what would a true mitigation look like in this situation. I think you've done a wonderful job of designing the property and minimizing any possible issues. I'm just trying to learn as much as you can. Yeah. Well, without doing something offsite, um, like I said, it's, you know, what 90% of the house is, I think that's what Jay said, is inside the buffer area. So, um, you know, unless you move the house further out, then, you know, you're just you're just I mean, that's just what you have to work with.

Um, so I I think Jay's done an incredible job of just trying to reduce the impacts as much as possible. Um, and you know, doing one of these assessments inside of Buffer is something new that we're having to deal with as consultants. Um so you know thinking about what's happening within the wetland and what's happening within the buffer area you know they overlap but you know there's different things going on u within each of those areas. So um yeah, I think um you know I I think given the situation it's it's about it's it's it's it's I mean to have only two of those functions change I I think it's pretty remarkable um considering the complexity of kind of ecosystems. Thank you. That I think you you've answered my question very well. Okay, thank you. Are there any other [Music] questions? Once more before you guys have any other questions, please. Are there any proponents? We like to talk. Okay. How about proponents? opponents help getting all right you'd like to speak again have the opportunity um as I know the procedure very well if we find ourselves in any sort of situation where we're on defense side request a continuous on currently right now that's kind of a gray area there I know there is but I won't have the opportunity to request it again uh well

yeah you you could have one So, if you have any other questions, um, thank you for that. Oh, yeah. So, I noticed you have lights. Are those considered fully shielded lights? Yeah, they're sky. Super. Yep. Yeah. Even 2700 degree. Kept it kept it low and kept it down. Good. Yeah. No. And you get a swim. Um, let's keep the record open for just a second more. Um, okay. So, we have a couple different applications in front of us. I think Well, I believe I understand the purpose. Do is there any commissioner who feels like it's gray or maybe it is important that we keep them separate or um would we be okay considering them together? Uh if I can speak to that chair, I believe the applicant by segregating the applications would like for each application to be considered on its own merits as needed the criteria. I thought maybe by keeping the record open um and then coming back after hearing any comments, we could put it back to the applicant as to whether we could do it or not. If you're thinking that's not a good idea, we just consider resettlement. Uh, it's possible that the commission could condition any approval on something having to do with the other application, but I I think it's really up to the applicant to request to consolidate them because they have separate records right now, right? The records are not the same. And so if you kept the record open for this one, it would not bring it would not merge the records together. These are separate records. In my understanding, this is not a consolidated application. Correct. Yes. Correct.

I I just the nature of it, I think it may be best to keep them separate. Okay. Um mainly because the second is for separate protection which would only further our ability to make uh to reduce wetland buffer impact. But the third application for the shed may have as conditional use may have may have impact to your decision. Okay. Always looking for an opportunity to consolidate but don't want to jeopardize your position. Understood. Okay. With that in mind, do you have anything further you'd like to add for this? Good. Thank you. Thank you. We'll close the public record then and move to our delivery. I say I think it's very comprehensive. I think they've thought of uh many angles uh and trying to protect the tree and the can the trees in the canopy uh I think was their main objective and I think that's my objective also. We can always replant underneath those trees but replacing something 80 or 100 feet tall which many of those trees are is uh that's an impossible task. So I think that uh the wetland work that was done was uh excellent and I think uh the presentation today was topnotch. Other concerns, other questions people have like to bring up to if that's to me. I I I second what was just said. I appreciate the comprehensive approach that that Jay brought to us and I would just say that as we started into the conversation with the applicants, I would like to see some

kind of condition where there's no gutters or some other runoff remains on the side. Yeah. Yeah. I have notes on here for for actually two additions. One was the no herbicide pesticide and then the somehow reconsider how much water has to go to the city storm system. Great. You know Jay I really think you've done a I mean it seems like you read our minds or something really well done. I wanted to say this this side of alternative analysis that you did where you shifted things around. I like that. Very good. Jay, I'm sorry. I gota be super careful here. Um, okay. So, um, we have a couple conditions. Are there other concerns or are we ready to uh for a motion here? All right. Les put it out. Um, I would, as we kind of did before, look at what the original three recommended motions were and then add on to that. Oh, you know, the one thing I would I would say is when you were talking about the uh roof is let's just be super clear about what how that water's going to come off that it is there's no batteries. It just naturally comes off. Okay. Sorry to muddy things up here a little bit. We had said a couple things when you were talking about we had said the water comes off with maybe exception of entrance as I recall. How do we want to how specifically we want to get there? um how that water comes off the roofs and where we could see some sort

of trans. So if if we were to say simply runoff is to be made on site through natural runoff from structure. Would that be done? It feels like it would work to me. Yeah, I think so. It'll need some protections over the uh the doors, you know, entryways to the home, but that just will be diverted onto the sides. stay on the property and there wouldn't be any chain. You could do that again. Well, the rain chains come down from the side whereas you need to divert it over the front and back doors so to a rain chain area possibly something like that. But yeah, so but we're cool with not being too restrictive just that the water get anyway. I'd like to make a motion um that we approve uh application [Music] CU CU25-02 um with the following conditions. Uh one, erosion control measures shall be installed by the applicant and approved by the city prior to the start of work. Two, the city shall be notified no less than 48 hours prior to on-site disturbance. Three, the use of motorized equipment shall be limited to the hours uh between 7:00 a.m. and 700 p.m. per municipal code section 8.16. Uh four, um there should be no use of herbicides or pesticides on location. And number five, that um um water from the roof structure shall be um kept on

site to I guess naturally just drain into the well. Sounds pretty good. We have a second. Okay. Any further discussion? test. Commissionerus, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Gates, yes. Commissioner Sinclair, yes. Commissioner, yes. Chair Newton, yes. 252 is approved. We'll move to our next item. U2503 and SR2501. Jay Holdoff on behalf of Eric Certie for conditional use and setback reduction permit on to build an accessory structure in a weapon buckler. CU2503 and SR2501 Joffana Design LLC on behalf of Eric Perie for the construction of an accessory structure in an inventory wetland buffer area. The project is located at 196 Ross Lane and is in the residential medium density R2 zoning district. The application will be reviewed against the criteria of municipal code 17.102 weapon overlay zone and 17.86 conditional uses and 17.64 setback reduction. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the planning commission to hear this matter at this time? Does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest for personal violence? Well, that's right. You're going to put in two or three applications. You're going to have to do the

make the whole field again. Does any we talked about has any commission member had any exparte contact or made a site visit? May we have this report? Yes. This application is for the construction of an 80 square foot accessory structure in conjunction with a twotory residence in a wetland area on an undeveloped parcel intersection of Ross land and spruce street. This application accompanies conditional use permit CD number 2402 which was just approve of conditions and this contingent on the approval of that application. Moving into the equipment criteria for the well is zone requirements. The staff comment is due to configuration of the map boundaries there are no significant opportunities for development outside the buffer area. This application will not change the size of the residence proposed by C number 252 or other features such as off street parking porches or walkways. It does request a reduction of front yard setback facing Ross Lane from 15 ft to 10 ft in order to accommodate the addition of an 8x10 ft accessory structure on the norththeastern portion of the property within the farm. This will allow the total developed square footage within the barber area to remain within the 1,000 square foot maximum allowed within the mountain proper by CDMC 17102. Moving into conditional uses, the staff element is subject property is zone R2 residential medium density and a single family dwelling and its accessory structures are permitted in that zone. Ross land is residential in nature and the proposed development is consistent with other single family dwellings in

the immediate area. Uh the development is small in scale and will not generate a significant amount of traffic or demand on public infrastructure. Moving into setback reduction, the staff comment is that the total building coverage of the subject property will be 1,136 ft of the 5,000 ft lot or approximately 23%. No significant impacts to views or solar access for joining property owners have been identified as a result of this proposal. The application's intent intent best fits criterion for achiev protection of a wetland or welon ber area as the intent is to reduce the amount of structure that would be constructed within a well buffer and limit the total square footage within the property's mapped proper boundary to 1,000 square ft of building coverage. The proposed stepback reduction will move the planned residents by the culture to loss lane and its unmarked intersection with spruce street. However, no significant traffic impacts are anticipated as the roadway has not been developed to the full width of the 50oot rideway and there are no foreseeable plans to develop the roadway beyond its current extent at this time. And that concludes the sort. Okay. Thank you. This time we'll call for public testimony. Per criteria to be considered are staff reports and listed on the criteria sheets on the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed towards the bill criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or municipal code which the person testifying believes apply to the decision. fail to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue of concludes appeal

based on that issue. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidence you're hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments, or evidence regarding the application. The planning commission shall grant such requests by continuing a public hearing or leaving the record open for additional written testimony, arguments, or evidence. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair, state their full name and mailing address and if appearing in a representative capacity identified as a representation by the chair toll on design PO box 563 can be 9710 representing fert. Uh as noted in the staff report, we have two items. Setback reduction and additional use permit for a uh 80 by10 uh shed in wetland buffer. Our setback reduction is twofold. One to reduce the impact to the wetland buffer, but to also allow the 8 by10 shed to fall within the under,000 square foot requirement. Um the setback reduction as noted in our previous uh presentation will allow us a little bit of flexibility in move forward and back of the structure uh due to the roof structures. Try to avoid as much as possible. The 8x10 shed is requested for seasonal equipment bikes and other things that are not would not be normally stored inside the residence. Uh we had originally intended to have a twocar garage on site but that would put us well over thousand square foot session to have at least some storage um outside of the homes. Uh one thing the um shed is to be scored on back diamond peers natural pathway to the open entrance.

So by natural pathway grab pathway. So that wasn't included in No, it was not included in the area that's no whether it's you know I would even be willing to just lay that let them make a dirt path to it. Um we don't need any hardcape or or even gravel. You're getting pretty close to the 400 square ft of additional area. Oh yeah, it it um it will put us in that um it will still put us under that. Um, I believe uh yeah, our total structure area would be 991 and our hardcape area would be 38 or 382. So we're still under that thousand. Does that 382 then include a gravel walkway to the shed? Uh, no. That was a assumption that we got Okay, other questions. It would help me understand. You've said there's going to be you've you've fit the extra 80 square ft for the shed by moving the house, but you've also said, well, you're going to use some flexibility in the house may or may not come as far south as it is as calculated right now. Can you explain how much we have nine? So, we get the setback reduction. I'm going to pull that house all the way up to the front as I can. Um, and if we run into issues with foundation, we'll work around it. But, uh, again, that is sort of why I

separated these two, um, to allow you to judge us on. And I would just note, so really what we're doing is we're just trading space here. This isn't actually improving the wetland, but it I understand the utility of at least wanting a shed to put a few things. That is exactly what it is. We we're requesting setback reduction um to allow us to have square footage to allow Yeah. Yeah. And I was kind of going to go down that path a little bit as well because I recognize the inter relation between the the two different proposals, you know. So it really doesn't seem to me that it helps the buffer that much. But talk to me more about the tree protection because you told us that if you had the flexibility, you might be able to do things that were better for the trees and root systems that were there. The flexibility of location of the house is going to give us only going to give us flexibility for location of peers. Um the trees there are we're not going to save any trees. They're all within flexibility. Flexibility. and we may have a route from the the um either the 50 or the 48 in spruce that's run right in front of a pier um that ability to move forward a little bit may put us outside that boundary and can you move a pier forward without moving the footprint of the house does it have we do have some for back movement um corners are kind of set uh if we have to take one out of corner react to to can labor. So that's that's sort of um the give take and all of this. Um and not you know we're we're kind of running blind because we don't know it's there until

we put a shovel in the ground. Um my ultimate goal is to make it as least impactful as possible so that um say if we do hit or come across a route that uh the arborist may be able to determine that that it's outside far enough away from the tree that the tree will you know send out additional shoots if we have no structure right this was a a challenge this is probably the smallest foundation I've heard Any other questions? Okay, I thank you. Other other presentations say something really quick. Um, two Commissioner Morrison's points. The utility of the shed is requested because we have lost the twocar garage. Even one car garage, we don't need the parking. We don't need that for our collars. What we're looking for is wagons, bikes. We have a seven-year-old daughter or sorry, sevenmon old daughter at home that we're quickly learning requires a lot of extra uh stuff. This isn't nearly big and losing that garage has forced us to push our HVAC into the house, our water heater into the house. So, we've lost the storage there. So really we are just trying to get a small shed for these kind of outdoor reach seasonal items as J mentioned. Um so that's our our goal here. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on your team? Okay. Any other proponents? Any old words? Okay. We all closing the record. Should

we go to motion? We'll close the record. Then we like to start. I think I'm fine with the proposal. I think I would want us to put a condition in that there would be no gravel laid to the shed. So we wouldn't be adding anything more in terms of car space. Do we need that side? I guess we probably should, even though I think it's built into the other approval, but why not? I would recommend adding the same conditions that you put on the previous one. In addition to um their two separate applications and so that way we're kind of changing, you know, they probably will not submit that initial plan. So I think it would be smart to include conditions and previous one. It's you, Mike, or Aaron who's I think that's you, Mike. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, okay. So, we'd have the same conditions with the exception of the gravity. Okay. Uh, others pretty another good application feel. It's my thought. Yeah, mine too. I think it also maybe uh added to the motion that the water runoff from that roof also stay on. Anyone else? Rock away. I was actually hoping that by keeping my head down.

I saw you look down. I thought it never works the way I want. Yes, I'd be happy to do that. So, I make a motion that we um approve uh CU25-3 and SR 25-01 subject to the following conditions. Number one, erosion control measures shall be installed by the applicant and approved by the city prior to the start of work. Two, the city shall be notified no less than 48 hours prior to on-site disturbance. Three, use of motorized equipment Chevy limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 700 p.m. You just code section 8.16. Um, number four, uh, there should be no use of herbicides or pesticides on the site. Number five, um water water, I can't really get this right, but water from the uh structure roofs shall remain on site to naturally drain into the wetland. And then a number six that there will be no gravel pathway to the um utility shed. Do we have a second? I'll second. Further discussion, you call the office. Commissioner Warren. Yes. Commissioner Mus. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes.

Yes. see 253 and that's our now our last break. How do people feel about short break here before? All right, let's take let's rec. Okay, let's continue. All right, next item is B25-01. Stephen Gerber on behalf of Oh, I'll do my best here. Neon hearing for variance to off parking B250 by Architects on behalf of Neon. Okay, correct me please later. I'm sorry. for variance to off street parking requirements at 280 North Pemlock Street, tax slot 1682 map 1501 19 DD and in the limited commercial C1 zoning district. The application will be reviewed against the criteria of the municipal code 17.90 variances. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the planning commission to hear this matter at this time? Does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or a personal violence? Has any commission member had any exparte contacts or made a site visit? Can we have a staff report, please? Yes. The applicant proposes a reduction in the number of required off street parking spaces in conjunction with planned redevelopment of a former auto repair garage at 280 north street. The proposed use as a convenience store with a second floor residential unit which is permitted use in the limited commercial C1 zone. Municipal code 1768 off

streetet parking requires one parking space per 400 square feet of gross store area for retail and office uses in downtown. An additional parking space will be required for the dwelling unit. After the proposed conversion to a convenient store, the subject property will have approximately 4,320 square ft of commercial space including the store, kitchen, office, and stock room. The minimum number of spaces required by code is 12. However, according to the site plans, a total of eight spaces will be able to be provided due to the site's area constraints. Moving into the applicable criteria, which is 179070 variances for street parking and loading facilities. The staff comment is that application materials describe the planned function of the convenience store and accompanying residential unit. It is intended to serve both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, focusing on visitors within the downtown area and not intended to attract traffic from Highway 101. The materials state the intended use will attract customers for short periods of time. However, no specifics are provided regarding anticipated customer volumes or vehicles per hour. No specific details are provided regarding potential impacts of traffic safety hazards. The proposed lot is not dissimilar to other nearby Wall Street parking areas on Hemlock Street, such as the one I'm meeting you south of Bruce's Candy Kitchen. The plan of parking a layout will use a single direction traffic flow with an entrance on the north and exit on the south of the property. Parking stalls will be angled at 70° and a driving aisle width of 16 ft will be present. A five-foot landscaping

buffer will be placed between the driving aisle and the public sidewalk on South Enlo Street. And an additional 5-ft sidewalk will be located between the parking stalls and the front of the store. And that includes staff report. Is there any additional correspondence? There was some information regarding Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requirements to the Senate Planning Commission earlier today. Um, that has to do with the property's former use as a gas station and some potential work with that agency that may have been done during a redevelopment of the property. Um, are you aware if the applicant has been given that information? No. Okay. Thank you. So, we'll call for public testimony. It was posted at my home. At what time? Okay, that's fine. Okay, that's something we're going to come back to. Uh, at this time, we'll call for public testimony. The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports listed on the criteria sheets on the meeting page of the city's website. testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan on municipal code which the person testifying believes apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue includes appeal based on that issue. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidence you're hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments, or evidence regarding the application. The planning commission shall grant such requests by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for additional written testimony, arguments, or evidence. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair, state their full name and mailing address, and if appearing in a

representative capacity, identify whom they represent. Is there presentation I'm here representing for a parking variance on the proposed law which is on North County. It's an old shop and we are aware of that. So the DEQ is part of the conversation that we've been having. Even though we haven't gotten that notification, we are aware that that might be something to take care of. What we're asking for is a variance on the number from 12 to eight. Um we started out with the history that purchased it and they were looking at trying to use the existing shop and that's just not going to be possible. They were going to put in a typical center market with the standard uh of their layout which my understanding was you guys did receive all those stuff which is why I'm not presenting on top. Um what the original layout was sorry was to add storage area and do a 45 degree parking which only gave us six. So we were struggling with the parking structure like how many can we get in there? So post pre-application meeting the layout they moved the storefront elevation from the west and move they pushed it back they looked at 45 sigp 70 parking layouts how could we try to get in get to the 12 uh 70° gave us the eight and we were able to add that second storage which would be the people who are actually running the store the future like I know that we're ending up the next piece is like the like James was doing was separating the application there's other ones coming this is just for the variance on the parking based on the the design layout like how can we get as many parking as we can. Part of the structure um layout is also storage so there wouldn't be like pedestrian

people for that square footage. Um and so there those are pretty much this is just looking at can we get from the eight from the 12 to the eight and move forward with that and all the other we're aware there can be other applications for other parks. This is just to get a parking. Are you ready for Are you finished? Yes. Okay. Other question. Will you have additional parking for the residents in the second floor? Their parking I believe is in the back. There will be additional for them in the back. Uh back. And I think I think the the one required is part of the it's part of the I believe. Yes. I believe it's in the front. Yeah. Everything's just in the front. That's my fault. Because there's the there's a back through all the different conversations and variations when you're looking at it. There was a back area, but that's it's in the present. But I think there's a back area in terms of what it is right now. you know, before they switch. So maybe when they were doing the uh original footprint, you know, before they put in the addition and things like that. So that could have been your thing. Yeah. And I have and I'm looking at the ones that have been submitted like and there's the final one here in the front at an angle so that six would be on straight. So seven are dedicated to the customers and one is dedicated to the resident. then along the same lines. Have have you done any um research into alternative parking for that long-term spot for the resident such as purchasing a spot in some of the other parking areas or on street parking?

So paid mean like they can purchase a parking spot. Some of the some of the um lots that do are privately owned and and you can in fact right across the street from you. Is it possible? Yeah, there's a Yeah. Yes. No, I didn't know that was an option. Yeah. Um for the residents open out one more for the customers. Yes. Because that that's a longterm spot which would be occupied. Um there's also street on street parking available in the area that would not be right. business. I have one other question and that's um in regards to the calculation for the hardcape and softcape area. Okay. The hardc landscaping area which is 20% of the 10,000 works out to 2,000 and by my calculation you have 1,912 uh listed on your plan. So, we're a little short there. Do you feel that there's areas that you can make up for that 88 square feet of landscape requirement? Yeah, we can find for that. I mean, I need to apologize to you. This is this is usually my husband's area of expertise. So, I am filling in on this is I'm usually in the back office. I'm a little little like okay I've been watching very diligently and paying attention that was your question but I in the conversations that I've heard and the client's more than willing to work with whatever is needed to make it happen and so that's why the onsite awesome if we need to do something with the landscaping where we move it add it and the hardcape which also is going to be part of runoff we're willing to do it yeah I think my main concern is the lack of data on

traffic I don't I don't see enough information here for us to know whether it's reasonable to reduce the number of parking spaces given the anticipated traffic that would come in and out. This is going to be a lot of vehicle trips. So you would be requesting like a traffic stop, right? Was it was 1500 square feet is a a pretty good size apartment. Um were other configurations considered say and I'm just making this up. I don't know what commonly load factors might be on something like this based on the design of the building but maybe it's three 500 foot or two 750 foot or with load maybe it's two 600 foot apartments. The idea being there's presumably more than one employee. It'd be great to get multiple units up there. Had that been explored at all or is it do you think it's a a possibility of to have more? I think the design stuff is definitely optional like at this point we're just moving forward from my understanding kind of don't get into design review because that would be like the full bone stuff. I would think yes it would be mine. It's kind of a logical thing. I think you want to put multiple people like that. My understanding is that those people who run the store live above the store. So above the store. Yeah. That is what it is for. That's most that's the model of our client is they like it to be kind of family. This is not just a store where we open and then close and then leave. We are here. We stay. We're part of the community. That's what that is for. It's not a rental. I see. Okay. That I mean it's supposed to be the residence. So we wouldn't have that kind of turnover of people with renting and that's not the objective or the plan that I'm aware of. Okay. First of all that center markets

student with residents cuz I haven't seen any others that have that. There's one in that they're working on with right now and they're working on one on the Dallas. So it is the mode that the people that are running them now are in the vicinity of the sort that don't have the ability they bought places that don't have the ability to go up because of prior boing in and so those don't like the one in Dallas is next to it. model about and in this case it was looking at where could we do with the footprint and go so that's their business model is to have it's to have the family yeah because there it's it's a family business all of them they're all the same family though and I understand that being a family business person for sure yeah and like with the traffic study I completely understand your concern especially if it's like a a market the idea is it's not pulling track. It's not a destination of somebody flying down the road. It's like we come to Canon Beach. I'm an Oregon race here. I came to the beach to come to Can Beach. I don't go to the Can Beach to get to them anymore. And so this being that destination place, we didn't consider that traffic study as a priority because it's not pulling massive traffic. The people it's tending to serve are the people who come here to stay here for vacation or live here. That's who the market is here to serve is the people who visit this town and most of those people drive to the store. Yeah, there's a lot. So that's the problem that there still is traffic that needs to come and go from that site and those people do need a place to park. Go ahead. Yeah, I'm having I have major problems

with the with this entire application. And just to add to something I I remember reading in there, it it essentially throws out the buzzword affordable housing for this this family or whoever is going to live in this apartment and then goes on to say that they're they're they're essentially going to provide security for the downtown area, which I I mean that baffles me more than anything else in this entire process that that that you've undertaken here. So, the family works at the store by day and is town security by night. I mean, that I'm I'm was having a hard time with this application for many reasons. That's that's probably probably the biggest one, though. No, I was not inclined that they would be policing. If something happens to their store, they're put to respond. They're not coming from another town. That's what I meant. They would not be policing anything. they're just close to their property and if something does happen, they're quickly there to to address it. That's all, not policing. I apologize if I gave you that impression. Any other questions? So, it seemed to me that rather than than traffic like like you alluded to from 101 coming into town for this, the the whole process that that the store is operating on is is really quick turnaround. In fact, there's a couple of places where they talk about or you talked about um you know how long the checkout line needs can be to make it work. So, one of the things that I've noticed in Canon Beach is that any parking spot is fair game and as soon as people park, they're headed to the beach and you can't find them. Have you thought about how you're going to keep your eight little parking spots only being used for the purpose that you needed

to that or are you you're going to end up with beachgoers parked in your spots and they're gone and that and then you start impacting parking on street parking with customers and that starts to snowball a little better. I I don't know anybody else that's trying to operate exactly on the same business model that that you are. I would imagine science would be like parking for this place only because that's really the only legality that we can use. I mean it's a public space but you can put those signages up. I I understand your concern. It happened to me today in front of the candy store. Like I was trying to park and I literally saw somebody get out of all their bathrooms in front of the candy store and walk down the road and I'm like um wait because I came early to see them and stuff. I understand what you're Yeah. other other question. Yes. Um, have you gotten to work with DEEQ on u possible design restrictions? That information for DEEQ, we have not yet. Mike, I'd like to back to the question around DEEQ um toward the end to we'll keep the record open, but I want to come back to that question at the end of the open record. Thank you. Uhhuh. Other questions? Okay. Thank you. You'll have another opportunity. Are there any other presentations by the applicant or were you okay? Thank you. Are there presentations by proponents? Are there presentations by

opponents? Okay. Would you like to come back up? anything you'd like to add but well he's welcome so he he's at 1500 is the max housing I'm not sure that yes taking landscaping out of the garbage area and 1500 is max housing he's trying to answer the questions that he's hearing from you to me to make sure we can get you what you answer so that was the questions the questions about and hardcape landscaping Okay. And then uh and then No, he's aware of the DEQ. Said that he's aware and he's working the DEQ question. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, um I'm missing I'll look for any guard rails you want to add to what I'm about to say in terms of just making sure we handle um the DEQ question as well as we can. Um, we can I I want the record to be open on this because I want you to have the opportunity to respond before we close it. Okay. The question at hand is whether the EQ applies the the situation with the EQ applies to the um request in front of us and somewhat not somewhat uh certainly part of that is how that information is entered into the record. We have I think we need to be very careful about um consideration of something that may not have had full perview by the applicant. Um full opportunity to review. Um I'd like to discuss it between ourselves. If we think it's something we want to consider, I'll look for the applicant's input uh and our council as well in terms of how to move forward with this. Missy, do you have anything you'd like to add to what I'm trying to touch on, which is kind of gray a little bit for me?

Uh, uh, the criteria that apply to this variance application are really only found in 1790. know uh I know that the application included more materials than only the materials needed to demonstrate compliance with that which generated a lot of the questions tonight. But uh the situation with uh DEEQ consent decreeing um that evidence I guess is only relevant if it is relevant to making the determination that's under 1790.09. That that's how I would characterize it. Um my inclination is we should not discuss that as a part of this decision to be said. JB I I agree. I think what's in front of us is the parking reduction. Yeah. DEQ and anything along that is going to fall into the building department and building permit application and it's not privy to what we're discussing or what's in front of the application here today. I let me just um interject. My my intentions were not to to question their ability to get through DEEQ approval. It was is the timing correct for us to consider this variance and it is yet again a variance and there is quite hardship and right now I don't know that they can demonstrate hardship because they've got so much work to do before um before that question is resolved. So that's it. It's just a question of timing and it is very relevant to you know our consideration of a variance. I think it may it may be relevant to our consideration of what's here before us

tonight. But I think we could all get into discussion of how it's presented to the bottle and that is a whole another conversation that I think is an area we just don't want to touch. No, I get again and the question was simply have you begun working with DEQ and that you know then the answer is no. So, there's a lot of work to be done there. And should we consider a parking variance here when we're not sure that the design that they've got is going to go through? I I'm not opposed to the idea of of this this project. I just want to make sure that we're aware of the timing. So to dubtail on what Mike's saying, if we uh allow this variance and then their plans change to something else or they they can provide even more parking or can't provide the eight spots, uh you know, might be a little premature to u consider this at this time. Yeah, you're brought up a point. You know, one of the things that would happen is if for example, if this was to get approved, not saying that's the direction or what have you, approved or denied, but if it was approved and then later on they came back and they dealt with DQ and now this plan was needed to be changed in some fashion, it would no longer be valid and they would have to come back and request if if a variance is still needed, they would have to come back or was a site plan they would have to go back to design review. So, there are things and there's things throughout the process from uh staff perspective, both planning and building that when we get to those points, we're going to be asking you to condition those types of approvals with those types of conditions on at that time. So I I think there are some fallback positions that hey if they

were to receive it they got an understanding they can go start doing more work knowing that because the applicant is very aware of the situation. We've made that clear from the get-go. They understand that. But there are some options there that I think could be dealt with if that was indeed the case that all of a sudden they go there and now we got to redo this because we can't uh do the plans that we originally submitted and we are either approving or not approving based on what is submitted here today. That's correct. So if it does change that immediately triggers that would do it as well. The other com the other comments that I had that I I I'm not quite sure you know obviously there's a a significant amount of pedestrian traffic in this area as well as vehicular at certain times of the year and you know having the the two access points. Does it make sense to have one? you know, those are other things that should be taken into consideration in any type of I think traffic study or anything like that because um those are public safety concerns that I think should be in the plan commissioner's mind when cons uh considering the parking variance request. Okay, deliberate on what we have here. deliberate in terms of when you say what we have here in the packet that is provided by the applicant by the Okay, I'm okay with that. The record is still open. You have the opportunity to say anything if you'd like to before we close it. Yes, please. Um, we did get a DEQ prior to the purchase of the property. All bad soil has been removed from the site. However, there might be some on the adjacent property. They will remove any bad soil

that happens to be found on the adjacent site. The anything that is found will be encapsulated in a monum slab if possible. They did look at the alternative layout rotating the plan for a 90° park and they were still only able to come up with eight parking slots uh without a garbage enclosure. Although as pleasing the answers you could provide for this. Okay, great. Thank you. Any final questions before we close the record? No. Okay, we'll close the record and move to deliberation. I feel like I just don't have the information that I would need right now. You say that I could find the criteria of hardship or that there wasn't a safety reason. At this point, I don't I don't understand where we would see a hardship for this site myself. Yeah, under no circumstance do I see any chance of a hardship with this application. Agreed. I'm not prepared to agree with it either at this point, but I think further information one being a traffic stud uh is definitely going to be to our advantage to understand what's going on. But in regards to the overall design, looking at the site, I don't know how they get more than eight spots in here. Um, but I think making sure it's eight dedicated to the service and moving that one spot for long-term offsite is is something that um as far layout one in one out is probably easiest way to get people moving through here again by experience and and looking at it. And then also

looking in regards to Les's concern, our closest model is Mariner. Mariner has eight spots, but it's also competing with the post office, but it's also directly next to city parking, which has tons of space. So that's true. To me, that is not a comparable scenario. I think again that that study empathic study yeah would be would help clear up a lot of indecision. One one thing that kind of concerns me is you've got a one in and a one out. We've got heavy traffic on the sidewalk all the time. So you got people pulling in, you got people pulling out, you got people walking on the sidewalk. What's that going to look like? You know, well that's where that traffic study would come in. that exit would probably require being about a right turn, you know, to head head south on um and and try to get into it. Again, again, the traffic stud on those those ins and outs and how it's going to work. be something that's not usable to become. The other thing I like about it is they're providing housing for their employees, you know, um and it comes at the cost of four parking spots, but they've got a housing shortage here for employees and workers housing and can beach that is addressed. But I think that it actually doesn't address worker housing in the way that it could. So, as Clay alluded to, it doesn't add housing. It's simply status quo because you've added workers in house workers. Helping with affordable housing would be

to actually add units beyond what was required. Parking spots. That's our perennial issue in right. Well, my point is that at least away, you know, from the worker housing and and by putting the housing on site rather than just putting a store there and then hiring people that need housing, it can be I have to say I have a little bit of a concern with the fact that this is very close to a formula food chain. This is and I I appreciate that it's a familyowned but central market is a very large chain and it's one step away from formal food chains which is what our comprehensive plan dis allows. But that's not the question of course right now, right? lots of problems with this from and and we can talk about it all night and come up with a bunch of different ways for them to tweak their next application and give them all sorts of advice on how to how to figure out where the off- streetet parking is and different parking lots and none of that's before us. Do we do we approve this variance as written? Um, are there other other people who'd like to contribute ideas? That almost sounded like a motion. I move to deny the variances written. Second. I'll second. Further discussion. Commissioner Mo. Yes. Commissioner Musk. Yes,

Commissioner Bates. Yes, Commissioner Sinclair. Yes, Commissioner W. Yes, Commissioner. Yes. Chairman, yes. For variance is denied for B251. move to Alex. We have two hazard trees removed 355 in place and this I'm pretty sure there was a replanting requirement and there was required to replant two trees. Questions about the tree report? Okay, let's move to go to the order. Um, let me see. I know you can't talk about this and I brought it up last time. Are you talking about good? Yes. Uh, how can we learn more about what's going on there? The idea being a little along the lines of what we talked about. We'd like to understand how courts, our city council, Luba are looking at our decisions so that we can better our processes. are you uh you can't mention anything at the right I can't represent the city and so I think um I but someone at my firm could give an update they'll probably have some seating and be by Zoom yeah that's awesome he is really on live right right right right right right right right right right right right

right right right right right right right right right out here the only the only thing is I can mention I know there's the there was something going to the um circuit that was decided and um there's like two cases. There's the one on the access and then there's the one on the house. So there's still two uh court cases that are out there. Um the decision that we made to deny was upheld by council and that council and that decision was taken to Luma and with that there were a number of different actions. Uh I I could be more prepared. I know Bill do this better than I am and the firm does because they've been kind of involved in it, but I could give a better I I let me have the opportunity to be more prepared for next week to give you a better answer on that and I certainly could do that or else if we need Bill to do a short little something, you know, we can get that answer to you. But it's still out there. There's still litigation. Eventually at some point in time something's going to the Supreme Court uh with regards to the new decisions. There's possibility that it could it kick back to us again to hear it at some point in time. That would be my expectation timing of that. I don't have any idea. I think we're talking about a little length of time period before we know exactly some of what those answers are going to be. So, it's still in litigation process both in court and then potentially um I I think one of the decisions at Google was to remand and I

think that was related to the structure and the um foundation or the retaining wall uh situation. So, you may be seeing that you know at that point in time. Have you guys had a chance to talk at all about the the larger conversation we've had to surround reporting and talking with us about decision um in terms of profit with regards to uh last last meeting we talked a little bit about um all together you starting you and your team starting together to come together and talk about how the records built how how we were talking about decisions We have not had the time to do that with the move and everything like that. That's actually kind of sorry to, you know, not not as though um we can't get back to you on that. There's been a lot of other stuff going on. I apologize, but um we can talk about that. Like I told you, some of that's internal just in some of our stuff. And then with regards to working with Melissa a little bit, um there'll probably be some additional input that we can give you in terms of developing the record and things like that. But for the most part, unless you guys have I know there again that there's been some situations from time to time. We've been fairly consistent. We're probably going to do things, you know, pretty much the way we are. But anytime we can find something out procedurally there process-wise, we're open to improvement just because it helps us to pend our cases better. Yeah. And I I want to be clear from from my perspective. Um it's not just based on one case where things didn't go well because you're right. For the most part, it goes really well. I think for me a lot of it has to do when we get these big packages these 900 page packages of just understanding how stuff is put in there so I don't have to go through every page again and know that you know if it's however it's cataloged um

whether it's exhibit you know date however you're naming it I can just rip through that having had the conversation about how you guys are cataloging which we just haven't had before I don't totally understand how that system is set up um and once I have a better understand stuff. I'll be able to move more efficiently through that information. And then, you know, again, it's only happened a couple times. One maybe in the ferris, one was an accident where someone slipped something into our process and changed the changed the design of what was put in. It will I will never forget this one project. I'm not going to get into names, but one project was very evident to me that it was it was some sneaky gamesmanship to change the design and we just didn't catch it until the lawyers came back later saying that's not what was approved and we're like there was so many papers we couldn't keep up. So understand I don't anticipate that lessening especially like with the shoreline stabilizations and things like that. That stuff's just going to get more and more because the PE, you know, people are seeing that what types of decisions we're making. They get the burden of proof is on them and they have that one opportunity to come to you and if it gets continued, you see what happens. We're going to get a lot of documentation whether it's something like that or others. I think, you know, we're just And so, yeah, it's a challenge from the standpoint of staying on top of it. No doubt about it. And I think it's it for me, it's a it's a defensive position to what's happened in just the complexity of what we're dealing we're dealing with the most challenging lots that are left. We're dealing with really complicated issues that we are going to get a stack record on. And then we, you know, thinking about what we were dealing with, you know, we used to just deal with setbacks, you know, whether it's 12 in or 11. It's like, oh my god, the good old days. Um, now we have these really tricky these tricky um records that we just have to stay ahead of or we're

going to get buried, which frankly is a good strategy on some people's part. Just bury them and you know, they'll lose some of these. dig and that's I mean that's what people do you know and I think Robert's done a nice job you know in terms of what he does in terms of his plan commission how it does and it's exhibit A exhibit B and we just need to follow that you know format I think it's and I think sometimes in a in a packets it's even got a link you know to that specific exhibit um that you can click on and just get right there. So, so we'll we'll continue to work on that and try to get you guys the best information we can for you to make the best decisions you can. Yeah, understand that process will be awesome. But there's a lot going on transitions happening. So, and it's 9:45 at night, so there anything else we go to the order. Thanks a lot for dealing with the new uh place. Yeah, we appreciate it. I don't know with some of the things with the voices whether or not people have to maybe lift up their voices. I don't know. But I couldn't make a move without that camera shift. Can Can we talk about real quick? Mickey brought up a good point and maybe I'm just paranoid, but this whole idea of a chain sneaking its way in. You know what happens if McDonald's makes an application, fulfills every code requirement, doesn't need to come before us. Do they get in? Does some um you know, some lesser chain that only has a few stores here and there? Do they sneak by because it doesn't have the McDonald's name that we don't recognize and somehow there's, you know, a public outcry? I mean, how does what's the backs stop there? Or am I just tired and

not thinking of, you know, some simple backs stop that we have in place? David is curiously going through the book here. I think I think the it's it's a great question and it's I think one we anticipated because um this is a a smaller kind of regional place um with other places around here. Um, I'm not quite sure that the convenience store falls under the formula foods. So, that's the question because I don't think from a staff perspective. Let me just hold one second. Let's make sure we're not talking about the specific application. Maybe just more. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, so, so, so, uh, what it relates to is formula foods like McDonald's, like Arby's, like Burger King. Um, and so whether it it's pretty specific in terms of menus and things like that. So I'm not sure if say like a retail business or you know it it's pretty restaurant. So so a very good example. So so the the language in the code specifically says formula food restaurant. And so the word restaurant the way we are interpreting that means that the primary mode of sale is prepared food. And so if you have a situation such as coming from Bucks County, if you have a winery and a tasting room and they have a pizza kitchen, you or pizza oven on site, they're doing a little bit of food sale on site, that does not make them a restaurant because that food sale is an accessory service. It's not the primary function. the primary function of the

winery or the tasting room was the sale of alcohol. And so the retail establishment, the the primary function is primarily going to be the sale of retail goods. But if they have a hot counter, that does make them a restaurant that has them having a necessary use selling hot food. Yeah. uh you know but on the other so so on the other hand we imposed the food tax at the city we impose that on all prepared food including their market well I guess that initially is staff's take on that we can review that matter with u legal if you'd like but that has been the approach that Robert and I went says formal food restaurant And it says means of restaurant required by contractual or other arrangements to offer standardized menus, ingredients, food preparation. I think that's where we believe that it differs. But I'm not but that's not that's not to say that decisions can't be made and we can you know have that looked at. That is uh what we're looking at at this point in time. So like a 7-Eleven could establish a door here and I would say it potentially. Yes, that's what you say. Yeah. Not saying right or wrong, but that's how we're looking at it right now. Okay. So you're the only this planning department is the only person reviewing that question. Yes. Because it's an administrative decision and so you're saying you're applying the comprehensive plan and that's your the comprehensive plan says

more and the read the way I read that definition that's how we're administering it. So so if 7-Eleven makes an application the back stop is the two of you. That's correct. Okay. So, let let me just put this out there. We administer the zoning ordinance that we have before us. And if plan commission and council would like to choose to have different language, there's an amendment process that's available. Anyone else on this? I'm just looking at the definition in the comprehensive plan and then formula restaurants are defined as businesses required by contractual or other arrangements to offer standardized menus, ingredients, food preparation, stuff we're talking about. But then it goes on to say interior or exterior design or uniforms. And some of those like the uh interior and exterior designs would certainly apply to the convenience store like a 71 and and it uses or to con that those words not like it's all inclusive. I don't know. It's confusing to me. I always thought the line was that the businesses could not come from out of state. Apparently that's just a rumor that I heard some place. Is there a percentage test whether or not a an establishment is a restaurant or a wine sales 40 60 or 7030? I would say that's kind of uh up in the air. I think that's

just kind of an interpretation. I don't have anything that says specifically what a number is on that. I would say anything that's probably doing at least 50% 51% of their business in some direction is probably the majority business is a restaurant. Yeah. So, I guess you take it down to what they have to say. I'm not I'm not trying to sit here and say that I'm right or anything, but that's how I'm reviewing it and how I see it and and if someone uh higher than I as far as uh an attorney or someone wants to tell me otherwise, I'm totally game for it. And like I said, uh as far as uh changing the language, that's always an option as well. And that's probably the better option. But yeah, maybe the interpretation. [Music] I'm kidding. I'm kidding. It's too late. No, no, please don't answer. I was really Stop here. Wouldn't be the first time ever. What exactly do you mean by that? Okay. Is there anything else that can wait to be solved another time when we have a little more time? late. Good meeting everyone. Thank you. It's tough. Good night.