Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Looks like we have everyone here tonight.

Is that right?

Are you ready for us to get started, Robert? All right. At 6 o'clock, I will now call the meeting to order. As you can tell, I'm not Chair Newton, but filling in for him tonight. Our first item will be approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? I move to approve the agenda. Any discussion. That's a typical role.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Agenda is approved. We want the consideration minutes for April 23rd 2026 planning Commission meeting. Are there any amendments these minutes.

I want to prove that they are second.

Any discussion. That's I could you please call the roll. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. The 20 April 23rd Commission meeting minutes are approved will be now moving on to public comments. This is an opportunity for comments on non agenda and non hearing items. Anyone present who wishes to make public comment. Do we have anyone online.

No.

Okay, let's move on to our action items. The first item on our agenda is CU26-02. Stephen Mullaney for a conditional use permit. CU26-02, Stephen Mullaney with a conditional use permit application for driveway improvements in an inventory at Springport. The subject property is located at 1290 Cypress Court, tax lot 01802. map 51029CB in a residential medium density R2 zone. The application will be reviewed against the criteria of municipal code 17.102 wetland overlay zone and 17.86 conditional uses. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of 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? And has any commission member had an ex parte contact or made site visit?

Site visit.

At this time, could we please have the staff report?

Good evening. This application is for the replacement of an existing stream crossing and driveway in an inventory stream corridor The existing crossing has access to properties to your garage and has been determined to be a needed replacement and the existing culvert uses a 24-inch diameter pipe for 75% of its extent and plywood formwork that is described as being in poor condition for the remaining 25%. Existing red wrap at either end of the culvert will be retained. There are going to be applicable criteria for stream formal protection requirements The staff comment is that the application minimizes impacts by making use of a developed crossing versus entirely new construction. There is no indication or evidence presented that excavation or alteration of the site's terrain will be required to replace the corridor of the driveway. Due to the site's layout, no practical alternative exists for replacement of the crossing. The streaming corridor is not within a delineated well on site or rubber area. and provisions of municipal code 17.002 while under the overlay ordinance do not apply to this application. As the placement of the culvert within the stream corridor may be considered to fill, condition of approval number one requires the applicant to obtain all required state and federal permits prior to the start of work. Moving into the conditional use criteria, the staff comment is The site is the developer's potential property and the proposed activity is consistent with its use and the current conditions of the property. No significant alterations to part of any traffic patterns or other characteristics will result from this proposal. And that concludes the staff report.

Does anyone have questions for staff?

No. It is everything that was submitted to the city attached. Yes, it is.

The other side. They are.

Yeah, but they are patient they didn't have any any cards. But it is really a situation where I have a reputation. Thank you.

And the other questions. And I assume you have all the correspondence related to this matter.

Correct.

At this time, we'll be calling for public testimony. The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in staff reports and listed on criteria sheets and meeting page of the city's website. Testimony arguments and evidence must be directed for those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or municipal code. which the person testifying believes to apply 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 precludes appeal based on that 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 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, whom they represent. Is there a presentation by the applicant?

You pretty much said everything I wanted to say.

If you have anything you'd like to say, this is your opportunity. Got to be recognized. Yes, you are recognized. If you could give us your full name and mailing address, and then you can begin your test. Okay.

My name is Steve Mullaney, 3004 Northeast 51st Avenue in Portland, 97213. In 1922 or 2022, we purchased the house that if we could pull up the, I think, the site Uh, and there was, I could barely see a little crack in the concrete at that point. And so started monitoring it and it's now opened up to a bigger width or so plan for starting to grow in it. Um, I, we have a project here in town, um, the city hall, um, general contractor. So I had our superintendent go over there and take a look at it and He looked up through the culvert and saw that the west end didn't have the culvert, but it had looked like formwork that they placed in there when they were placing the fill before they put the concrete in there and it was rotting. And so that's what's causing that end to sink. The other end is stable because it has the culvert in it. And so the idea was to pull, go back to the, there's a joint there. We'll go back to that, pull out that concrete, pull out the asphalt, extend the culvert, keep the same size, same elevation and replace the fill and then cover up with asphalt. So the asphalt will go back into about halfway into the driveway. would be two and a half inch asphalt. Riprap stays at both ends. And erosion will be, I think, is in a condition. Conditional use, that's part of it. And we'll be taking care of that. And I don't know if I have anything else. Are there any questions? May I ask if there's questions?

It is our job to ask, but you can ask us for them.

What are you replacing? I think it's going to match what it is, and I think it's a plastic one.

What's the width of the driveway in here?

The width is, it's a two car, so I think it's like 25 feet, maybe.

And I believe the limitation is 20 feet or... So, yeah, we should have stated that.

Okay.

Have you contacted DSL?

No. I learned of that when I was checking out the report last week and thought I would just wait for, see how this goes and then start going down that avenue. Same thing with the car.

And it has been hours, huh? Coming in

A straight shot. Straight shot all the way up to, I'm not sure what that, what's the street right here? Spruce. I think there's a Spruce Dead Ends right there. It goes under Spruce and then turns and goes north.

One of our criteria that we need to consider is whether you have selected a less invasive alternative such as using bridge to cross or what's called a bottomless culvert? Have you considered replacing this culvert or the bottomless culvert?

No, we were just going to match existing.

And how much excavation do you expect will be required in order to remove the current culvert and put in the new one?

We'll be matching the existing. So I don't think we're going to be pulling up the first 75% of it. It'll be just excavating the north or the west eight feet or so and putting in a matching convert. So you're not going to put the car park in place in succession? We're expecting that. Yeah. That'll minimize the east side. But you're applying all country, huh?

Yes. Correct.

So if this were wider than 20 feet driveway right now, would you then consider taking this down to 20 foot width? In other words, reducing how much you need to maybe replace of that 8 feet?

I'm trying to take a look at it. That side we could do that, yes.

On the west side. Then looking at the garage door is probably a 14, maybe 16, so I doubt we're close.

Does anyone else have questions?

I think I understood, you know, you're going to get the permits as specified in the city's recommendation and that you intend to have some kind of a sedimentation plan before you start work. Yes.

We're working with Big River Excavation who knows the coast real well, so they will they won't shoot themselves in the foot by doing something improper.

Yeah, which is like . OK. And it looks like this will go through the period. It's 120 days. And it'll be August that we might be able to start. So it should be a pretty low flow with that. Any other questions? If you guys don't want to stay, will I be able to get a permit by that time?

That's not our job to answer that question.

That's your job. We're not going to permit.

If you have no further comments at this time, you will have an opportunity to make additional comments after we call for other parties. Okay. So I can rebuttal? Yes. Thank you for your time.

This time I will call for presentations by proponents. Is there anyone who wishes to speak as a proponent? And in that case, I will call for presentations by opponents. Any opponents either in the room or online? Is there a staff response?

The staff response is the department recommends the Planning Commission approve the application subject to the following conditions. One, the applicant shall obtain any required permits from the Oregon Department of State lands and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to the start of the work. Two, any ground disturbance in the strength corridor will require gradient erosion and sedimentation control measures according to Chapter 17.92 prior to construction. And number three, the city shall be notified no less than 48 hours prior to all sightedness.

Does the applicant wish to make any additional statements?

No, thank you.

At this time, we will close the public hearing and move to consideration. I propose that because we have a number of criteria, we generate our discussion as we go through the criteria, and we can make sure that we cover each point. I'm happy to start, and if someone else wants to take over reading criteria, they can. So we'll begin with the stream corridor protection requirements under 17.116.04.0. So first there are general standards that apply to stream buffer activities. Uses and activities in the stream buffer may be approved only after the following list of alternative actions have been considered. Beginning with the highest priority, avoiding the impact altogether. And then second priority would be minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action or its implementation. So let's have a brief comment on this criteria.

On A, although I'm no expert, I did make a site visit and could clearly see the crime. I have no reason to disbelieve that it's a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think we can avoid doing anything.

And in regards to these, not for the whole thing of shooting and targeting, is that a necessary piece that needs to be discussed? So I think he's good with that.

I think that by using one portion of Bautist and one portion of the existing cohort, we would encourage the same thing, that there would be some... Because those are such different materials that one of the bottom one is not he would experience the same thing that's going on here with the Forums on one 25% and roll work on the other side of your eye person. So I think it's probably best to use a cold work entire room. Like materials all the way through. So this doesn't happen again.

Number A2, valid permits from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Oregon VSL. These require written proof of exemption from these permit programs, must be obtained before any following activities, including placement of fill, construction, and excavation. And then the other requirement is an erosion control plan that identifies specific measures to be implemented during and after construction to protect the stream and adjacent upland areas from erosion. I'm coming to use criteria.

I don't know. Yes, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Moving on to be transportation structures.

including roads, bridges, bridge crossing support structures, and culverts, may be permitted subject to the following standards. One, roads may be constructed outside the stream corridor except for stream crossings. Streams shall be crossed only where no practicable alternatives and in order of preferences, the priorities for stream crossing structures are bridges, A, or B, bottomless culverts, or other similar structures that have thinness drainage ability to provide for fish and wildlife passage. Let's start with those, and then we'll move on to the next. So first, streams should only be crossed where there are no practicable alternatives. Better idea is in that . In order of preference, priorities for stream crossing structures are fridges, top priority, second priority, bottomless culverts, or other similar structures.

So I think Steve's point of direction is that would allow us to say that Got the right direction.

The other alternative would be removing the entire culvert and do a bottomless culvert throughout. We'd have to consider whether that's more or less disruptive. I think that's more intrusive.

I'd like to add that in that short section from the south edge of Dawes to where it crosses, well actually to where it gets close to the bike paths, groups. There are actually five culvert crossings, two roads, three driveways. Best as I can tell, they're all circular culverts. I see no reason to specify one should be different.

That's my opinion, if that makes sense. Let's move on to the next set of questions. Criteria for transportation structures. Proposals for stream crossings utilizing bottomless culvert or other similar structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission pursuant to requirements of 1716. We shall approve such a stream crossing where we find the site topography presents immaterial difficulty to bridge construction or where it can be demonstrated a bridge crossing would result in more damage to the stream and adjacent wetland and riparian area.

It would be more intensive to require additional construction.

This is more of a maintenance issue, so yeah. And it says the stream crossing shall be designed so that the crossing does not diminish flood-depairing capacity.

I imagine the existing portion of culvert, I think that certainly doesn't diminish.

Yeah. And it's true Russia should be no wider than necessary to serve intended for us.

Well, of course, for the party. Yes, I think that would be the best addition to that. Yeah. And you know, regarding the size of the over.

Oh, he was.

We will carry out the science and we would have to be able to open it.

Is it something that Well, I would just like to know if there's any backup. We don't know if that's an adequate size of knowledge. Has there been backup that has been noticed? Is there a 24-inch culvert?

Do we think that we can get a condition considering the capacity of the current culvert?

Well, the current culvert's capacity is, well, it's a 24-inch. I assume that that's been reasonable size and there hasn't been any backup, but I don't know that, you know, asking the applicant to do some further investigation. I would imagine that 24-inch is fine, but I am curious if there ever has been backup and if that really is adequate.

Should we read through it? Public Works says, you know, you're all ever having a problem out there. Let us know that there's five just within the one block area.

I guess if there was a back up, it would be on the very first one. The rest of them wouldn't be adequate. Unless somebody gets in there.

So this is not a public comment, but I have not seen any backups.

I mean, it's a short amount, and if backups wouldn't affect me directly, I'm not aware of any backups since 2011, and there's a next-door neighbor who's been there much longer than me that probably has some experience if we needed it.

I would say back to what Jay said about Public Works had an opportunity. If they paid, they should have.

Yeah. Okay, continue. Did you have another comment? No, thank you. Continuing on the criteria, placement of the stream crossing structure shall minimize land clearing and site modification within the steering corridor. All debris, overburden, and construction materials shall be placed on non-wetland areas in a manner that prevents erosion.

Should we ask the condition that the erosion control plan be passed through public works as well? Do they see it? They will see it. Great. So we don't need to make that convenient.

Bridge crossing support structures shall not be located in the stream. Excavation for footings, piers, and busments shall be isolated from the wetland perimeter of the waterway. We didn't really discuss where the support structures are, but I'm assuming that they're located outside currently.

Any other comments? And Colbert is its own support structure. which is in stream. So it doesn't exactly.

Utility crossings, should we combine stream crossings? I think that's not a concern. Again, number of stream crossings should we minimize? Not a concern here. It says where adjacent upland consists of wetland, flexible standards from 17-102, which this is not a wetland or wetland buffer. Any other comments on this stream corridor?

Right to you. Your comment about utility processing shall be combined makes me think of something that didn't occur to me. Just as you're facing the house, just to the left of the existing driveway is actually, I believe, a noted telephone utility thing and potentially the electric. I wonder how those cross over to the house. I can't imagine that they go through the existing structure, but I don't know. They're right there next to the driveway. It's a concern that didn't occur to me until just now. Well, I'm sure the problem has required an 8-1-1, as that point is, for utility farms and gardens before they started, right? excavation that all of the utilities will be marked. Okay. Is that something that needs to be put as a condition? Well, it's the law, so we can put that in there. Okay.

And all of the works probably flagged that upon the review of that place.

That's fine. I didn't anticipate it being an issue.

So we've now covered stream corridor criteria. What we have left are criteria for conditional uses. This is under 1786.080. Before conditional use is approved, findings will be made that comply with the following standards. A, a demand exists for the use of the proposed location. We have an agreement on that. B, the use will not create excessive traffic congestion. We don't anticipate that. The site has an adequate amount of space for yards, buildings, drives, parking, loading, unloading on their topography, soil, and other physical characteristics of the site are appropriate for use. I think that I don't have a concern based on the fact that there's an existing structure, but we don't have a report to that effect. And then An adequate site layout will be used for transportation activities. Again, I'm not sure that we have to be too concerned. There's not going to be much in the way of transportation activities. And then the site and building design sure to be compatible with the surrounding area. So with that, we have moved through all the criteria. I did not hear any significant concerns. Would anyone like to make a motion?

I move to approve. 26.02 with the conditions that have been stated. How expensive do I need to get out of these?

If you'd like to read this, and then we can have the word of discussion.

Okay. Having considered the evidence and record based on the motion from Commissioner C. Waite, seconded by Commissioner, yet to be determined, my next item of motion is to vote through provisions to permit for driveway improvements in an inventory stream corridor, CU26-02, as discussed in a public meeting, subject to the following conditions. Applicants shall obtain any required permits from Oregon Department of State lands or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to the start of work. Any ground disturbance, number two, any ground disturbance in the stream corridor will require grading, erosion, and sedimentation control measures according to Chapter 2. 17.92 prior to construction. Soon shall we notify no less than 48 hours prior to any disturbance on site. Number four, the driveway will be no wider than 20 feet as required by Public Works. I think that covers it. Do I have a second?

Well, first you have to call for discussion. We have a discussion here. I think that you're very comfortable and I do we have a second. The second is called. Missionary mission yet. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I see you 26.2 is a group with conditions. This time we'll move on to the entry report report.

So for the tree or for a month of April to parents were issued. Both of these are strong folks. One of them is for construction. One of them is for a dead tree. A total of three trees will be permitted to be removed. It will be a requirement of two trees.

Any questions or comments on the tree report? Alright, let's move on to good of the order. Does anyone have items for good of the order?

I have one item. I noticed this weekend, this last holiday weekend, that the parking is and many neighborhoods out of control. If anybody lives within a quarter mile of any reach access along Hemlock or anywhere, cars were parked on both sides of the street, making it impossible for first responders, fire trucks, ambulance, paramedics to be able to respond to any of the homes on some of those blocks. You know, this was, it could be a matter of life and death. Somebody having a heart attack and paramedics are unable to get through, or a fire, a house fire, or a lot of fire. The fire truck would not be able to get through. I took a cursory kind of view of many of the neighborhoods, not only in my neighborhood, but also south and a little bit north of mine. And I would say without I believe that around 70% of the roads had access issues on the coast of the parking of the visitors that wanted access to the beach. Now, I've seen this before on 4th of July, but this is the earliest in the year that I've ever seen this kind of impact on our streets. And that also goes for spruces. I fell on a spruce. on both sides of sunset. They were working on both sides of that. So this is very widespread. And I believe it's an overview of the Planning Commission to look forward and see if we can, well, what I'd like to do is have a comprehensive review of the width, length, and then the other anomalies or oddities, unique aspects of any of the streets to determine whether or not Regulations are necessary, and if so, what regulations should be imposed on those streets? Now, this is, I've been in Canyon Beach, and I moved here about 10 years ago or so, and it just progressively gets worse and worse every year. It starts earlier, ends later every year, and I think that we ought to suggest to council that this comprehensive review of of our streets outside, probably outside of the presidents because it looks like they've already been done. They have parking restrictions on the presidents and they have parking restrictions on some streets that are west of Hemlock because I think that they were experiencing those same things. So they put those regulations in place. And I think not only from safety, the public safety aspect, but also just the livability aspect, the people that, live west of Hemlock are impacted so severe by over parking in those areas, they have the restrictions in place. And I think everybody and every neighborhood should be afforded the same considerations for parking considerations. And whatever the city needs, whether it's public works to implement these or to determine and what the state regulations are for parking on both sides or parking in general on residential streets and what the requirements are. Let's gather all those details on the streets, especially the ones impacted that are most close to the beach access and turn that in and see if regulations are necessary. I really believe that it's a public safety issue. It's a very high public safety issue because if first responders can't get there, then, you know, I guess they have to carry the analog and take it away.

Would you think the bike control people would be able to give us a report about what they think?

The feedback from the fire department and the police department are that we really can't do anything about it because there are no regulations on the street. It's not like there's a sign there and they're disobeying signs. It's that there are absolutely no regulations to enforce. So the regulation can be in place before it can enforce anything. And the other safety aspect of that is when you have people parking on both sides of the street or one side of the street or the narrow street, you push everybody into the same corridor. That's cyclists, that's pedestrians, you know, of all sorts, dog walkers and joggers. And we don't have sidewalks pretty much in our neighborhood. going to talk about it. So everybody's in this war or with the two-way traffic and that presents another city. I think we ought to consider that and they get you operate yet.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. July to add to the Park and Relief Council about parking, parking management. But we're also talking then about a process to review the transportation system plan, which you guys remember we passed. And set when we show us. So it's coming to the City Council in July. They will set a process for... I, the recommendation will likely be, because you've got, it's under you guys and public work. So, the process is, you know, to have a process part with both of you guys, then to review what needs to be done in the plan, but also, you know, if we don't have the information to make good decisions, it's also to say, hey, we need more information on this, this, or this, which we would then go off and get reports on or say something. And so, uh currently there's not even a line for transportation system improvements or anything like that so that's what we really need to discuss with the city council how to move these types of projects forward because i i agree that there's concerns on this and uh you know uh we get of course uh Suggestions around the crosswalks and new parking. Things are. Things and things like that, but we have a plan in place and it needs to at least be vetted through that plan and typically more information we will go get that permission.

Better solution. Yeah, I'm just advocating for gathering information first term, you know what regulation we could in that. You know, When I walk my dog in the four block area around my place, I put down kind of the undertones and personal signs that, let me see, one of those is a cry for help. You know, help me control what's going on in my neighborhood.

Well, I'm glad to hear that there's already a plan in place to start with city council and that we'll be seeing more of this issue. Anyone else with items we're going to be ordering?

Yeah, I just wanted to share more for procedure that he's got for the scene that he just did. I really think us going line by line by line with our code that we're referencing is the best way to go about this.

And I think we should continue it in the future.

But at least any ambiguity out of it, We have the opportunity to speak, comment, and view everything. That way, I think it makes us more thorough. And our language is clear to the app, not only the app, but our regular listing and for the patient.

Thanks. Thank you all for being a part of our slow walk through the code. But I always find it really helpful. does help me to think through it.

It may take us longer, but it's typically more thorough, especially when we get the ones that are kind of stinking. That may, you know, require more discussion on certain items of it. Thank you.

Absolutely. Well, that way, I think we can stop here and adjourn the meeting. Thank you all. Thank you.