Council - Regular Meeting

We'll call the Dallas City Council meeting to order for Monday, May 18th, 2026 at 7 p.m. and ask the city recorder to call the role. Council President Briggs here. Councelor Barryentos here. Coun Councelor Blosser here. Councelor Fitzgerald here. Councelor Hoappel here. Jance here. Councelor Schilling here. Councelor Shane here. Councelor Spivey here. Right. We have a quorum. Please join me in standing for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, we have no introductions tonight. The first thing on the agenda is a public hearing. Uh, uh, comment we take on this will be just for the public hearing. If for general public comment, that'll come after the public hearing, just so you're aware of that. Um, uh, this is a public hearing on the mixeduse zoning district code amendment. I now declare this public hearing open at 7:01. Uh, are there any kind of conflicts of interest to declare? Seeing none, can we please have the staff report? Hello everyone. Uh Jess Belaloo, city planner. Um I don't have a slideshow for you today because it's uh not a lot of pretty pictures. It's a lot of text and words, which doesn't go well on a slideshow. Um but uh the the short uh story of how we got here, uh the uh city council recently um went through a process to update our LRAL uh node master plan. Um as part of that, part of the node was designated to be uh zoned for mixed use. Um we don't currently have in our development code a zone called mixed use. Um and so in order to be able to enact that zoning change that's been proposed as part of the lock rail node master plan um we first need to create the definitions and parameters around what a mixeduse zone would

entail. And so that's the process that we have uh here in front of us. the uh consultant that put together the uh Lacrial master plan update um as part of their work also provided a draft of uh some proposed code language for what that mixeduse zone could look like. Um they also included updates to our uh mixeduse nodes chapter generally um which would apply throughout the entire uh lock rail node not just that portion uh designated for mixed use. Um and that uh itself then went to uh the planning commission. Um they had uh workshop sessions, they had a series of public hearings. uh some revisions were uh made to the original proposal um cleaning up some duplicative uh language um those sorts of things. Um, Planet Vision ultimately uh voted uh to advance um uh the copy of the code that is in front of you here. Um which is the third revision of the code and uh within that revision uh option number one. Um they did request that both options be presented to you. So option number two is also highlighted there in yellow. Um that would be uh for those of you who are um looking through that that's going to be on page

15.

There you go. Yes. So um I don't know to what extent uh the council may have questions regarding uh this change. I'm certain certainly happy to answer any questions that you may have to the best of my ability. Um the staff report uh from December 11th uh it goes into greater detail as to how the proposal conforms to uh the Dallas comprehensive plan generally um as well as the Oregon statewide planning goals. Um, so I don't know that I want to necessarily rehash that since it's probably not of interest to you, but uh suffice it to say that uh this would be consistent with the purpose of the Dallas comprehensive plan and the statewide planning goals. Uh so yes, are there questions? Can I

So maybe before we jump into questions, um so just for the council's benefit and anyone that has a packet from the public, the um the development code updates begin on page 11 of the packet and run through page 22. So in that um any of the text that is the color black is existing. So that's currently in the code um as it's written before any changes are made. Any text that's in blue and underlined is new proposed text. And then there are some sections that we're proposing to remove and that's um in strike through text and its color is red. Um so again just for purposes of understanding what's being uh existing, what's new and what's proposed to be moved. If it's black text it's existing. If it's red with strike through it's proposed to be removed. And if it's blue and underlined it's new text being added to the code. So

breaks. I just want to clarify I'm reading this right. I've heard it right. So, option one versus option two. Option one is where you would have access off of Kings Valley Highway or Ellenale right into a a a property where op or excuse me, option one is you would not have access right off the highway. You would have to hit a side road and then turn into and option two is you would have access directly off the highway. That is correct. One is what

option one is ultimately what the uh planning commission recommended to approve. Um that language is generally consistent with uh the Barbberry node uh which is just down Ellenale. um as well as the Wyatt node which is on Ellenale on the other side of town. Um which generally limits uh vehic vehicular access onto Ellenale and requires um site access to the large commercial areas to be off of the uh side roads. Yeah. So to paint a picture, if we had a Fred Meyer sitting in the middle of that and we were coming down the highway, we'd want to turn on Lockal or a side road and then turn into Fred Meyer rather than just turning right into Fred Meyer. Right.

Correct.

Okay. The second question was on the next page. Um, paragraph 4. commercial buildings with a floor plate should be floor plan I'm assuming exceeding 50,000 square ft and up to 70,000 can we do we really need to limit it at 70 um that's a policy level issue uh I guess it depends on uh just kind of what sort of uses you're trying to uh develop there in the mixeduse node um if if you develop something much larger like a Costco it it's not really very mixed use at that point. So, um something to be cautious of, but um certainly what whatever uh threshold the council thinks is appropriate um that could be that could be modified.

Jess, what do you what do you mean by if it's a Costco that very mixed? Well, I mean, Costco are usually you you drive to them, they've got massive parking lots. It's retail. Um, mixed use generally has more of a sort of a residential kind of neighborhood feel to it in addition to the commercial. Um, it would just be so it would just take over so much is kind right. I don't know that there would be a lot left over if you were to build something as big as a Costco. I didn't understand what

so when we did the locker node mixed use was not determined that the mixed use is that we have a mixeduse section which is on the whether it be the south side of Ellenale we have a general commercial area which is for that type of building which is what we were after we're after a larger grocery place a place that somebody that wants to come in we've had Fred Meyer first come in 15 years ago. They wanted 150,000 foot building. There's nothing available. That's what my understanding when we went through the locker rail node, we were designing it for was not for the definition of mixed use that we're hearing tonight. So, I mean, I'm going to make a recommendation just to throw it out there. Can I I think let's wait till we get to deliberations if we're going to propose any changes to the code. I think it's fine to discuss things now and ask questions. Um but I would say that uh just to describe kind of what the nodes are right um we call them mixeduse nodes. So whether it's the Wyatt node, the Barbar node or the the Lock Rail node, we're talking specifically about Lock Rail tonight. Um within those nodes, you have residential areas, you have commercial areas, right? Um both in the Barberry and the Wyatt node, the commercial area is a neighborhood commercial um zoned area um with you have low, medium, and high density residential in each of those zones. Um in those nodes, Barbberry and Wyatt Lock, we just went through a planning exercise to kind of redraw the map. We expanded the node area. Um so the mixed use element as I would describe it um is you have within that that geographic node area, the planning area, you have a mix of uses that are allowed in zones. So you have like councelor Shilling said, you have a general commercial area, you have a mixeduse zone, which is the new zone that we're talking about the standards tonight um in detail. You also have uh medium and high density zoned areas as

well. So you have a mix of zones and and uses that are allowed within those. Um and then you have a mixeduse area which I think is what Jess is talking about, right? A Costco wouldn't fit in a mixeduse zoning. Um but it it could fit within a mixeduse node area in a general commercial zoned piece of property within that greater node area. Um, but a Costco would take up a lot of space because they're big and they have large parking lots and other things that go along with that. But, um, yeah, I think what what's a a point to point out is the standard that councelor Briggs is pointing to, it's uh, under U B4 um, on page 16. Um, that standards under the general commercial zoning within the mixed use nodes. So, it's not within the mixeduse zoning. Um it's within the general commercial standards

to go address option one and two. Um I'm going to put my two cents in as far as the idea that we don't want to turn Ellenale into a Lancaster drive. And so that's what option one does is it gives us access points so that we can put landscaping and have a very pleasant entry into our downtown. Um, if you go with option two, it's going to be Lancaster. I mean, you're going to have storefronts after storefront after storefront. So, and the same along uh 223, if we want to make that a main access in and out of town to 22, if we have multiple accesses coming in off that high, you get congested like crazy versus having uh limited access points to go onto uh surface streets to get to those entries. as as the standard talks about, you know, you're you're trying to limit the negative effects of, you know, automobile traffic congestion. Um, if you have all those access points off of the main highway, you're going to get a lot of backup. Um, you know, and it's just in vehicles trying to pull out onto the highway, uh, it's better to have them come off of a street that could be signalized. Um, so there's benefits to option one. I think the planning commission and staff made a good recommendation on that. So, does this mixed use only apply to part of that lock rail node property?

So, the the standards that start on page 18, that's the mixeduse district standards. So that that those standards apply to just the mixeduse zoning within the Lreal mixeduse node which is south of which is on the south side of Ellen a little east of Lockale. Um that's the mixed use area of the Lock Rail node. To uh to clarify, the actual reszoning of that won't take place uh until a future process. So that's where it's proposed for, but the reszoning of the map won't happen at as part of this.

The master plan map that you approved shows that future zoning in that area. Um, and these standards would apply to that area specifically. Yeah, we're not zoning anything tonight. We're just creating the structure to do it when we decide we want to at some future date. Were you on through this or can I bring something up that's a few pages down? I I believe we're at the question and answer session part. So page 21, it talks about building structure height. Okay. 8tory 100 ft primary building limit. Okay.

Discuss an eighttory 100 foot option and maybe make those a little bit shorter. I I would I would be in favor of more like two or maybe three stories. Jess, what's the um the height limit in the general commercial zones right now? Do you know? So, I believe it's I believe it's five stories.

So, there's a differential in height limit depending on what type of development you're doing. There is a height level bonus if you are doing uh mixeduse uh development. So um for the general commercial uh maximum for a single use project is three stories 40 ft um for mixed use buildings where you have residential above commercial um it's five stories or 64 ft. Am I not correct if I remember right? It's already limited. This is a limited use for residential. Wouldn't it have to have commercial underneath in the mixed use?

So, I think the the way the um Jess, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't you have standalone residential in the mixeduse zone district that we're creating or does it have to be a combination of commercial and in residential? So, it's it's again there's multiple different zones that will ultimately be within the Lacrial node. So, um, within the general commercial zoning of the Lacrial node, um, we're speaking specifically mixed use right now. Yeah, cuz we're we're talking about chapter 2.11, which is the mixed use standards, multif family, it's got, right? So, in that case, uh, the, uh,

uh, the the specification there is on page 20. Um, and so, uh, nonresidential uses, um, would have to occupy at least the floor area equivalent of the ground floor. Um, so wouldn't necessarily need to be in the same building of the development site. Um, wouldn't necessarily need to be the entirety of the ground floor, but the equivalent floor area of the ground floor would need to be commercial. So there is no provision for um an entirely residential building in the mixeduse zone. Well, now hang on because I read this.

A conditional use would allow you to put residential on the ground floor. So you can have residential on the ground floor but the the development has to have a commercial component whose total floor area is equivalent to the ground floor building that could be an upper floorage amount the bottom table on page 20. Yeah, that's what I'm looking at. And the conditional use says that the that a non-residential use does not have to occupy the entire look on page 16 under residential uses for what letters you can apply to it.

So multif family is L zero lot line is L. So everything that uh would fall under that L then falls into that table on page 20 of uh new residential uses um which specifies uh that that floor area equivalency for for commercial use. Shane, are you saying that with a conditional use under the restriction you could have a little bit less? That's how I'm reading it. Yeah. Well, it doesn't say a little bit, just says less. Doesn't say a little a lot or what? just says less. Well, I mean, but it does say prohibited completely residential is not allowed at all.

Yes. Which implies that 95% would be or some number. Yeah. I guess what I'm getting at is maybe the just maybe we'd be better off striking the conditional use and not allowing it at all. That's sort of the direction I was going. Councelor Shane, where are you reading the conditional use? Can you point that out to me? Uh, page 20. Last thing on the page says conditional. Conditional non-residential uses occupy less than the floor area equivalent to the entire ground floor. Take that off. Then the ground floor has got to be commercial and there's no decision. Not the ground floor. Well, I mean equivalent

the equivalent area of the ground floor. Yeah. It's got to be there. No, no. you know, no exceptions have this big of a ground floor somewhere in the building or other buildings. The ground floor has to be commercial. Nobody's somewhere in the building has to be you could have all you could have resto but the top floor is commercial which nobody would do because the people on top floor would get no customers. Well, yeah.

Yeah. Nobody would actually do that. Theoretically, yeah. We can just give that some thought and if there's a change we want to make. Yeah. And as you say, projects under deliberation, not here. You're right about that.

Yes. Uh under multif family residential page 16 item A minimum the crossed out is 30 and the increases to 72. I'm just curious where the 72 comes from because I know that we're adding 32.9 density and this is citywide right I'd assume.

Uh this is within the Lreal node. So, if you recall when we um expanded the node area, we went over to I believe Oak Villa Road on the north side of Ellen and then we also went down south on Hawthorne. So, a lot of that land was not included in the original node area which that's where the 30 acres came from that's now cross out in 72. So, we've added a bunch of acreage to the the node area and those areas that we've added the Hawthorne and the Oak Villa between where the node ended before going east. From my understanding, the locker on no map that we had was it was 32.9 acres

high density or just I'd have to pull up I have to pull up the map to look at it to be certain. Well, if it's a different number, we can just uh for the ordinance, but I believe the 72 is um the high density and medium density zonings together. Yeah, it just says multif family is what it says. Yeah.

Is this standard on the same page 1A where it says this area includes require required children's recreational areas which must occupy at least 10% of each development site. So yes uh so the development code does require uh multifamily developments to have a common open space um which has a minimum square footage uh or minimum site percentage requirement. That's always been there, hasn't it?

Yes. And it varies based on the zone. Uh some zones it's 6% and some zones it's 15%. Um this is specifying at least 10%. So site would be it could be multiple buildings, right? So it would be the the underlying property or the development site not including right ofway multiple areas. Mhm. sides of a street. For example, a street you can go through the middle so you exp put a one big park in that served multiple apartments rather than have all these little

and there is an exception for the on-site open space requirement when there is a developed city park within a certain distance. Are we number? So that number is just reflects what the council approved on the map. Exactly. Correct. Yeah. Because if you had 39.4 plus 32.9 Yeah. So it's just reflecting the the enlargement the planned zone areas for medium and high density. I missed the medium density. Other questions?

The general consensus to change the eightstory 100 foot down to a threetory. I mean it's good that we noted that. We can discuss that during deliberations. Yeah. Questions for Jess? If not, thank you. One more comment, Jess, before you go. On the last page, it seems like the uh some of these mixed use integration street level interest and those are already in our building standards already. We're kind of doubling up on that language. It kind of confuses.

Yes. Um and so this is uh probably the one section that underwent the most revision. Um the consultant's recommendation had a whole lot of duplicative language under this building design standards section. Um and so as part of the revisions process, a lot of that was removed and a reference uh was added to the beginning uh pointing to the commercial district standards. The ones that remain are the ones that were in some way different uh from the uh existing building development code. Um whether that's a significant difference or not is uh debatable. Um the only one that doesn't really have uh an equivalent um in the commercial chapter is uh section A mixeduse integration. Um the others B, C, and D do all have some kind of equivalent although the numbers the percentages might be a little bit different. Um, but

yeah, Jess, this is something that you and I talked about earlier today, so I'm glad that this was brought up. Um, you know, BC and D, uh, as Jess mentioned, those those are covered under the section 2.3.080. However, the standards that are here are slightly different, right? So like the building massing articulation, you know, it says under number one, this is C1, you know, buildings over three stories tall shall step back upper floors by at least 10 ft from the street facing facade um to reduce perceived bulk. The the number in the other section may be a little bit less. It might be 8 ft or maybe 12 ft. I don't know what the number is, but it's a it's a different number. So um the question is uh I think what you're asking is we can keep these here because they do show a different standard and whichever standard is more restrictive is the standard that we would apply according to our code or you may say you know what since these are covered somewhere else maybe these aren't necessary and just introduces a little bit of um not ambiguity but maybe complexity to the code that's not necessary. I just instinctively don't like duplicating language where there's not a a compelling reason to do it because then 10 years 20 years from now somebody forgets that there's duplicated language and then the current city manager someday brings us a revision to clean up the language.

Uh I will say though the um subsection A under 2.11.050 mixeduse integration that does not have a counterpart elsewhere in the code. So it would be important to keep that and I think that um does provide some some good benefit to the code. Um, alternately, uh, mixeduse integration could be moved into the general commercial, uh, building design standards. Um, that way it would also be applicable to the other commercial zones. So, concerned about where we put it then with not having redundancy.

Yeah, I think the point Jess is making is a good one, which is the mixeduse integration um, uh, does not apply in your other commercial zones. Um, it would only apply in the mixed use zone. Maybe that's where you want it. Maybe you're saying, "Hey, this is a good standard that would apply to other commercial zones. Um, where maybe the ground floor commercial areas and mixeduse buildings must have a minimum depth of 20 ft to ensure viability of a range of business types. Meaning the the store that you walk into or the, you know, the space is at least 20 ft deep, right? That you just don't have a 5 foot counter and, you know, that's it. So,

I'm fine with leaving it where it is. I mean, I I can see someday somebody wants we we put a commercial zone maybe right next to an industrial zone and who cares what that building looks like cuz only factories are going to look at it. So why, you know, why why he hamm ourselves in when we don't need to? But we do need this here obviously. But we do have a small problem in 2.11.05 5 where it says except the developers of residential only bu only only buildings may instead elect to use the building design standards of residential districts of section 2.2.100 2.100. There are none. Correct. We can't build a residential only according to the code.

So you cannot have a development that is residential only. You could have a building that is residential only as long as the overall development has commercial floor area equivalent to the combined ground floor total. But it doesn't have to be in the same physical building. But it would not have to be in the same design that to residential standards which is extensive. The architectural standards that we have in the residential section are um a lot less rigorous than we have for the commercial section. So why you got to read them?

I've got to say when I ran for city council, this is not part that I was really signing up for. It can really make your head spin and they are critical decisions. On the uh on the building and massing and ar articulation section though it says buildings over three stories shall step back upper floors by at least 10 ft. If we don't allow over three stories, that language would be amended.

Right. Yeah. If that if you were not allowing over three stories, then that would not be necessary. And I think again if you if you don't keep that language in this section and just have it under 23080 um as a reference right back to that if it if the standard in 23080 doesn't apply then it just doesn't apply.

Any other questions for Jess? Are you sure you'll have more opportunity later tonight one last Yes. council question take it out and that would be on page 21 and it's item G three and it's just the rationale for the 10-ft setback for non-ve vehicular usually when I see non-vehicular most jurisdictions are zero to 5 feet so that a car can't park there at all sideways is there just the rationale behind 10 foot

right So, um that's a that's a good question. Um the thing to keep in mind here is that um there isn't a setback for the building itself. Um and so the idea of having a little bit greater setback for for that for you know kind of garage openings um was that you could have a little bit more vision clearance as you're coming out the you know space of a garage. Um I think the the uh given the nature of the mixeduse development it's more um uh commercial multifamilyoriented. So you don't necessarily have the same issue of uh people parking in front of a single family car garage that you would have in a more traditional neighborhood. So I think it's a different uh different kind of environment. Um but if if a council thinks a different number is appropriate, that's certainly something that can be

So this is a zero lot line. Is that correct? Is that what we're looking at? Right. So uh the mixed use uh zoning has a zero front uh setback same as uh the commercial zones. Yep. Although it does not um have the build to line the way that the commercial zones would. So it's a it's a minimum setback. So there's a potential for someone to, you know, set back their entire building 5T and then still have a 10 foot, you know, for garage. Yeah.

Every juris most all the jurisdictions when you're node parking in the driveway, there's zero or 5 ft. It's something less than. I don't know if it's a big deal or not, but it was park the cars. You're not allowed to park them inside the garage. Have to park in the garage. They can't park them in a driveway. Yeah, there is a garage. Yes, because there's two setbacks and that's the other one. This there's a 25 ft set back if there is parking allowed. There's a 10-ft setback if no parking is allowed. And I know what would happen. I mean, you pull in sideways and park. Is that a Is that a minimum or a maximum? The 10 foot uh minimum.

That's a minimum. Yeah. Uh section G is minimum setbacks. Sorry. Um, so I'm just thinking if no parking, packing, or moving, if you don't want them to park, wouldn't you want it to be a maximum setback

as opposed to a minimum? Yes. You want it to be a maximum. So your maximum is zero zero or five feet is what you're used to seeing, not a minimum. Right. So, um,

my wheels are turning on this one, Chess, on how that would work. I know how it Yeah. Enforcement of it. It's just like when it's zero, says zero is the maximum or five is the maximum, then you know you're not parking there. But do we want it that rigid that they can't place the building back further? And oh, actually, I've seen it that way, too. I've seen zero and 20. So, it can't be any closer than I mean, it's a either you have it at zero or you have a parking space.

I think part of the concern is, you know, if you've been walking down Court Street, there's the the alleyway. Um, and there's just the blind corner there, you can't really see if there's anyone coming. Um, and so by having uh kind of the opening set back a distance, it gives you more of a vision clearance.

Well, again, uh, no no backing movements by vehicles. again these are typically more of a multifamily uh or commercial kind of environment. So quite possibly. Yeah. I mean that is kind of the the traditional vision of mixed use is where you have residential above commercial could be that or it could be

you like you have on here it could be a development site with you know uh a standalone apartment building next to um strip mall you know a little strip mall right so you have the equivalent floor area of the uh of the apartment building in the strip mall right so that's the way of satisfying the code requirements but you have two separate buildings and your garage, maybe there's an underground garage or a first floor garage under the apartment. The standard would say, you know, set that opening of the garage 10 ft back off the street so cars coming out can see pedestrians walking and bicyclists and vice versa. Okay,

any other questions? I'm still grappling whether you want that 10 foot to be a minimum or a maximum. Think about it until we get to deliberation. That I think we're done. I think I'd be concerned as a minimum if it was single family as opposed to a multif family. Probably less concerned as multi family. I can see that. Yeah. Thanks, Jess.

Right. Now is a time if anyone from the public wishes to comment on the subject of the public hearing at this time. Remember to please state your name and whether you live in the city. For the record, you have up to 5 minutes to testify and we'll alert you when you have 30 seconds remaining. At the 5m minute mark, your testimony will end. As a reminder, if you'll be testifying, please direct your testimony to the applicable applicable criteria identified in the staff report or any criteria that you believe should be applicable. Do we have anyone here who wants to testify on the public hearing here tonight? We have anyone on the phone? All right. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Hearing no further discussion, I declare the public hearing closed at 7:36. Now is the time for deliberations or motions. You have any deliberation or motion? So now would be the time if you want to make any amendments to this um draft code language, you'd want to do that and we can take them one motion at a time, one change at a time.

Just since the do we have to have a motion since standing is option one, the recommendation from planning commission is option one. I don't think the I don't think I need to make a change to option to select option one or two. The standard motion adopts option one. Yes. But if you wanted to make if you wanted to make any amendments besides selecting option one, then do you want to do that by motion?

On the square footage, I move to I'm going to take a stat. Actually, I'm going to give some background first. Um, currently it's at 50 to 70,000 square feet. Uh, our current safe Safeway is around 56 to 60,000 square ft. Uh, FredMyer average square footage of FredMyer is 150,000 ft. Target is 150 to 250,000 ft². Winds are 80 to 95,000 square ft. Albertson's is 35 to 107 with the average being closer to 107. Costco's like we talked about are the average is 146 to 147. Smallest being in Juno 76,696. The largest being in Salt Lake City and it's 235,000. I don't think we need a 235,000T building. Um, I think pretty much everything that fit there was 150,000 or less, but I don't think that 80 to I mean 50 to 70 is correct. So, I move to set the minimum at 50 and the maximum at 150.

What's the minimum now? H, what's the minimum now? Minimum's 50 now. So, you're not changing that, right? Because 50 is the maximum in the neighborhood commercial area. So this is applying a standard in the general commercial. And right now in the general commercial, Jess, you might want to come back up. You can answer questions for us. In the general commercial, in the general commercial, do we have current minimum and maximum building floor plate standards? Um, so there are some maximum building floor plate standards in the commercial zones. Yes. Is there a minimum also? Um,

so I'm looking specifically in the general commercial because this standard that we're talking about is in the general commercial zones. Oh, general, not neighborhood. General, not neighborhood. Less than 50,000. So, does that mean like a Chick-fil-A or a Taco Bell couldn't in that whole area? That's why I'm worried about about the minimum 50 200.

So, this So, this standard isn't isn't setting a minimum. It's just saying the standard just says commercial buildings with a floor plate exceeding 50,000 square feet up to a maximum of 70,000 square feet are intended for large format commercial uses such as grocery stores are permitted to facilitate development within the general commercial notice. So why why do we have 50 in there? That's it's just saying it doesn't say you can't build

buildings buildings of a certain size 50 but no more than 70. So really the standard is we're not allowing buildings over 70,000 ft. Anything under 70 is okay. Um, but we're just saying kind of those larger buildings, 50 being a large building, is for those types of uses.

So, the uh general uh the commercial zones um specify that uh buildings which are larger than 50,000 square ft um are conditional use in the central business district and the general commercial zone and not permitted at all in the neighborhood commercial. Um, so that's where that 50,000 square foot threshold kicks in in the uh commercial zones. Um,

there's a there's a threshold that 50,000 ft² is when a conditional use per permit is required in a general commercial. So, but there's not a maximum standard. So, I would say that um if you don't want to have a maximum standard, if you want a maximum standard, you would set it here and we might tweak the language a little bit. Um but if you're okay with just what's in the general commercial zone, you could probably just remove section four altogether because you still need a conditional use to go above 50. Yes. Is that correct? Jess, am I understanding that right? So in the mixed use in the lock rail node general commercial zone, not at all.

If someone wanted to propose something over 50,000 square feet, say it was 100,000 square feet, they would be required to get a conditional use permit um in the general commercial zone. Yes. Yeah.

Yep. uh because the base zoning standard applies whether it's uh in the node or not. So what you would what you would do if you wanted to create a maximum building footprint allowed in the mixeduse lock rail mixeduse node because that's the only mixed use node that has general commercial right you could do that here or you could say you know I'm really okay with no maximum um because we just don't know what a future project is going to be but we're going to understand that it's going to require a conditional lease permit if it's over 50,000 square feet

case by case. So, those are really your two options. I would I would recommend either if you want to create a maximum, you can do that. Um, I would rewrite this language. So, if you want to if you want to create a maximum, let me know and I'll craft some language here. Um, but if you don't care about the maximum and just say I I'm comfortable with anything over 50,000 ft requiring a condition permit, then I would just remove section 4. I'll go back to the locker node. The reason we have spent so much time on the locker all node is to keep our taxes in this city low. I don't know why we would limit a Costco coming in or any other large format business coming in because we have seen that the taxes on our commercial properties is where the city gets the majority of its money to run. Otherwise, we will continue to have to go out for levies and raise fees. And I would rather see us take what we've done over the last seven years and allow any size to come in. So with that, I'm going to move to remove strike section four of what number that was.

Are we going to go through each one independently? Okay. Councelor Holtzapple. discussion on the motion. So the motion is to remove uh section 2.6050 B4. Council councelor Shane.

Yeah. I um this this feels to me like a solution in search of a problem. I don't you know we can stipulate that we want to encourage commercial development for all the right reasons which we all know um and which he just summarized again but what's the best way to say this um I don't think we want to the the reason that we're creating a new zone is to give us more control and more granularity over what gets built where. There's nothing mandatory here. This is this isn't a new zone we're talking about. This is a general This is No, we're not talking about the mixed use right now. This we're referring to is in the general commercial zone.

Okay. Um Oh, so so your amendment would only apply to the general commercial zone. That is correct. I withdraw my objection.

It's very any other discussion on the motion. All those are we just going to vote on each each ch each amendment. All those in favor of uh the motion say I. I. Those opposed. Hearing none. Passes unanimously. So I would like to I I suppose we need to decide option one or two, right? So I would amend to option option one and two can be done just in the motion. If you want to change it to option two, you would want to amend the main motion. So, leave it alone.

You can leave that alone for now. Gotcha.

21 2.11.030 section D. I move to uh change the eight stories 100 ft to three stories and whatever applicable foot of threetory would be 35 ft or whatever the 36 ft below be fine. This is now that's just for the mixed use zone right? Yes. Yeah. Second. So make it similar to the accessory buildings. Make them the same. So just just completely get rid of the eight story 100 foot and leave it story. Yeah I missed that. you. That's correct. Yeah. So, just strike that eight stories 100 ft.

You could probably simplify the code a little bit and just um I'm looking just for your uh direction on this as well because you would marry up the same the motion marries up the same height for primary and accessory buildings. Could you just remove the primary and accessory buildings and just say building structure heights three stories 36 ft? Sure. All right. Yep. That'd be simpler the better. Is that is it three stories and 36 ft or three stories or 36 ft? Could I have a single story? That's And then you're talking about your buildings, your costs. How tall are those? They exceed 36. You wouldn't you wouldn't be building Costco in the mixed years.

Got it. I got confused at the general. I'm happy. I'm good. Thank you. So, is that a motion, Larry? Yes. Do we have a second? Second. It's been seconded by councelor Shane. Any further discussion on uh the change to making primary accessories the same?

I think the motion if councelor Briggs and councelor Chain are okay with it is just to have section 2.130 the table uh section D just read building structure height and then the second column would be three stories or 36 ft. All right. Does everyone understand the motion? All those in favor say I. I. Those opposed? Passes unanimously. All right. Councelor Shane.

Yeah. And I'm going to do what Michael did. I'm going to give a short preface before I state the motion. Um, one of the main reasons we've been doing so much work on the Lacrial note is because, as we all know, we have a shortage of commercial land and we need to encourage more of it for all the reasons that we already know and that have been stated. Therefore, I would move on page 20 to strike the conditional use at the bottom of the page and just take it out because I don't want to do anything that in any way limits the amount of commercial space we can have. We need as much as we can get. I'll second that.

Been moved by councelor Shane and seconded by councelor Briggs to strike the conditional status in the table at the bottom of page 20. So I want to make sure I'm understanding what we're striking councelor Shane. So is it in the paragraph where it says new residential uses? Are you striking the conditional use language from that paragraph from the table beneath that paragraph? Yes. So are do you want to and also the paragraph? And also the paragraph, right? Oh yeah, I'm sorry. Yes. So So in the paragraph, keep it consistent. Yeah.

The paragraph would read to ensure that mixed use zones retain a focus on new employment uses. New residential uses are only allowed in conjunction with non-residential uses. Then developments where non-residential uses occupy at least the equivalent ground floor the entire floor area are permitted outright. Um you're okay up to that point, right? Yep. So there the there's then there's a period and we strike while those developments with less are conditional uses. So we're striking just that portion of that

and you might want to yet short answer. Yes. But you might want to just slightly massage the language that we're keeping in that sentence. um because um basically it's um you know it's it's absolute now. It's it the the way it's worded implies that there's something else to come but we're striking the part that comes after. So you might want to just revise that. Yeah. You might want to massage that just a little bit. That that's that's easy enough. Yeah. We'll we'll do a little tweaking um for the first reading of the ordinance. So if you trust us to do that, we'll we'll massage that. So that'll So yeah, that's my motion. And I think Larry second. And then you're striking the conditional from the table below, right?

Yeah. I'm just going to go back over rules. Um in a first reading, we can It's great if it passes, but if it doesn't pass, it just goes back and it comes back for another first reading with changes. Correct. So So you get one more. Once it passes the first reading though, I highly recommend that there are no more changes. passes the second reading. That's it should already be done. So if you have any more comments on these items, make sure you are prepared for the first reading. Do it now if you have any. Yeah. Cuz I mean

Yeah. So I have a motion from councelor Shane, the second by councelor Briggs. Is there any other discussion? just what kind of conditions would you put on would be applicable if that was left in there. Uh it really would depend on what kind of development is being proposed. Um so they'd be very difficult to answer that. It could be things like um hours of operations. Uh could be things like uh you know lighting and glare. It it's really hard to predict noise attenuation. Um those are the kind of typical things that we see as conditions of approval. Um but without knowing a specific proposal, it's it's really hard to

Well, wouldn't those things be important if people were living above a business? Yes. And so that's why we have the heightened level of review, the condition almost think that that should stay then.

Well, that's a separate issue though. This is this is all this addresses is the all this addresses is the amount of space that has to be commercial. It doesn't say anything about those things he just listed. Those would come up in the in the hearing on an actual proposal if and when there is one to build something. That's when those kinds of issues would come up. and and uh having spent a lot of years on the planning commission, I know that the staff would would put those conditions in there um for those kinds of things because they always do.

But but again, you you those are the things that would apply to a specific proposal and each proposal might be different. Conditions on you could put conditions on the the for mentioned the top one. Can you not? Sorry, say again. Uh, under the permitted you, there's still conditions that can be listed,

right? So, um, that's, uh, where it says permitted, it's it's in relation to the residential and commercial mix. Um, the actual type of use that's in the buildings would be subject to the table above. Um, and so if you've got, you know, say an office and a and a residential unit, that would be permitted outright, there's no conditional use approval required with that. Um, but if you were doing say um, let's see,

a mixed use such was we're talking about, wouldn't you be able to still say operation hours of operation would have to be here? Generally, conditions have to be tied to um if it's a use that's permitted outright, the conditions need to be tied to some kind of approval criteria. Um it's only when we get into the more discretionary view reviews with the conditional use permit that we look at the more um uh subjective kind of things because at that point we have the public hearing. There's greater appeal rights um what have you. So like what Jess is saying is depending on the types of uses that are in the mixeduse development will depend whether or not staff have disc or staff in the planning commission would make conditions on an application. But if it's a permitted out if both uses are permitted outright in the mixeduse zone office space and an apartment building there's not going to be a land use process and so there would be no conditions applied to those two uses if those were the ones that were combined. But if for example you're doing a uh

daycare,

a daycare and a residence, you know, residential use, then that's a conditional use permit. There would be a land use process and we could apply conditions to that application. I see a lot of counselors giving me an eyeball. The reason why I keep going back to this is I'm not sure that we want to take out the conditional use, but we might want to take out the per outright permitted to give us some leeway. It might be that this mixeduse zone we need a little deeper review. Do we This is a discussion. I'm not stating one way or another. Are the counselors feeling that we're wanting to have staff be able to impose conditions on these outright permitted uses? Look, in terms of this motion, I think we're having um definition creep here. All this has to do is with is the mix between commercial and residential. All those other things are covered pretty well for the most part by other parts of the development code. And those mechanisms are in place and they work the way they work, the way they always have.

But they don't because this is a mixed use and we don't have a combination. I don't like the idea of we're trying to make commercial business come into town and we're going to make it a conditional use on every one of them. I don't like that idea because we're throwing roadblocks in front of what we're trying to accomplish and that is to get businesses to invest in town and we need to keep our eye eye on the ball on that.

Well, and again that only applies if the development has a residential component. Um, so the mixeduse zone would allow uh commercial uses without a residential component. Um, and that would not be subject to that section that specifies the percentage of use. Um, so Jess, I want to make sure I'm understanding this right. So this new residential uses paragraph that we're discussing modifying only applies, it's under the limitations, right? So it only applies to the uses that are proposed for mixed use if it includes one of the categories that has an L in the table above. So single family, duplex, attached house, cottage cluster, multifamily, and zero lot line courtyard housing and residential home. Um, so if you're proposing one of those uses as part of a mixeduse development, um, and the floor area of the commercial, um, uh, is equal to um or greater than the floor area of the residential. um in the in the commercial use is permitted outright, then I want to make sure I'm getting at David Shane's council Shane's comment, then applying conditions and things like that wouldn't happen because there would be no land use process um to apply conditions. It's only if you have one of those commercial uses that have a conditional use process tied to it that you would evaluate the conflicts between the residential use and the commercial use and actually be able to apply conditions to mitigate those adverse impacts that the commercial use may have on the residential use or vice versa. But um you would assume it's commercial because that's what is

required in the conditional use. So, um I I don't think you're you're uh losing a whole lot with the recommended motion. Um other than saying, uh we would allow what the motion does is it allows uh it doesn't allow non-resident or allow residential uses to be greater than the non-residential use on the ground floor. So, that's what you're really discussing. basically the the the uh to take it from 30,000 ft down to the you know to to the bottom. It's just about making sure we don't infringe our ability to have commercial space unnecessarily.

Would not allow non not allow residential uses to erode the amount of non-residential uses to eat away at the commercial. Yeah.

Yeah. um which is a little bit different than our traditional commercial zones which do um allow uh some level of residential use in them. Um so that's that's kind of the key difference between the mixeduse zone as proposed and our commercial zones is that the commercial zones do have provisions to allow residential uses, but the mixeduse zone only allows residential in conjunction with some kind of commercial use. Um, otherwise they're more or less the same and it only ever even comes up if we're talking about a mixeduse zone.

Otherwise, the issue doesn't apply at all. The simple explanation is if you vote in favor of this motion, you are saying that um the residential component on the ground floor cannot be greater than the non-residential component in the mixed use only. In the mixed use zone only use only correct. Did I say that right, Jess? Yes. And that's well close enough for for these purposes.

I want to make sure that I'm not confusing myself. I know it's a little bit more nuance than that, but that's the general takeaway. And ultimately, if there's a feeling that this is all just too complicated, um, one option could just be to amend the lock node master plan to not have a special zone for mixed use and just say it's all general commercial or what have you. So, um, there are there are options, but that's more of a straight jacket than I like. All right. Is there any other dis discussion on the motion? Are ready to vote on it? All those in favor say I. I. I.

Those opposed? Passes unanimously. Any other motions changes? There's a lot of grammar and different numberings that if you have any of those issues, forward them to Brian.

There there's a number of um things just in the construction of this that because we pulled different things out uh through the construction of the code. We we'll do some cleanup on that before we bring it back for first reading. So, um if you notice anything that you're like, "Hey, that's an extra word or extra punctuation or anything like that," just let us know. Um we'll do our best to catch all that as we clean it up for the first reading. So if there's no other amended motions um amendments to the code. The main motion is back on the staff report on page four. Um you just want to change it to say instead of as recommended by the planning commission. You would say uh as recommended and amended. As recommended by the planning commission and amended by the council. Do

I have a motion? It's been moved by councelor Schilling and seconded by councelor Jans to adopt the de the development code as recommended by the planning commission with amendments and by the council and direct the city attorney to pair an enacting ordinance. Any other discussion? All those in favor say I. I opposed passes unanimously. All right. Is there any further discussion? If it hearing no further discussion, I now declare the public hearing closed at 8:02. We already closed the hearing. Oh, we Oh, we did. Yeah, you did. We voted. We just go on to the next item.

We've been talking so long, I forgot where we were. Yeah, we went down a lot of strange paths, too. So, you're forgetting. All right. Now, it's time for public comment. Let me get my agenda back up here. Yeah.

I have a script I need to read before we start public comment. Uh, for the record, please provide us with your name and whether or not you live inside the city limits. You have up to 3 minutes. It's your turn to talk and ours to listen. You are responsible for the content, even it was written by someone else. Please direct all comments to the mayor. Do not direct your comments to individual counselors, staff members, or the audience. Defamatory or lielist comments will not be accepted. It is expected that you'll maintain decorum and respect for each other. A wide variety of viewers watch these proceedings. Therefore, we would kindly ask that you refrain refrain from the use of offensive language and name calling. Distractions take attention from the speaker. The audience, city council members, and city staff are asked to focus on the speaker during their time by being respectfully quiet. And the first person I have up is Shelley Barber. Hello. Well,

hello.

Good evening, members of the city council. My name is Shelley Barber and I am a resident of Needm Circle here in Dallas. I am here tonight to formally present a petition signed by 140 plus members of our community regarding the planned build of the apartments on the corner of Walnut and Maine, aka 430 Main Street. This petition represents a widespread shared concern among your constituents who believe that it would have many negative effects on the neighborhood. One, it would make an already very congested intersection worse by increasing traffic as well as adding more parked vehicles to the already clustered streets because there are not enough parking in the plan proposal. Two, Main Street is a highway and the entire way from Highway 22 to south of Dallas, there are no apartment buildings. Again, traffic and safety. Three, we are concerned about the impact on the creek, which is a protected waterway. Four, concerns about water usage, sewer, and garbage increase. Five, we are uneasy that it will decrease the property values of the surrounding properties. and six, preserving our town's character is vital in this area and must be prioritized. Dallas is so proud of their aesthetics that this building would ruin the views of the treeine, the welcome fountain, and entering our prideful downtown. We are deeply invested community and the overwhelming response to this petition demonstrates that these issues require your immediate attention. We need more businesses in town to support our citizens and give them a chance to

invest in our community. You, council, mayor, hold the power of running Dallas, Oregon. Therefore, we, your voters, respectfully request that the city council revoke the decision of the permit for the apartment complex and work with us to find a solution that reflects the needs of the residents. A couple of good solutions would be allowing the reconstruction of only a gas station with a larger market, maybe about the size of the one that's on Southwest Fairview Avenue, or a small strip mall to support some businesses. Another solution would be to develop a cul-ac in the fur villa new housing area or the Lockreal node and devote it all to apartments. Thank you for your time and service. Thank you for your testimony.

You're welcome. That's it. Thank you, Shel. Next person I have up is Annne Herd.

Good evening, mayor, everybody. Um, I'm Anne Herd, president of Friends of the Dallas Aquatic Center and I live in Dallas and I have good news and better news tonight. Um, the first news I want to share with you is that Gretchen Grimberg, our supervisor at the pool, has been accepted to the Oregon Recreation and Parks Association Leadership Academy that will be taking place in Portland uh between September and April. Um maybe there were 20 people um invited to this or allowed into this probably closer to 15. So that Gretchen um becoming a part of this is really a coup. I mean it's a great for us because she's going to bring back a lot of good ideas uh to Dallas and so we're really proud of her for that and it's only like eight different meetings. So, okay. We have a couple in town who donated um the therapy lift for the therapy pool a couple years ago and it was a very generous donation. But since then, they both have died and we have received charitable bequest in their wills. And so tonight I have a check to give the city for $82,500 and60 and we were are very grateful for this. Um the library also got the same amount and and and they donated to other nonprofits around town too. So it's really very special and we're very pleased. So, so far this year, we've given you over $110,000, but this just kind of fell in our lap. We knew it was coming, but still, it's pretty exciting. And so, Jennifer and

Gretchen are deciding what's the most important thing to do at the pool and to get it done. So, we give you the money and you guys spend it. So, we're real happy about that. That's terrific. So, thank you. Thank you, Ann. All right. Do we have anybody else in the audience who wants to give testimony tonight? Anyone on the phone? All right. If not, then we'll close public comment and move on to the consent agenda.

I just ask a real quick yes or no question. Um, is that going to require modification to the budget? Okay. Right. We have three items on the consent agenda. Approval of the May 4th work session and the May 4th city council meeting minutes and then the April 2026 financial report. Does anyone want to move anything off the consent agenda tonight? Move to approve move been moved by councelor Shane, seconded by councelor Fitzgerald. Congrats consent agenda as is.

All those in favor say I. I. Opposed passes Janice Lee. All right. Um reports and comments from mayor and council members council or whole sapp. On Tuesday, I attended a information session from Marian County regarding the um repair project for the Independence Bridge, which is slotted for the spring and summer of 2027, which will coincide with a construction project of the Center Street Bridge. The company that is doing the planning is the same company for both bridges. Their hope is that Marian County can get a bid from a contractor and they can get the materials and do the independence project before they start the overlay portion of the center street bridge and get it done. Uh I don't know if I have a whole lot of faith in that, but that's their hope, their plan. So for anyone out there that it's going to affect uh I think the biggest uh point of information would be that this is an Marian County project. The Independence Bridge is owned by Marian County and Marian County is the one that's doing this project. They do have the project outlined on their website uh under the public works section. you can get information there and if you have questions or concerns you can contact Marian County because they are the ones that it will not be the city of independence. Pulk County is being consulted but they're not involved in it. Um so that will be going on the same time as the in the center street bridge project this next summer.

Council brakes that's really going to affect our ambulance services. We run four or five times a day on transfers from they are dealing with ambulance services not only from us but from the county and the city of Salem is concerned with that exact same thing. Um they they are looking to address that and I know that um I spoke with Dean Bender who's our emergency manager for the county here and he was uh going to chair something with the ambulance uh response committee about that. So, I don't know if there's any more detail you can get to that. No, I I don't I Chief Walls, the next ASA committee meeting is when you don't need to give me a date, but

for another month, probably a month or so. Yeah. Please be in constant communication about this issue. We also have a meeting with Salem Hospital West Valley uh staff for their emergency management. They have a very great concern about what traffic is doing, but it also affects our transports from that hospital to hospital. Um, all of the ASAs in county have expressed the concern. Um, along with our dispatch center, so we really try to make sure that we're

very ODOT region 3 is very aware of it. some coordination is going to happen too. Yeah. Comments from counselors tonight clarification from public comment was uh in their testimony there was 44 proposed apartments. Isn't that Yeah. So not that much.

I can talk just briefly about that and maybe Charlie or Yeah. Charlie might have a little bit more specificity than I will. So, um the project that was alluded to um was uh an outright permitted project. Um it went through design review um with city staff and building permits. Uh we got to the point where we were ready to issue the building permits and the the project uh owner um decided to not move forward with that project as proposed. So, the the testimony that was received from Miss Barber um was related to a project that's no longer going to happen. Um the city staff has met with the the land owner and the project um team and they're revising their plans um to be uh a different design um different number of units uh different makeup. You'll still have uh a gas convenience store and um and a residential building as part of that, but it's going to be much different and smaller um than what was originally proposed. So I think that's as much as I can share.

Two phase. Yeah. And there will be two phases to it. The commercial element will be first followed by the residential second. So, okay. So, there is going to be a commercial piece to it. And and again, they've they've done a pre-application conference with us. Um, but they've not submitted uh any of their land use or uh building permit applications at this time. I would be very irate if somebody wanted to build a residential only facility in the CBD. That's not happening.

Good. And then can you address the the last sentence of Miss Barber's testimony and explain what is going that there's approximately 240 apartments required to go into the Furvilla or I should say the Barbar note because it's her her statement was another solution would be to develop a cold sack in the fur villa new housing development and devote it to apartments that's already in existence. Councelor

Jans have the authority to revoke a permit anyway.

Um, no. There there's limited times where you would uh where we would revoke a permit that was issued. Um, you know, for example, if they were, you know, not in compliance with, you know, certain building codes, like let's say they were permitted to do something and then they're building it different than what their permit required, we could revoke a permit for that. Um there's very specific reasons why we would revoke a permit. Um in this instance, I think Miss Barber's testimony was really related more to like a land use decision. Um which in this case, what was proposed didn't require land use action. So um there was not an opportunity to provide public comment um at that time. And so there's state laws that have modified what we can have public hearings for and we can't. And this fell under the thing of that we don't have uh land use land use decisions for the types of activities that they were proposing.

By state law, just for my information, by state law, did it not change the amount of parking for apartments to zero? So, state law does allow multifamily to not require off or off- streetet parking. And they were proposing, I believe, was it roughly 50 parking spaces, Charlie? I'm trying to remember the the plans as they were exactly laid out. I don't remember the exact number. Yeah, I I think it was commensurate. You would have at least one space per Yes, there was um at least one space per uh dwelling unit within the states tied our hands as a city.

Yeah, that the state would allow significantly less parking than what was being proposed. So, they were proposing um what we felt to be adequate parking for the proposed use. Certainly met all of our code requirements. Just to clarify, that site is Yeah, but it's right on the right on the edge. Any other I was going to say I think the CBD stops at the river and this is on the north side of the river. It's true. Yeah.

Comments or announcements this evening? If not, I'll move on to uh first reading of ordinance. Ordinance number 1923. Right. Thank you, Mayor. Ordinance. Let me get to it in my packet here. Ordinance 1923 is an ordinance creating Dallas city code chapter 5.440 relating to domestic open burning registration. Uh if I can just give a quick summary of what this is because the full council has not yet seen this topic. Um this came from the public safety committee. Uh recently they discussed they we've been discussing for I say the past year whether or not to regulate open burning. Um so this would be uh burning that's allowed um under state laws. So uh any of your woody debris that you like grass clippings or uh trimming your bushes and and other things, trees, uh that's allowed to be burned um in the state of Oregon during burning season. Uh and we don't regulate that in the city of Dallas outside of what state law allows. And so we talked about, do we want to do that? Do we want to say you have to be so far away from your structures or from your neighbor's property? Um, well, Chief Wallace thought, we really don't know how many people actually do open burning. And, you know, we get complaints and we go out and look to make sure they're doing it, you know, okay, they're not burning things they shouldn't be burning, stuff like that. Um so uh she recommended doing a registration program um so that people could we can collect data on how many people are actually open burning, what they're burning, how big it is, things like that. So over the next two years is a really pilot program to evaluate how many people are actually open burning, gather that data, and then bring that data back to the public safety committee to decide whether or not we need to implement any regulations. So this is a a pilot program that we're creating that requires people who are open burning to register um so that we know where the

open burning is occurring and um you know how frequent. Uh so it's just something that we can track uh open burning as it occurs within our community. Um how are you going to know what people are burning? I mean it says there's no enforcement for this. So, I mean, I I really don't understand the purpose of it. You there's a county line that you call and they tell you whether you can burn or you can't burn. Is this just another bureaucratic power grab from the city or

So, I would say what it is is the committee was looking at do we from a safety standpoint, right, we get called out on a lot of open burns um throughout the year and

it's illegal though. it's illegal, you know, and very few cases they're burning something they shouldn't be burning, like household garbage, right? Or tires. Um, but uh most times they're burning legal stuff and we get called out because a neighbor sees smoke and doesn't know what's going on and they think something's on fire and it is, but it's legal fire. So, we go out and and see that. So, if we had a registration program and someone was actively knowing that that program existed and registered their open burn, when we got a call, we would know that, hey, this is just an open burn. So, we would tell the person, "Nope, this is an open burn. Do you see a structure on fire?" Right? That we could talk to the person who's calling um about the burn to be able to just resolve their concern right away. Um but it also gives us data for the committee over the 2-year period to say, "How many open burns do we have? Um do we need to regulate it?" Right? Because there are certain cities um city of Monmouth being one, they have a an open burning they have an open burning ban, right? They just don't allow burning in the community. We don't think that we need to go there, right? But are there instances or things that we do want to require with open burning like it be so far away from any structures to elimmit you know reduce the impact that that open burn might have on burning down something that shouldn't be burned. So those are things that we're just gathering this data for to say do we need to regulate this or not. So, it's a two-year pilot program to gather data.

Chilling, and that's part of the reason that we had section four put in. And the definition of a recreation fire, basically, if you go into the code of that's listed here, 3T in diameter, 2 foot high of regular untreated wood. So, you can have a religious fire, you can have a a little picnic fire in your backyard. Does not have to be registered. Barbecue, whatever. Yep. But it campfires already managed by state code and the registration does not cost and there are no or there are no enforcement fines. Nothing to enforce. No, nothing to enforce, right? I mean, so what if someone doesn't get a permit?

So there's no permit. There's no permit. It's just a registration. So I think how this would practically work is if we get a call for an open burn that's going on and it's not registered, you know, we would respond, you know, so our one of our fire staff would go out and say, hey, did you know there's a registration? We're just gathering data on open burns, you know, have a QR code on a on a piece of paper on a clipboard and say, can you scan this and just register, right? So then that gets registered and we know, hey, this open burn took place on this day. Um, and we ask them, are you going to do more open burning? and then we can kind of track that throughout the year. So, it's really just gathering data on how much open burning is actually occurring in the city of Dallas because we just don't know. So, we're just trying to gather data to know do we want to regulate this or not in the future. So the registration is voluntary that

the well we would require people to register but um so it's not really it's we hope people do it proactively but those that don't if we get called out to one that's not on the registration we would just go out with our clipboard and say hey can you register just right now you know pull out your mobile phone scan this code register they go to our website they would fill out you know the simple information that we would ask for and then hit submit and it's registered people do register ahead of time, then you don't then then you can take care of it on the phone. Don't have to go out at all.

I just think that it's just um I think I see the idea and the intent behind it, but you're just going to I think come up with data of people that already follow the regulations and they're already doing common sense things because the people who burn illegally or burn when they're not supposed to aren't going to register ever. So, yeah. Uh and those and those people might be found through uh complaint based, you know, so their neighbor calls in on them. We respond to that and have that. And what what else happens if a neighbor calls and says, "Hey, there's somebody burning something over here." And then they say, "Oh, it's this," but really it was a fire that they supposed to go to, you know? How do you I don't know.

Well, you know, we send out our our uh fire personnel and if we decide that, hey, this is something we actually need to fight, we'll then make sure that we get out there to fight it. Yeah. So again, this is this is really to evaluate is there a need for us to regulate this in the future and it provides a little bit of staff time that we have to go out and do this registration program. But and how how do people sign up for the registration or how do they register through a website? So there'll be an online form that they would fill out and it would just ask name, address, you know, are you open burning, what days? So Brian, who would go out to verify if there was a complaint

of our our fire personnel? So they would go out in a duty truck and just respond. So that's what happens today. So if Chief Wallace, you know, gets a phone call in her department saying, "Hey, there's some smoke in my neighbor's backyard, um, we'll come out, we'll investigate it, see it's an open burn, you know, contact the person that complained and say, this is an open burn. It's allowed under state law. You know, thank you for contacting us." I just want to add if if it says the only thing one thing that would look into is um the date if we're getting it to start in June. I think there's a burn ban from June 15th to October 1st anyway. So there wouldn't be shouldn't be any burning.

Yes. And so um we did yeah we did want to put just an emergency clause on this because if it's adopted so first reading would be tonight, second reading would be June 1st. So there would be you know 14 days 15 days of um times where we could do registrations. We would then have this in effect in the fall when open burning can happen again um throughout the year and then we'd have two year two full open burning seasons to be able to gather that data to report back to the committee on. So that data will come back to us to analyze and see if we decide to have

Yeah. We come back to the committee and decide at that time to say whoa we're having a lot more burning than we thought or ah that we're not having any burning. We don't really have any concerns or issues and so no need to do any additional regulation. Then we would just repeal this registration at the time and no harm. Forgive my ignorance. What's too much burning? I don't know. I does that like what problems conflict with having defensible space? Is that what you're saying? No, I'm just I mean if they come back and say there's a thousand burns a year, what does that mean? Yeah,

I don't think it would be the n I don't think maybe too much burning is the wrong way of saying it. If there were if there were too many issues that we saw when we were going out to the open burns, but why would you go out if they were already registered? Registered. You wouldn't know. So, how would you know? Cuz they registered. Well, yeah. I think the I the point is is most people most people aren't going to pre-register. We're going to we're going to be going out and then having them register. So, it's a way for us to gather that data and then we can say with our notes, hey, when we were there, we saw that they were, you know, under the eaves of their shed. I don't see a downside to this at all. I mean, we don't know if there's a problem. This is how we find out whether there even is one or not. And if there isn't one, we're done.

But there's no penalty here. We don't even want if we don't want to even look at we don't know. This is how we find out. Nothing's the city hasn't burned down, so there can't be that big of a problem. That is a great question. How many residential burns have uh turned into something you had to respond to to save a structure in the last year? Two years.

How many were a violation? Yeah, that the people that burn their own have a developer that left registration of affected that. So, here's my

just to maybe add a little bit more clarification. Thank you.

Um, so to your question, no, we don't know if there are issues with open burning. We do get lots of complaints from people complaining about their neighbors burning. It's smoky. What are they burning? Um, I think that this program would be more of an education piece first of all to the people who are going to burn, what they can burn, the time of year they can burn, the burn line, because we do share that with PK County Fire District. Um, just to provide some education, but just to see if we if there is an issue. Um, there was a conversation about us creating an ordinance um to limit burning. Um, I don't know if we need to do that. We just need to make sure that people are burning responsibly, burning the things that they can legally burn. Um, and they're doing it in a manner where they're not creating large burn piles and leaving them unattended for uh a couple of hours or days where the wind picks up and blows it to the neighbor's property. um or um the the yard debris that just gets out of control and uh you know sends embers into the siding of somebody's house and catches their house on fire in that way. Um we've had several people who have um burned their who've burned their weeds who've caused their houses to catch on fire. Um, so I think most importantly, we want to make sure that people are, if they're going to burn, they're going to do it responsibly. Um, we would like to collect that data to see, you know, how that's working. Um, and it's also a good, um, benchmark for us, too. You know, where do we where do we need to be for fire prevention, um, and community risk reduction when it comes to that kind of thing. So, I I think that it goes handinhand with a couple of other things. um defensible space, education, um just to make sure that we're collecting that data, we're getting out

education um to people who might not know when they should and shouldn't be burning. So, if someone scans the QR code and now they're registered, how do you know what they're burning? How do you know if they have dispensible space? How do you know all of them? So, we can always go by and check. It's just like having a garage sale, right, where they come and pick up the sign um and code enforcement may drive by to make sure that they're doing the garage sale properly. Um so our fire department has enough time to just go by and check people's burn.

We could we absolutely could. Um and then you know we do have um we have our seasonal staffing that will be starting this summer. Um so I'm really hoping to put out some kind of an educational push um for their positions. But then we also um so we also get notifications of open burning um usually it's agricultural burning um or forest um clearing type of thing from Oregon Department of Forestry um because they do make people get permits right but during the time that they are doing burnings controlled burning they notify us so we have an idea they also notify dispatch so if there is smoke seen on Highway 22 and we know that they're burning at Basket Slooh because they've already notified us that that they're burning or that somebody's contractor is going to be burning or something. So, we have an idea um to make sure that, you know, we're not going out to a wildfire. There's actually controlled burn that's happening that we've been notified of. I guess the point is is that we're just looking at trying to collect some data to see if we even have an issue um to where, you know, maybe we need to look at an ordinance. I would I I don't think that, you know, we we're ready for that yet. Um because I don't know if we have an issue.

Do you think the number of registered burns in a particular day or weekend would affect your staffing? Like you would go 500 up? I don't think so. Uh and I'm going to tell you, we get calls, we probably get two or three calls a day um about burn information um and then how people can find that information. So, I think getting um education out there will be helpful. Do we currently have on our your the website, the city website, any of that information? I don't believe that we do know. We we're still updating our page.

Chief, to be clear, I wanted to verify because you'd mentioned something about someone burning their weeds that caught the house on fire. It does say that that's not that doesn't apply, right? It doesn't. I don't believe it will for this, but it would be a nice piece of education, right? So, don't burn weeds around the base of your house or your fence. Right. Again, back to that responsible burning. And people with a backyard fireplace like myself does not apply. Correct. Barbecues, backyard, um fireplace garbage. What's that? Unless I'm burning garbage. Don't burn your garbage. Yeah.

There's actually a city ordinance that prohibits that anyway. Okay, that a little bit better clarification. Hopefully questions for Chief Wallace before she any other questions or discussion. Do we have a motion or motion? It's just the first reading of ordinance. You don't need it for this. It's not the first reading. But I I'll just say one more time, I don't see a downside here. Nobody's going to be enforced against or penalized. We're just going to create we're going to create a database that we can use to make or not make a decision and that strikes me as a better way of doing it than throwing darts at a board. I don't see a downside.

Yeah, you have to look look longterm. I think um we have to uh assume best intentions from the fire department, but I could see a slippery slope here where okay, it's a voluntary registration and then it's going to be a force registration and this registration is going to be uh there's going to be a fee assessed to it. So I think it's uh incumbent to everybody to ask a lot of questions. It's not as um uh just um easy as you say this could be something that could get really out of hand.

But for any of those things to happen, it would have to come back to us for a decision first. Could be making those decisions on making force decisions, adding fees. Those would all be council decisions, right? And like I said, initially we have to assume the best intentions that we're doing this for the right reasons. But in reality, you have to be real about, you know, what's going to happen a few years down the road because no one here has a crystal ball on how this thing is going to work. Discussion.

Say back to the timing. There's still less than six months a year that you can burn. So you're gonna less than a year's worth of data in two years time. Yeah, we're just evaluating the we're only going to be collecting data on the right. So yes, but over over two calendar years, we would evaluate those periods of open burning. Right.

All right. There's no other discussion. going to declare the ordinance 1923 to pass its first reading and move on to the second reading of ordinance is uh ordinance number 1922. Thank you, Mayor Slack. Ordinance 1922 is an ordinance amending Dallas city code section 3.500 to 3.510 pertaining to site the ownership and maintenance of midblock sidewalks within city limits. Any discussion on this item? If not, I'll ask the city recorder to take a roll call vote. Councelor Berentos. Yes. Councelor Blosser.

We said yes. Yes. Councelor Fitzgerald. Yes. Councelor Hoappel. Yes. Councelor Jance. Yes. Councelor Schilling. Yes. Councelor Shane. Yes. Councelor Spivey. Yes. Council President Briggs.

Yes. All right. I declare uh forance 1922 to pass its second reading unanimously. So let's move on to resolutions. Resolution 3567. Thank you, Mayor Slack. Resolution 3567 is a resolution approving the application for an Oregon parks and recreation department local government grant program grant for the construction of the recreal creek trail head for Furville Avenue and authorizing the city manager or the city manager's designate to sign and submit the application and Ward and Tyler Ferrari are here to talk about this project.

Evening mayor counselors um first of all want to thank those of you who were able to join me at the ribbon cutting for the ADA swing um a couple Fridays ago. Um that was pretty um fun to get that underway. Um pretty fun little project. Um so on to um other projects in parks and recreation news. So you are aware that um connecting and continuation of the Rickel Creek trail system has been a priority of the council and my own personal priority as well um for for some time now. And so this um this project that this resolution um and this grant impacts is for what we term the Fur Villa section of the trail. This is the easternmost section of the trail. It is not long. It's only about a a quarter mile and will connect Furvilla Road um to it goes to the um to the golf course of city limits. and we were able to construct part of that section of the trail a couple of years ago um connecting it to the neighborhood that's there and running it east to the the golf course. We didn't take it all the way to Fur Villa um because um connecting it is is kind of difficult. There's quite a bit of elevational difference from FVL down to the grade where the where the trail is and pretty narrow easements and so we needed to have some engineering and design work done for how exactly um to um to make that connection. Uh we hired lock engineering to do that for us and they they have and also provided the cost estimate that you see in your packets. So, um completion construction of this trail head and completion of that section that fur villa um section of the trail is one of our capital projects for

the upcoming fiscal year and we are pursuing a grant to help um defay the cost of that. Tyler Ferrari, our economic development specialist, um has really done the grant for us, taken the lead on that. It's a huge help because these grant applications are quite large. um many um many uh questions to answer and 15 pages or more of documentation that we that we have to send in. So, I'll let him talk to you a little bit about the grant itself and then we're available for any questions about the project or the grant.

Thank you, Jennifer, and good evening to everyone. Um as Jennifer mentioned, we are applying um for a grant to help fund this project. Um and this is a grant provided by um Oregon Parks and Recreation. Um it's a local government grant program and this grant program is primarily designed for the new construction and rehabilitation um of park and recreation assets across the state. And so this project um is a perfect fit um for the grant. Like Jennifer had mentioned um we've been working through the completion um of this application and the application I'd say is about 98% complete. Um we just went over the draft of it today and we're looking forward to getting it submitted later this week um pending the outcome of this resolution. Um and just to give you um some details on the grant. Um so under the fiscal impact section of the staff report, the total estimated cost um for this new trail head um is $344,000 $344 um,143. And we are going to be requesting $26,485.80 um from the grant program. and that remaining about $137,000 is going to be paid by park SDC's. Um so this is a grant that would significantly offset the costs of the project. Um we've been working over the past month and a half to two months um to acquire all the documentation necessary. And so the last piece of this puzzle um is a resolution from the council um authorizing staff to apply for the grant. Um and so granted that the council approves the resolution, we will submit the application and because of the amount um we'll need to provide an in I believe in person or either virtual um presentation to Oregon Parks and Recreation detailing um the project um in person and then we would be awaiting

an award um that we would learn about later this year. Shane, assuming all goes smoothly, um when would be the the earliest you would know if you received the grant optim optimistically, right? Normally, um they announced the awards for this grant at the end of the summer or beginning of fall. So, end of August, beginning of September, um just to further um assuming that we got the award, we would then um go out for bids over the winter and construct it as soon as the weather allows in the spring. So, you'll know you'll know by the fall. Yes. or no correct some breaks

comment and a question. I spent quite a bit of time today trying to figure out where this was just for future if you could make I know it's difficult with these drawings but if you could somehow make them larger where I could I could point well taken. Thank you. Um, now that I know it's east of Fur Villa, what what's the thought behind developing that first before extending Hawthorne to Fur Villa?

Um, there there are a couple of um obstacles maybe isn't quite the right word. Um this there is a section just east of Hawthorne that will be developed when that um when that area is developed. So that's developer driven. Um there is also um this will this will connect so this trail then will allow users to come from the east hit for V for VVilla go up for Villa to academy cross academy and access John Barard Park. Um so that is um that is currently the the route that the um the RCTS at the Rickall Creek Trail would follow um coming kind of up through that new development that we anticipate at some point hit John Barard come across that way. Um ideally um it the the trail will follow the creek all the way through. Um but there is some um land that would need to be acquired or easement through that land that would need to be acquired that isn't available to us at this time. So kind of there are there are land issues that we kind of have to to wait on

where we expect new developments. That's those easements are in place. But that one piece on the furthest eastern point, we probably don't have an easement there.

It's not quite the furthest eastern eastern point. It's on the west side of Fervilla, right on the creek. So, if we were to bring um the TSP shows the um the creek trail following the you know right along the creek as much as possible and if we are to route it that way, we would need to um go through that property some way. Um and that's not an option that's available to us currently. In the meantime, um the developer um when they develop that section that's a little further west, right where H the Hawthorne section of the um trail ends now, they'll develop the um the trail kind of through that development. It'll head sort of north until it meets up with um Barnard Park. So, it's sort of like an alternate route until the route close to the creek is is um viable. Does that help? Change the name of Hawthorne to what? Well, Hawthorne comes down. It took me a long time to understand where it was because maybe Barbar from Ellen to the south and then turns to the east. So, anytime a street turns, it should change names.

Yeah. Trail and Hawthorne parallel at the end there. Yes, that is correct. Yeah. And this will be a good point, a good time for me to uh talk to council just for transparency purposes. There is no conflict, but the designer of this project working for lock engineering is my daughter. So, and that did the estimate. So, councelor Shane, the the section the place where you would need the e the piece of property on which you would need the easement uh is that piece of property currently developed? Uh it is yes it is privately owned and there's a residence there questions for

it's on all night but it's curious to me so where the developer has plans to develop and so the developer would pay for that whereas this one that we're doing it's already developed so we the city pays for it. Is that how that works? Um there's been different um agreements with with developers. Um you know, they may um uh they may provide the land as part of the development and then we actually develop the trail. That's kind of what we're doing with Crystal Estates right now. Um so it's usually how it is. Yeah.

Majority of the land is donated at the point of time and the city gets grants to build the trail itself. Great. Councelor Berentos, have you looked into if um anywhere along the trail is like a a flood zone or a high flood zone or anything like that? Um yes, and um obviously being close to the creek um that can be an issue. Um trails, especially soft surface trails are allowed within um flood planes and flood floodways. So

is the trail from Furville towards the golf course. That's all. Well, some of it's there cuz I've been some of it is there. Does it go all the way to the golf course? It does currently. Okay. But it just doesn't go from it's only like 150 ft. Yeah. And it doesn't exist. Correct. But it requires a retain wall. And is it a retaining wall? Uh there is a retaining wall as part of the the trail head itself to get out of elevation difference. Yeah. To get on like I have 350,000 for 150 ft. And you're and we're going to No.

No. The trail the trail itself um you know once we get down to grade um isn't terribly difficult to build or or expensive, but getting it down there requires a ramp, retaining walls, railings. Um we're redoing some of the sidewalk on for Villa so that there's continuity. Yeah, that's where the expense is not to be. Anyway, we've done all the easy work on the trail. Correct.

And so you're we're going to see some very expensive sections of the trail. The section from the dog park to the public works building is going to be very expensive, but that's a huge connection. Then over in the Wyatt note, I believe there's another very technical se section in there also. I believe you're you're right, councelor Schilling, and I think it's a fair point that um the reason that um the that the Rickall Creek Trail exists in sections is that all of the easy and cheap sections have been been built. You've already picked the low hanging.

Correct. Correct. So, um the ones that remain are technically difficult and expensive to build. And that's why I think when we have the option of going after grant money, um, even, you know, this is $300,000, that's that's significant sum. I don't mean to downplay that. Um, you know, do we have enough SDC's where I could cover that, you know, without a grant, yes. But if I can make those SDC funds go further, we certainly have opportunities to to use it in um in different places throughout the city. And that's what I want to try to do. Yes. Right. Are we ready for a roll call vote?

Huh? It said silence. Wow. There's no further discussion. I'll ask the city recorder to call a roll call vote. Councelor Blosser. Yes. Councelor Fitzgerald. Yes. Councelor Hollesapple. Yes. Councelor Jance. Yes. Councelor Schilling. Yes. Councelor Shane. Yes. Councelor Spivey. Yes. Council President Briggs. Yes. Councelor Berentos. Yes. All right. Passes. The resolution passes unanimously. Thank you. Good work. Good luck. Any other business to bring before the council tonight?