Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I I don't either. I I don't either. I don't think anybody wants to. So, yeah. We'll call the Lucky Planning Commission meeting in June 19th to order. All rise for smooth. 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. Commission Chair Kerr here. Commission Vice Chair Belain here. Commissioner Rogers here. Commissioner Adamson here. And then Commissioner Miola and Commissioner Newman are both excused. Okay. Uh let's see. Non-aggenda items for tonight. Do we have citizen input on any non-aggenda items? Let it be known that the one person attending here uh is saying no. Okay. Approval of meeting minutes. for April 17th. Did everyone get a chance to go over the meeting minutes and any comments, critiques, concerns? I see that you incorporated the one comment with regard to commission time in this. So good. So do I have a motion on the meeting minutes? Motion to approve. Second. Okay. Uh Nicole Roll call for Commission Chair Kerr. Hi. Commission Vice Sher Building. Hi. Commissioner Rogers. Hi. Commissioner Adamson. Hi. Okay. Second item.

Approval of minutes for the May 15th, 2012 planning commission meetings. Did everybody have a chance to read through them? Any comments, critiques? Do I have a motion to approve the minutes for the May 15th planning commission meeting? A second. Okay. Nicole roll call. Commission chair. I. Commissioner Vice Chair Belain. Hi. Commissioner Rogers. Hi. Commissioner Adamson. Hi. and motion passed. Okay, so we'll take care of that. Okay, tonight we are having two public hearings. The first up is going to a be a public hearing on the block zoning and development ordinance. It's chapter 2.26 sign code. Uh looks like noted as LA 2824-04. Let me get in the minutes here. Okay. Uh we briefly touched on this. I think it was last month and it goes back to last fall when the city had a uh complaint or an enforcement action about some signage during the election season. And uh because a provision in the code that allows additional signage during election season that is 6 weeks or four weeks before and two weeks after an election date. U it allowed additional

signage which just by their nature would have been temporary type signs. And then there's another section of the code that addresses temporary signs and neither of those sections refer to the other. And so there was a conflict and so uh the council decided to delete the language in the code related to additional signs during election season and uh that was brought up a couple or three months later to you folks in one of your meetings. Uh just kind of letting you know that this is on the agenda now 2024. This is legislative amendment number four. So, we're finally now having a hearing to delete that language. And it's just one subsection. Subsection L of 2.206.06. Yeah, it's at the bottom of the staff report, page two or it's page seven of the packet. So, what you see lined through is what's going away. And because it doesn't have any tentacles reaching out and latching on to other parts of the code, nothing else needs to be changed or revised. The section regarding I'm sorry the the section regarding temporary signs remains unchanged. That's right. That stays there. Okay. Now, I'm going to ask another question. What if there's a public hearing? Have things that need to be read into the record? Uh, no. Because it's a legislative hearing. Okay. Not quite. Yeah, just for the purpose of the record, I enter the staff report into the record. Fair enough. And so anyway, that's it. But at the bottom of page two of the staff report that is

shown with the strikeout is going away. And the staff recommendation is to pass a motion recommending that the city council approve the proposed change or deletion of that language. All invest. Do I have a motion? I move the planning commission adopt the staff report and recommend the city council adopt a proposed amendment. I second. and call. You want to roll? Commission Chair Kerr. Hi, Commission Vice Chair Balding. Hi, Commissioner Rogers. Hi, Commissioner Adamson. I Okay. Uh, next item on the agenda is a public hearing on the parks master plan LA 202402. The 79page document that we have have all been working through and developing about seven eight months now I think right coming up we kicked that off in October August yeah we really started well yeah I guess it was probably the fall yeah when we did the surveys and we started the survey was what uh August on uh What was that community day or community evening first week of August? Kudos to to Brandon and your team for doing the the public outreach. Thank you. Getting the information from the from the

voters. Thank you. That was very helpful and instrumental in in us making decisions about what what goes on, what changes we make to the to the plan. Thank you. Thank you. I'll I'll let staff know that. I appreciate it. And it looks like, you know, staff report is complete, well thought out. All the strikeups, strikeouts and markups are included in this as far as what changes, what doesn't change, what the new language, replacement language is going to be. And and just for the sake of an hearing being open, I'll enter the staff report into the record along with the draft plan of the or draft updated plan. Um, and uh, these two items tonight are scheduled to be at city council on I forget the July 10th. Yeah, the 10th. And then they presumably would read the ordinance for each one of these for the first time that night. And then on August 14 would be their meeting in August. and then they'd have a second reading and passage of both of the ordinances. So, uh, in we focused mainly on chapter 2 that was all the socioeconomic stuff that we needed to update with information from the 2020 census. And then there's another thing that is called the American Community. Yeah, I guess American community survey. And that survey was from 2018 to 2022. So some of that is not census information, but it's from the Census Bureau. And then uh chapter five was the main item where all the parks were listed. and we were focusing on just Commons

Park, Veterans Park, and Terry Park. And so just because of the changes to those three parks and the population being having the 2020 census population and then just recently last year, the population research center. It's a state agency, but it's housed at PSU. So, a lot of people think it's part of the PSU, but it's a state agency, so to speak. Um, they have to estimate every city and county's population as of July 1st every year by law. And then they also every four years have to estimate and forecast the population for every city and every county. And luckily for us, last year that 50-year forecast for population came out. And so I took the 20-year forecast. I didn't run it clear out to 50 years for purposes of a part master plan, but anyway, uh it's going out till to 4045 and the estimated number is 6,110. And so in four more years 2028 they'll do another estimate and depending on what's happened here and you know in terms of development new housing and that kind of thing they may well when they do the next 50-year forecast the 20 2045 number might be a little higher than 61 10 or might be a little lower. But uh anyway, so that population number isn't

the same number that was in the 2014 plan that ran out to 2032, I guess it was. So that caused a whole lot of numbers to be changed in chapter 1, intro, and in a couple other chapters. So anyway, uh because it was all numbers and there isn't much to talk about with those numbers and it's all tied to the population estimate for 2045. And I just showed those chapters in the markup version and two and five that we've seen. I don't know how many times, but several times I just put uh for those two I just put in the packet the uh clean copy. Okay. So, anyway, that's my little summary. And unless you folks have questions about what is talked about for each part in chapter five, then there's three appendices, right? Yeah. You put together a complete packet updating, you know, updating information language to reflect what we need for Yeah. and take you um in the I forget which chapter four I guess there is the map from the 2014 plan and it was not did back then it did not have the Abigail Scott Dunaway Park across the street and so because that was donated to the city in 2020 that's talked about in the new plan but I

didn't get the app updated. So, by the time this is going to council, I'll have our GIS people show that little spot as being a public ownership in a park. Fair enough. One of the things that that we were talking about earlier on is the is the der of community park land we have. Correct. and the inability that the city currently has to to acquire the necessary or the acquire the correct the the park land that we need to have to develop to to fall in line with what uh what the the guidelines are. So I there there needs to be a discussion from our side and potentially a recommendation to the to the city council to to investigate a process where we can obtain money if it's state park money from from the the state. what we might be able to do to create some form of reasonable leverage, a path forward because we're we're between right now we're between uh hard to read the strikeouts, but it's between 18 and 37 acres short, correct? Of what what a city size should have in the way of public parks. And I think I I would then say yes. uh taking up that conversation, trying to put something forth at the city council as a suggestion, recommendation that that I would put that as something that as under new business as opposed to at this point because this is what we're

looking at is this is action that's based upon what city council directed us to do with respect to survey and three specific parts. A very specific plan for what is and that question of what can we be is important but it's it is and it and it's good that it is a separate issue because then we can we can focus on this take care of this and then we can also better address the other item as a separate issue. I I will save my comments for you. Okay. I have an idea if you wanted to mention that. Maybe there's a way to do that at the next meeting and tie this into there. But we'll wait to do the business. Yeah. And yeah, kind of looking back 10 years instead of looking forward like planners like to do, if you go back 10 years to the 214 plan, there wasn't a whole lot done to implement that. Not a lot of money was spent. some things were bought and installed and so forth in some parks, but hopefully with this plan and with the amount of money that we have in the park SDC account, then Brandon with the direction of the council can start a you know a straightforward discussion with the state parks people, the grant people and say, you know, should we or could we should we look first that a bigger chunk of money that would would help us buy a park or should we apply for smaller chunks that would improve existing parks and you know do a master plan for veterans and do some of those things and master plan for Terry or Commons and then start building some of that. But

anyway, that Brandon and the city council can work on that and hopefully they'll provide some good direction that will be Yes. contact the parks department and see what grant money is available. Um, frankly, I don't know if they get any federal money that then they pass through as part of their state grant program to cities and counties. But hopefully everything they've got to provide grants to cities and counties is state money, not federal money or pass through federal money. So, we'll come circle back. That sounds like that's a little towards the future of business as well. uh with regard to packet as it applies to the parks in question in support of what city council suggest is uh I don't know that you know we we we've all discussed this at length so it's the packet's complete so unless somebody really doesn't want to I would sit down and say uh I would make the motion that the planning planning commission adopt the staff report. Uh looks like dated August 14, 2025. Uh and I would recommend that city council adopt the proposed amendments. I second. Commission Chair Kerr. Hi, Commission Vice Chair Baldi. Hi, Commissioner Rogers. Hi, Commissioner Adamson. Hi.

Okay, so that will go to the city council and they will be able to start their piece and do their evaluation review. No. know how important it really is. But on page two of the development plan, the Philadelphia planning commission has a couple of misspellings and names on there. Mine is bedling instead of building and it's Roger Web instead of Rober. Okay. No, very very minor, but yeah, but easy enough to easy enough to slip through, too. So, fair enough. I want to say thank you. I know sometimes it feels like the planning commission may not be doing a lot but this is a generational planning document that you all had your I know there was direction from the council but I think you all had lengthy discussions on where you see it which led to other discussions which we'll get into later but I I I appreciate I think this is the group's first major thing I agree outside of the state mandates that you all had to approve and obviously thank you Jim because Jim has to do all the legal ease of all that. So, um it's it's it's this is a big thing and I obviously I feel pretty confident that the council will pass this and then we can start working on that. But for this to be finished out in one fiscal year, we budgeted for everything to be done in less than a year. Thank you so much. And and I'm sure the council would feel the same way um when it comes to their uh attention in July. Thank you. So, and it looks like next on the agenda, we don't have any work sessions for tonight. And while there's nothing listed for new

business, it sounds like Commissioner Evans brought up the issue of addressing and looking at something regard to uh some tool that we could recommend to the city council. In the in the least of it, chair, we we need we need to make the recommendation to the city council. Bless you. We need to make the recommendation to the city council that they empower our city administrator to investigate, search for any kind of of funding source, state, county, even federal if we need to. uh for the the monies that we would need to make an acquisition of a of a sufficient amount of land to to catch us up to to the amount of parks that that would work towards keeping our population or given the land that we have available at this current moment a path that at least creates it opens up that it gives I'm thinking three It gives it what financial tool or tools might be available. How does that feed into land acquisition a pathway so that as we do grow into the future that land in some way could be at least some attempt made to go after it. Yeah. And then perhaps the third piece, is there any kind of language that we could suggest to city council that might give the city the ability to put something some form of incentive language towards a developer while still being cognizant of how laws

might work out. that let's just say the way laws the winds are blowing would be a hindrance to doing something like that. But is there something that could still be put in place that might give them the tool to use that's not so ownorous that might at least create some form of balance situation. So perhaps Brandon, if you could look at the funding side of things and Jim, if you could look at some of the language what other cities have used as kind of a I don't want to say a carrot stick process, but it might be a carrot stick process other cities have used encourage the acquisition of parklands when developments go on. that's both fair and reasonable to a developer also tries to accomplish the goals to say that would be useful. Brandon can do some kind of guess as far as what financial tools might there and then perhaps come back next month and at least have if not a work session certainly a time block with discussion of hey here's what the findings are what might we be able to do does that does that sound like a path yeah starting I I think one of the one of the key elements we we were knocking things around at the prior to the meeting looking at this industrial park down here. It would it may be a a prudent way to elicit more activity on it. If there were a donate a part of this for the park district and discount fees for for development of the industrial park down there. if what we're looking for is land to build a park on. So, we can get someone that will donate a section of land to the to the city that to be used as a park. Uh we could use that as an incentive for potentially

for a discount in their in their development fees. So, if here's what I'm thinking and here's how I'm thinking where I think you may want to craft it. if the planning commission wants to approve somebody speaking on their behalf. So, we're already gonna have the plan. I would assume chair Kerr would come to the next city council meeting on July 10th and say this is the work that we've done recently. We are coming before you to say we've we are recommending you update the language to the city the sign code and then also approve the master plan. We also and and this is for you all to discuss. This is how I'm just trying to piece together. In accordance with how the demographics lay out how much park land is needed, we are recommending that the city council um allow staff to find ways to achieve current production current park production rates for what the current population is. Meaning right now if it says we need 37 acres try our best with the current population or current to find either vacant lots to buy or whatever or investigate a way to so I think it's a multi- faceted program the person who comes on behalf of the council to speak says we are recommended that the council to look at ways to enhance park space now but also with future developments because I think one thing that I've heard continuously and whether it can happen or not. It keeps on coming down to where we're far behind on current inventory of land. Now, that doesn't mean that we couldn't possibly get land now, but we would have to do an inventory on vacant lands if there's any issue with those lands. What a what what a I'm just saying say for instance um there's a house on Halen Drive at the

corner or a corner of Wilson and wherever there's a vacant piece of land maybe that we could the city can say hey maybe we want to purchase this for a small pocket park for this part of town it would be within our limits it would be within acreage and we would have something that we're able to do that as we plan towards the future is what I'm get is what I think you looking at trying to say accomplish it current day but also forecast for future development. Absolutely. Okay. The the other thing that I would like to to suggest that that the city city council address with with you and your staff, uh the Stler family is is right on the other side of of our community and the and the patriarch passed away month ago. Uh it would be it may be a a worthwhile effort to reach out to them to see if they want to donate a park to for their name for his name's sake to to be put up adjacent to our to our uh properties here. I maybe inside our our urban growth boundary. they could acquire it and and donate a park to his name inside our we take care we take care of I think the biggest thing is is planning commission authorize the chair to do that and then I think that it will come down to the council are they looking to acquire more more parkland right now and then if so okay Brandon you and staff we we we want staff to look at ways to acquire parkland for current for current livability but for future development And then how that gets there would something me and staff would work on. But I think the first thing is does the planning commissioner want to do that? And then if so that person who would be speaking on behalf which I would assume would be the chair

would then do that and then if council so chooses to do that then they would direct me. So it' be a three tier process. Sure. So chair if if if you're unable to make that meet I'd be happy to to stand in for the council. Okay. We will stay in touch on that. And it sounds like basically it'll mean request to council to summarize direct staff to find ways to improve parklands acquisition both for now and in the future. An example of today or now situation might be pocket park type acquisition. That's probably the only size tract right now that might be available at this point in time. also to we want to be able to lay the foundation to for larger parks and acquisitions that will be future so that we've got that in place in the development code etc. And of course this is all with the the consensus of the body. I know I'm talking and I know he's talking about I want to make sure that everybody's on board with that. That's commissioner Rogers and Commissioner like these guys. I know you are but I mean officially we have to go on the record. Everybody is on board. I would chime in if it wasn't. Yeah. I know you would, but I I just to formalize it in the minutes and to an actual official giving the chair her duty. It's a real I'm sure I would be shut down quickly if I mean it would be nice to have a a larger park, but it's a balanced like you said with what we have available now anticipating for the future if we're looking at you know 6,000 people in you know 20 years you know we're having that growth and stuff you know how much we're butdding up against the urban growth boundary you know all these factors play into it so you do it smart and and we can do it right so yeah I might mention And uh you never know how things might pop up. You kind of know there's a situation out there, but when you know about it, it's this

situation. But all of a sudden, a few months later, it's a little different or whatever. And so the 38 acre site on the north boundary of the city, that notch um east of Abbey Road and north of the city limits u that's owned by a winery, not local winery, but one down south of Salem and they've owned it winery. Yeah. Wine. Yeah. See, one of the wineries that is a corporation. You can buy stock in it and everything. I'm I'm a I'm a shareholder. Okay. You'll have to if we get any excuse myself. Yeah. Depending on the number of shares shares out of 15 million Valley. Yeah. Anyway, they've owned that several decades and apparently they bought it as a possible vineyard site way back kind of back then was the early days of the Oregon wine industry or they knew it was next to the city limit. Those are the same city limits that were there then. They're still there now and they thought, well, either a vineyard or maybe it could get added to the UGB by, you know, 50 years down the road. Anyway, um they are I don't know how many months ago, but they contacted the city and apparently a developer is talking about it kind of like a month ago. I think we had a conversation, right? Was the last time we talked to him? Yeah, so ago. Yeah, a couple months. But for something like that, if given the current economic situation, if the developer goes away and the current owner, the vineyard folks are thinking, "Yeah, you know, we really want to do something with that. We don't we don't think we're going to put a vineyard.

It's just not where our business plan is calling for us to plant vines." And so potentially that could be a site that the city might be able to buy. And uh I don't know what 38 acres would be, but it'd be a chunk of money. Yeah. And if the city could have some portion of that committed to the purchase and then apply to the Oregon Recreation and Park Department for half or more than half of it and uh work with the vineyard to have or the company to have some kind of a I don't know maybe drop the price a bit because it's going to be a city park. then something like that could happen and it would happen before any of this other stuff goes on. So we just need to kind of be nimble on our thinking for anything with with W Valley. Yeah. and and the the state parks and rack. I we could we could probably had a deal where they gave us a land parks mix that gives us the improvements that we can put put a a multi-use park out there. Ball ball diamonds and soccer fields and and what have you. Yeah. Park park parks seem to be one of those things that always not always park grants are those things that tend to get a little bit more successful in terms of I well in particular tend to see more money given out in parks. Yeah. Because it's outside the urban growth boundary. The city would need to add it to the urban growth boundary and it's EFU. But if it's going to be for a park, then we might be able to justify expanding the

boundary to take in that 38 acres for a park and have the side agreement set up so that the city and the owner and uh whatever else maybe the Oregon State Parks Department, they would have all been talking about this and said, "Yeah, okay, city, if you can get it in, we have this agreement that X, Y, and Z will happen once you get it in the city limit or in the urban growth boundary annex it and put the public zone on it. So you could even talk to the storage family. That's a 38 acre park that plant trees. Yeah, I mean it would be it would be a legacy for for and it does have some slope and some rolling character to it. So it's not like a really flat site that would be an easy turn into softball, baseball, soccer, whatever kind of fields. There'd have to be some major grading and everything going on out there, which just makes it that much more expensive to build the park once you own it. Yeah. Like Terry, like a Terry Park set we're going through right now. We're going to have to level it out to make it accessible and those same cost areas would be the same thing on that, you know. Yeah. Yeah. But it's a much bigger lot area. So yeah, you might be in a situation where depending upon might actually be able to work within what you've got, have areas that are heavily worked, leveled out and then have other areas that are left rolling and natural so you can so that you can actually get both. Yeah. With less overall work and cost but still provide plenty of opportunity. Yeah. I think I think I think it all kind of just depends on if it's going to be if the developer wants to do anything with it or like like Jim said, maybe they just it just stalls and then they say, "Hey, let's look at it." But I know some barriers to that. They

mentioned the schooling and it would most likely mean I mean 400 units plus you probably have to look at what what a new school would look like eventually sometime down the road. And is McMinville going to want to bond that debt out for a school? I mean there's just so many different power plays we got to do. It's just there's six or seven different tentacles spread out. It's all exciting. Oh, it's exciting. There's a another 40 acre shot just to the east of the 38. It runs north and south that big rectangle. Yeah. Uh maybe uh what would need to be going on is that would need to be added to the urban growth boundary also for a new school site and they would have outdoor recreation as part of it right next to the city park. That would be perfect. the the the the the parks in the area here at in Newberg especially in Sherwood are are busy from April to October with softball games. I mean it's it's like a Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. It's it's nothing but softball games. And even those lots are closer to commercial development than those parks are over there. I mean outside that that big park in Sherwood by the um the amphitheater, but I mean the walkability. Yeah. I mean, but obviously that's obviously for planning and hopefully I mean that would be we would need support from the council and the community. So we just need to get we need we will get the we need to start first being let's have council direct us too. Yeah. Brandon, are you in regular communication with vineyard? No. Um I have been um but now recently somebody who's interested in the property has met with me and with the staff on if they can make the politics work. Mhm. Um because obviously

the big thing that gym communicated to me which I commuted to them was the EFU carve out and they mentioned either some favors or if we got to whatever if we got to make something work and the way the way it made sense is like we can make this work if we can get the city buy in. And I said the biggest issues would be the the park land which I think they were immunable to doing that. And I think some of the concerns that we had to walk away with were a lot of the um access points because I think some of the access points that were talked about is putting everybody on grant and Dunaway and if you put all those people on grant I'm not going to have a job. So and if you put them on bridge I'm not going to have a job. So, I mean I mean they mentioned five or six different ways out and getting the county involved because I know it would have to be improvements to the county road. Um we're talking expansions to bridge right now if that happened. Even more expansions meaning maybe two lanes on each side which would mean acquiring rightway or using eminent domain. It's a this would be a multiple multipleyear project with probably 15 different partners. But they made it seem as if money wasn't the issue, they wouldn't move forward. And I know they have emailed Gordon, our city engineer, a line of questions that Gordon after our conversation last month replied back to them and they said, "We're going to punch some numbers and if we could make this work politically and um and and financially, we'd love to move forward." But I know I had I was waiting for the new superintendent to get appointed with McMinnville School District and she was and she the intern Dr. Courtney used to be the principal here in Washer. Yeah. And so she's mentioned how she wants to rebuild the rapport with Lafayette. Okay. So myself and and and Mayor Malcolmson are going to hopefully I know Mayor Malcolm is probably going to meet with her before I do, but I'm going to meet with her and we're going to talk

about hey future what are real what's what's realistically the goals of LA of Lafayette? Does Lafayette need to look more towards Dayton or do we need to look more towards McMminville? Because the whole issue with Metobrook was um with development as part of as part of the development agreement um anybody who lived in Metobrook gets to choose between McMinnville and Dayton, but the taxes go to Dayton. Oh, okay. So, I would see in a in a development this big with this many multif family, I would definitely see, okay, if we're doing that, the taxes are going to have to go one way or they're going to have to redraw school boundaries, which would obviously take state legislator to redraw the boundaries between McMinnville and and Dayton, but also like I mentioned earlier, is is McMinnville going to be able to invest in Lafayette? Because like Jim said, hey, and like Scott agreed that that little spot, that little spot carved out to be would be great because they talked about that at our little um strategic planning session. Let's think about putting ground for middle school. But we can't build a school. They do. They do. And with the amount of population in Lafayette to McMinnville and without much much Lafayette representation on the board, it would be very hard to see a bond passing just specifically for Lafayette unless it was a part of a major bond package and just I don't know what the appetite is for that. Yeah. So, it's it's it's a major process. We have worked on it, but we haven't gone aggressively because spending spending city resources and time if it's just going to end us in a dead end. So, we're really waiting for them to say, "Hey, we're looking to move forward." Okay. So, yeah, we got some stuff. It sounds like it's there's exciting stuff, but it seems boring because it's all, you know, you know how that goes. Real state, it just takes forever to get anything done. We were I think the the Fed is is coming out coming out and

saying they're going to have two rate reductions this year regardless of the Not today though. Not today. Not today. I don't know why, but not today. If if that if interest rates come down, if they start rolling back down to we're in six and 3/4, six and 58 right now. We're in the high sixes. Yeah. Low sevens. Uh we get down under six into the fives, start building, it's going to it's going to create a a flood. We were Yeah, we were I don't know if that'll happen years. So below six is it may it may happen quicker than we think it should be but it's just yeah so so static. It's crazy to think in 2019 I got interest rate on a brand new house for 3.2%. And now it's like people wouldn't leave that you know they would rather leave their spouses than get rid of that than interest rate. I mean I'm being serious. It's sad because people like, you know, like my my son and daughter in a in a in a threebedroom, two and a half, two bath house. It's a narrow home in in Beaverton. They they really need to move into a bigger home. They need to they teenage. They can't they can't add on because they've got houses on, but they've got a they've got a 3% mortgage. Yeah. And they they're not going to give it up. Yeah. They're not giving it They're not gonna give that up to go a bigger home some pay some percent. Yes, it's not right now. So, but if the interest rate starts coming down gets closer to five. So, similar to the 38 acres we were talking about, there's the industrial property and it too kind of has something percolating, but you never know what might or might not happen. And even if it isn't a basic, you know, uh,

development project of whatever sort, we might be able to work with the owners to gain some park land there. So, possible thing. We're we're thinking about right now today, we're between 18 and 30 acres short. Yeah. in in in Lafayette 2016. We're gonna we're going to need more. Yep. That's why going to the council and asking, "Hey, what can we do about today?" And then what can we do about that? If we just get up closer to where we're where our our citizens are better served today, not necessarily 30, but if we can get to 20 acres, we get 20 acres added, it makes that that narrow. Yeah. Narrower and then we can keep it focused on future developments as the city expands either to the north or to the west. No, I I will say and I don't want to drag this conversation I want on much longer than I need to, but we have the funds for the parks SDC. Now, outside of any grants or any new development, any money taken away from that pool of money for commons for Terry would go to land acquisition. So, we'd also have that would al be something I have to talk. Well, if we do this, we're we're limiting money, possible money for development of the parks we have, but we're going to start. So, I just want to I just want to reiterate, we we don't have a lot of money. So, I mean, if they say, "Let's do it, I will investigate and I will look at all the financial things that we can do, but I'm just going to have to let them know if we do do this." And so, we we we need to do it step at a time. Yeah. Veterans Park, Commons Park. And and talking about comments, Mark, on the next item that I'd like to bring up for us to to have discussion on, uh the the process that you went through with the the sending

out inquiries or getting citizen input on what to happen to what we're looking for in the way of parks as a whole. I think it was very successful. As I've said before, uh, we need to I I need to suggest that we that we put together you put together a a package to send out to the citizens for for Commons Park to get an idea from the citizens what they'd like to see develop there in Commons Park. We've had discussions about different kinds of things going on. If we could get someone to draft up some basic proposals for a pavilion and a and a basketball court or or a raise stage and and uh the the market area. Yeah. Power to the to the market area. Adding parking on the side. if we can if we put together some some concepts and send them send the concepts around to the citizens to see if they've what would they really want? What do they need? What do they what would we like us to investigate putting into that into that park? Yeah. I think what would happen the next step on common park is we would have to go out for um requests for proposals um from uh from planning firms who would design that and they they would probably whiteboard, hey, here's what we do. five or six different options, get citizens involved, but that would have to come from the council saying, "Hey, let's let's let's work with the design firm because we wouldn't be able to do that in-house, nor would our engineer firm. It would have to be a design firm." And we have money in the SDC's that we could use for putting together concepts. Yes. Yes. But that also takes away from construction. So, I would look for grants, but yes, that's that some that would be a next step of the comments process. I I would like to

make sure that we make a recommendation to the city council that that we put together some conceptual drawings. Well, the next step for any of these parks is to do an RFP, hire a park consultant, people that do nothing but plan for parks. And if common is the first one, it kind of sounded over these last few months that veterans was going to be the first one. Yeah. But then whether it's veterans or commons or Terry, the next step for those three is to do a park master plan RFP. Get the consultant. They would do the citizen involvement. They would do all the coordination and gathering information from not only just people that live abudding or I guess nobody really abuts because it's three rights of way in the railroad but people right there across the streets and then communitywide because we've already in this chapter five said we want a basketball court with a cover that can double up as a venue for whatever kind of communitywide events might take place. So that would be something that would be in for sure when the consultant starts working with the citizens. So if there's going to be other little tidbits here and there, then they will find those things out. But that's not a big site. It's 1.1 acres and I don't know if that baseball field's going to have to go away, I think, because a basketball court, even a smaller one, is going to take a chunk away. The community building 20 by 10, 20 by 10, probably a 20 by 10, 20 by 15. Yeah. That's part of what the master plan would figure out is what size the

basketball court. Would it be one hoop or a hoop at each end or two or three hoops just kind of half cord and then a pavilion cover over it? And if it's going to be doubling up and used on weekends for whatever kind of events, whether it's during the holiday season or farmer things in the summertime, the park consultant will have a lot of insight about that. And the pavilion then will be built in a certain way to not just put a roof over a basketball court that's essentially outside, but to provide something that's really protective for the various kinds of things that could happen there. Excellent. So, so, so taking a couple of these things in play, it sounds like, okay, next city council meeting, we'll make the recommendation, the request of council that they direct staff down the path of park acquisition. Uh when it comes to parks themselves as the recommendation put veterans park at the top it sounds path would be Brandon council work with request for proposals get the request proposals into a park consult on veterans part let that information go out there start the processes running on that that'll give an idea of funds. Then I'm envisioning there is going to be a point in that particular process where if something wants to be done at Common Park, there's going to be some point along that process. Veterans Park is running a point where okay, if we want to take a look, we want them to take a look at Commons Park. Even if it's just

to get to that point of you want to go down and get concepts made, some of those concepts will start with what's included in tonight's recommendation. And that I'm envisioning from what Jim says that park consultant will include that. But that park consultant is also well they do parks. They might sit down say here's your idea and this is what you've requested based on this but based on our experience as a park consultant if you change this adjust that do whatever here's a couple of other ideas that will that may may or may not include that original recommendation but might make better a better overall outcome and I think that's going to be a natural option That doesn't mean we would not want to make a request of council to start addressing commons. I think there's going to be a point where that will present it more or less present itself. Plus, it'll give us an idea of how does money play out in this that might also on veterans part that also might either push forth or temper what happens with comments. Well, I will say what with veterans I jumped the gun a little bit. We already have our surveyor out there surveying and state. Yeah. And um our city engineer and our team have discussed doing it internally since a lot of the infrastructure is already there. Okay. Um and what the site development would look like if we did it internally. So I know Gordon is like working on that already because I think that was one of the I think when we had talked that was the lowest cost y that we can do that was kind of I don't want to say shovel ready but things that we can probably do for the low cost to show the community hey we're returning your dollar for dollar but when it comes to Terry Park and Commons we're going to

have to get a we're going to have to get a an official site plant we're going to have to do a major thing but on the on the veterans park since it was was already know like what needed to be done. We're able to work through that now with our engineer as we're going through the process because we know that was going to be the first one and it was going to be the one that we can probably achieve lowest cost. What's good to say is that it that it it's showing the community there's progress being made. Yes. While we're working on the other not just talking here but progress is actually being physically made because that's what Jim had mentioned. The last time this was done, we haven't done much outside of, you know, we got the park on Jeff. You know, we got some parkland, we did some upgrades, epigenway, but there hasn't been a lot of major work done in 11 12 years. And this is where we actually need to start doing something. Yeah, I think even even with that before once we get the survey and have that as the basic knowledge of where the property is and how big is it and what are the dimensions the next step would be some kind of a master plan because if like well we know the dog park and there's the commemorative element in the northwest corner but we need to be able to take that to the people that live around there and in the bigger neighborhood area and say, "Hey, what do you think about a dog park next door?" And even though the questionnaire from, you know, the August, September, October online thing was heavily in favor of a dog park, if all the property owners around are going to scream and yell and we don't want no barking dogs running around there all day long and all night long. Okay. Well, that is what you would work out in a master planning process. It wouldn't do the city much good to say the dog park's going in here. What do you think? Oh, well, the decision's already been made. I guess there's no point in thinking anything other than we're shafted. We're going to have dogs

barking all the time. Most of the people around that park folks know that there's already a dog park. How can we work their concerns in to a master plan that would ameliorate whatever negative thoughts they have? I I agree what Jim says. We we the the we've done you've done the engineering you're getting the engineering going but we need to we need to get an RFP. We need to make a recommendation to the city council and then that accepting this we need the next step is to do an RFP to a park planner to create a master plan for those three parks or or at least college park or at least for veterans park because that's the one for veterans but it sounds like veterans will be done internal. Okay. uh if you want to go down to master plants or maybe well yeah we need to adjust the master plan is for him he doesn't need any city involvement or citizen involvement he's got water in bridge water in was in Washington run laterals to drinking and I don't know if there's going to be a a restroom there or not but all of those things for him yeah just start drawing up the plans and build it. Yeah. But from a planning perspective and city council perspective, even planning commission perspective, the effect of building the plan of the park as a dog park, well, we don't know what the citizens, even the abuing citizens are thinking. And if we don't know what their concerns are, then we won't know what else to put into the park plan. Oh, yeah. The park plan. Yes, the plan. So even if so even even we de develop Veterans Park internally a parks master plan still going to have to incorporate all of

that. Yeah. Who internally would do the master plan? Well nobody here has park planning experience. So we'd almost need the So we need an RFP to parks master plan. It would incorporate what's done internally on Veterans Park to reflect that, but then it would also incorp incorporate any RFP that goes outside for Commons Park, for Ter's Park, or for any other park if it's done outside or anything that's done internally. It's still going to corporate pocket parks, all inclusive. Yes. Okay. Yeah, veterans would be pretty simple for a firm. I imagine a lot of firms wouldn't even bid on it because it's too small and the vast majority of the square footage is going to be dog runs, dog park and they probably wouldn't get into maybe the re real details of the commemorative corner. I don't know. We might want them to design that too, but whichever company gets it, it's going to be a small it's barely over a half acre. There's not much. There's going to be a walkway east, west, and then figure out, you know, is a bathroom there and what kind of sprinkler system to keep the grass irrigated in the summer and that kind of stuff. So, we need professionals to do that and they will do the citizen involvement and we'll come up with a master plan for Veterans Park. And once the master plan is there and we'll kind of know what's going to be in it because we will have been telling the park master plan company, yeah, we need this, we want that, we want whatever, then it'll all be there and then the engineer can go to work. you'll know where the so so basically if there's going to be a

bathroom and if there is will it be so basically basically two requests to st to council one as discussed for park acquisition to revise create update adopt a park master plan so RF RFP was a designing firm to to create the master plan for an RFB to do a master plan for Veterans Park. We can apply to the state parks department to get money to either pay the whole cost of the master plan or to pay some portion of it. That way, we won't be spending all of our SDC money on the very first thing that we try to do to improve the park system. And I I would I would suggest that we would hold off on doing planning for Terry Park. That's and that's what I haven't still have the Yes. a river improvement that Terry Park would at some point in the future be incorporated into the park's master plan, but at this point in time, [Music] I think that's we've, you know, veterans and and commons was the one we're concentrating on and Terry's kind of heard one that is off in the distance a little bit, but we've already talked about this, but we want to push the RFP to at least go down that path for veterans their investor plan for common park and Terry will have to wait. Yeah. And depending on how much money we can get from the state or any of the other agencies that are in appendix C that have money for park and recreation purposes. Then as we go year by year, we'll know how much money we're getting

from everybody else and how much we're having to spend of our own. Then we'll know what we've got to do the next project, so to speak, a master plan for Commons Park. And depending on what improvements are in there, I don't know, it'll be only a half a million to build it or it'll be a million to build it or something like that. Two requests next month. Well, actually, I got one more. Bring it for next month. take it away. Why don't you think you got for us today? We have we have the traffic plan. The traffic stud is is is in process underway. Uh there the state has gotten a little behind with some of their work. So I have yet to see the official scope of work. Um but we're just kind of waiting on them right now since it All right. So the traffic plan is is is going to take about a year, 18 months. Uh 2028 if we're lucky. It'll be finalized by then 28 three year not two years. I would suggest for discussion if whether it be in a joint session between the planning commission and the city council or in a recommendation to the city council that that we take the next steps in initiating a a review of our urban growth boundary. uh we don't currently have the necessary space to grow inside our our existing urban growth boundary that's recommended by the by the state. So we need to make get the next steps going so that when the traffic plan becomes available we can incorporate the traffic plan and an Irma growth boundary

expansion the city that that we could and working where we want to grow to coordinate more information with our traffic plan as our traffic plan is being developed versus waiting for one to get done and then we get stuck having to go back and make any amendments to it we're not doing the other I think we have to be careful about on that without the traffic plan in maybe we don't need to wait for it to be done without that traffic plan in that there'll be two things that might guide us on on on expansion of growth. There might be two things that are guiding. One, what does a traffic plan say? Because that might provide clues as far as where we would be best to grow. And then two, geography, the lands that are available for us to expand into. Those two might either complement each other or they might be totally contradicting each other. If that makes sense. So it makes sense. This is kind of bureaucratic, but the way the state is going to look at that and it's not just a traffic plan. It's a transportation systems plan. We got a railroad, we got vehicular regular roads, we have the river, we have natural gas pipelines, I assume somewhere around the city. And so any kind of transportation, transit, they're going to be looking at all those things. Certainly most of it will be vehicular traffic on roads, but in 23 we applied for a grant to get money to do to update our TSP. We really don't even have one because it's I don't know 20 years old or we never did one three I think. 2002. Yeah. And we didn't get granted any money. We redid it in 24

and uh Brandon was the technical writer guy that knew what to say and how to say it and we got the money. And so the discussions have already occurred as to what the TSP will have in it. And those occurred several months ago. And what the state is working on is writing up the scope of work and everything to reflect the discussion that we had. The amount of money that the transportation and growth management program has devoted to this project is based on those discussions. And none of that said, by the way, we want to have money to assume that we're adding 100 acres of land somewhere. So that's not part of what they're going to be doing. And so if we are on that track and the state with the state money is saying, "Okay, we know what Lafayette's going to want to do." And then Lafayette says, "Oh, by the way, we're going to apply for we're going to initiate a UGB expansion project," then right away the transportation and growth management people are going to say, "Oh, wait, wait, hold up here. What's going on? And so it in my estimation would be better to not have the city council direct the city to initiate a UGB process when we haven't even signed the contract to do the work for the TSP. That will of course mean that the TSP will do what it's designed to do and they'll follow the tasks and everything and get it all done and then maybe toward the end of that the city

could initiate a UGB expansion process. But at least at that point it wouldn't upset the Apple Card. Yeah. before the contract is even signed to do this TSP. And with the UGB, we don't know if it's going to be east side, west side, north, or wherever. And so once the TSP is updated, and then we expand the boundary somewhere, we can apply for a update of the TSP. And because it's such a recent TSP, the only thing they'll really need to focus on is the new land that's been added, okay? And what the density will be because if we add some for single family, okay, that generates so many trips. If it's for multifamily, it will generate three or four times as many trips and that kind of stuff. And so, uh, it just knowing how state agencies work, particularly nowadays with spending state money, uh, the legislature this year has still not been able to pass their big, everybody agreed transportation is a big deal this session and they got started on it the first couple of weeks and now we're a couple of weeks from the very end and they don't have anything adopted yet. They've got some Democratic senators that are saying, "No, we're voting against it." At least against what they've got up to this point, and only two weeks don't go. Anyway, uh the state, well, in ODOT is statewide under the gun. There are people who have been working for several

years to point out how the Oregon Transportation Commission and I uh with planning we've got the Land Conservation and Development Commission, seven appointed citizens appointed by the governor, confirmed by the Senate, and they are the ones that make the bill decisions. They kind of override or whatever. They don't really supervise, but they're the ones who make sure that the Department of Transportation is getting things done and so forth. So, the Oregon Transportation Commission, the opponents of the of ODOT, the department say, has been bamboozled more than once by the ODOT people saying, "Yep, here's a big freeway interchange project. It's going to run 200 million and okay, commission approves it. It gets on calendar. They start working on it and right away oh well it's going to be 400 million. Well, it's going to be 800 million by the time we're done. And so the opponents are saying that is a strategy of the department to give a lowball estimate to the commission, the transportation commission just to get an approval to start the project. And once it's started and everything, then the department gives them all these increased inflation numbers and all of a sudden the project's four times more expensive than they thought. and oh, where's that money going to come from? Well, we don't have it. And so, there's those kinds of things going on. And we as a particularly a smaller local city, if we before the T our TSP work really starts, jump in and say, "Oh, yeah, by the way, we're adding to the UGB," the state's going to scratch their head

and say, "Well, now wait a minute. Maybe we shouldn't spend this money now. Maybe we should wait two or three years for the UGB process to be done and then if there's any money, then we'll see if we want to give it to the city to do a TSP update. Help help me understand the the traffic plan that traffic study that we're doing. Are they going to are they going to simply look to to fix or to to lay out the the traffic through the city based on the current size of the city, current traffic of of the city? Or are they going to going to do some projecting of what growth would be? One of the purposes of that traffic a 50-year traffic forecast by PE the population research center is to provide information for anybody who needs it to know how many people a particular city will have sure in it. And so as part of the TSP neatly we can say yeah just last year was our turn because they divided the state into four areas. So they do all the cities and counties in this area that one year next year next year next year well on the fifth year they're back again to redo because they have to do complete forecast every four years. So we got ours in 2024, Yamhill County and the 10 cities in the county along with the whole other all the other counties and things in the northwest quadrant of the state. So we've got that and the transportation consulting firm will be very happy because it will be a reset estimate and they can go out 20 years go

out 50 years. Yeah. They're going to do some estimating as to where the size of the city's going to where it's going to be in the next 20 years will be up to 6,000 people. So, we're going to have room for 2,000 people around the city right now. But you've got no room for anybody around our city. Yeah. And you never know during the period of time the city might say, "What? 2,000 more people? Oh, no. We don't want that." And all of a sudden you have a city that's been essentially accepting of growth or even progrowth. No growth plan is going to take into effect what the projections are to to determine which way flows go. We just we just I'm just I'm I'm not I'm I'm new to the bureaucracy. Yeah. And that's what CSP does is it goes through all the issues, starts them out, pops out at the end with whatever solution is acceptable to the city. And then if if we wait till the we get the traffic plan in 2008, then it's another 18 months, two years for UGB. Uh probably 24 months is what the last one was, right, Jim? Preston was here. Yeah. Essentially the the actual work was about two years worth. We got interrupted by some sign code amendments and uh I forget what else got injected. We'd be stuck with the with the current status of the urban road isn't providing us much of any room to grow or to cover 2,000 people until after 2030. I'm I'm simply trying to trying to say if I'm not to drive the the traffic service plan, the TSP, but to to work hand in hand along that same line to to to figure out where the city wants to

grow, where we need to grow, where we can grow. And you've you've indicated that to the west of us is is land that is that is not encumbered by the by the agricultural regulations to keep us from using it. We need to look at where we can grow and expand our urban growth boundary in there to to incorporate and what we can. Right now we may do another UGB after the TSB comes out. Yeah, the chicken and egg is UGB expansions and transportation. No matter which one you do first, like if you someone's going to first well, okay, then you expand the boundary and you need to revise the TSP then to reflect the TS the UGB expansion. So, and if you don't do the uh TSP first, then you're doing the UGB first and you're waiting years and years. And the reason the city decided to do a TS or apply for a TSP was because we have some real significant right now problems with the roads, but stuff back to 2012. Six years. I I understand not make sense to the citizenry. I I understand that the the concept of try to put things hand in glove, but it sounds like bureaucratic side of things does allow that. So, it sounds like the best thing to do right now is let's get the transportation system plan rolling. Just let it let it roll. It'll be at least if it takes 18 months saying this is mid 2025 26 27. Yeah. Brandon saying 2028. So, it's 2028. Okay, it's 2028. We get that back. It is, from what Jim says, going to include and incorporate a certain amount of growth in overall traffic. That's good. We don't know where that traffic is going to come from, but it's this

nebulous, hey, we know these roads going to have to travel certain amount of traffic, yada yada yada. Once that traffic plan is either done or very close to done within say a couple of months, then we can take and really could make the recommendation to council to do urban growth boundary expansion. That's that is not going to disrupt the TSP because that'll be able to finish. We start the urban growth process. We make the best most informed choice we can and it would have to be based primarily on geography. Make the best choice we can so that whether it's north, east, west, oh heck, south across the river probably, but whichever direction we make the best guess we can. We start that process in motion. That process starts in motion, gains traction. Yes, it's going to take at least 24 months to complete. So, yes, we are out into the future. We're probably 2028. We're looking at 2030, maybe even 2031. That's out in the future. However, once that chunk of land is known, it's brought into broad the UGB boundary, adjusting the TSP plan that was just done. Again, interpreting from what Jim says, that's going to merely be an update or an adjustment, and that will be low cost and much easier to do. So even though it's not quite the same thing as you know what I would call hand and glove process it's certainly going to be a dovetail process

where yes this takes place first but the sit page is set up so that this the TSP gets done then the UGB can come along and slot into it and if something needs to shift that that sounds like yeah I would say that at this point let's revisit the concept of early growth boundary, but that's going to be down the road. My my only concern chair is that we know that the TSP is going to going to address this corridor here. Well, it'll address that, but I'm going to guess it's going to address other corridors as well and it's going to address this traffic on this stretch. Yeah. So, we know those two things are going to be the the primary focus that we know as citizens those areas need to be included. But it's it's until we make some adjustments to the area growth boundary to say this is how we want the city to grow, how we want residential to be, commercial to be, industrial to be, etc., etc. We we're just going to sort of take it hand in hand with whatever all those lots around us end up coming to the city and saying, "Well, this is where you want to be." In some in some respects, like I say, it will be to that that the decisions about what lands and what property what's there will be independent of the TSP, but that doesn't mean they they'll come together down the road. They're going to be independent of Lafayette. They're going to come to us and say, "We we own this land. We want to develop." Well, yeah. There there's a certain element. Do we want to be part of Do you want us to be part of the city or are we gonna pay taxes to Carlton? Because everything north of us is is Carlton. Carlton is there too. Yeah. So, no, I'm I'm trying I'm I'm I'm really not trying to be argumented, please. No, no. I Yeah, but I get what you're saying. I think it's it's something to revisit. I think we you know, we need to have a discussion. It's I I understand, but right now,

Scott, in all due respect, it's a discussion between you and Jim and we're David and I are sitting here, you know, not being part of it. So, you know, I think it I'm be honest that it seems like we're going in circles right now. It's not moving forward. Yeah. And for right now, I would say yeah, you guys are sitting there and I'm kind of sitting here going this is something that as important as it is, it's not it's not even it's not a T tonight. It's not even a it's not even a it's not even going to be a next year subject. It's something we can continue. forward. Yeah. Yeah. Keep the back of our brains. And and I think I've had enough conversations and I'll try to wrap this up with w with with um with my hammer. I think we've had enough conversations individually that I think Scott knows that I know you're passionate about this counsel as I am. The minute that we can start doing something, it's going to come to you guys. Like I think we all know how I am. And especially with council like the minute we can get some I mean I mean me and Jim talked about this the past two budget seasons. Are we ready for UGB talk No. Because we have TSP and we have these other things we got to work on. Plus I also think we got to think about the staff time with working on the parks master plan and then the TSP plan. How much more bandwidth is engineering me and Jim going to have to work on that? So there there's some logistical issues that we're not prepared for yet. But the minute we're ready to go, we're going to start talking about it. But I think the first two things that we have for shared to talk to council is great headway because that's a major thing that we've been talking about. Yes. RFP for parks master plan. Yeah. I I will hang up the third one. The third one. We know that that will become but and we but we also have an idea of now where that's appropriate and also why and the factors that go into it. So as you say you didn't know the bureaucracy.

So still worthwhile at least to me worthwhile discussion even though it's a little bit sounds like a little bit of an annoyance to both Commissioner Belding and Commissioner. Thank you for your patience gentlemen. Okay. Uh looks like there's no old business. Uh any commissioner comments and let's do it this way. Any commissioner comments from either Commissioner Rogers or Commissioner Belding known to the service comments? Okay, our next meeting will be July 17th with the segue. Either I will go to the city council meeting on the 10th if something comes up on my schedule. I don't know whether we want to vote on it or not, but if something comes up on my schedule, we'll need to make sure that representative is there. Commissioner Addison has volunteered, but at the same time, building is the vice chair. So, just just to let you know, uh I will be flying to North Carolina to visit my son and his wife and and my grandson on the 16th. So, I won't be here for the the meeting on the 17th. Okay. So, fair enough. So, Cole has got back down. So, commission hasn't counted. Okay. Uh, next time an something about an adjournment. I I I motion to to adjourn the meeting. Second. Roll call. Commission Chair Kirk. I. Commission Vice Chair Beling. Hi. Commissioner Rogers. Hi. Commissioner Adamson. Hi.

Thank you all. I had to think about think about