Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I figured it'd be something. I'm sure we will have a lively and friendly discussion tonight. Always. Always. Okay. Well, it's one minute early, but when you're here, I'll call the meeting to order. And if all would rise for a fine swim. i pledge allegiance 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 thank you okay amanda oh paul please commissioner chair kerr here commission vice chair belding here commissioner mayola here

Commissioner Rogers?

Here.

Commissioner Adamson?

Here.

Commissioner Kozmicki? Here. Commissioner Griffith? Absent.

Absent.

Okay.

Is Chris online?

Hey Chris, are you out there by chance?

Just one participant. Okay. Thank you for joining us. OK, citizen input on non-agenda items. And just so we know, the agenda item tonight is going to be our major veterans public hearing short one. So if you have any comments on anything other than that, by all means, come up to the lectern, state your name and address, and speak your piece. Let it be noted that No citizen input on non-agenda items. Okay. Has all the Commission had a chance to read the meeting minutes from May 21st?

Yes.

Any changes, adjustments, strangeness?

Yes.

Correctness? Corrections?

Corrections. Oh, I don't make any corrections to what I said.

Okay. Do I have a motion?

I motion we accept the approval of the minutes from the last meeting.

Second. Amanda, roll call please.

Chair Kerr? Aye. Mr. Belding? Aye. Commissioner Mayola? Aye. Commissioner Rogers?

Aye.

Commissioner Adamson?

Aye.

Commissioner Kosmicki? Aye.

Okay. Well, on to the subject at hand tonight, and that is a discussion public hearing on Major Variance VAR 2601. And there are several things that we'll have to read into the record tonight, so bear with us while we go through the news. Good evening. My name is Ron Kirk. I am the chair of the Lafayette Planning Commission, and I'll be presiding over this hearing tonight. This is the time and place set for a public hearing in the matter of Major Variance VAR 26-01, Veterans Park, Flagpole Height. The hearing is now open. It is 6.36 p.m. The public hearing will proceed. First, the staff report. after summary the proposed action is presented all interested parties will be given an opportunity to testify any party testified before the planning commission must give their name and mailing address for records an issue which may be the basis for an appeal to land use board of appeals or luba shall be raised not later than the final public hearing on this case Such issues shall be raised with an accordance by statements or evidence sufficient to afford this body and the parties to this hearing an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue. At the close of tonight's public hearing, the Planning Commission may make a final decision to approve, approve with revisions, continuation, or deny this land use application. I need to ask a couple of questions. One, for the audience, are there any objections to the notice that was published to you? Please state your name and address.

Mike Shaw, 1127 Port Chubut. I noticed that the notification was sent out to homeowners only, and that excluded potentially quite a few renters in this discussion on the major variance. So I bring that up. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. For the Planning Commission, are there any declarations or conflicts of interest or bias by any Planning Commissioner? Amanda, if you would take a, let's make for the record, take a quick call of whether we, any Planning Commissioner has a conflict of interest.

I mean, declarations or conflicts of interest? No. No.

No. No. No. Okay. For the Planning Commission, are there any declarations of ex parte contact or site visits by any Planning Commissioner?

Commissioner Adamson?

Yes, I go to that park regularly with my dogs. Normal use? Normal use.

Commissioner Kosmicki?

No, not with my dogs.

Commissioner Bellamy?

No. No.

Commissioner Nealon?

Also normal use.

Okay.

And Commissioner Rodgers?

No.

okay so at this point uh our city planner holly byron will give us the staff report thank you chair uh just as a point of clarification the hearing was opened we had a actual time of 6 32 over here so i just wanted to make that correction for the record

Okay, I was using the clock on the wall, so time by consensus.

So this is my first meeting here with the Planning Commission. I just wanted to take a brief moment to introduce myself. My name is Holly Byron, and I work for the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments. I've worked for the COG for almost nine years now, and in that time I've served a handful of different communities in Marion, Polk, and Yamhill Counties. and this is my first time meeting you folks, so I don't know quite what to expect in terms of how you communicate, but please feel free to stop me at any time and ask questions. Okay, so tonight's public hearing is for a major variance. This is file number VAR 2601. The property we are discussing this evening is for Veterans Barf. There is no address currently assigned The park is approximately half acre in size, and it's located between Washington and Bridge Streets at roughly 12th Street. The proposal this evening, the applicant, which is the city council, is proposing a major variance to the height standard, the maximum height allowed in the R2 medium density residential zone. That height standard is 30 feet. and that is for primary structures. What is being proposed is a variance to allow a flagpole of 70 feet, and that qualifies as a major variance because it exceeds the 20% threshold between a minor variance and a major variance. And so, according to the Lafayette Zoning and Development Ordinance, this is a Type 2A application. What that means is that the Planning Commission holds a public hearing that has been noticed to neighbors within 100 feet of that property. And it is true the public notice that goes in the mail goes to the property owner on record, and that is standard procedure for most communities. It is then upon the property owner to notify if they have a tenant in that house. If that is something the Planning Commission would like to revise in the future, we could certainly look to that policy to mail to the names on your utility accounts for example so we can talk about that at a future date if you'd like to expand your public notice procedures on page two of your staff report you'll see a vicinity yes sir there we've also someone in the city posted at both entrances to the park yes sir a notice of the meeting yes Thank you city staff did post a physical notice on the park at both the bridge and Washington street sides. So on page two of the staff report you'll see a vicinity map and then also a site plan for the park. The park is predominantly undeveloped so it's maintained as a grass field in use as a dog park, you can see from the site plan generated by the city engineers. that the plan proposes the flagpole to be located for the east side of the park, which is the Bridge Street side. The plan involves also paved pedestrian pathways you'll see there on the map with a connection to the Bridge Street street surface. Okay, so included in your staff report, we've provided findings to the adopted criteria in your development ordinance. The first section has to do with the R2 zone, which is your medium density residential zone. And what this section says specifically is that a park is an outright permitted use. This is an existing use and it is proposed to remain as a public park. This was further confirmed by the City Council last year when they enacted Ordinance 651, which was an update to your parks development plan. And then I've included some of the findings from that parks development plan there. Essentially what that plan states for Veterans Park is that it would remain a dog park and it would have a component honouring veterans as well. I will say that a lot of the findings in that park development plan came from an online survey that I understand had very robust participation, so I applaud that effort and community engagement. When we look to the R2 zone, we have to look at the dimensional standards and the development standards, and this is the section that we're discussing tonight. So in your dimensional standards, there is a height limit of 30 feet. The development ordinance also has a section that allows general exception to building height limitations for non occupied structures. And what that means is it provides a list of examples, including chimneys spires domes towers flagpoles and for those non occupied structures. an applicant is eligible to apply for a variance and so this is the language that we're using this evening to accept and review this variance to a maximum height. On page four of your staff report that's when we really get into the standards for variances specifically. And just as a reminder variances are eligible for quantitative standards, not for qualitative. So, if it's something that you can calculate, it's something that you can request a variance to. Under the applicability criteria, we just needed to confirm that there's no land use here that's not permitted in the district and it's not otherwise prohibited. And then we get into the major variance criteria, and that's found in section 3.10407. So the first criteria, which is A, says that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that really sets this property apart from the rest. And the applicant's presentation includes findings that this is a special, unique opportunity. This is a public park. We can take advantage of this opportunity to make a special space to honor our veterans and those who have served. criteria B talks about the variance being necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right that the applicant possesses. And this is a unique opportunity that the city has that is different from those neighboring properties around it so staff does concur that the development of this public park for the intended purpose does not apply to other properties within the same vicinity. Criteria C is the authorization of such variants will not be material detrimental to the public welfare or basically injurious to property in the vicinity. The applicant states that the flagpole is a passive civic feature that will not generate traffic, odors, lighting impacts, or other adverse effects to the abutting properties. Staff has pointed out a couple of areas in which you may want to request additional information. Those two issues are the first one being lighting impacts. It is our understanding that the flag is intended to remain up 24 hours a day, which would then by the US flag code require lighting. So it would be good to collect additional information on the proposed lighting for the flag and any potential impacts on abutting properties. And then the second issue would be any potential noise impacts to surrounding properties. It anecdotally, the flag has the potential to cause noise that is detectable off property, not just the fabric flapping in the wind, but also the slapping of the rope and then the potential for the metal snap hook striking the pole. So what we don't know is exactly what size the flag would be and what the impacts of those noise would be to abutting properties. So it is reasonable for the Planning Commission to ask the applicant during their presentation tonight for additional information. Criterion D talks about the special conditions and circumstances upon which the application is based and just confirming that they are not based upon the negligent or knowing violation of the ordinance. In this case, the City Council on June 11 Did pass a motion to direct the city administrator to submit this variance application, but it is staff's understanding that they have not yet begun construction of the 70 foot platform. And during that motion, there was intent to allow a lesser height if the 70 foot height would not be supported by the planning commission. And then finally, Criterion E says the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. And this is a challenging criterion to discuss for the reason of part of the intent of the 70 foot height is that the flagpole would be visible from different vantage points within your community without knowing any kind of view shed or those intended vantage points, it's difficult to state that the 70 foot height is preferable to any other height above 30 feet. So in this regard, perhaps the applicant could provide additional information. Some of the findings here in the staff report do say that the planning commission may desire to approve the variance at a height less than the full 70 foot requested. And when doing so, you would want to look at defensible data, so what type of a height could be supported by the Community or by your development coordinates. In here we've explored one option, which is to look at your public zone, the maximum height within your public zone is 50 feet. And so that may be one opportunity to use a defensible height as an alternative to the full 70 foot requested. So, the conclusions and the staff report are found on page 9, and those are simply that the city does have a unique opportunity to construct this prominent commemorative amenity. However, it is important that the planning commission balance the requested full height variance. with the impacts the potential impacts to the abutting properties in the neighborhood so what staff has provided for you are a couple different action options these are sample motions that the planning commission might consider using this evening the first would be to approve the variance at a reduced height the second would be to approve the full height of the variance The third would be to approve at a different height. Fourth would be to deny the variance. And then fifth would be a motion to continue to collect additional information. Attached to the staff report, you'll see in exhibit A, this is the full application submitted by the city council. And then in exhibit B, you'll see some excerpts from the adopted parks development plan that talk about Veterans Park specifically. I'm happy to answer additional questions this evening. There is one more item I would like to address, and that is that since the staff report went to the Planning Commission, we have heard from your power utility from PGE, and they just want to ensure that whatever action the Planning Commission takes, that you ensure that the flagpole that is constructed meets their safety standards. and so when you're making your motion this evening what i would recommend is to include an additional condition of approval that the flagpole that is installed complies with all pge standards we don't need to get into the nitty-gritty of what those are um I did speak with your city engineer yesterday and he stated that it would be simple to adjust the location of the flagpole slightly if needed. So that is a feasible option. So that concludes my staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have either now or later.

Okay, I think maybe the best way to proceed is we'll ask questions as the meeting unfolds that way. becomes a little more one-on-one and if a question comes up it gets answered real time absolutely well thank you holly for that enlightening summary absolutely that report okay so now at this time i'm going to have the applicant make a presentation i am sure that will uh give us a better and you know it'll it'll i hate to say it will unfold but this process will unfold and people's questions will be answered and we'll have questions as well. Okay, applicant, take it away.

Thank you. Uh, share current planning commission. My name is Brandon draws as you all know, I am the city administrator who acts as the chief executive officer of this organization before I speak. I would like to pass out an exhibit just related to the park survey. Some of you may have not remembered this or seen this, but I would like to make sure this gets passed along. And I will make sure it gets entered into the packet. So I just wanted to talk about some matter of facts and why we're here today. And then I'd like to pass this along to Councilor Lee-Gilgan to represent the City Council. So as the city planner had said about two years ago, we commissioned a park survey. And in that park survey, the resounding discussions on that, we're trying to make that a dog park. And along with the dog park, the discussion at that time was they wanted to keep some type of aspect to salute the veterans, whether it be there were comments from the city council, a statue for dogs lost in the war. um uh uh a boulder memorial which is still on the on the on the plans but then other items to make sure um that they're able to still salute the veterans of lafayette and one of those discussions were to find a way to maximize that um commitment and um honoring the veterans by doing the a fairly big flagpole. And at that time, the city council and council building go on to a little bit more, really wanted to make sure whatever was done for the park design included some type of memorial with the flag. At the time, the myself and city staff worked with the city engineer to design something, which is in front of you, where everything from the boulder would go, the walking path, and then the flag, which we're talking about tonight. So as a part of the process, we went out for bid and we received numerous bids. And we had bids broken down into accepting the something a 40 foot smaller flag or looking to do a 70 foot flag. The council's directive was to move forward with a 70 foot flag. The discussion in that was they thought that was the best salute that they can give to the veterans in the community. And it should be seen from all of Lafayette when you're driving into town, when you're out of town. and so they really wanted to make sure their presence um the presence for the veterans memorial was there um so um in front of you you can see some of the park surveys that said that the dog park was overwhelmingly the favorite and um in the application we also have um the design from the city engineer that shows all of the uh locates all of the matter of facts in terms of the project um With that, the only other thing that I don't have to say before I pass along to council Gilligan is that.

I think actually.

Actually, I will pass it along. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Good evening everybody.

Lee Gilgan on the city council for, I don't know, six years. And before that, I actually sat right in the seat next to Chair Kerr here for a number of years with Chair Kerr. So I appreciate what you guys are doing. I want to start with one thing I overheard before the meeting started. I heard somebody ask, what is the city going to look like in 2050? And that's part of the council's consideration here is because this park was never zoned public, It has a structure limitation, and we know a flagpole is not truly the kind of structure that was intended for our code. What the city wants to look like in 2050, we want to have parks that people know about, that people talk about. And a lot of this started from this commission here, asking for park plans to move forward. And I think we found a good solution where we can utilize the park that has already been used as a dog park as a dog park while continuing to use the Veterans Memorial piece of it for Veterans Park. I also want to cover just a couple of notes that were brought up in the introduction here. The light was a consideration. And given that we have mostly one-story houses around, I think a light up on 70 feet is a little less disruptive than down 40 feet. That's the first piece of that. From a noise constraint, we have had discussions about Rubber coating rings using nylon alternatives. We don't want to disturb the neighbors. It's certainly not a goal here. Somebody else asked, I think you had noted the flag size. The code recommends for flag poles of 70 feet to be 25 by 15. Some people use a more conservative 12 by 18. There's nothing illegal about that, but either of those work. And then also the PGE item. Uh, that was discussed at the last council meeting. We are aware of what the setbacks need to be from the wires where that has been considered by both the. By both the council and everybody else involved that has been a topic and. And then the last note I'll put out before any questions you have. The public zoning does allow 50 foot flag. Um. If this commission decides to go down from 70 feet, my ask would be for 60, because that would account for the 50 foot. public zone plus a 20% minor variance, which would not require the approval of the planning commission. So, those are my initial notes. I'm happy to answer questions.

I'm sorry, Scott Adamson. Is the flagpole that we're looking at, is it an internal halyard or is it strictly external halyard?

That there's been discussions on it because the noise concerns came up and I know there was talk about an electric mechanism to where either that, or where we city staff, when they were to lower it for half mast would have some type of circular wheel based mechanical system. So it wouldn't be something. like we'd have it on normal poles where we have to get the key and then turn it around and then grab the pole, grab the rope and then pull it. It's a crank system. Yes, the crank system, but there's also been talk about making it electric.

And I'll throw a comment out here since you and also gave the dimensions of the pole, either 40 or 70, just so everybody in the audience also has a frame of reference. If you were familiar with the flagpole that sits on the east side of downtown Newburgh, where the road splits, that flagpole is 45 feet. That's not. I don't think that's not.

No, that's a 70-foot.

Is that a 70-foot? That is correct, yes.

I saw it was 40. No, it's bigger because we went was a joke that we wouldn't beat newberg at 70 feet it would not be as tall as newberg yeah i'm sure we could pull that number but it would know yeah i was just i'm just trying to get a sunroof because that is apparently that that would that would not work there because that flag you've seen that flag it would go over neighbors proper we have no intention of something like that true and yeah the size of the flag one placed up on the flagpole is always subject to sure interpreting yes okay so well the light the light uh

a problem. Most of those lights are solar powered, they're just on top of the flight, and they come down, but you know, they're not bright lights to rely on. That is part of the

because i know at one point it was thought preliminary thought was heaven

applied to the ground and shine up. So it's not that it's shining up, it reduces the risk of scatter light to around surrounding area, but that gets down to the design and what the design wants to be.

Well, and our goal is not to disturb the surrounding area, so I'm sure we'll certainly look at both of those.

Honestly speaking, the uplighting would cause less, it causes solution to the sky, but it causes less less light and truth of surrounding properties, but it also also invite values.

that's true. yeah and even if the lights on the ground shooting up. At a certain angle, it's got to be in someone's view, whether possibly from the road or whatnot. So I like the idea of up high, but if it's at half mast, is it considered still lit if it's lighted from the very top by a solar power light? Because to me, solar power lights aren't the brightest things in the world.

That is a good question. That has not been discussed from the staff side. We would make sure if there's any concerns with flying a flag at half-mast, regardless of the size, we would make sure that that is covered, and we would make sure that it follows all U.S. flight code procedures.

Okay, so. Are we certain that a 15-foot flag from the location that's on the plot would not interfere with PGT's lines?

Yes, we actually we talked with Gordon Gordon yes and they're the design is based on how far the setback has to be to make sure that flag has enough clearance and it can't just go like barely not that there has to be real clearance. Yes, that was.

Yes, and then we did as the as the city planner mentioned there was some discussion from PG related to where the flag will be located. um our public works manager greg robinson did locate an email that pg actually did approve the current location of the flag um and that was sent to the city planner earlier today when those eaves over made um so that the actual site of it may not be um that much of an issue according to pge's emails okay okay uh and we had launched into the questions from the planning commission to the applicant

I think now we have answered our questions as a commission. Will he be around? Oh yes, he'll be around. So please, please stick around because I am sure he may have additional questions. Okay. Okay. At this point, I will now, we will now accept public testimony regarding the land use application. All speakers, Please fill out the speaker sign-in sheet that was over by the door. Clearly state your name and mailing address for the record when you come up and speak. And please limit your comments to three minutes apiece. Now I'm gonna go in a particular order for this testimony that we're going to take tonight. One, I'm gonna call upon all of those people that are proponents that wish to speak in favor of the application. Once that is done, I will call on all opponents. that are wishing to speak in opposition to the application. The third group will be neutral parties, those people that are neither for or against, but may have a comment or comments to make regarding this application. Once we have had all of the proponents, opponents, and neutralists, then we will give a rebuttal period where the applicant has the opportunity for a rebuttal to address any of the public testimony for, against, or neutral. And once we have this rebuttal period, we won't have potentially any new information after that. So let's start off first with the proponents. Anybody that is in favor of the application, Uh, please come speak your piece.

Good evening commissioners. Uh, name's Roger Malcolmson. Address is 915 grant street. Uh, veterans park belongs to the entire community, not just a few neighbors who share the fence line. The goal should be to balance the community's strong desire for a dog park while preserving the park's purpose of honoring our veterans. Because the park is already small, a large monument would take away the valuable space from the dog park. A taller flagpole honors veterans in a meaningful way without using much ground space. It also creates a strong visible tribute to people that people can recognize as they drive by and visit the park. When the park is zoned residential, it functions more like a public space. So it sits between two major streets, including one with heavy traffic, and across from an apartment complex. It is not a small neighborhood pocket park. Granting this variance would allow the property to be used in a way that better fits the purpose. Many zoning codes, as mentioned before at the start of this meeting, don't take into account structures that are not occupied, such as chimneys and flagpoles. So a flagpole in this case would be a similar purpose. It should be viewed in the same way. A large flagpole in the middle of town is a statement piece. It is a beacon to the rest of the community that shows solidarity to the nation, to the state, and to the surrounding communities when we mourn, or when we pay tribute, and also when we have pride. So it is a conversation starter in the morning for so many of the residents. Why is the flag at Amstown? What did I miss? So having the flag be as big as possible gives visibility to the surrounding community to look up and pay attention. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Any other proponents? Not another proponent?

No.

Okay. That would be those of you that are in favor of this or generally supporting it.

Hello, City Council, I'm Randall Malcolmson. I live in 840 North Adams and I just came down here because I heard that there was major grants for this flagpole and I'm for it 110%. I was a veteran and this means so much more to veterans than you'll ever imagine if you've never served. I looked at your vision statement up above there and it says to honor Lafayette's history. Lafayette, Marquis de Lafayette, was a veteran, but he came here from France and he served valiantly during the Revolutionary War. We're the largest city in the state of Oregon that bears a Revolutionary War hero's name. So when I look at that flag, it means so much more to me because I've had, I served in 167 Armor and 4th ID. And if you ever watched the movie, a journal for Jordan, you'll understand. I sat in that seat where a person died for this country. The flagpole itself means something. It means just as much as the flag. Upright. It's proud. The top. It's the truck. It's the mechanism that you're talking about. We call it the truck in the Army. But on top of that is the finial. The finial is the little ball on the top of it. Inside the ball, the lore of the military is you have a bullet and you have a razor blade and you have a match. You cut down that flag if you're being overtaken, burn it, and you either defend yourself or you kill yourself for that flag. That flag gets draped over cotton every day. I worked at the post office 26 years. I worked for the federal government for 30 years. And I've served numerous funeral details. So when I hear that there's opposition to a flag, it kills me. This flag affords everybody an opportunity to have disagreements, but Lafayette himself was about disagreeing and having human rights and liberty that all of us are afforded. So we can have different opinions, but that flag is a representation of different opinions and the freedoms that we have because people have sacrificed for it. The red is bravery, the blood of the people that died for this country, the hundreds of thousands of people that died for this country. The white, it is purity. Blue is vigilance. The 50 stars represent the 50 states. We're all different states, but we come together, e pluribus unum. It means so much. And I think it's a great idea. Oh, my only wish is it could be 76 feet tall because Lafayette was the, he was the most length, you know, key figure of the revolutionary war. We don't hear about him much, but he was a savior or he was not the savior, but he was like, he was a hero of two worlds. He fought for us for free. He was rich. He was orphaned at 13. He was taken by George Washington as an adopted son, his surrogate son, because he had no parents at 13. He became a Brigadier General at the age of 19. Who's ever done that? Led thousands of men. He took a bullet in Brandywine. His boot filled up with blood. And he kept charging and doing stuff with his troops. He was at Valley Forge. And he took his own money to improve morale of the soldiers and he got them blankets and shoes. And that's what helped that part. He went to France. He lobbied France with Benjamin Franklin. And he got an armada, small armada, but he got 6,000 troops and got France into the war with us. He went to Yorktown. He was a decisive battle general for our freedom. He was just a young punk kid. But you know what? That young punk kid proved himself. On top of that, he wasn't done. He went to France and he fought in the French Revolution. He was so enamored with the ideals of his ideals that he wanted to, sorry, he wanted to bring it there because he bled red, white, and blue. He went there. He went there and he stayed in prison there too. He went to prison. He rotted into cell for a while because of his ideals. Then he went on from there and he got out because of Napoleon Bonaparte, but we all know Napoleon Bonaparte was pretty much like a hipper fella. And he got him out of power too. This guy kept on going on all these notes. This is our, this is our town's name. Joel Perkins named it after his hometown, which was named after him. so when i hear this i just want i think it's a great idea i love the idea i just wish it could be 76 feet tall which would represent the year but obviously all the claim has been involved with it you know that's where i'm at with it so i just want to thank you for your time thank you thank you thank you for your service thank you for your service okay any more proponents okay it looks like we have no more proponents

Let me ask, we're going to go on to the opponents. Those of you that are in opposition of the application, if you were to speak, please, one at a time, state your name and address for the record. We would love to hear from you. Thank you.

Michael Scharr, 1127 Ridge Loop. Glad to see a couple of people that I served with on this commission. It's been quite a while. I'm here. in opposition of a 70-foot pole. And now the reason for that is that there is a community of about seven residences that surround Veterans Park, none of which are in opposition to acknowledging our veterans or exhibiting our patriotism. it's about uh proportions okay 70 feet to give you an idea that a light pole down the street is typically 20 to 40 feet this would be 30 feet above that a utility pole is 35 to 40 feet another 30 feet above that okay so we're talking proportions now uh zone r2 okay is residential okay i moved in uh to my home about six years ago i think it is and the reason for that is that uh i had a very nice view uh to the southeast of some of the tallest trees in Lafayette. And it's just along the east side. I sit in my chair, look out that window. The older I get, seems that I sit a little bit more in that chair. And I see when the wind is blowing, okay, that is right in the line of where this flagpole and flag is to be put. Now, if I go to my bedroom, I've got a clear shot because I've got very large windows, okay, of that view, okay? I don't think it is the goal of anybody to take away some of the livability, some of the aesthetics, okay, that brought us to the city of Lafayette, okay? i'm not opposed to a flag i'm not opposed to a flagpole but 70 feet okay that just towers over anything in that residential area so um i have a little problem with it you know i'd like to enjoy my surroundings And my neighbors, I have neighbors that have got just a clear vision right into the park, okay? With, you know, a flag the size that, what was it, 10 by 15 or whatever it was. That's huge, huge. That could literally block out any vision of the southeast tree line. And I don't think that's the intent, okay? There are so many ways to show and demonstrate patriotism and acknowledge the veterans than coming up with the biggest and the best of a flagpole. So I want to reiterate that I'm in opposition And I think just about everybody that surrounds Veterans Park is in opposition to the size of the flagpole. It's just humongous. Thank you. Thank you.

Further comments? Opposition? Please.

Steve Knieman, speak your piece. I'll speak. Thank you. I'm Marilyn Duvall and I live at 1133 Bridge Loop. I'm a neighbor of Mike's. I'm not here in opposition of the flag. I'm here in opposition of the size and the damage that I feel will be caused to the neighborhood for a 70-foot flag, which is a commercial flag, not a residential flag. This is a residential neighborhood, putting a commercial size flag downtown in Lafayette for people to see. I would understand that. Maybe at Terry Park where there's more room, maybe somewhere else in the community. But this little park, which we call our dog park, and which we enjoy watching the dogs, is not a place for a hole of this size. It will impede the quality of life for many of us, as Mike has pointed out. It will create a noise factor. I would call your attention, commissioners, to the American flag poll and American flag comments in your packet. This was written by Angel Mendoza who is the commander of the United Veterans Army, and obviously been very aware of what the American flag is all about, as are we. I have veterans in my family, my deceased husband, my son, who lives here in Lafayette, who says he does not understand why they would ever put that size of a flag in our little park. I'm also in opposition of the dollars being spent on such a large flag. According to Commander Mendoza, it takes four people or officers or gentlemen or whatever to fold that flag, to put that flag back up if it needs to be put back up. It cannot touch the ground, as I'm sure you know. It has to be protected. flag of that nature would cost anywhere from a thousand dollars and up to replace depending on the flag that you choose i think that the commission really needs to take a look at this at that size and to consider the residents of the park oh and oh by the way there are some park members that are on this petition They did not get a letter that are within 100 feet. There are some residents rather that are within 100 feet of the park. And the cost to the city to maintain has got to be great. We are a small city. I know what the budget looks like. I used to serve on the budget committee. I'm well aware that we need the money. in this city for a lot of uses. So again, for that factor also, I think we need to take a look. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Next. Valerie Parsons. I live at 1105 Bridge Loop. I am the house that that flagpole is going behind. That's right. That's me right there. I am not opposed to a flagpole. I am not opposed to a flag and what the plans are for the park. The size of the flagpole is terrifying to me. I volunteer at the Yamhill County Historical Museum on Highway 18 outside of McMinnville. They have a 70-foot flagpole. We have to, it's hard to come down for events because it is so noisy when that wind whips through there. And it's the whipping of the flag that it gets very, noisy and again this is a park surrounded by apartments homes and all of us everyone that signed the petition is in full support of a flagpole we just want 45 feet so thank you thank you next further okay

The last group neutral parties, anybody that neither former against the applicant, the application, but would like to render an opinion or a comment about the application.

Sure, I apologize before we move on to that 3rd group. We should enter into the record officially the petition. Provided to the planning commission this evening, I would put that in the opponent category.

That is correct.

So, when the planning commission has in front of them is a petition signed by, I believe it's 14 individuals representing. I think there are some duplicate addresses in there and these are neighbors. Surrounding the park who have voiced their opposition to the height of the flagpole variance requested. And so that is being entered into the record this season.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Okay. OK. We've got our proponents, opponents, and neutral parties all given an opportunity to speak. So at this point, I would like to read, well, not reopen it, but hand it over to the applicant and give them a chance to provide a rebuttal to any of the public testimony and information that's provided to us at this point in time.

So applicant, please come forward. Speak your piece. Right, um, I just, I want to touch on a few things that were brought up here. There was mention of we don't need the biggest and the best. And I agree with that. In fact, the whole council does, because there was at 1 point, a sliver of conversation about the 1 in Newberg and a couple of the rest of them. We have no interest in that. That's that's a monstrosity for what we're looking for here. Okay. Um. What else do I have here? Again, the noise issue, I understand that's something that a lot of people are going to bring up and we would look forward to working with nylon alternatives to rubber coated rings, anything that we can to dampen noise on this. I think that's an important piece. The goal is not to disturb neighbors, obviously. And then also the price point came up. The price difference between a 70-foot flag and a 40-foot flag is actually very small. It's reflected in the bids that are in the packet from the last council meeting. Furthermore, it's not a category here for consideration. But just because I'm a councilor, because I'm on the budget committee, this money is earmarked for parks. While the city does have great financial needs elsewhere, this money cannot be used for those. We have a wastewater system that It's going to be interesting the next few years getting that replaced. This money can't be used for that. So just noteworthy, the price is not a consideration for this particular category. And also it's park money. It's used for parks. And then the last thing I just want to know is this, you know, I appreciate the process and that's why I will say I did not sign myself up for this. The council said go ahead, Lee. That's always fun. But I appreciate the process. I appreciate everybody who came out speaking for or against it. I love all the points of view of all of it. This town does have 4,000 people. We're hearing from a few dozen tonight, written and verbal. And I think the decision really should be made on what should Lafayette look like in 2050 and what does the town really need and where I think we are hurting right now is parks. I'll leave with that unless there's additional questions I'm happy to answer.

I'm going to ask the Planning Commission or staff to address public testimony as well.

We might have a few questions. Thank you.

And I guess on that note, to clarify your point with regard to the funds of the money, much like many budgets, there are certain dollars that are allocated to certain things and When those dollars are allocated to a specific function or a specific bucket within, whether it's federal, state, or local government, it cannot be used for something else.

It's not just the allocation, it's not a council allocated, but certainly, for example, when we have SDC system development charges that developers pay into the city to build, Those are earmarked immediately to the council is not the 1 allocating those. The budget committee is not 1 hour.

Funds are certain collection for certain things that they can only be used for certain things. So. Yeah, like you said, the could have certain money, they go to parks, but they can't be used for something else. Okay, with regard to the comments or issue of noise, I understand that. Yes, there's concern over noise with regard to. I see, I hear two sources. One is the rope or the lanyard itself or the ring to the attachment that can make mechanical noise, slapping against a flagpole or something like that. But it sounds like you all, we also have a situation where there is the noise of the flag itself. And one of those might be mitigatable with certain codings or engineering features, but the other one is just a nature of the beast itself and cannot be mitigated. So say that. And now for my speaking, is there anything amongst the commissioners that you have questions with regard to the public testimony that's come up? Yes.

it was mentioned that you know this is a flagpole in the r2 district was there any research done on the part of the city to see any precedent where a flagpole of this size has been erected in another municipality or another city that was the same r2 destination oh yeah that's right that's part of the rebuttal okay

Thank you commissioner building some research was done, but we had not seen anything of this magnitude in an R2 zone. The other only other occurrence we've seen of something is a statue would be in public zones, which unfortunately this and other parks were not included in the public zone and they received by the city. Okay.

Okay.

Let me ask the question, and this is where things seem a little out of order to me in the sense that requesting to continue the public hearing, it sounds like some information on lighting would be desirable and how that might play out in regard to what we do. And it sounds like some consideration with regard to dominance on noise and how that might impact things. So my thought would be to potentially continue the hearing so that that information can be gathered and presented to us so we can make a more informed decision.

As Brandon mentioned with the lighting, they would go with whatever the flag

code is i forgot what you mentioned it's called thank you commissioner um so um as the city planner mentioned earlier if there is a certain condition of approval if um if the planning commission were to approve a certain set of boundaries for the flag we the city would have to meet those so if it's um if it's mitigation of noise with the rope and the pulley system or if it's mitigation of the light we would have to make sure legally within those conditions of approval that um any type of things like that from the planning commissioner met

Okay, yes, if it's helpful, so this is asking if any party request to continue the public hearing. That is for the applicant or any member of the audience here this evening. The Planning Commission is obligated to continue a public hearing when it's requested upon the first hearing. Otherwise, if the Commission would like to go ahead and close the public hearing, you can then deliberate and still arrive at the conclusion that you would like to continue. That is still an option available to you after you close the hearing. Okay.

Then I'm going... i'm going to put the i'm going to at least put the question out there does anyone wish to continue the public hearing okay and at this time if there are no further questions from the planning commission or staff or the public i'm going to close the public testimony and i will close the public portion of this hearing at approximately 7 30 or whatever your clock happens to say 731. thank you very much time by consensus once again okay i would like to you know planning commission discussion on this variance come to a solution that will both benefit the community in the most balanced way okay hearing is closed commissioners comments. Okay, Commissioner Adamson.

I go to the park often, several times a week, and I can certainly understand the opinions that have been expressed here. Everything surrounding that park is one store. Most of those homes have three and 12 roofs, so they don't come anywhere near a standard residential peaked roof. The closest two-story building that would be 30-foot high is the apartments that are across Fort Hinton. Some two-story buildings over there, but they're quite a ways away from the park. A 70-foot flagpole in that instance would tower above all the residents. I'm questioning the need for that type of thing, a 50-foot flagpole, which would fall within the code for public use. be more than sufficient it would it would be still three thirty feet above anything around them uh it would it would come above most of the trees around the park most of the trees on the park 35 to 40 foot height range uh and it still made a statement but it wouldn't be the overpowering towering statement that the neighbors and the families around there would have to live with

Thank you. I'm thinking along the same lines, Commissioner Adamson, is that, you know, there's no evidence that there is any other municipality with an R2 zone having a playing pool of this size. So I think in the residential area that a 50-foot might be more in, keeping with that type of part and that type of thing.

To that point as well, how many other veterans' parks do we know of in Oregon? So I think that's why one of the main reasons they want to make it over sized, I'll put it, is to really honor that. If there are other places that could do that, and they have something at 50 foot, I'd be interested in knowing that. Also, say you can see it from all over. I work in downtown Newburgh. I'm very aware of that large flagpole. I rarely see it unless I'm driving right next to it. There are three-story buildings in Newburgh. I work in the second story of one. Do you guys ever see it?

Building across the lake blocks of that one.

It sure does.

Okay. And so it sounds like even at a reduced height, say, and the parks use a 50-foot high flagpole, it would be sufficient to go over any potential future trees that might be in that main area, assuming a tumor tree reaches roughly 40, 45.

I'm pretty sure the trees around there I spent a year and a half in Vietnam, and I'm a Dutchman. And I disagree.

I think we ought to stick with 70 foot. And they mentioned the life snapping.

It reminded me of a bullet snapping in my head for a year and a half. That's my opinion.

It is a very, this is a very challenging thing. There is no question about that. But at the same time, because public testimony is both for and against it. The arguments for it, presented by a veteran who has a, shall we say, a different kind of stake in it than somebody living across the street from it,

Well, like, honestly, I can say that going back to this petition or the notice that went around to homeowner, I never got one either, but I will live in that area. But what I'm saying, why didn't it go out to every library veteran so all the veterans could be here? I see your point. That's one side of the scale and one side of the deal.

Well, and then, you know, Commissioner Anderson brought up the point of We're considering today something that might have an impact 20 years down the road. What is a, again, a hypothetical question I'll present to the commission, is a 70-foot flagpole 25 years down the road, what does that mean?

Well, the way the United States is doing, there's going to be plenty of veterans. Oh, there's a war. Different question, but yes.

I want to come back to the tree comment. Nothing right now is that tall. Anything right around that will not get that tall. You'll be able to see over that. Across the street, either direction, there are some large, I'm not an arborist, I don't know about my trees, but I'll say redwood looking type trees that are quite tall. So they already be blocking that 70 foot tall tree. And I saw in the, in the map, what trees they were planning to put in around the park. They're not going to block either. Um, okay.

Stan, as we understand my, my father fought in three wars, Korea, World War II, Korea, Vietnam. My oldest brother served in Vietnam. and the first Iraq conflict. My older brother did Vietnam. I would have gone in, but I had a medical issue that kept me out. So my family is, you didn't miss any of this. My family's well-entrenched in the military. But I think a flag of life shows protecting our freedoms, it's absolutely viable and important. The base of this, if you see the design, the base has got the, you know, the dedications. Is the DA still providing the plaque? I don't know if it's still driven.

Yeah, it was included in the design.

Can I ask if there's a plaque being included?

Let me do something. I'm going to reopen the hearing just to make sure that anything that is said is captured as part of the public hearing. 739.

Yes, currently right now, the city has a bolder memorial selected and 1 of the city counselors will be working with a local and great for a company to make sure this memorial on the folder. I actually has a question for you.

Whoever can answer that link the smaller the poll, smaller the flag I would imagine. Yes. And is it improper to put a small flag on a very tall pole? Yes, it's disrespectful to patrons and the U.S. flag code.

Because I know that would reduce the amount of flapping noise. It's a math thing. Yeah, so depending on how high you have the pole is how big the flag has to be. Correct?

Yes.

Sorry. Good to know.

Brandon, I'm sorry, what would be the size of the slide that would go on a 50-foot workforce?

I don't have that answer for me. I can bring that back to you in a few moments. I know we have some dimensions for the 70-foot, but I don't have anything on the 50-foot.

Okay, that's open. Can I add something I just mentioned about the noise? um so i mentioned the alternative nylon polyester is supposed to be like 40 less loud material right so if there's something that you guys want to have some numbers brought back on that then you know that's something you know okay okay um you've got information on frank proportionality to polo light yes uh 50 so

A 50-foot flagpole would be a 10 by 15. A 60 would be a 12 by 18. And in our case, the city asking for a 70 would be 15 by 25 feet.

According to the AI, a 50-foot flagpole can do an 8 by 12 or a 10 by 15. A 50-foot flagpole.

I'm looking at a flagpole website, not January of AI. This is AI.

So there's going to be a minimum, but there's going to be a little bit of a range, too. Correct. A little bit greater, a little bit better. OK.

According to AI, 8 by 12 is ideal for normal weather conditions. Maximum height and visibility on a 50-foot flagpole would be 10 by 15. I'm not talking to a person. I'm talking to a bunch of chips.

And since we've got the hearing open and I've got a hand in the audience, please go and state your name and state.

Procedurally, the applicant should have the final word in their rebuttal. So as long as you're giving the applicant an opportunity to respond after.

I will give the, oh, yes, I will give the opportunity after your response.

Thank you, sir.

I just want to touch that 840 North Adams, Randall Robinson. I look at that part too. I see out my back window and I see out there, I'm right behind the Redwood tree. And I can see where it's at. It's about 100 yards away. It's not a lace to it to see how far it was. And you're right. It just depends on the weather severity, too. There's storm flags. There's garrison flags. There's all sorts of different flag sizes. So if it's a stormy day and it's really going to start whipping, you put a smaller flag on. So there's some flag etiquette to it flapping in the wind also. Just wanted to clarify that.

Fair enough. So.

May I comment?

Please comment.

Thank you. You're right. Right. But with that comes manpower and is it does the city have the manpower to continually monitor that huge flag and take it up and put it down when it takes at least 4 people. So, because it cannot touch the ground. And we're in a wind tunnel up there.

Yes. A little breezy. Holly, Amanda, do either of you have a comment with regard to wind and the ability to handle both flag raising and lowering? My impression is that it is intended to be up there on a semi-permanent basis.

Yeah, the council directs the administration to work with the employees on all of the objectives of council, and it's not a consideration for the purpose of a major variance.

I have no wind data.

No wind data. Well, we know it's breezy at times, and we know that if there's going to be a storm coming through, somebody will have to go take it.

This morning, it was very windy.

Yes, it was. And you may not be able to accommodate, so there's that. OK. So last word for the applicant? Any final word? No, it was it for me. Nothing from the applicant. OK. So at this time, I'm going to re-close the hearing.

744.

744? OK. Any further deliberation by the planning commission?

One other comment, I guess? A little bit of physics I know. The taller something is, the windier it is up there.

Okay.

I have one more comment. I understand that this is Veterans Park, and so we want to have a Veterans Memorial at this park. But if the city has the opportunity and the funds to put up a flagpole of this magnitude, would it not make more sense to stick it at Joel Perkins Park on top of the hill, where it could really be seen by the entire city?

Joel Perkins Park, just up there. Well, that's not even on top of the hill. You've got to go higher up the hill.

Right, but it's a lot higher up that's Veterans Park, which is down there.

Of course, the whole idea is that park is Veterans Park.

The community has already established that.

Think of it as Veterans Park, Dog Park, and there's a tie-in between not only veterans, but yes, we have our four-legged veterans as well, because you have, whether it's police looking for a contraband, or military looking for IEDs, or search and rescue looking for humans in rubble. They're that side of it. So there's both the human and the furry

all in one shot in that same vicinity so as far as the representation side of things yes it ties in the way that i'm thinking of the layout in my head if there were a memorial at veterans park with a nice sitting bench and there was a 70-foot flag up at the top on joel perkins park you could very easily see that flag from that memorial well there's another thing in this that the veterans

The memorial was proposed seven, eight years ago, so like that, they had a contest.

A young man won the contest. I forget what the prize was. They took a bunch of different ideas, and his was voted the best, so that's how he got to be a veteran.

Yeah. Like I said, with the presentation to the public, but two and a half years ago.

I think we can, we can probably look at Canada, maybe another flight will add another date of dental person veterans memorial is.

I get that I think the point I was trying to make is, would it not make more sense to put a smaller flagpole. in the Veterans Memorial Park because it's a smaller park, knowing that down the road we can put a tremendous flagpole up at the top of the hill that you could see from Veterans Park from the memorial. I guess I really like really big things and I really like flagpoles. I think they're very cool. From my perspective, you'd want it at the highest point you could put it at so that the most people would see it. And thinking about the city 50 years from now, like you were talking about, you know, we want our city to be recognizable and people to remember it. And I think it'd be very easy to see a 70 foot flagpole in Joel Perkins Park from 99 as you're driving through town. And I think that could be very cool. Um, I'm not saying don't put a flagpole in veterans park. I'm just saying, if we have this opportunity to put this big of a flagpole, should we not try and get the biggest impact out of it? And that's Joel Perkins park, and that's.

Different than the application, so we'll have to let that one set. And, of course, we can even see by the City Council's own information that's in our packet that the difference in price between a 40-foot versus a 70-foot is, relatively speaking, about a 10% or 12% amount of money. So again, that's not part of the overall decision. The decision, I guess, boils down to, as we have from an option standpoint, we go down the path of 70 feet and take maximum bang for the buck and potentially maximum maximum bang for the buck in terms of flag book maximum annoyance to the public based upon testimony tonight do we choose and go after something a little different do we go towards a 50.8 that is allowed in a public zone with the variance you can get 60. with the variance you could go to 60. so do we go about 50 feet and then apply the public zone even though this the underlying is r2 which will mitigate a little bit but still give us decent value for a buck do we go to the 40 feet that is the counter proposal the council's looked at or do we choose something Different. 90. OK. We'll go in the applicant's maximum being 70. We could go in the public zone at 50. Or we could go with the 40 feet that's also in the packet.

I would be OK with the 50 foot approval, as long as the maximum size flag is stated that we can't get Can't get bigger than 8 by 12.

Or allow the maximum flag size to be that that is appropriate to the flagpole.

There'd have to be a little bit of variation on their base. 8 by 12, 10 by 15.

8 by 12, 10 by 15. Unless somebody makes a 10 by 15 feet 3 inch. Which, you know, it depends upon how the flags are manufactured. There'll be a ratio.

Okay.

It's 50 foot, almost 40 feet above all the residences. I know. Which is a, that's a, that's a, that's a large spike in growth.

A large spike in growth, correct.

Okay.

I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion to approve major variance VAR 2601 at a reduced 50-foot height as adopted in the LZDO public zone and adopt the findings and conditions contained in the STAT report. that the flagpole must comply or meet with all PGO safety standards and setbacks, that the choice of lighting that is chosen should be such that it minimizes scattering lighting to surrounding neighbors and community, that the flag size chosen, of course, will have to vary a little bit based upon weather conditions, And that, where possible, both pole raising mechanism and flag should be selected to minimize noise impacts. There will be noise impacts. And the report of the day, the plan givers should go live 16-20-26. Have I captured everything?

So I second.

Amanda Perry, do you want to take a roll call vote? Commission Chair Kerr? Aye. Vice Chair Belding?

Aye.

Commissioner Maiola?

Aye.

Commissioner Rogers?

Aye.

Commissioner Adamson?

Aye.

Commissioner Kwasniewski?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Okay.

This concludes the public hearing and the four major variants of the ARN 26-01. I would like to thank everybody in the audience for your input, for your time, and I suppose for is not an easy decision for us thank you very much appreciate it okay next up commissioner comments any comments no new comments this week okay i'll save it save it for next week how's mickey i'm done i'm done okay mr building i'm good okay commissioner i'll get here Rogers. I have nothing. Looks like our next meeting will be August 20, 2026. Any information, insights, tidbits as far as what that might entail?

I would like to know also.

So you don't know. So the way it stands right now, it looks like there is nothing on the agenda at this point.

We've not received an application.

Haven't received anything. Okay. And we're not looking at pods.

Scott has a comment. Got him back on pods. The orcas are out in sound.

So, okay.

Do we have any applications for food truck?

No. Okay. Inquirers maybe, but no applications. Okay. Okay.

I move that we adjourn executive.

Amanda, roll call for adjournment. Okay. Commission Chair Kerr? Aye. Commission Vice-Chair Building? Aye. Commissioner Mayola? Aye. Commissioner Rodgers? Aye. Commissioner Adamson? Aye. Commissioner Kosmicki? Aye.

Meeting confirmed. Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it.

Seconded the adjournment. Thank you. Yes, sir. I want to thank you.

Thank you.