Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

clock. So, let's uh call to order the City of Dallas Planning Commission on Thursday, April the 9th. Uh so, staff, may we have the roll call, please? Commissioner White here. Commissioner Newell uh is absent. Commissioner Schulty, Commissioner Banford, Commissioner Kash, Commissioner Grow here, and Commissioner Swanson here, quorum is present.

Thank you very much. Our next item on the agenda is oath of office for Commissioner Carol Hawash. Uh I believe that Benjamin will administer the oath. Carol, if you'll please stand. Smile for the camera. Raise your right hand. I'm left-handed. I state your name. I, Carol S. co-ash do solemnly affirm do solemnly affirm that I will support the Constitution that I will support the Constitution and laws of the United States and laws of the United States and the state of Oregon and the state of Oregon and the charter and ordinances and the charter and ordinances

of the city of Dallas of the city of Dallas and that I will and that I will to the best of my ability ability faithfully discharge my duties faithfully discharge my duties as a planning commission member as a planning commission member during my membership. Thou on during my membership thereon. Congratulations, Carol.

In all seriousness, this is a really great, you know, volunteer effort, all of us here. Uh, so we really appreciate you, your expertise, your knowledge. Yeah, you bet. You bet. Thank you for for sticking around for another term. really appreciate it. So, moving on, uh, approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on March 12th, which is on page two of our packet. Had a chance to look them over. Are there any commissioners that have uh, let's recognize that Commissioner Newell is present? Thank you. The only thing you missed is swearing in Commissioner Kash for her new term. So,

Oh, darn. Terrible. exciting. So, let's let's let's please note that she's present. Thank you. So, approval of the minutes. So, does any commissioner have any questions or comments on the minutes from our last meeting which was on March the 12th? Seeing none, let's have a vote on approval. Uh all those who approve uh in favor first, I guess. Yeah. No one had. Yeah. Yeah. Let's have a motion to approve minutes. I'm not going to do what I would motion. Okay, we have got a motion to approve the minutes. Second, please. Second.

Thank you, Scott. Uh moved and seconded. Let's vote by saying I. All those in favor of approving the minutes from March say I. I.

I. They are passed unanimously. So, moving on to agenda item number five. Uh public hearings. Our first public hearing is a conditional use permit number 2601, West Valley Hospital Emergency Department. So, this is a type three quasi judicial public hearing. This public hearing is regarding property located at 525 Southeast Washington Street. This is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. I now declare this public hearing open at 6:04 p.m. Uh, as this application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law, I read the following statement. the failure to recognize an issue with sufficient detail to afford the planning commission and uh all affiliated parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue precludes appeal to the state land use board of appeals based upon that issue. So please direct all testimony to the record and the applicable criteria that are listed in the staff report or to criteria in the Dallas Development Code you believe applies to the decision. The applicable approval criteria are found in code chapters 4.4.04. At this time, I will ask if any members of the planning commission has a conflict of interest, a site visit, or an exparte contact to declare on this conditional use permit application.

Site visits. But we all drive by it and not as a patient I assume. Right. Okay. So, seeing none, we're going to move on. Well, we'll begin with the staff report followed by questions of staff on the staff report and those are questions from the planning commission. Okay. Thank you.

Yes. Uh, so just below city planner. Um, so I don't have a slideshow for you today. The applicant has provided a slideshow and I did not want to duplicate that effort. So um, we can look at the pretty pictures when it's time for the applicant's presentation. Um, but uh, medical uh, centers in commercial zones uh, per our development code are a conditional use. Um, and so that's why we have the conditional use permit application in front of us. um it sort of came in as a modification of the existing conditional use because they're doing an expansion. Um but there doesn't actually seem to be a conditional use on file to modify. So while most of the focus is on the expansion of the use, um this will ultimately constitute kind of the conditional use permit for the site going forward. So just something to be aware of on that. Um but uh conditional uses they they are subject to essentially three main approval criteria. Um the site has to be uh adequate for the proposed use uh given the size of the site location, topography, access um all those kind of factors. uh any negative impacts of the proposed use on adjacent properties on the public can be mitigated through um applicable code standards or other reasonable conditions of approval. Um and all required public facilities have to have adequate capacity to support the proposal. So that's sewer, water, streets, those sorts of things. Um so in reviewing the uh uh the materials that have been submitted um staff uh find that these these approval criteria uh can can be considered to be met. Um obviously the hospital has operated the site for for a

very long time. So um it would seem it is adequate for the needs of the hospital. um no negative impacts were were really identified um that aren't you know there now and have been historically. Um and then as far as public facilities um there's plenty of uh utility capacity, water, sewer, what have you. Um the applicant did provide a traffic impact analysis um and that demonstrated that the roadway system uh with the proposed modifications that they're looking to do um will still have capacity to accommodate uh traffic. So um it appears they're meeting all of the uh basic conditional use approval criteria. Um now conditional uses are also subject to the site design review approval criteria. Um and so the staff report goes into that as well. Um that looks into does the design of the site um comply with the underlying zoning provisions for how you design sites. Um so things like uh building height, lot coverage, uh setbacks from property lines, um allowed uses based on the zoning, um architectural standards. Um and so the uh the application appears to meet all of those uh standards um with with the exception of uh some language in the uh uh architectural standards for uh window transparency. Um our code would technically call for um what was it? Uh 60% window transparency. um that doesn't really work well with the privacy needs of a hospital because you have the HIPPA the patient privacy kind of needs. Um so

they provided window transparency into common areas uh but have a smaller amount of window transparency into patient areas. Um the development code does allow for um adjustments to that standard um as long as the kind of intent is being met. Staff think that that's a reasonable kind of exception given the circumstances and are in support of approval with that with that adjustment. Um the proposal does modify the site access uh quite significantly. Um and so there is a proposed condition of approval related to um ADA accessibility uh with regards to changes to the inter intersection with the traffic signal. Um and then uh as far as parking um the the hospital campus as a whole has quite a bit of parking. Um there's no real minimum that's specified in the code for medical centers. um it's based on an individualized review of the needs of the facility. So the applicant has provided a parking analysis that shows that what they're proposing to provide will uh be sufficient for the need of the site. So, um with that, um staff believe the approval criteria have been met and are recommending approval um with uh conditions of approval uh related to uh uh ADA ramps at the intersection and then your typical boiler plate of getting building permits. So,

thank you very much.

Before commissioners, we asked uh Jess if we have any questions on the staff report. I I I feel like everybody was waiting for me when I got here. So, I kind of rushed into this. So, I want to make sure that we finish uh for everybody that's present like how the proceeding will go. So, after the staff report, uh we get to ask a few questions if we have any and thereafter we'll hear from the applicant including members of the applicant team for a total of 15 minutes and we'll see their their PowerPoint presentation and this may be followed by questions from the planning commissioners of the applicant. After that, we'll hear from uh all other interested parties present uh to present testimony on the item before the commissioner. Anyone that commission anyone that would like to testify on this application will be granted 5 minutes. Uh after that, the applicant will be provided uh time to rebut or answer anything that came up during public testimony. After we've heard all the testimony, I will close the public hearing and ask the planning commission to deliberate and then ask if there is a motion in response to this proposal in the application. In this case, the planning commission's decision is final unless the decision is appealed. So, I'm sorry I didn't say that before. I got ahead of myself. So, we've heard the staff report. Uh, commissioners, do we have any questions of Jess? Go ahead, Scott. Thank you, chair. Uh so I yeah I have three questions. Well actually down to two because the first question is there a conditional use approved for the hospital in the past and you answered that question is that there isn't one out there. I was so sort of surprised by that. But I guess that there are past uh site design review and some land use applications that the city has has approved but but not a past conditional

use because I was curious in the packet it didn't have uh any mention of that and I was kind of wondering if we're looking to modify what the past conditions were. But um uh I'm going to jump to my next question which is about the new there's one new access that they're proposing to Lewis Street here and what I just kind of eyeballed it. It looks like it's in close proximity to Washington Street. And we have in part the applicant's narrative that says uh the existing the proposed act driveway here that we have for specifically Lewis uh meets the 50-foot uh minimum separation standard. That would be a minimum separation from Washington in this case. And we also have uh the KDson study uh that says the this axis will satisfy the minimum spacing of um I I think they have it at 75 ft is the approximate distance there. And I just my question is uh the staff agree with that based on how the the code might uh describe how you measure a um the access distance. I just sort of eyeballed it. I didn't see a dimension on the the site plan itself. I kind of know what uh the oh the length of a of a parking stall is on average. So just wondering if you agree with that um statement.

Yeah. So the the standard that we have uh the 50ft spacing um that's measured from the center line of the driveway to the center line of the road.

Oh the road. Okay. Um the road is already I think 80 ft wide. Um so you've got uh that and then the parking stall is going to be about 20 ft wide. So um together it it's uh it's meeting that 50 foot which is um I I you are correct that it's probably not ideal to have a driveway that close to the intersection but the way the code is written it's allowed. if it's the way the code is written that that will suffice. It is close and there are other codes that do measure it differently but um okay the

that's something that the uh planning commission wants to consider changing at some point in the future we can certainly do that.

The other uh question relates to off streetet parking. Page 28 of the agenda, uh, we have the applicant's response to, um, let's see if that's, uh, that's Yeah. No, it is the page 74 there. The Kettson memo uh, talks about um, oh, building improvements project will reconfigure the campus site and parking facilities. Proposed campus will provide 74 parking spaces. um a reduction of 26 stalls from existing conditions. Of these, 67 stalls will serve uh patients and visitors with seven uh on site. They're reserved for hospital site uh staff. And then the sentence that follows, additional parking is available on adjacent lots owned by Salem Health. And so you know with that and and this is also maybe what the applicant can answer to and we have the opportunity for uh questions of the applicant but um I I'm just sort of making a general observation here uh that I I think the um adjacent properties there to the east would be on the east side of UCLO are currently utilized for for parking. Um I guess my question is and maybe more for the applicant is you know there's seven stalls reserved for on on the site and the hospital site itself I would imagine there's more than seven um staff. Um so I I I seem seems to me that we have in addition to the hospital site we also have the adjacent parking that is part of the conditional use. Is it not or is it uh part of

So that's uh an interesting question. Um, so we do have a code that that allows for shared parking facilities, um, including offsite. Um, but, uh, uh, to the extent that the the minimum required parking is per, you know, individualized review, um, is it part of the project? Is it separate? I I don't have a good answer.

And you made a Yeah. And you made a statement that there isn't a use category that calls out a a ratio based on floor area, whatever it is. Uh so that's understandable. It's it's really based on what the applicant provides then and says this is what we need. Um and I I just kind of that that one sentence, additional parking is available. Is that an excess or and this that might be more of the applicant's question? I suppose I would defer that question to the applicant. Okay. All right. So, so I uh that that will be the heads up that I'll give the the applicant and ask those questions. Um thank you.

I have another question about parking since we're on parking. That's okay.

No, you bet. You bet. Go. Um it it seems that we filled up the parking lot with the new structure and really didn't definitively decide andor show where all of those employees who might be important to you guys uh would have to park and how far away that was and where they would how they would get to work in an emergency, especially if that's an ER doctor or I assume there's some for the doctors but the nurses also and it's quite a reduction to the parking and what I've just noticed is that those parking lots are usually full and so is the one across the street used quite a bit not full but quite a bit. Now, the question I would ask is, do we really have a shared parking spot or is there not enough spots? And the other thing I noticed is when they made the change to the entrance, I think it's the front entrance of the hospital that for people with disabilities, it's even farther away than it used to be to get to the front door. And because it already is difficult to get to, it's a question of is that a good idea? I don't know the answer to that, but it is farther away. So that's my two concerns about it. So I don't really have a response to that. Uh but certainly you can ask that of the applicant and they may have some some feedback on that. You Andy.

Um, my question is regarding the the um condition for the ADA ramps. It says for all four corners. Um, I assume that means the and it the applicant doesn't really show that the two little sidewalks out to the curb on the ULO side are ADA ramps, but I assume we're requiring them to turn those into ADA ramps. We talk about all four corners. Do we have any idea what the opposite corners are currently?

Um, so there are ramps there. uh whether they meet current ADA standards um in their current condition. Uh that I do not have detail on. Uh but I do know that uh uh public works has been quite adamant that when you're when you're altering a ramp on one side of an intersection, you also have to alter the ramp on the receiving side of that. Um, and so that would be uh then changing all four corners, which since all four corners are also owned by Salem Health, um, and might be used for access to off-site parking, um, seems a reasonable request.

So, we have the authority to require th all those ramps to be constructed andor reconstructed. Okay, that was my only question. Yeah, for uh two of them for sure will be reconstructed as part of the uh removal of the driveway at the intersection. Um it's just the other two that um are being called out specifically. Okay, any other questions?

I'll just have one. Uh I just have one on the parking issue clarification wise. So there's no for this type of facility, there's no square foot parking spots per square foot. staff count up parking spots so we know how many parking spots are available including the adjacent offsite or across the street spots available. So I did not do that calculation. I don't know if the applicant has that number handy or not. Um but you can certainly ask that of them. Um I know that there was a count of the existing parking spaces on the site. Um, but I don't know about the adjacent parking.

That's something we can ask the applicant. Uh, commissioners, we have any other questions to staff on the report? Okay. Thank you, Jess. Uh, we'll now hear from uh uh the applicant. So, applicant, please forward, have a seat, relax. give you a minute longer than I had before I started. So, uh you you have you have 15 minutes or uh you know as much time as you need that's reasonable to make your presentation. Thank you.

So, state your name and address for the record and then proceed. Thank you.

Hi everybody, chair commissioners. My name is Hillilary Harris. I am a senior planner HHPR. My mailing address is 205 Southeast Spokane Street, Sweet 200 Portland, Oregon 972022. Um, and tonight I am representing the applicant in this conditional use permit. Um, the project team uh concurs with the staff report and all of the recommended conditions of approval. Um, so I'll keep this relatively short and focus on kind of what the proposed um, redesign is for the site. Um, so West Valley Hospital has been operating on the site for decades and is currently owned by Salem Health. Um, as the population grows of Dallas and Pulk County, um, the hospital is needed to expand to continue to provide medical and emergency services, uh, to the greater community. Um, I'm sure you're very aware of where this is at. Um, Washington Street currently has driveways off of Washington and Yuglow and Clay Street. Um, the site's about 2.8 8 acres in size and is zoned commercial neighborhood neighborhood commercial. Um so there's several phases to the proposed improvements. Um two of which are requiring land use and this conditional use permit. So the first phase is outlined in red there and it is the redesign of the parking lot. Um and then the addition of a uh new north entryway. And so it'll add about 770 square ft um at that northern entryway, which will also include a patient drop off area um that's covered from weather and the elements. It'll also consolidate three existing driveways off of Washington into a single driveway that's shown right there on the top and then uh a new driveway onto uh Lewis Street. And then the second phase is shown in blue right there and that's where the actual emergency department is being proposed. Um it'll be about 13,600

square ft in size um added to the hospital and we'll also close the driveway onto Uglow and create an ambulance drop off that will be accessed off of Clay Street right there. And so then this is an elevation from Washington looking into the new entryway right there. Um, so you can see the existing building and then the new portion that's proposed. Um, and there is some again like glazing in that location that you can see. And then this is the new emergency room. So it has an elevation from the north, east, and then the south um in that order right there. So on the bottom is where you can see the ambulance drop off that'll be covered um off of clay. Um, and again, uh, the project complies with all the design and development standards. There's a lot, so I'll just leave it there now for questions, um, on specific elements.

Thank you. So, planning commissioners, this is our opportunity to ask the applicant any questions. So, go ahead, Mr. Schulty. Would there be any interrupt? being small. Um I don't believe there would be. That might be a better question for um the architect if do you or somebody else wants to come up. Yeah. Grab a chair and please also state state your name and your address for the record. Thank you.

Uh Jill Arnold uh 16563 Southeast Lad Milwaukee, Oregon. Um so the question was could you repeat the question again about the emergency service? No the intent is that all emergency services uh will continue throughout the construction of this project. Um that is uh how we uh staged all of this. Um one of the reasons we are also doing the north entry as part of this um so we can keep all uh operations within the hospital um going as they are currently

and chair I would also like to point out I have Trevor Alden Brena and Chip are those all members of your team and they're online and might chime in as well. Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant on this uh proposal? Scott. Oh, my Commissioner White. I'm sorry. There we go.

So, I had asked staff about the off-site uh parking there and kind of looking at and I don't know if you have somebody from the KDson team to to maybe uh address the the parking as as well. So there's kind of a net loss on this particular site that we're looking right now and we've identified that that number and as Commissioner Kawash mentioned there that's across the street there's kind of exist at least observations that parking is currently being utilized and uh and so I I'm just kind of curious here. I know that sort of you know it doesn't seem to me looking at things that you have a parking problem right now. I mean, it's certainly uh there are parking spaces available. I've made my own quick observations and driving by and things like that. And and the old pillbox site uh certainly has a small building and a very wide uh pavement area. And I would imagine even if the pillbox were to return uh in which case there would be a use ratio to apply by code uh that they would be way overparked uh on what they have there and even that site could probably be restriped and for more efficient uh tur parking and even more spaces to be made available. So I don't sense that there's a parking problem. I am sort of curious on how things operate. Uh certainly some of the thoughts here that that maybe uh people are are thinking with a reduction of on-site parking staff. It's seven of them that would uh are mentioned, but I would imagine that there's more that will be operating or working on on the actual hospital hospital site and people having to uh walk across the street. I mean, good good that it's there's some I would imagine some uh oh, some um parking uh signs and things that you

would do to ensure that uh parking is is labeled accordingly for customers and and patients and stuff like that. And that's number one. But I also concur some I think uh Commissioner Schulty mentioned that as far as uh yeah, maybe some of the staff need uh parking spaces that are in close proximity as well. So, I guess it's it's kind of a need and maybe a question of what happens if Salem uh hospital sells off one of those lots, sells it back to No, no, we don't need it. We want to sell it uh to another um private practice or something like that. Uh what asurances does the city have that the parking that the hospital needs to operate will still be there even in the event of a sale? Okay. So, let me let me like break down all your questions. Sure. Well,

so

so uh the the beginning one we uh the traffic department um and parking department at Salem Health did their own study um a continuous count of the utilization rate of parking and available parking spaces within all of their properties which include where the pillbox was which includes uh um their specialty clinic, their Uglow clinic. Um, all told they had the ability to have about including um current state on uh the hospital block itself. They had 290 parking stalls capability. Um, our reduction brought it down to 264. Um the patient visitor parking utilization overall on all the blocks was only 29%. Uh staff parking um at that time uh was 34%. Um I'm sorry was 63% and um and then there was uh an additional 18 uh accessible parking spaces. Uh with the reduction uh we have found that our utilization rates are more than um capable or existing parking areas are more than capable of handling the majority staff parking on all of the diff with the different properties. The seven spaces on the hospital proper are intended for all emergency staff. Um uh and then the rest of it is intended for patient parking. As you know, now patients going to the ED park on the street. And so that was our big intent to make sure that people um that are

actually going to the hospital for emergency situations have the ability to park on the property in within close proximity. Um, as far as uh how to guarantee if they sell uh I don't know if I am the one to um speak to that um since I don't own the property. Is there uh Alden had his hand raised as well. So, however you would like to proceed. Yeah. Hi everyone. My name is Alden Caswitz. I'm uh with Scott Edwards Architecture as well. Do I need to say my address,

please? 1610 Northeast Sisu Street, Portland, Oregon 97212. So, I just wanted to supplement what Jill was just saying about parking and um am I allowed to share my screen? I don't know. I'm sorry, we don't have that capability.

Okay. Okay. Sorry. So, I just wanted to I just wanted to um reiterate that there's kind of two main data points that I think are really um critical to this conversation. So, Jill told you that the parking capacity on all the sites that Salem Health own in the area is 290 stall 290 stalls. So, that's the main campus. That's the specialty clinic to the to the northeast, the old grocery store, and then the Miller Clinic due east um where the pillbox used to be. So those three sites in in aggregate have 290 stalls. the current parking dem demand for all three of those locations for patients, staff, um, physician, ADA, and then there's a few other kind of random things is 140 currently. So there's an inventory of 290 and a demand of 140. So the demand is less than 50% of the current inventory. Now, when we build the ED, we're going to reduce the number of stalls that are available by I can't remember what Jill said what the number was, but it's, you know, 40 or 50 stalls. In that instance, we're going to go down to, let's just say, for keep the math simple, roughly 240 stalls. And the demand is still not going to change. It's still going to be roughly 140. So, I think if I I if I could share my screen, I would show you all this. We're happy to provide supplemental information um to the team so you guys can review the numbers more closely, but essentially the long story short is um we've projected out parking demand need and it's decades, several decades before we have anywhere near a parking problem on that site. So, I just wanted to supplement what

Joel was saying by saying that. Um, and hopefully that that helps kind of uh ease some of the concern about having enough parking in the area. Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Coash.

Um, as regarding the parking, it does help me to understand that the employees have enough parking spots, but you said more. You didn't define that very well. Um, what I have found that Salem Health does on a very regular basis, just watching their history, including their acquisitions, etc., is that they tend to put the employees further and further out from the emergency room as time goes on, and they change the uses of the buildings quite frequently. For example, the building that is Kitty Corner to the emergency room back has been four different things in the last 20 years. So, I'm still I'm still concerned that the parking may disappear as we sell off the pillbox or repurpose it for a different purpose. get rid of the specialty building which used to be doctor's offices and get rid of the um the location that had surgery and now it's administrative buildings and so I'm not totally convinced that we won't have a parking problem later because of sales andor reuse of the properties. The other thing I'm pretty concerned about is the ADA local of people with disabilities that really cannot walk. I have a dad who has two knees that cannot have surgery and he can barely toddle into the building and any increase in the ability to get to that door is really problematic. And I know he's not the only one. So that's where I am

concerned that we want to be as close as we can to the entrance and be sure that we're meeting the ADA requirements and the number of ADA spots we need for the increase in the usage of the building. So that is my concern. I still don't understand that.

Okay. Uh the uh as far as I'll address the ADA parking. Uh we have uh actually put the ADA uh closer to the entrance the way that it previously was. It was flanked with a large drive aisle kind of in the middle. We also have a drop off um that is even closer to the entrance um as well and able to uh handle multiple vehicles as opposed to the one right now. so that you can drop off somebody directly um who has some kind of um accessibility needs. The uh as far as the emergency department itself, as I'm sure you're aware, there is no accessible parking for the emergency department at all. So, this again, we do uh provide a covered drop off for those needing um kind of a a closer walk to it. And then we do provide accessible parking spaces right across from the entry as close as we can with the site constraints to make sure that it is as flat and as stable as possible.

Um then um I'm like trying to think of all the questions. This is a lot. Um, as far as all the other sites, uh, the clinic across the street, so they own actually five, four or five buildings across the street. Uh, uh, we have been doing master planning for the hospital for uh, at least the next 50 years. The intent is not that they are selling off property. The intent would be um that they would continue utilizing their assets. The old grocery store is a good example. That is now the that is what we refer to as when we say the specialty clinic. The what is the Miller clinic across the street still is being uh used as both uh office space and clinic space which was something that we permitted uh quite some time ago. The pillbox is a conference room for the hospital. Um so it's a meeting space. the Yugo clinic um is still a clinic as well and there is no intent uh to remove any of those functions um in any of the master planning efforts that we've done. Um the intent that we as far as we can project out is to maintain uh the adequate parking. Obviously we don't want to uh keep pushing staff farther and farther away. We do recognize the the patients are priority in a lot of aspects. Um so that we are trying to make sure that everything that the majority of the spaces on this block um are dedicated to patient and visitor parking. Um the across the street again it's not very far. I I you're right. Salem does like if you think about it, they're full

campus. There's buildings every end of the um the campus. So, in uh relation to that, all of these parking uh lots are actually within pretty close proximity to the hospital prosper. And by actually adding the emergency department where we are, it actually brings it even closer. So, So follow-up question, uh, when the emergency room is done, the entrance will be on the ULO side and close to the parking or will it be in the back still?

So it's still going to be in the back. Well, okay, let's we're talking off hours. Okay. So, you know how they close the front entrance and they only use the back entrance now. What is the plan future?

Okay, thank you. That does help. Thank you. So, I have uh Chip and Alden with hands raised.

Hi, this is Chip Adavo. Um, I am owner's rep, construction manager for Salem Health. Address is PO Box 3974, Salem, Oregon 97302. Um, just talking real quick to the real estate. Um, I am uh heavily involved uh in acquisition uh as needed for Salem Health and and it is rare um that there is any disposition. Salem Health doesn't trade real estate as a matter of business. And so the acquisitions that have been made uh surrounding West Valley Hospital proper, as Jill um spoke to, it is all part of the the bigger plan. So while I can, you know, never say never in terms of the hospital selling one of their assets, it is it is very very rare for them to do so. And then speaking to the staff parking moving further and further away, that's just I mean it's really it's it's kind of the evolution of hospitals that the more patients you see, the more you want your patients close to the hospital. Um and you know fortunately it's not um you know it's not a a significant distance from uh the hospital for people to get into the building and get to work. And coupled with that, um, when there is a shift change, you have an overlap of the two shifts. So, this the hospital would never be short staffed because of a it taking longer for a staff member to get into the building. Um, that's accounted for in the in obviously the the shift hours, but um, yeah, like I said, we're the the purchases that were made um, the real estate assets, there was there's never conversation regarding selling those in the future. um it's part of the bigger picture um you know frankly 100-year plan that we're working on for

West Valley Hospital and um so yeah I you know I hope that helps. Thank you. So commissioners any other questions for the applicant team on their application including dedicated parking. I don't have a parking question. Okay, that's okay.

But I seem to be Mr. ADA tonight. Um, we talked about the modifications at Miller and Uglow. Um, it appears from your phased construction, you're also going to be affecting the southeast corner of the lot, the northeast corner of the lot, and the northeast corner of Lewis and Washington. are those and we've only really addressed the ADA requirements of the intersection change and the driveway change. Is there a plan for ADA modifications for those other corners I've mentioned?

Um I I don't believe at the time. I mean uh I would have to look at the grading plan. I don't honestly know off the top of my head. uh we would have to do a study about whether or not they are accessible right now. Um but I don't know I I don't see any issue with if they are not accessible um making them accessible. So sorry that's okay. That's okay.

So go ahead. Go ahead. I was just so you're saying we could apply a condition that says all access points require uh ADA upgrades to current uh standards, including to the bus stop in front on Washington Street. Um would would there be an objection to adding that condition to the conditional approval? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any others, Andy?

Yeah, I guess my my I was going to say we may need to modify that to include all affected um corners and ADA potential ADA locations. So, um okay, we can probably do that. We'll talk about that in in discussion.

Okay. Okay. We we deliberate on that later. Commissioners, any other question of the applicant? Commissioner White, thank you. And just uh maybe I should have asked this of staff as well. Uh there is of course an internal staff review. We got one member of staff over here, but I would imagine that uh some coordination with emergency service providers has been done there. Maybe you've reached out to uh the ambulance and fire crew here in Dallas. And uh I don't know if either of you could talk about that. Maybe it's the applicant's turn here, but I just I would like some confirmation. I didn't see anything in the staff report or you know any letter from fire chief or anything like that about signs or even just the comfort level of saying, "Yeah, our ambulances, we've checked out the plan. No problem at all. I hope that they've taken a look at things."

Um yes. So, uh, fire EMS, uh, has taken a look at the site plan. Um, no, no concerns were raised from a fire standpoint. From the standpoint of ambulance access, uh, they they've reviewed the new ambulance bays. Um, it it seems to be sufficient to accommodate the three ambulances that we have. Um, we don't anticipate uh there being a need for more than three ambulances at at one time. So, uh, what they're proposing, uh, seems like it will satisfy the city's needs for the foreseeable future.

And no special signs or signage or I don't want to go down the rabbit hole. That's their expertise on that type of thing. So, and I don't know if the applicant has had separate conversations with emergency service providers to the extent that that um that the applicant wants to say anything as well. We we have discussed uh basically one of the reasons why we have uh the ambulance drop off segregated. We do have it signed as ambulance only. Uh we do have it so that ambulances not only can stack up as uh Jess mentioned uh with at least three but also have a bypass lane so that um there isn't kind of any jams there. Uh we have had the fire department look to make sure that um all access to the hospital um uh for their purposes um are sufficient. So I mean beyond that I mean we we deal with the emergency staff in general for the entire uh entirety of the design. Okay. Um, and so they've been um an active participant in helping us design this to make sure it's adequate for all emergency services.

My name is Cindy Wagner. I'm the uh um uh represent the hospital. Address is 890 Oak Street, Salem, Oregon, 97301. I will just tell you that we pay a lot of attention to signage at um and have always in these projects to making sure and it's very important to us that if you need to get to the emergency department, you know directly how to get there. You may not see all of that on the what you're seeing here. Um but I assume we'll be coming with some sign with the signage permits etc with uh like we've done at the main campus. It's very important to us that if you need the emergency department, you're not confused about where to go. Okay, commissioners, any other questions of the applicant before we move on to testimony? Okay, seeing none applicants, thank you very much. Uh please understand this is a very very important uh uh community asset to us. So we we drill down a little bit deep. You have to understand that. I appreciate that.

Right on. Okay. So, now it's time we will hear from those in attendance tonight who would like to address the planning commission on this conditional use permit. Uh so, uh Benjamin, do we have any testimony uh on the phone that we need to make sure we remember? Uh no callers in the queue.

Okay. So, uh if you're in attendance and you'd like to testify on this application, please raise your hand. Thank you very much, ma'am. Please come forward, have a seat, make yourself comfortable, and tell us your name, your address, and give us your testimony on the application. My name is Barbara Milikin. My address will make it clear why I'm here. It's 577 Southeast Clay Street, Dallas, Oregon. Do you need anything else? Phone number? Oh, that's it.

Okay. And I think, you know, I I'm not opposed to this, but I have concerns and I want to make sure that those have been addressed. That's what I'm doing here. I'm sitting here taking notes. There's a lot of things I don't know. Like what's the old grocery store? Which of those buildings? The Practis one? No. Across. It's on It's It is on It is to the northeast. It's on the opposite kitty corner from Washington and Yugalo. So small. Okay. It's not the not the current uh physical therapy place.

Yes, it is.

That is it. Okay. Thank you. I haven't lived here long enough. I do know about the pill box. And as far as I first off, my understanding is the building next to me uh the big white one is now hospital administration, not uh combination with any kind of clinic. Okay. Uh I'm it everybody. The building on the house on the next side of me is the break room for practis and everything else belongs to practis for the rest of the block. Um, my concerns in listening to this being presented are, um, first off, um, I looked at that, uh, drawing, uh, which I probably left back there, the, um, and I'm wondering about the the turnaround for the ambulance getting in off of Clay Street. Currently, people are parking on both sides of Clay Street and making that corner is maybe going to be a little interesting if you turn off a view onto uh Clay and then make the the UI. Um, and I do know that my side of the street is I'm on the north south side of the street. So, I do know that it gets parked up very regularly. That's a very popular spot. Um, okay. Next thing is that currently the uh the hospital supply stuff all comes in directly in front of my house. So there are Pepsi trucks, shredding trucks, um supply things. The garbage goes out in dumpsters, gets picked up at 6:00 in the morning. I can tell you that. Um and they're regularly used. There's a lot of uh exchange of um uh supplies and trash for the hospital that go through there. There's also currently in the middle of that uh parking lot that's getting eliminated the containers

for the liquid oxygen and liquid gas. And you should see the 20 foot truck try to back in there to change out the oxygen. That's a really impressive show. they they maneuver it off of Uglow currently. So, um I have a concern about how these kinds of um access things are I've had a lot of opportunity to observe what goes on here. So, I'm sharing this with you. I was also wondering about whether the lighting was going to change a lot, whether it was going to get I know sometimes it's really bright down at where the existing um emergency room is and it's not always uh but and sometimes it isn't. So um let's see. Um I'm trying to read my notes here. Um, so I would, you know, I'm in I like the idea of the hospital expanding and I think it's good that we have this in our community. I'm not going don't do this, but I do want to bring some things that might have been missed uh to the to the table. Um, I'm the architects sound like they're doing great, but uh if you don't live in my living room, you may not see this stuff. Let's see. Um Scott's questions about the uh off-site parking were uh that was a particular concern of mine. So, um I'm glad to see that people are looking at at least part of that. That's all I immediately see except that I have a uh my driveway comes off directly across from where the um proposed um turnoff for the emergency vehicles is going to be. and Tuesday, Norcco parked in it so they could unload stuff into the uh administration building. They were probably only out there half an hour or so, but uh they didn't use the

lot. They used my driveway. So, um I would I could use at least some signage. Um and uh I'm not sure how this would impact my situation in general, but I just assume not become a part of the hospital parking lot at the while it's going down. Okay, that's pretty much what I have to say unless anybody has questions for me. So, commissioners, do we have any uh questions for the only residential neighbor on the block across the street? So,

I the noise concern and I I know that I hear more from the fire department than I hear from the ambulances. They're usually only noisy when they have to go through the um Yuglo Miller Washington intersection and they do that with great regularity. But, you know, I knew that when I moved in. However, there's a machine in the hospital right now. I think it's related to cooling that makes this erratic noise that sounds a great deal like you're trying to start a car with a strip starter motor or somebody with terminal and it goes off irregularly and it's loud and I'd like to know that it if they can't solve that one, they're not going to put more in, please. So, that's okay. Anybody want to know anything more from me? It's good having you here and that you took the time. Thank you.

I wouldn't like the 6 a.m. either. No, it's Yeah. So, before that makes you feel any better. Garbage comes to my house that time, too. Great oversized load motors and they back into the driveway there and they So, it's it's a show. Thank you very much. M is there anyone else in attendance this evening uh that would like to testify uh on this application

and no one's on the phone. So I think we've heard our testimony. So now this is an opportunity for the applicant to address the concerns. I did not hear any objections. What I heard was concerns and some questions about uh facility maintenance deliveries uh about uh parking, about accessibility. Again, that across the street from this property has converted over the years from all residential to one residential and that's a product of growth. Again, we're very happy that this essential service is in our community, but when it grows, uh it affects uh the neighborhood. So, thank you. Please.

Hi, this is Hillilary again from HHPR. Um, a couple things. So, there is new lighting proposed on the project site and a lighting plan was submitted. Um, I don't have it in front of me, so I don't have details, but it'll be shielded, so light trespassing will be minimized and not happening on rideaways or adjacent properties. Um, and then I also will say the new driveway that will be going out onto Clay Street will be um, egress only, so it'll only be cars leaving the parking lot. Um, and so cars won't be going in. And then eventually, not with this specific project, but as part of the hospital master plan, the loading will occur where the current um ambulance bays are on that corner of uh Lewis and Clay. So that will become a designating loading area, not emergency um access, not ambulances, but other loading um

so lower left on the on the diagram. So that's specifically dedicated to loading. Yes. Okay. Um and then oh on street parking I think was um also brought up on Southeast Clay. So there won't be parking where it's not feasible on that side of the street um on the hospital side of the street. I don't have details on how far that's going up the block to the west. Um but yeah, you might have more.

Well, obviously there Well, maybe not obviously. Um this is Jill Arnold from Scott Edwards uh architecture again. Um obvious the I keep saying obvious where the ambulance bay or or the drive aisle and the exit the egress out of the parking there. Uh there is a plan not to have any street parking there to impede on the vehicles going in and out. As for the across the street, the other side of on the south side of Clay, we did not have an intent to ask for no parking on that side. Um, we have made the uh the access into the ambulance bay pretty generous. Again, enough so that they can make a turning radius um easier than um than not, I guess. Um, and as Hillary mentioned, uh, it is not part of this particular phase with the emergency department because we're trying to obviously keep the emergency department fully operational until the new emergency department is built. But the old ambulance uh drop off um on the southwest corner is intended to be the the future loading dock area um with the intent to do the very thing of get rid of those really large vehicles from parking on the street as they have to now just because of the nature of the size of the existing hospital and all of their services. Um, so, uh, we we do, uh, intend to address that to try to minimize, uh, kind of that that little bit of a a traffic jam right there. Um, and in addition, that would take all of the uh, not only deliveries, but it would also

the trash and all of that would move relocate to that side of the building as well. So that would that should ease up a little bit. But the bottom right now it's just when the trucks get there it's hard. Cars can't get through the street sometimes especially if there's somebody parked on that side. It's like you have to wait for them to move.

Yeah. anticipating that there's going to be u during construction it's going to be tough but it looks like the plan is addressing the the the maintenance and the loading and offloading of materials and I appreciate that. So, is there anything else? The applicant, this is your last opportunity to give us any information to answer any of the concerns of the testimony that we've heard and also concerns that you've heard from the planning commissioners before we close the public hearing. Mr. Chair, before you I as a follow-up question, I didn't see any lighting uh plans included with the materials that were received. Apparently, they were submitted, though. Is that a clarification there? You mentioned that there's some shielding details and things like that or

Yes, the landscape plan is in your packet. It is landscape or lighting plan. I'm sorry. Lighting. Uh it is page 58. 58. Okay. And is that a photometric type of thing or is it just uh uh it is uh sheet number E1 uh.01 of the civil set. Thank you. Okay, that's I'm sorry. That's okay. Yeah, thank you. That that's that I just wanted that clarification. I I kind of I didn't Maybe I missed it then. No, that No, that's okay. That's okay. I want to allow I'm sorry.

I just Yeah. So, it's part Yeah. Okay. Well, sounds like it's part of the record. Yeah. Yeah. I just want so clarified. It said it was part of it. I didn't recall seeing it, but the staff said it was. So, yeah, the lighting plan is part of the record and has been reviewed and considered by staff in their recommendation.

So, we don't really have lighting standards, just FYI. We we have a so municipal code municipal code does have restrictions on shining lights onto adjoining residential properties in such a way as to disturb the residents. Uh beyond that though we don't really have much code language around sight lighting. So Okay. Thank you. Now I'm going to ask uh uh city council. It seems as if our person that presented testimony uh might like to make another clarification. Would it be okay if I allow that? I'd say you have discretion. Yeah.

Okay. So, it was just that one question. Okay. Go ahead. We'll just take it from there. Go ahead. So the question is types of lighting that will be used on the hospital post new construction. I do not know off the top of my head, but I can look at a lighting plan and let you know what um yeah, sorry about that. I'm not a lighting engineer. True.

Um but I do think the plan does call out specific light types. Um so we could reference that. And I believe you mentioned it was shielded so that it faces down opposed to fading out which is probably more important than type of light. Yes. Okay.

Okay. Let's get let's get back on track here. I'll just say since we're all speaking off the cuff here, I think it'd be a great idea for the applicant team to be in contact and exchange contact information from the sole residential uh uh applicant or s sole residential uh person on on that block just as a as a as a courtesy. So, thank you. Thank you. All right. So, are there any final comments from uh city staff or the city attorney before I close the public hearing?

Before you do, sorry, sorry, sorry. Uh uh it was just recommended that uh as the applicant, we do want to emphasize um that the hospital does feel that there is adequate enough parking on the site and their adjacent sites. and they just wanted to make sure that that is in the record. So, okay. One, okay, one of her concerns was the noisy machine. I didn't hear you address that. Is there any chance that might be a that may you guys can figure it out? That might be it is.

Yeah. And I don't believe that that's applicable to this conditional use. That sounds like that's a a current condition that might be addressed uh aside from this hearing, right? Okay. Comments from staff or attorney? Any? Okay, Jess. Thank you. Okay. I'm now going to declare this public hearing closed at 7:09 p.m. So, commissioners, let's deliberate on this application. Who'd like to go first? Speak to really quickly concerns if we were require ADA on all corners. I think you need to have that would necessitate a receiving end and I don't know all these locations demand that. I mean, it makes sense where it's designated because that's where the pedestrian traffic flow will happen. So, I would have concerns requiring that if we have that as a condition.

Thank you're concerned if we require it or you're concerned the locations aren't necessarily in a receiving position on all sides where it's indicated seems like it makes sense because that's where pedestrian flow is. I believe Chase, if I remember right, you said that it's public works usual procedure to if you modify one side, you're required to modify the receiving ends as well. Is that correct? Generally, yes. Okay. And is that something we can require?

Um, yes. With the caveat that uh if if something is already compliant with ADA, then you would not be altering it. Yeah. There's no point in I mean it already meets it. Yeah.

Okay. Commissioner Schulty, my understanding. Sure. Isn't ADA all the rules federally mandated? We have we have architects here. Aren't they don't they have to follow federal code? Why does the city get into that? So, um, there are different sets of standards for buildings, uh, versus public right of way. And so, that's kind of where the city gets into it. The, uh, because the the the ADA's situation that we're talking about is on the public right of way. So, the architect, they're required to make sure that the building is ADA compliant. Um, we're looking then at the site connections outside of the building in the public right ofway. So, it's it's two different sets of code. Um, and one of them is outside the architect's usual uh purview.

But the the local is that based on federal code? Is that Yes, they're they're all based on the the federal standards. Yes. So, there's no there's no option available here to meet the city code, whatever that is. It just needs to be met, right? We we don't have to specify anything because it has to be met. Specifying is the locations. The actual physical requirements are federal requirements.

The the triggering of the upgrade is sometimes uh less than fully clear. Um that's why ODOT got into that lawsuit and and lost uh because they weren't doing ramps when when they apparently should have been. So um it's not entirely clear that they would that the project that we're looking at would automatically trigger any sort of right-of-way upgrades. Um but because it's a conditional use permit, you do have certain authorities to require things um in order to be able to adequately support the use of the site. So

it's like just to just make it clear in my own mind, there are ADA standards for on-site and for new development and then there's also ADA requirements for public rights of way, streets and sidewalks. And we're kind of talking about both. both. I want to make sure that we're not interchanging them, but yeah, they're they're all federally mandated and it is the jurisdiction's responsibility to make sure that they are built up to those federal standards when new development is proposed.

And and the city does have a uh a reimbursement program for sidewalk repairs. Um, so it wouldn't surprise me if uh at least some of that is eligible for reimbursement from the city's public works department. And actually it's it's existing development. Also, this would act more like existing development. ADA is required anytime you move a wall or you do specific things when you do an improvement and especially if it's above a certain percentage. Um, I don't know what the current standard is. It used to be 30%. This is obviously above 30%. So, um I think it's pretty clear that it does apply triggered. Yes. In spite of the fact it's an existing building. Got it.

So, what is the bottom line to that? Is there a another requirement that needs to be put on this a condition or we're okay? What's our opinion, commissioners?

I I don't feel that we have, you know, there's a building code requirement for ADA. I've seen it many of times. I think fellow uh planning um um staff person has have seen that as well. So so there's a required number and as commissioner Kawash mentioned that sometimes it's triggered with an improvement a certain percentage and we've seen it. So um I'm not um too concerned about ADA. I think that the applicant has probably taken a look at the building code and applied the numbers accordingly. Um I do see, you know, the circular area allowing for drop off of um somebody who might be um in in a wheelchair or something like that. So I'm I'm pleased with the addition of the circulation there enabling somebody who can drive, drop off somebody, then park. Um I did that actually this morning at different for my mom. Um so yeah, I'm pleased to to to see that. Uh I I know we're talking about ADA. um welcome um other thoughts and but I have other things on parking that I'd like to talk about too.

Okay, so we're going to move on from ADA unless anyone has any. So go ahead, Commissioner White and continue with your comments.

Uh let's go back to lighting here. We've received u comments uh some concerns about lighting and uh lighting is something that the applicant has admitted to new lighting and the applicant has admitted that there will be shielding of the light source uh as a conditional use. We can evaluate the the impact of the use and the applicant has said hey this is something that um we're we're in need of obviously that's lighting is important for the site. uh the this commission has added uh conditions that uh are are easy to achieve. I'm going to kind of give you I just sort of wrote down something that um as a as a former staff person I have written this condition that says lighting shall be shielded in a downward manner so that the light source or diode cannot be seen from adjacent properties. And so that is kind of one of those conditions that would allow adjacent property and it's very achievable for applicants to shield the light source. It's not you can still see the illumination. There's no question about that. I'm not concerned about the light type. It's going to be LED. Uh LED is the the new standard that's out there. I haven't seen a lot of of H hallogen or any older type of of bulbs out there. Could be, but it's really shielding the the source of the light. That's the intensive part and it's very achievable in today's uh lighting that that's out there. Um I am uh concerned uh again I stated uh here that uh I'm not concerned about the parking being a problem uh with the three properties uh you have a lot of open area a lot of asphalt and I I think that there can be a uh some restriping of especially the billbox site as I I mentioned but that's not really been presented here. Um, I would

be concerned if that property, although it's owned by the same owner, uh, Salem Health, uh, I would be concerned if there is a future sale, uh, of that property. And what I'm kind of thinking about is just a disclosure statement, uh, a statement that would be subject to review and approval by the city attorney prior to the city issuing a building permit. and it's just a disclosure to to a potential buyer. Uh that's a lot of latitude there. Um but that's one of the things that I would uh recommend. Um we also had some testimony along the north side of Clay Street. Uh this is I guess open for parking right now, but there was concern about some of the delivery trucks and uh I'm okay if this is a tough one. Uh to the extent that uh uh I don't know to the extent that that's a problem. Um but uh uh signs could be placed along the north side of Clay Street prohibiting parking. And I don't that's one that maybe feel get some feedback from staff on. But that would be um another thing another thought for a condition of approval.

Isn't the shielding already in? It's not stated as a condition. We have only two conditions of approval in the staff report. Uh and

why would it be a condition if it's specified? So, it's one of the things the the way that the condition was fashioned. It would be the neighboring property owner that could say, "Uh, well, yeah, they they put the lighting in. I can still see it. Staff would go out." The the there are controls on conditional use approval. The city can revoke conditional use if it's not uh in compliance with conditions. And uh so it would be a matter of the applicant the neighboring property owner who who has testified saying gee there's a lighting issue right now. There'll be some new lighting and it would be the light source uh again not the not the illumination level but just the source that uh seen from adjacent properties. So that's would be that would be how the condition that I that I would propose would be stated

ect. So the surrounding zones are what commercial retail commercial type zoning. Is that accurate? So the uh zones to the to the north um across Washington Street are high density residential. Um the zone to the south across Clay Street is uh neighborhood commercial. as is across uh Yugo is neighborhood commercial. Okay.

Clarification. Our sole residential land user on Clay Street is in fact zoned commercial neighborhood even though it's used as a a a residence. I believe so. I know it's for sure it's comprehensive plan commercial. Um, I think the zoning map matches that, but I believe you're right. I'm asking for clarification. I don't have it in front of me. I'm looking at the zoning map back there, and I really can't see it that well, but I think it's all pink on the south edge from here. Oh.

Oh, is the property have a number on it? Yes. 547. I'm 577. So that must be the place next to me that's being used as break room. Okay.

Okay. Okay. So, back to our deliberation. Commissioner White has proposed two additional conditions. One is to clarify the shielding of new light sources on the property. And the second is to require a uh uh legal language applied to the property across the street in case it should ever be sold that the new property would understand that they have parking obligations to the hospital. Am I correct enough?

Correct. Yeah. I and I don't see the need necessarily to put a put a number as the analysis there. We've already had staff say there isn't a codified number or anything like that, but we do have the applicant acknowledging that yeah, it will be these these properties will be utilized. Um so we're still in deliberation. So commissioners based on that that's been proposed to us. Are there any other uh is there any other deliberation or discussion we'd like to have before we move towards a motion? Is there any questions or concern for Commissioner White's uh proposed additional conditions?

To to further it I feel like staff has been thorough in the recommended conditions. I don't feel that additional those conditions are necessary. Personally, I agree. Including the fact that the person that does the 100red-year plan says that there are no sales being considered. So, that's like that's enough. That's enough for me.

Um, I got some confidence with the fact that they said they had a 50-year plan and they had looked at all of the usage for all the buildings. And because they had changed so much in the last 20 years, I was worried about, okay, well, you might still have the building, but what's going to be in the building and how is it going to be used and will that affect parking? But because you have a 50-year plan, and I think that that shows an intent to continue to use that building for if not physical therapy, some sort of hospital patient activities, that may mean that we still have the parking available. So, I'm a little more comfortable. I also have confidence that the current practice in lighting is to make it the source be shielded and they want to be good neighbors. I think that's sufficient with me.

Okay. Well, again I this is serious deliberation. This is an important community asset and changes expansion of that asset are why it's under consideration tonight. So is there any other deliberation before I ask which I am asking now would anyone like to entertain a motion on this conditional use permit application? I don't think we decided whether or not we were going to have all corners ADA accessible or not. I guess. Does the current condition meet your interests? I believe it does. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That helps.

Okay. Scanning the room. Scanning the room. I'll make a motion uh of staff recommendations. The conditional use permit application approved with the conditions stated in the report. Second. Okay. So, we've had a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner White, are you comfortable? No. You're not comfortable? No. But that's okay. I'll vote no. Okay, that's fine. I've heard the commission. They've said no to my added conditions and that will be my answer is just to vote no. Thank you.

Thanks for clarifying that. So, we'll now vote on the motion. The motion is to recommend uh is to approve the conditional use permit with the staff recommended conditions. So, let's have a is and that it's been moved and seconded. I think I've handled that correctly. Let's have a roll call vote on this. So, yes to approve, no to deny. Commissioner White, no. Commissioner Newell. Commissioner Schulty, yes. Commissioner Banford, Commissioner Kash, yes. Commissioner Grow, yes. Commissioner Swanson, yes.

So, the motion passes. An order reflecting the commission's decision tonight will be mailed to the applicant and all participants of record within 10 business days. So, thank you very much. I recommend that applicant team exchange contact information with our local resident there and also I would also u just adjacent to this issue uh let's take a look at whether that one residential use that's being used for a commercial purpose that's across the street there might not need to be addressed and it's not relevant to this But I would just just say that. So, thank you folks very much for coming in and uh again, if there's any

putting up with this.

Okay. Thank you very much. We're going to continue with another public hearing on another matter. Ma'am, if there if you have any further questions or need clarifications, please contact uh just Belaloo, our staff planner. Oh, well, again, that that can be sorted out and you can certainly uh Yeah, I'm pulling it up on the Google Maps right now. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, man.

I remember that. That's an interesting block because we added a couple. We sucked a couple more when the medical clinic came in. Three.

Okay. So, let's move on. Uh our next public hearing is legislative amendment or legislative uh amendment 255. This is a continuence of a hearing that we heard the month before last I believe uh if I'm not if I'm not correct earlier this year actually it's from 25 so late last year. This is a continuence of a mixeduse zoning designation update to the Dallas development code to define new land use categories uh mixed use and to specify allowed zones. So I want to make sure that I handle this correctly in the continuence of a previously convened public hearing. Have I handled that correctly and legally? Is there anything else that I need to do so that we can proceed? We're good to go.

Okay. So, let's I'm going to go through the script for uh uh the legislative type 4 public hearing. Uh it's regarding legislative amendment for uh zoning new zoning designation mixed use. Uh I continue the public hearing now. Uh the application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the commission and interested parties an adequate opportunity to respond each issue precludes appeal to the state land use board of appeals. Please direct all testimony to the record and the applicable criteria you believe applies to the decision. Applicable applicable approval criteria are found in the staff report. Uh we know how the hearing goes even in a continuence. We'll have a staff report. Uh the city is the applicant. Uh so we will ex anticipate that their testimony will be included in the staff report. Anyone else that's interested in presenting testimony will have an opportunity and after we've heard testimony, we will close the hearing and ask the commission to deliberate. Uh in this case, uh it will be a recommendation to city council for final approval. This is a legislative amendment. So in this in a type four public hearing, our our responsibility is to make a recommendation to our elected officials who will make a final decision at a later date at their own public hearing on this. So Jess, let's have our staff report, please.

Um, yes. So

I'm sorry, and make sure you give us a little bit of background as to where we left off last time and catch us up to today. Yes. Uh so the last time we were here uh I brought you a little bit of an overhaul um from the uh consultants recommendation. Um and there were several items that uh the the commission uh was wanting to see changed as part of the review. And so uh the proposal which is attachment C in your packet beginning on page uh 100 um is that revised uh language uh that was requested by the commission. Um the one thing the commission did not uh come to a resolution on at the last uh uh meeting um is the question on page 104 where there's two options that are highlighted in yellow. Um there was discussion of the benefits and disadvantages of those two approaches. uh but the commission did not ultimately decide which of those two approaches you wanted to pursue. Um they are mutually exclusive. So the final language will need to be either um option one, option two or some third secret other option. Um but uh otherwise I believe uh this captures all of the uh changes that the commission had discussed at the the previous uh hearing. So um if there are things that I missed, I apologize, but I I tried to be really thorough on it this go around. So,

okay. Is that it? That's Yeah. Is Is there any detail on Sorry. Sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry. I I I guess on some level I was uh expecting that someone was going to remember and it wasn't going to be me. Um I I I and I see I I did all this like a month ago, so I don't recall exactly all what it was. Um I know we had some language around um uh updating the table that's on on page 100. Um and so we have we have that update that was done. Uh there was additionally uh some language that was updated. Um I believe it was under uh section 2.650 650 with regards to um the uh the the the transportation uh aspect of it. Um yeah, otherwise yeah, it was it it wasn't a lot of changes that you were wanting to see from the last one. Um there was a lot of discussion, but it didn't seem like there were a lot of changes. It was mostly tied to kind of what what triggers the uh the mixeduse zoning, what the what the uh uh you know, people might be able to apply for that. So that's why we changed uh the table to 120. Um yeah.

Okay. Well, thank you. U so commissioners, uh the record's still open. The public hearing is still open. Do we have any questions of staff on the update provided for us this evening? Continued from the last time. And when was that hearing, Jess? It was what, two months ago or three? Yes, that would have been the February hearing. Okay. And then before that, we had a hearing in December. So, we've been having them basically every other month. Okay.

And uh respectfully, it would be great if we didn't have to have another one in June. Well, uh, and I missed one along the way. So, I just wanted to make sure that we're all caught up and I want to make sure that all the planning commissioners are comfortable. So, any questions before we close this and deliberate um or do we want to have discussion and keep it open? Again, it's completely at our discretion. So,

so, um, I I will comment, um, we did, since there's no one here in person to testify, uh, but we did get a phone call from someone who has property in the mixeduse, uh, zone area. Um, and they expressed a desire to be able to build duplexes on their property. Um, similar to the duplexes that were built on an adjoining property. um the way that this language is written, uh residential is only allowed in conjunction with a commercial use. So that's not something that would be possible with the proposed language. Uh whether that's a concern to the commission or if it's just

too bad. Yeah, that's I was going to say that's Did you get a follow-up email or anything like that? I did not and I specifically asked you're not dropping a name or anything like that. So yeah, consider it if it's well I mean you can certainly consider but it's not testimony testimony that they could anecdotal uh uh information that we can use in our consideration

the main issue here tonight the one on page 104 yeah if you would be able to come to some kind of uh decision on that um that would uh clarify for me which direction we're going um because that's that's the only part that I see as being kind of outstanding at this point.

So, we're in the hearing where we ask staff questions. I don't necessarily have questions other than a comment, I guess, because there is, I think, some flexibility in a mixed use um if you're building um apartments to not be required to do commercial retail. I understand in certain situations, locations that is desired, but to insist on all locations wherever it's zoned that way could be hindering of development potentially. So that would be my only comment. Not necessarily that I would suggest changing it, but it does add difficulty in some scenarios. So, you're saying that uh what I'm hearing is that uh mixed use in your opinion doesn't necessarily require every single property to be mixed,

right? It could be mixed use with maybe offices not necessarily having like commercial retail ground floor. I see some version of flexibility that allows some options in development rather than necessitating ground floor commercial. would be of the opinion that that would be the intent of mixed use. So, yeah. Okay. Any other questions?

We were leaning heavily towards option two on page 104 because we were worried about um the names being stated in the record and therefore wanted to go to something that was more generalized. But I'm working from memory of two months ago. So and again uh this language would be specific to the lock real node. So that's why they're called out by name. Correct. Uh because it is specific to that general area. Um so if there were future mixed use nodes designated elsewhere in the city that would be a different chapter. So it wouldn't be subject to this language.

But I mean it's under the provision for the Lriel node. So I think it limits it up above doesn't it? Yes, that's what I'm saying. Yes, that's my memory, Carol, as well. Option two and option two was the uh was the recommendation from the consultant. I just note that it is it is opposite of the language that we have for the barberry node which is essentially option one. Correct. and also also kind of the Wyatt node as well. So

So we're giving more flexibility which is certainly uh something that could be entirely acceptable. It it's really kind of up the

from the from what they showed as the concept. They almost need that to do kind of what they had envisioned. So maybe more flexibility in this case could be a good thing to the design. I think reading the two options, they're directly opposed to each other. Option two says the only place you can have a vehicle oriented business is Ellenale or Kings Valley. Option one says you can have it on those other major, but you may not have it on Kings Valley or Ellenale without a variance to your point.

So, so they're completely opposite. So basically what we're talking about is do we want more accesses onto Ellenale and Orchard or do we want to remove those and put them onto other roads so that all that traffic has to come through somewhere else and hopefully get onto those roads on a signalized intersection or a better intersection. Yes. How does that would be the preferred that's that's my feeling.

Well, okay. We're we're asking questions now. So, I think we're in a position where we want to close the public hearing and then deliberate on basically what our choice is here. Option one or option two or a third option. Is there a third option that we'd like to discuss before we close the hearing? We'll be here in June if we do. Well, you can always not specify anything and and allow the city council to make the decision.

Well, no. If if you were to specify nothing in this area, then it would just default to the standard uh rules that we have uh for any property in the city in terms of uh access spacing or whatever ODOT would permit since some of those are their facility. That's kind of the driver anyway honestly. But I can see why we want to have more flexibility inside. Thank you Andy and Tori for pointing that out to me. Okay. So, Benjamin, we still have two callers online. I just wanted to let you know before you close the public hearing.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Uh, so do we have any other questions of staff before we go to move to testimony? Seeing none, uh we've heard the staff report, which also suffices as the uh applicants testimony. Uh we've asked our questions. Uh so now uh we'll hear from anyone in attendance tonight who'd like to address the planning commission on this item. We've got a couple of folks listening in on uh electronically from offsite. Would either of those folks uh care to testify uh on this matter this evening?

We are now down to one. Uh Alden, uh did you have testimony to provide? Are you still with us? Okay. Well, hearing none, then we have no one in attendance to address uh with testimony. So there's nothing to rebut or any questions for that person. So are there any final comments from staff or the city attorney before I close this public hearing? No. Right,

Jess? Okay. So, without objection, looking around, uh, without objection, I declare this public hearing closed at 7:43 p.m. So, let's deliberate and, uh, focus in on making a motion to recommend or not recommend this uh, legislative amendment to the city council. Who'd like to start? have more flexibility with option one than option two. I think that was the direction I was going. Um I don't know how other people feel and I'd like to hear but um seems like that maybe where we want to go.

My question would be is this here specifically because I guess it was the consultants making this proposal asked for option two. Is that's why that's even an issue here?

Um yes. So the uh consultants in their proposal suggested option two. Um the language that we have for the other two uh mixed use nodes uh is closer to option one. Um yeah and of course you would always have the option of not specifying anything. Um in which case it goes back to just default uh language in the code or you could specify something different. uh no no access whatsoever. Everyone has to use jetpacks. I don't know.

Well, I guess my concern is I have zero basis on which to uh contradict a consultant who does this for a living. And I don't know procedurally what to do with that. But it seems they did that for a reason. They do this for a living. If we don't know what that was, I guess if to get this thing to move forward, the third option would be to just just to remove this and move it forward. Do you want to go back to the consultant anyway?

Well, that would Okay. I'd just like to say that if we were to recommend option one, it would also include the ability to um allow what the consultant asked by class B varants, which means and I think the reason that that I like option one is I agree that it's more flexible. It allows more potential uses getting big um automobile oriented businesses other than right against the main two highways that we have. Um and if somebody, you know, if we do option one and if the council supports it and if someone absolutely, you know, can find a piece of property adjacent to Ellenale or uh Kings Valley Highway and they want to go through a variance, then they can do it and we can judge that on its merits. Um it just seems like keeping traffic off of those or accesses directly off of those two main arterial streets uh is a good idea from my point of view. And also the additional flexibility that more of those other properties mixed use uh in the node can be in the lock node can be used or potentially used for for larger businesses. That's all I'm saying. My understanding of this is that um when we speak to automo automobile oriented uses because we're talking mixed use so it's going to be higher density. So it's intended to not have drive-throughs and those type of things. So the suburbia type development is what I understand

this to mean. And so I would kind I mean access points off of um the main roads. Ellenell knows I mean that's not preferred but the type of uses where you'd have a drive-thru or a pulloff seems like a better fit off of those type of roads versus trying to bring it into the mixed juice where you're trying to have more downtown style density without the suburbia drive-throughs. So in that understanding I would lean towards what their recommendation was with option two. I it seems to me that automobileoriented businesses is things like a big box store or a large grocery or something that has a lot of vehicles going to it as opposed to one or two regularly. But that's my understanding of automobile oriented, you know, a lot of, you know, regular interactions on to that major street, which is why I'd rather keep things like you're talking about off of Ellen or Orchard.

Yeah, driveways on to those streets are problematic. And I I don't know if I read that necessarily in here. I feel like maybe those are intended to be where they are now. Safeway and other parts of town, not necessarily around mixed use. I read this more as trying to steer away from that type of development around this part of town of this node trying to focus on it being mixeduse higher density downtown type of style without the I read it more as drive-throughs pullins those type of things that are suburbian car oriented moving those to other parts of town and not in the node but that

we have a definition of automobile oriented general commercial uses. Uh, we do have a definition. Give me a quick moment while I pull that up.

Side is down. So, let me grab the paper copy. I think we agree. I'm in the same place. It's just I don't want to see them in the note either. we can have this discussion if we don't understand what the term is defined as you know our our discussion is somewhat mute that was exactly what I was worried about is okay do I really know what this means I think I do oh boy

one of the things you know we don't have the consultant that is the architect of this uh and that's unfortunate that maybe the contract with the city went so far and ended at the public hearing level. It's really a shame. It it really something that you should have a a consultant come up and say, "Well, I put these two options or third option here uh for the following reason and here's the advantages and disadvantages of one versus the other." And so what's left is we get to speculate and kind of well, how many axises could go off of Ellenale and Kings Valley Highway and all that kind of stuff. It's not a good thing. And certainly ODOT gets uh if it's their uh maintenance responsibility, it's their standards for access and any city standards on an arterial type of thing. It's it's ODOT's and they always have it and uh their their priority. So I know I know what ODOT's recommendation would be. Option one uh on a safety uh matter. Um, hard to argue that, you know, safety kind of tops everything. That's that.

Yeah. But ODOT is the one who turned down the stop sign that we were going to put in right near that same start of the subdivision because they didn't want another stoplight, which would have been safer because then everything would have slowed down. Oh, I and I've dealt with ODOT many a times as a staff person and John has too and and so I I'm not saying that they're always right, but I I understand the fundamentals of it especially got to keep that flow going on the road and and I've seen too many incursions uh pe you know driveways where I guess you have to at sometimes they'll honor that if that's the only access available off of a arterial but sometimes that's pretty bad and so I I in good conscience this I can't support two and looking at it just in this verbiage without kind of looking at it from a site plan point of view how many how many properties do we have what's the worst case scenario that kind of thing so um yeah if we have to come down to a choice one would be mine but just

yes did you find it yes uh so automobile oriented development is defined as development in which the site layout and design gives preference to automobiles as the primary mode of transportation generally discouraged in all residential areas and in the downtown. So that would be street big parking lot Home Depot in the back. Yeah. So the building orientation would be to the street. You try to enhance the pedestrian flow and minimize vehicle pit incursions. Restaurant would be depends on the type of a restaurant you have as a small restaurant.

Even if had a drive-thru, we'd still have a parking lot, you know, for people to come and also people to walk in and and use. So, I don't know. I to option two with that definition myself. Yeah, I would think the operative part there is gives preference to automobiles. So you can accommodate automobiles without giving preference to

we're just making a recommendation to council and it could be that uh staff conveys I know we want to kind of move on with this. So it is possible for staff to say hey uh three three out of two commissioners wanted uh option one and uh you know we we there that could be conveyed as part of the staff report where the council gets to choose too and I know council will weigh in and not go again with option two preference anyway so prime moot point. So yeah.

Well, if we know that then and we're leaning towards option one anyway, you could say how many people wanted one version versus the other. That might help them, but they still choose option. In addition to your vote to forward it to the the city council, um you could also do an advisory vote um so that the council would know which option had much support. Sounds like a good idea. Well, or do we have the

do we have do we have the ability to recommend this to city council for our elected officials to make the choice between option one and option two? Absolutely. I think we have the responsibility to make our recommendation. But I'm assuming or can I assume that if we recommend one or the other, the other one will be included in the staff report. So the council will see that the other alternative is there even though that was not the one the majority of the planning commission recommended.

So it would be included as part of the record. um the staff report that goes to the city council would have kind of the final language. Um so whichever option you choose, that's the one that would be the attachment to the staff report, but then the record would have the entire version is because we've done multiple revisions. They would see it. It would be buried. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Have to see the minutes. They'd have to dig it. Pay attention to the minutes. Let's not make them dig it out. Let's find a way to show them what we were intending. Is it? Yeah. What are our What are our options?

Well, I think we I Go ahead, John. I'm sorry. Is it reasonable in due process? My problem is I don't know why the consultants said option two. I'd love to understand why that is before we dismiss it because I'm making stuff up. I don't I I really So is is it is there an option to find that out or the consultant's gone and we don't know? And as I recall the consultant was gone the last time we heard it that the contract was closed and what we had was what we had. Yeah. Their contract ended I want to say last July. Um

Okay. Okay. So if we don't have that option and my my view would be if if the consensus is option one just do that because I have no way of probing option two anymore and good good logic has been given for option one. So just do it. Okay. That'd be my view. Okay. Okay. And I I heard Commissioner Gro say that we have got a responsibility to make a decision and recommendation. I hear that. But I also believe that we have a responsibility to present both options to the the folks that make the final decision.

Well, if we are in disagreement, then then that that staff could be there to convey that there was some we were presented two oppos options and and the commission was divided. But if we're not, then I think it might be something simple uh something a lot easier for staff to present to the the council. Well, how many people want option one? Yeah. Can we do a straw? Let's do a stroke. Can we do a poll?

Let's hands up. Who would like who prefers option? Before we do that, I just want to So, we're talking like on option two is what I'm looking at is uh if you wanted, you know, Fred Meyer, you could have Fred Meyer with option to um because it would be on Allenale, but you couldn't have Fred Meyer in the middle in in the node. It Jess straight up commercial is allowed in mixed use or is would you have to have mixed uses of some kind?

So um this section of code applies to the entire node and the node contains multiple zoning classes. So in the commercial zoning class you can do straight up commercial with no residential. In the mixeduse zoning class, you can do commercial or you can do commercial and residential. And then in the residential zones, you can do only residential. So yeah.

So could Fred Meyer would would Fred Meyer be able to be within the commercial zone or would this off from that's what I'm I'm trying to understand. um on the So Fred Meyer couldn't be in the middle is what you're right. Yeah. Could

So if Fred Meyer uh was trying to locate in the middle um then uh the the option one would be preferable because that would not um necessarily allow a direct access to the ODOT highway. They would have to take it from one of the internal streets which would serve the middle. Um, if we're going to go with option two, that really does kind of limit something like Fred Meyer to the edges. Um, because what option two is saying that that's the only place where your Fred Meyer can take access is from Ellenale or Kings Valley Highway. So the roads that go through the middle, they don't have all the traffic from the the FredMyer, which means that the FredMyer then kind of has to be on the edges,

which is maybe that's why the consultants had that as their option. Fred Meyer in the middle of that road with all the traffic there. Have to remember that we're not just talking about something as big as Fred Meyer. We're talking about a restaurant that's primarily served by automobiles. So if we do option two, you can't put a Burger King anywhere but on Ellenale or or Kings Valley Highway. Whereas at that speed zone

where is whereas with option one, there's a lot more flexibility for where those kind of businesses can go. You'll get more automobile traffic going through the roads in there, but at least it won't all be going off of Ellenale or Kings Valley. It's my understanding. I I like flexibility. That's why I like option one. So, okay. Well, who'd like to make a motion?

I would move Go ahead. I would move that we uh recommend this to city council with option one as our choice indicate included in the package been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Discussion on the motion. All of the other changes that are indicated is what the motion includes or just Okay, I understand. The rest is fine. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, I wasn't saying we're just going to give them this, but thank you for clarifying and we're not going to vote on every single line item.

All right. So, we have a motion and the motion's been seconded to recommend this legislative amendment for mixeduse zoning uh and specifying option one uh as on to city council. So that's the motion. It's been seconded. I think I stated that correctly. Let's have a roll call vote. So yes to choose option one for recommendation. No would be the opposite which would or just we'd have to have a new motion or we'd have to have a new motion. So roll call choosing option one. Commissioner White.

Yes. Commissioner Newell. Commissioner Schulty. Commissioner Banford, Commissioner Kash, Commissioner Grow, yes. Commissioner Swanson, yes. So, the motion passes. Uh, the commission's recommendation tonight will be forwarded to the city council for their consideration at an upcoming meeting. Notice of public hearing. Sorry, I'm reading my script.

I'm sorry. Notice of the public hearing before the city council will be sent to all the participants of record. And uh I would just conclude by saying that we w when this is brought before city council, please report back to us and let us know how it goes. Indeed. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. We've got uh a couple of other business items, comments, and staff. Does anyone need a break or do we want to power through? It's through.

Power through. Okay. Moving on to other business and these are items for discussion only. Uh the first one is central business district uses downtown. Yes. So, um the city is looking to initiate a process that would be a code amendment um that would limit uh the kinds of uses that are allowed in the downtown. Uh Tyler, did you want to speak on this or should I or expand because I've heard a lot of room rumors of expanding Okay. Clamping down. There are certain uses we want to have fewer of.

Okay. Good uh evening, good night, however we want to go about this. It's pleasure to be here with you all. Um like introduce yourselves. Oh, Tyler Ferrari with our economic and community development department.

Thank you. Um so like Jess had mentioned um staff has been tasked by the public administration committee to begin looking at potential changes to the allowable uses within the central business district. Um and so we met with the committee and kind of presented our initial findings um to them and based on that discussion they wanted to start advancing um this discussion beginning with you all as the planning commission garnering your feedback and then eventually would come back to you um via a code amendment that Jess will be um writing. Um but some of the additional restrictions that they had talked about within the central business district um were um the following. Um so taking drive up, drive-in, drive-thru businesses from the classification of a conditional use with standards um to not permitted um or conditional use if accessory to a permitted use. um automobile service, which is something like a mechanic. Um that's currently classified as a conditional use in the central business district. Um and then the possible change there is just to outright not permit them in the central business district. Um the next potential use was conditional use with standards for warehouse and freight movement um when not accessory to a primary permitted use. And then the potential change there would be to not permitted in the central business district. Um and then the last um item there was indoor recreation um which is current classification is permitted. Possible change there is to um conditional use um and as you all may remember you had an item for a code amendment related to indoor recreation to make it allowable um in industrial uses. So that's a

direct response to that. Um again encouraging the business mix in the downtown specifically which is where the central business district is to be more um amendable to pedestrian usage as well as businesses that are going to encourage um visitation of the downtown. And some of the feedback that we got through the public hearing process on the code amendment for indoor recreation um was the gyms recognized that you know their their patrons are coming downtown going to the gym and leaving. Um and so we kind of took that feedback and said okay perhaps they are might perhaps in some situations may they might not be the best use for a particular spot in downtown. that that certainly is part of it as someone who um uses one of the gyms downtown. Um and then as part of that discussion um the public administration committee wanted to also um add schools um to that list of restricting their uses. What that looks like, I think that is something a discussion could start with this committee. Um, but

a cat out of the bag as far as schools. We've got three or four charter schools in the downtown core. Yes. But they could always expand or you could get new ones. Oh, so we're worried about getting more is the real issue. Yes. And I think and and I think there's and I think there's two elements of that to where the committee is concerned that these uses are taking what might otherwise be um potential commercial spaces for business. Y

and then there's also the aspect of it is the central business district resides within the urban renewal district. And so when a charter school um or any other type of um non um taxpaying use, so like a nonprofit, government use, something like that, were to go into one of these spaces, that that property is now eligible for a tax exemption, which reduces the increment the urban renewal district can bring in. Um and then further only adds to the issue um once the urban renewal district is gone, less funding for the general fund in the future. Um, so that was one aspect that they wanted to see added from that initial discussion. Um, and so we are bringing that all to you tonight to continue that discussion, garner some feedback from you all, and that's going to inform what that code amendment starts to look like.

Is Tim's Automotive in the downtown? Yes. Yes. Um, so that would so that would be Top Automotive, is it not? That would be that would be one of the businesses that if this code were to change um that that type of business, they'd be allowed to operate as is, but they wouldn't there wouldn't be any permitted expansion. And Jess can kind of talk more about that because they expanded several times. Well, and we were against that, too, expansion to that the new law that they're on and city council overrode our position. So that was my concern too is the committee sounds great. Are members of council on the committee? Any of them?

Yes. So the committee is made up of entirely of uh counselors.

Okay. Okay. Yeah. That's my my question too is I I think something like this is appropriate to screen and initiate as a code amendment through the city council and that the planning commission can be here to to refine. I I echo that as far as you know it's a main streets concept. It's nothing new. A lot of cities have restrictions on various uses in the downtown and very effective at it as well. Um, yeah, Tim's Automotive, I hate to just just point out it is not to just it's not just to drop a name and I but it is one that we've seen. Well, how did the fence get up up there? And and it it doesn't slow people down to take interest in the downtown. it uh it's it's against the the main street concept of of um of planning and restricting certain uses. Yeah. Um I'm I'm certainly in favor of it uh as one planner, but uh you know I I have seen exactly that type of thing that all of a sudden it becomes a matter that uh there there's a different perspective and so I I highly recommend that it be brought to council. ensure that the full council uh that you for initiation and we would just be there to um refine uh I think that that could be our role more so I I hate to kind of bring forth something that council would reverse

well that happens really frequently so I mean I'm kind of sensitive to the fact that city council kind of has the driver as far as trying to figure out what works for the community, the city, the how things work in in our city, in our downtown, and our role is more determining what works, what doesn't work as far as the code. So, yeah, let them go first. Yeah, I'm supportive of it. I've like the idea of downtown uses, but I agree that it would um I'd like to see it come from council rather than make the effort and then have it change, altered or or deleted.

Yeah. Any other comments? Are there are there businesses that are looking to move into downtown that don't have that there's not space for them currently? So, I guess when you read off that list, it seems like that's half the businesses that are downtown.

Yeah. So, um we receive um inquiries fairly regularly from businesses that are looking for space where um spaces downtown would be the right fit for them. Um but we don't have spaces available or we don't have um what's the right way to put this? Um adequate spaces, spaces that are ready to be moved into. Um and so sometimes we will lose those businesses to other communities. Sometimes those businesses will just kind of abandon the idea of a storefront altogether. Um, and again, the the idea here is not to use this as a process to actively push businesses out, but to take the opportunity with the other code amendments that have been made, like with mixed use, like you all have talked about, like with um the allowing of gyms and industrial lands. um to maybe also now refine what we want the central business district to look like in terms of uses, pedestrian walkability, and discouraging uh more auto automotive oriented uses

and how does the Dallas downtown Association fit into this model? So, um I'm glad you asked that. We have a good relationship with the downtown association. Um I sit on their board as an exeicio member. Um, and so once we are at the point of having more concrete language of what the code amendment will look like, we're going to be engaging them and getting their feedback as well. And we'll be making sure that they're sharing it with the businesses, too. That's what I was hoping. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? In selling So, I'm going to go last.

Selling this to the council. I I think it's important to because it's always sort of the business owner angle that comes forth and I'm just thinking this might be something more for the city attorney to say you know they they become a non-conforming use and there are protections under the law for that. they there's nobody forcing anybody out and what that means the protections of the law they could still operate exactly how they're operating there there's no time frame for them to leave the city and sometimes I think that message is not made clear I I there's a heartfelt appeal from certain business owners that feel that they're not wanted uh but I think that that might be kind of a way to sort of sell it that you know, hey, we need to look to the future to certain uses because certain uses may go away and that's the opportunity for the city to look at some uses that are desirable and and drawing people to downtown. So, I I don't know just just a thought there. I would say, you know, we're this is a discussion, so we're not being asked to recommend anything to city council except I am anticipating that city council is going to hear the comments that we made. So, here are my comments. I think we need to apply the Main Street principles to our downtown area. And while it's not a designated historic district, we need to recognize it as our historic district.

We actually are a designated I was going to say, wait a minute.

Well, I mean, but not all of downtown. It's not. So, couch my remarks to say it is it is our historic district. Uh there was a time in Dallas when we would have any occupancy of any of our downtown buildings for any reason. And I think we've turned the corner on that to where it's more of a desirable outcome. Churches are permitted uses as a conditional use in any zoning district. They ought not be downtown. Uh the Tims Automotive, as far as I'm concerned, when the city council overturned our decision to not allow that expansion, they basically permitted a code violation to now be permitted and it's codified in perpetuity. So, anything we can do to protect what's left the remainder of our downtown, it's not like it's going away. In fact, it's becoming more valuable. anything we can do to protect that value for pedestrianoriented commercial activity, we need to support that with everything we've got. And that's that's how I feel about it. Uh we're we're to the point now where we used to be we take anything we could get. Now we're at a point where we're have the luxury to pick and choose a little bit more. And I think that we want to have that discernment built into our code so that we can make good choices for our downtown. We're not making any more historic downtown Dallas. So, we've got to preserve preserve it for its intent, which is the front porch of our community. And that's how I feel about it.

Church and I would also not just churches, charter schools as well. uh you know appropriate for what we've got but I think we need to preserve what's left. I would chime in that uh there are federal protections around churches that would preclude us uh from prohibiting them. So that is the one that is the one thing that we cannot add to the list of things that are prohibited. Just FYI. Don't think I don't know that. Ray Lupa.

Okay, that's Is there anything else that we can give you or is there any other questions for us or any direction? When will we hear from this again? That's a good question. Jess, do you have a timeline estimate on kind of what this looks like based on their comments? Um, so I don't know. Are we taking this back to city council before we pull the trigger or are we just going to start putting some code language together? I don't I don't know that. Um I if I am interpreting all of your comments directly, you guys would like this to be something that is initiated by the council where you guys are advisory role.

Guess that means we go back to the council. So we will if that's the full council or the committee, we'll work that out. But um once we have something with their feedback and their input, we'll be sharing it with you all. Like that approach too because there's a budget allocation to that. We have limited staff. So that's another burden that I would feel if because of course I want to see all these things happen too. But as we mentioned, there's been um contradiction to council preference that way. This way it puts more behind it as far as their support, their financing and then we can have a clear-cut view of staff moving forward and bringing yeah back to us as advisory.

When I worked with the state, one of the things that we really tried to manage was if there were two decision makers, we would try to get advisory from both so that they both have buy into the solution. And I think sometimes we get a code amendment going and we maybe haven't got the buy in from the city council and then they just modify it all and then we feel like well what did we work so hard for and I think that that's a good thing to have buy in and then we know kind of what they're thinking directionally. We don't have to agree with it but at least we know what that is. Okay. I think that's it.

All right. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. Come anytime. Okay. Uh our other discussion item is our an update from Commissioner Schulty on our citizen involvement initiative. Uh I the last time you met with city manager Latt, I was not able to attend. So is there anything to bring before the commission for discussion on that issue, John? Yes. Good news. will be out of here in 30 seconds. There's nothing I haven't heard when that meeting is going to take place with the city council. Probably over the next month. So, let's go.

Okay. So, we will that discussion will be tabled for future meeting. Next gendem, commissioner comments. Any comments? I have one. I am not running for county commissioner. the sign though and put it in your garage.

I am not going to steal a sign. I am I've answered a lot of questions. Uh people know me from a lot of different places in this community and running for public office as a as a committed uh public servant. And uh I I'm not interested in putting my name on people on signs in people's front yards. Unfortunately, that happened and I'm answering a lot of questions about it. And I actually thought about considered putting on the community social media pages, "Hi, I'm John Swanson and I'm not that John Swant and I'm a different guy."

Uh, but I'm even reluctant to do that only because I helped to rescue a pet through the Dallas Lost and Found pet Facebook page. It was very easy. It happened. I posted something. owner was found. I am still getting peppered with comments and questions and nice job. And it's just like I'm just not gonna open myself up to that. So, anybody that asks, spread the word that the John Swanson that is running for Poke County Commissioner is not the John Swanson that is a former uh uh staff person at the city of Dallas or Monmouth or Independence. Not the John Swanson who ran the Sounds of Summer concert series. or the John Swanson that's on the planning commission. I'm not that guy. He's a different guy. I'm a different guy. So, spread the word.

That's too bad. I'd vote for you. Well, I know. And I'm, you know, whatever. I'm staying out of it, but I'm concerned that there may be people that are voting for John Swanson thinking it may be me, but I You do realize that position is paid, right? It's And you wouldn't have to drive to Corvalis all the time. Pay enough. Please don't run. I don't want to be an elected official. That's it. So that's my comment. Are there any staff comments this evening before we adjourn? Nothing for me. Okay. Thank you. So at uh 8:22, I declare the Dallas Planning Commission closed for our April meeting. Thank you very much. will see.