Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

602. Would you call the role, please? Benjamin, Commissioner Grow, here. Commissioner Kash here. Commissioner Newell, Commissioner Banford. Uh, we should be expecting a few moments here. Commissioner Schulty here. Commissioner White here. And Mr. Swanson let us know he would not be present tonight. McCorm is present.

Call Mary. Oh, okay. I'm looking at the line and thinking it was in order, but sorry. Cool. All right. I believe we have Well, wait. We got to wait for Tori to do the oath of office. So, we will temporarily skip to the approval of the minutes. Does anyone have any issues with the minutes that they would like to bring to our attention? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes as read written. I motion to approve the minutes as written.

Second. Thank you. Uh it's been moved and seconded. I don't presume we need any discussion since we didn't discuss that part. Uh we'll just do a voice vote. All in favor say I to approve the minutes. I opposed. Approved as written unanimously. I really don't want to start a public meeting and then have to do the Well, I mean, what what would protocol be? Are they are they not officially if they're not sworn in? We we have a quorum. We can proceed and do them later in the meeting. That would be just fine.

Okay. Then we will turn we'll temporarily suspend that till we get corate Tori here. Make myself a note so I don't forget. I drove to Portland and back twice today so I'm a little ragged. Excuse me. Uh, all right. Public hearing CUP 2510 174 Southwest River Drive daycare approval. All right. I am going to read this uh script so that we can have an official meeting. And I'm going to take off my vest cuz I'm hot cuz now I'm working. This public hearing is regarding the property at 174 Southwest River Drive. This is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. I now declare this public hearing open at 6:05. Make myself a note. Uh, as the application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law, I will read the following statement. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the commission and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue precludes appeal to the state land use board of appeals based on that issue. Please direct all testimony to the record and the applicable criteria listed in the staff report or to the criteria in the Dallas Development Code you believe applies to the decision. Applicable approval criteria are found in CUP25-10. Oh no, that's what this one is. Dallas Development Code Chapter 4.4.040. At this time I will ask if any member of the planning commission has a conflict of interest site vets visit or exparte contact to declare. Anyone want to raise your hands? Seeing none we will continue. Uh this hearing will be conducted in the following manner. We will begin with a

staff report followed by questions of staff. Thereafter we will hear from the applicant including members of the applicant team for a total of 15 minutes. This may be followed by questions from the commission. Thereafter, we will hear from all others interested in presenting testimony on this item before the commission. Each person will be provided five minutes to testify. We will then provide the applicant with five minutes for rebuttal. After we have heard all testimony, I will close the hearing and ask the commission to deliberate and then ask if there is a motion in response to this proposal. In this case, the commission's decision is final unless the decision is appealed. At this time, we'll start with the staff report. May we have the staff report, please?

Uh, you may. Um, hey.

Yes. So, um, referring to the, uh, the site map or the, uh, aerial photograph here on the Google Earth. Um, as we mentioned, the project is over here on River Drive. Um, this site may be uh somewhat uh familiar as we did have a conditional use permit uh application not terribly long ago um to place a church in this building. Um and that project has not moved forward and so they have sought other tenants. Uh and so that's what brings uh this application to you today. uh daycarees are conditional use uh regardless of which zone they are in. Um this is the lowdensity residential zone which does allow daycarees with a conditional use permit. So um the uh staff report goes into some greater detail as to the approval criteria for uh conditional use permits. Um uh the first being that the site has to be essentially adequate for the proposed use. Um you may notice from the uh the photograph of the site on screen that it was previously occupied and signed for the uh Dragonfly Preschool. Um the city did not actually issue approval for that to operate uh there. uh but it did operate there for several years uh without uh complaint. So um it would appear that the site is adequate for use as a daycare uh with the appropriate land use approvals. Um so I I do believe that we we can safely say that the site is adequate for the use. Um the the structure was previously

uh constructed as a church so it does have um large assembly spaces inside of it. Um there are commercial grade bathrooms as you can see there is a uh a surface parking lot there. So um it has um many of the features which would be beneficial to a daycare. Uh the second approval criteria is that the negative impacts of the proposed use uh can be mitigated. Um so staff weren't really able to find any propos any uh uh negative uh potential impacts uh of this of this use. Um so that uh in the absence of evidence to the contrary um that uh that approval uh criteria appears to be met. Um and then uh the final criteria is that all required public facilities have to have adequate capacity to serve the proposal. So um the site is already served obviously by uh water and sewer uh storm drainage. Um so all of that public infrastructure is is adequate for the use. Um it it does not uh appear to generate enough traffic to require traffic impact analysis. Um and so uh in that case it appears that the street network is adequate to support uh use of the the site. Um it the site does uh lack sidewalks along the street as you can see from the the site photo there. um along both River Drive and VZY Street. Um and so as a condition of approval, staff are recommending that uh sidewalks uh be constructed or uh that a future improvement guarantee for that purpose be recorded uh against the property. Uh conditional use permits also have to meet the standards for site design review. And again, the staff report

that's written goes into some uh greater detail as far as that. Um of that though uh a lot of the site design review approval criteria are targeted towards new development and this is reusing reusing an existing site. So um much of the standards that we have in our code don't necessarily apply in this circumstance. Um the uh the the big uh kind of uh factor that was identified in review of the site design um was the uh the parking lot um it does not have the uh required buffers uh surrounding the building to prevent the building from being impacted by vehicles in the parking lot. And so staff are recommending as a condition of approval um that the applicant install uh raised curbs, bullards, wheel stops or uh other such design features um to protect pedestrians, landscaping and the building itself from being damaged by vehicles. Um and the staff report cites the particular section of code that that calls for that to be installed. um otherwise uh the the site appears to uh conform to the site design review um requirements. So uh as a result uh staff are recommending that the conditional use permit be approved um with four conditions stated in the staff report that um all required building permits and inspections be obtained prior to occupancy. um that within 12 months of approval the uh sidewalks and street improvements along River Drive and VZY Street uh abuing the property be installed or a uh waiver of monstrance future improvement guarantee be installed for that purpose. Um within 12 months of approval raised curbs, bullards or wheel stops be

installed abing the building. Um and of course that the applicant shall obtain the appropriate licensing from the child care licensing division of the Oregon Department of Early Learning and Care. So um that is the proposed conditions of approval. Um and that uh that concludes the staff report. Um although while I have your attention I will uh point out that the uh applicants uh application form that was provided um the applicant information has been redacted um on the staff packet that was published. the um there have been scammers that have been uh mining government uh publications for um personal information and uh using that to attempt to extort money. So um moving forward we will be limiting the amount of applicant information that is uh disseminated in order to uh protect uh from scammers. So

Wow. Just FYI on that one. Boy, we get shooting and we got to do this all in one week. Um, does the commission have any questions for staff? John, go ahead. Isn't there a question last time uh for the church about who pays for the sidewalk?

Um, yes. And so the the answer to that hasn't necessarily changed. It's ultimately on the property owner to to see that uh those infrastructure and uh to see that those improvements are installed. Um and so whether the landlord and the tenant uh however they negotiate to to share that cost is kind of on them. Um but to the extent that the uh uh future improvement guarantee um would be recorded against the property if they choose not to install it now um it's it's ultimately on the property owner and if you know they want to incorporate that into the you know the monthly rent or whatever over a period of years that's you know on them to figure out how they want to square that deal. um like likely the PowerPoint would be incorporated into the the sidewalk. Yeah,

two ways to do that. The the sidewalk needs to have a minimum uh clear space of 4T. Um but the sidewalk standard for a collector street such as this would be 6 ft. So that does give them a little bit of space to play with. You had a question. What I guess first is the applicant going to is online or uh it's going to be due for tonight to testify or uh the uh applicant won't be here tonight to testify. Not be correct.

Okay. And we don't have anything in writing from the applicant addressing the approval criteria or all we have is this um it's correct. Yes. Okay. Is it still correct that the applicant's burden of proof is on on this type of thing and this is all you've received? Okay. Did the applicant deem the pro was it deemed complete? Uh, it wasn't clear how much information was necessarily required in order to be able to process the application. Um, so we can't ask questions of the applicant tonight because there there's nobody here. Well, we can approve it and they're stuck with it.

Okay. I I have some questions that I don't think staff can answer. I mean, I I see some background here. I mean, it was news to me on the background that the church uh received a conditional use permit at this location. It's not in the staff report. Uh which would have been a little bit handy just to kind of know some something about all right when was the last conditional use permit uh issued. Um, there's mention of a Dragonfly preschool uh that all right didn't receive uh a conditional use or or a building permit if they needed one uh from 2020 to 2024. I'm kind of wondering, do you know if Dragonfly had a child care license through the state?

I do not know. Um I do know that the Dragonfly is not there anymore. Um I I don't know if they had state uh state licensing during the time that they were there. Um I I don't believe uh the fire marshall knew that they were there either. So um kind of kind of caught us by surprise that they were operating and had been for a while and and and no one really kind of noticed. So is there any concerns any inspections or anything like that? Red flags or Okay. It's my understanding that they got approval but then they never did anything and so the approval lapsed. Is that correct? For the church

for whichever one got the conditional use approval.

Right. So um back in I want to say it was August of last year um the Victory uh Victory Life Church I think was their name, something like that. Um they did get land use approval. um they were ultimately as I understand unable to come to an agreement uh with with the landlord um and so that project uh did not move forward. The conditional use permit for a church uh remains valid for 12 months. So um if if the there's a different church that chooses to move in instead um that that condition that conditional use permit remains valid uh for 12 months from issuance. have an issue if a conditional used was approved in August that if we issue another one, we'll have basically two on top of each other and they can fight with each other over who gets to do it.

Not necessarily. Um, in in this particular instance, it seems as though only one uh tenant would be actually occupying it. Um, but we would also allow two different uses to occupy the building. Um, you could have a church and a dayare on the weekends and the daycare during the week, right? So, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. Okay. I guess while we're on this topic, hang on questions.

I'll ask the city attorney. Is there an issue with approving another conditional use for a different use on the same property while the other one while we are hearing that they've decided not to doesn't mean somebody else could and use that one within the the time that it's active. Is there an issue with doing two on the same property within that time frame? I didn't look that up prior to to I actually forgot that we saw the conditional use permit at the the same site this last summer, but um I don't see an issue off the top of my head. No. Well, you'll get to hear about it if it is. I don't I don't I can't foresee an issue.

Okay, that's good enough for me. Scott, finish continue. Yeah, thanks. But I'm curious. Okay. So, uh did did the conditional use applicant to the best of your knowledge for victory life did it in say anything about a daycare as part of as a component? Nothing. They just had did they have hours of operation to their conditional use to the best of your was then just limited? I believe they did have conditional or uh hours

hours of operation or Okay. Um okay. They didn't say Sunday school or anything like that too or Okay. Well, I follow follow up. How many kids do they This is kind of the mystery package that we're given here. Do we have anything on number of kids and hours of operation? How many days a week? Um

so, um hours of operation are certainly something that the the planning commission could impose as a limitation or a condition. Um certainly if there's concerns about uh you know late hours or whatnot um this is a primarily residential area um which makes it somewhat different than some of the other uh daycarees that we have around town that are in more commercial areas. So um imposing some reasonable limitations on hours of operation would be a reasonable thing to impose if the planning commission so felt that that was necessary. I think on number of kids that even discussion with the applicant uh

ultimately that's kind of regulated by the state um because they have standards for you know amount of square footage per child. So square feet at least that's been the kind of the standard through the years has been that that ratio and that's state does that regulates these things will mandate that and have to

I I'll make a general observation that it seems kind of strange that we're you know conditioning I have a condition that calls for just licensing of the state when I typically have seen applications come forward to the city where that process is underway and maybe some inspe early inspections and things like that and an applicant here to testify and say this is what I'm I'm doing and and addressing. So we and we certainly have had that uh type of application for conditional use for for daycarees. Um

and we do have the the building official here in the back of the room. So it it's possible that there's been some building permit activity that I'm I'm not aware of. Chris, do you know? Haven't received anything. Okay. Doesn't CCL cover all that we're talking about? I would imagine so. So like why is it relevant here? They have to go through that whole process. I don't know why we would.

So my concern is that we're way early in this process. We don't even know how many kids. We don't know if they're going to get approval. We don't know if they're even approvable by the state. We don't have any text. We don't have any person to ask questions. We basically are shooting in the dark. Yeah. I And if you'd like to continue the hearing um so we can hear more from the applicant, certainly that's an approach as well. But aren't we just basically approving the use and putting the conditions on it? Um, we don't know the impact of the We don't know what we have.

We're here to evaluate the impact and we don't we don't know what that is. Actually, we're still doing questions of Yeah, we're still doing questions. Sorry. But but yeah, it kind of and I digress. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, there's a point of order here. We we can just ask questions of of of Chase, excuse me, Chase, I'm so I knew I'd blow it, you know, take us a while. And and for what it's worth, uh you can also ask questions of staff during your discussions. So true. Um okay. The the the procedural question is, you know, do we ask questions of the applicant, then give members of the public an opportunity to testify, the applicant gets the chance to rebut. Um

maybe we go through those motions is what I'm thinking, and then we go into Yeah. Yes. And then we can deliberate and ask major questions. Does anyone else have any questions of stat? Because I have a couple.

All right, my turn. Um, uh, the the second condition says within 12 months of approval, and I'm assuming that's approval of this change. Okay. Um, the street approvements um, or a waiver of her monstrant. Does the city have to concur to do that or could the city say no? If you're going to have a daycare with kids wandering around, we would really need to see sidewalks there. I I understand that a remmonstrance is a possibility, but is that something we want to leave? Is that something we're allowed to insist on being done? And the other question I had is this is technically a school and I believe the sidewalk requirements are larger for schools. Do we have to meet that sidewalk requirement? because aren't sidewalk requirements 8 ft and adjacent to schools?

Um, so in in city code and in development code for the city, we we only have the specification for local streets and for collector arterial streets. So local streets have a 5-ft sidewalk width, collector arterial streets have a 6-ft sidewalk width. Um, and so there's no further differentiation uh with regards to uh, you know, central business district, schools, those sorts of things. I apologize. I'm remembering my Salem stuff. Well, and I think that that's something that will be addressed once the new uh, TSP is updated that we will come back through and make some changes along those lines. Um,

you said these sidewalks are required to be six feet. Is that are these collector streets? both of them. River River Drive is a collector street and so it would have a 6ft sidewalk and the VZ side would have um a 5ft sidewalk as a as a local street and the telephone pole that was in question is on the collector. So that's where we'd have a sixoot. Is that correct? Right. And there are lots of uh places around town where we have uh utility poles and and sidewalks. And so, um, if they're not able to meet the minimum clearance, uh, with the pole in its current location, they have the option to either relocate the pole or to widen the sidewalk in that area to go around. So,

do we know if this is a street where curb line walks or property line walks are appropriate? Because if it's property line walk, obviously can go around it without any problem. Yes. Uh, there is ample right of way uh to install sidewalks. There should be um roughly 14 ft behind the curb in which to install. So they could just go behind it. And if they did that, then they wouldn't have to replace the curb. Is that correct? Okay. If it was me, I'd do it that way. But um I will note that on the VZY street side there are no curbs. So that is they're going to have to construct curbs on that side. Yeah. And probably probably a storm catch basin.

I would think so. Okay. Um and then um you asked if it was appropriate for uh the city to require the deferred improvement agreement or not. Um there are certain uh code criteria for when a deferred improvement agreement is uh appropriate. One of them being that um the improvement in and of itself does not improve uh safety or enhance capacity, those sorts of things. um or if having an isolated improvement uh poses a safety hazard. Um so you could potentially find that those conditions don't necessarily exist in this location and so a deferment of those improvements would not be appropriate. Um you could also specify that it would have to be uh sidewalks installed prior to occupancy rather than um within within 12 months. Um, I think part of the logic and saying 12 months previously in in the proposal um is because the conditional use permit is valid for 12 months from issuance at which point they either have to have started the conditions or not before it expires. So,

um, but if you wanted to specify uh prior to occupancy, uh, that would also be a way to address that if you wanted that more upfront. Um, do we need to add, you pointed out on the other street there's no curbs and that would probably require a storm drain catch basin. I would think we would we ought to add that in here. You know, basically say storm drainage facilities as needed.

Um, yeah, and so that's an interesting question. It's not something that public works flagged in in their review. Um uh obviously any any improvements that are installed in the public right ofway um would need to meet city standards. Um it could also be that that's something that they would um the city would would take on itself as part of its expansion of the uh storm system. So um I don't since public works wasn't here to to specify anything on that. I'm I'm hesitant to expand the scope. Um if if you want to certainly certainly you have that authority but I

if we say storm drainage facilities as needed um that would at least give them the heads up that they could be looking at that and then we would make sure we you know get it. Um okay. Um again uh who decides whether the remmonstrance or consent to improve who approves that? Is that the public works department? Is that the building department or is that who? Well, so as the as the planning commission, you have the ability to decide if that's appropriate.

So that would come back to us. Um whether you want to impose the option of doing a deferment is something that you could decide tonight. Um and I'm happy to to read to you the specific uh criteria for when those are appropriate.

Um if you decide not to do a deferment and just say you have to install them, no ifs, ands, or buts, you also have that authority. Um the language that we have in code is that the city may accept a future improvement guarantee. For example, the owner agrees not to object to the formation of a local improvement district in the future um in lie of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist. A, a partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians. two, due to uh the developed condition of adjacent properties, it's unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the property under review does not by itself provide increased street safety or capacity or improved pedestrian circulation. Three, the improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan. or four. Uh the improvement is associated with an approved land partition and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets. So three and four don't apply in this instance. So um really what you're looking at is would a partial improvement, i.e. a sidewalk that doesn't go anywhere necessarily, uh does that create a potential safety hazard? um or is it unlikely that that sidewalk would be extended in the foreseeable future because there is development that would preclude that? Um see the aerial of the block again. Of course.

Basically to that alley um sidewalk around to the curb and around over the other side of their parking lot. Okay. There is uh some sidewalk uh across the street but then it stops before starting again. So it's a little bit intermittent up and down river. Um there's also some sidewalk across on the other side of the street which again is intermittent. So yeah. So the uh in August the conditional use for the church had these same conditions did. Yes.

Okay. And they Okay. The applicant accepted those conditions was aware of those conditions and just never went forward with the Okay. for for the church. Okay. Well, I I I one more question. Is the applicant even read the staff report? Are you aware of the you know, are they aware of the conditions? So, it it was forwarded to them. It's forward. I've not heard back from them. So, I don't know.

Okay. All right. Once we go into deliberations, I'll I'll speak some more. Last question of staff at this point. Um, condition four says that they have to obtain appropriate licensing. There's no time frame listed on that. Do we need to say prior to operation or prior to occupancy or I would think we would need some kind of time frame on that one. Um, I would imagine that time frame is whatever uh the Oregon uh department of whatever uh I don't have that in front of me at the moment. Whatever the uh Oregon Department of Early Learning and Care requires. So if they require that license to be in place before occupancy then

is if we don't close the loop and we give them occupancy and we haven't said you have you have to show us that before you have occupancy and start working then we could conceivably have a problem. So sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So we could we could amend that. That's part of deliberations. We'll deal with that when we get to that point. Yeah. If you were to amend that to say, you know, prior to occupancy that uh that would be totally acceptable.

Okay, that would be something I will discuss when we get to discussion. Uh okay, let if there are no more questions of staff, we will move on. We will now hear from the applicant. As a reminder, you have 15 minutes to present. Also, please state your name and address for the record. Benjamin, we do not have someone on the phone, do we? We have no participants online and no applicant present.

Okay. So, we're not going to ask the applicant anything. We're and we don't have anybody else on the phone. So, we're not going to hear from anybody over the phone. Um, we're not going to ask any questions of those people. There's no rebuttal. Okay. Any final comments from staff or city attorney before we deliberate?

Not for me. You're the only You have anything, Chris? Okay. You don't have a microphone. That's really a problem. We might make you come sit up here. All right. Um, I now declare the public hearing closed at 6:36. May we have deliberation on this topic by the commission? What other deliberation that we haven't already done? under questions. I

I I think Carol and I are going to feel the same way here. This is not ripe for uh a decision at this time. Um I'm concerned somewhat in going the continuence route here as it's under 120 days. It's only the applicant that can stop the 120day clock. Uh we don't have the applicant here to stop the clock. uh we don't have the knowledge that the applicant is even privy to the conditions and I just sense that it would go on appeal uh if you know we decided and made some conditions and they had no opportunity to address the commission. Um I'm favoring denial tonight uh denial without prejudice to the extent that they can come back at any time. uh but my denial recommendation would be um based on the fact that they have provided in insufficient information. It is the burden of the applicant to produce the this it which they just simply they provided an application. They didn't I I mean I'm pretty good with just a statement that describes how many kids hours of operation days of of the week to which parents are dropping off kids where uh progress along the lines of the state permit I you know to have an applicant absolutely

abide. Yeah. So, I I am that's what I'm leaning denial tonight. Okay. Okay. I concur. There's just not enough information. And what are we even deciding? We're deciding on a conditional use when we don't even know the use. So, what are we even deciding? I think we need more information. I don't know how you got this much of a report. Frankly, I'm very impressed, but I just don't know what we're deciding on. I I don't understand. We approved all of this in August. Yes. Nothing has changed for a church.

But that's the only thing that has changed, right? And the fact that it's going to be a daycare, all the comedy kids and blah blah blah, that's all CCL's job. That's not our job. No, it's No, it's our job. I remember I remember when we the last time we did a daycare at one of the churches, one of the main issues of all the people who showed up was how much noise they were going to make and when. Um, and like you said, and that's that's really the only issue that I have with maybe not approving this. I mean, I'm I'm comfortable with the kind of conditions we're talking about, but without that piece, I I I would tend toward

the impacts of the use are just unknown, and it is our job to evaluate the impacts. It is the the state will review it for life safety uh concerns and make sure that there's exiting and appropriate fire features for the number of kids. There's a different licensing and review criteria. It's it's we're evaluating number of parking spaces, adequacy, you know, circulation, all kinds of things that uh yeah, events for outdoor play area. If there's outdoor player or is it we don't even know.

Yeah. So, so we just don't know. And so I'm ready to make a a motion for denial. Yeah, I just just for my education here this criterion at the beginning here

uh DDC 44 040 they're talking about parking traffic noise vibration glare dust safety all that aesthetics all that stuff right it is not what we're saying that this application has to somehow through this process pass those tests then why then why do we need to do something different why Isn't the process already there? We're saying it has to conform to those things. Why is that our business to challenge that? The process is going to cause that to happen. That's the apply with the development code and the and the building code and all that stuff and the fire and all that. I mean, fantastic.

And and certainly for the the safety aspect, um there are certainly professionals uh the fire marshall, what have you, that that review that aspect of it. Um the the other aspects um uh things like uh noise uh whatnot um that is more subjective and would be within the realm of the uh the planning commission to to evaluate and and as has been noted no information was provided with regards to compliance on that matter. I mean, they they could have easily provided some information. If I'd have known it was 20 kids and they were going to be inside all the time and they had hours of operation that ended at 6 or 6:30, where's the concern? I mean I mean there's no parameters.

Why Why is this different than the daycare center? That's where are we here? by Tony's or Carnegie building, wherever it is, right? Why is it different than the one across the street from that? Why is it different? They provided all kinds of information for one thing that told us exactly how they were going to operate, what they were going to do, who they were going to serve, what how they were going to do drop off, fencing for outdoor play area, fencing to make sure the kids were safe during play. They had all kinds of information and they were already started with their licensing process and had gone through the first approval and they were not in a residential area so noise is less of an issue. Yes,

I would be remiss in approving this tonight in a blind setting. We don't know. I'm ready for to move uh for a motion. If you'll anyone else have any discussion then? Well, I I mean I think we could even vote whether or not we can approve it and just I'm going to I'm going to go for a motion here and entertain and move for denial. And the denial would be without prejudice, allowing the applicant to return at any time based on the lack of information provided by the applicant that would enable the commission to evaluate the impacts of the proposal. Second. Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Uh, is there any discussion? I think we beat that horse to death. Um, we'll now vote on the motion. The motion is to deny the application due to basically insufficient information uh without prejudice to them coming back. I would assume if they come they if we deny it they have to pay all the fees again and do the whole process again. Is that correct or does without prejudice say you could do it come back at any time? So so they would have the option to appeal to city council as same with any decision even if you were to approve it. Okay. So,

okay. Um, all right. Uh, hearing no more discussion, we will now vote on the motion. Benjamin, would you please call the role? Commissioner White, Commissioner Newell. Wait, wait. I want to make sure. Let's make sure. Yeah. Saying yes means we're denying it. So, just to make sure that list, would you start again? You're good. Commissioner White. Yes. Commissioner Newell, Commissioner Schulty,

we're in the middle of a vote. You can either vote yes to deny the petition or and I apologize that we didn't get your All right, we're going to I don't I really don't want to mess this up if they want to appeal. So, but I don't know what to do. Mr. Attorney, can we stop the vote in the middle if we have commission? Let's continue the vote. Okay. You No, you're you want you're not going to disapprove it. Is that correct? Okay. Continue. Kash. Yes. And Commissioner Grow. Yes.

We have three yes for approval of the motion and two no. Right. Motion passes to deny this application without prejudice uh with a vote of 3 to two. Uh an order reflected in the commission's decision tonight will be mailed to the applicant and all participants of record within 10 business days. Are we allowed to entertain John's question or we have to leave that go? I would say well it's purely a process question. If it's a process has nothing to do with just to understand the process I think that would be okay. Go ahead, John.

Asked this before one time. Is there such a thing as abstaining so that it doesn't kind of if I just don't know, can I just abstain? As long as there's not enough information. As long as there's a quorum that's left. Well, the problem is if you had abstained, it would be two to two and we have no decision and we'd have to come to another vote. Yeah. So, so be it. Well, but but it's an important question. It is. It is. And it's under the rules of order. I mean, you can abstain. Um, but that's you can do that. Yes.

And and uh my understanding is that if the planning commission is unable to reach a majority in favor of the proposal, the proposal fails, right? So even if it is a tie, that's denial. Yeah.

Okay. So there would have been no thing. You can save that piece in your pocket for future instances. Okay. And we're all clear on that. Alrighty. So, we are done with that one. Switching my deie bobbers here. Oh, I did want to make one note. Um, on that last one, the conditions of approval were not only 4.4.040, but they're also 4.2.060A. that was in the body of the staff report and I neglected to tie the two together. But the one references the other. So

the one references the other. So that's why it wasn't there. Excellent. Now two questions and hopefully that doesn't mess things up. All right. We are going to do the land use 25-05 the continuation. This public hearing is regarding um I got to remember what LA stands for. Legislative amendment.

Legislative amendment. Thank you. Legislative amendment 25-05. This is a continuence of mixeduse zoning designation. This is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. I now declare this public hearing open at 6:57. As the applicant application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law, I will read the following statement. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the commission and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue precludes appeal to the state land use board of appeals based on that issue. Please direct all testimony to the record and the applicable criteria you believe applies to the decision. Applicical approval criteria are found in the staff report. This time I will ask if any member of the planning commission has a conflict of interest site visit or exparte contact to declare. Anybody know all about this? And okay. Uh no hands are raised. Um this hearing will be conducted in the following manner. We will begin with the staff report followed by questions of staff. Thereafter we will hear from the applicant including members of the applicant team for a total of 15 minutes. This may be followed by questions from the commission. Thereafter we will hear from all others interested in presenting testimony on this item before the commission. Each person will be provided five minutes to testify. We will then provide the applicant with five minutes for rebuttal. After we have heard all testimony, I will close the hearing and ask commission to deliberate and then ask if there is a motion for recommendation in response to this proposal. At this time, we'll start with staff report. May we have the staff report, please?

Um yes. And so um as was mentioned this is a continuation of uh the meeting uh that we had in December um at that and the uh staff report uh for for that meeting is also attached um as attachment B along with the version of the code that you were looking at at that time. Um, when that hearing concluded, um, the planning commission indicated that there were some, uh, changes that you wanted to see, um, and that you wanted me to essentially go through and try and clean up the code, make some, uh, clarifications and those sorts of things as as, uh, uh, uh, as as needed. So, um uh that's uh on the staff report kind of what is listed there as as key changes. The the changes that I I drafted um from the original proposal to to what you have in front of you now as attachment A. Um and so, uh certainly happy to kind of go through that as as you like. Um there were a couple of points where I wasn't entirely sure which way to clarify things and so um there there are a couple of places where some additional information or input from the the uh commission is is warranted. Um, one of which is um under uh uh on page 19 of your packet the uh the development standards for the lock mixuse node uh for uh the general commercial uh transportation component. Um the language that was originally drafted by the consultant um would have uh essentially uh aimed to sort of protect the internal environment of the Lriel node by

directing all traffic essentially directly on and off of of uh Ellenale and Kings Valley Highway. So that's that's option two as shown here. Um that language is sort of contrary to the other mixeduse nodes that we have, the Wyatt node and and the Lacrial node um which sought to limit uh impact to the the major roadways um by having site access be off of the internal streets. Um and so I wasn't entirely sure which way the commission might want to go in that regard. Um, so you'll see there there are two options um highlighted there in in the yellow um with some additional language that then follows kind of for for both options um to to clarify how that is is laid out. Um for the uh the actual meat and potatoes the new mixed use district language um I did uh some clarification of kind of what what uses are allowed where. um cleaned up the the tables that they had given us previously that were somewhat cluttered. Um when it comes to the development standards for the mixeduse zone, um I'll admit I kind of took a cleaver to that cuz there were a lot of things which didn't really need to be there that weren't really relevant to this section. Um and so that that table now is is much shorter than it was previously. Um and is I think much much more concise. Um I also when we talk about uh site layout and building orientation and building design standards um removed a lot of the duplicative language that the consultant had um and uh just made reference to the existing language that we have for building orientation standards and for building design standards.

um for building design standards specifically um the section A on mixed use integration has no equivalent um in our existing code. So that's essentially new new language for this zone. Um but B, C and D, the street level interest, the building massing and articulation and the public spaces. Um those are all factors which already exist in our commercial code. Um, but the numbers are different and so I wasn't sure if the commission would want to keep a number that is admittedly arbitrary but arbitrarily different um or make it uniform with the other uh uh commercial zones um and thus delete sections B, C, and D. So, um, I I I left them as as there, uh, I left them there, um, cleaning up some of the language from the consultant, but I'll let you decide if you want to keep those three sections or, uh, delete them entirely. Um, or if you want to take the section a mixeduse integration, and incorporate that into uh, the commercial chapter and then just have the mixeduse chapter reference the commercial chapter. So you have a couple different ways that you would go on that. Um, yes. So that's kind of the the core of the changes that I kind of dug into. Um, I know that Scott when we were having the previous discussion, there was a lot of discussion of what uh constitutes a higher order of street. Um, and so I I clarified that by just specifically listing the names of the streets that were higher order. That way there's no question of what is and is not a collector, those sorts of things. So,

um, hopefully that addresses the concern that was had previously. Um, and if you have questions, I'm certainly happy to answer as best I can. Real quick, we're about to upmen the transportation the TSP. I have a different question.

Could conceivably change which ones are higher order streets? Well, and uh of course the city council can change the name of a street at any time. And so if it's in code that a restriction exists on street name A and you change it to street name Berial and local standards are pretty much consistent with all throughout our city. So I I I think we're pretty safe on those. Um but meaning use collector arterial. Yeah, they're they're pretty standard in every city and I don't think I don't think we're going to have any deviation there. What I do I didn't see and I recall a discussion on this.

Hang hang on just Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Are we done? We need you. I thought it was Yeah. Okay. Apologize. Now I have to read this part. Oh, yes. Take test. Still a hearing. Yes. All right. Okay. Does the commission have questions for a staff? I believe it's your turn, Sean.

Okay. I I recall from last time that we looked at this is the table uh 2.1 020 on page 15 and you're introducing a new land use map designation, are we not? There is a new mixeduse land use map designation. Okay. And so that was kind of I recall us discussing that and kind of saying well do we need to do that and if it if this is expected to be a part of a mixeduse node Barbberry Lriel Wyatt or any future nodes and that that's the expectation is that you're if you want to pursue this new mixeduse zoning uh you would do so through a node and I kind of continued to see the the separate mixeduse land use designation. I don't know if we've established policy or you know thresholds to when somebody would uh apply for a map designation of this mixeduse separate and I thought we were married it we married it that the commission had a discussion about it and that we had that connection to the mixeduse node that it had to be a part of that and I and I thought staff was accepting of that.

Um that's entirely possible. I I may have missed that as I was listening through the the transcript. Um I I did kind of skip a little bit um because it was a lengthy conversation. Um so if I overlooked that, I do apologize. And we can certainly amend uh that table 2.1020. Um that's that's not a concern. Um that could then fall under the mixeduse node as applicable land use district. Yeah, I remember you said that was deemed to be accept. I know you got a lot of things, but

but that would be okay. If if that's the case then striking the mixeduse uh separate land use map designation we don't need it um altogether and that the mixed use uh MU zone falls moves under um it can just move and we don't actually we eliminate that row to together and it's just mixed use that goes underneath master plan overlay zone. Yeah. Yeah. staff are fine with that with that change. My my apologies for not including that.

We need to clarify someone the mixed use is only for nodes that are designated in the comp plan. Someone can't have a lot in one of the other zones and do a zone change to mixed use. Is that why your concern was

that? That's my Yeah, that and that's what we we did have a discussion. Yeah, Carol's nodding her head. she recalls like I'm glad I got somebody that that I'm not uh so so that yeah the concern is somebody comes into the city maybe through a preapp talks to Jess here and says uh gee I'd like this mixuse on my pro on this on my quarter acre lot and what are the city's parameters for that and if we're you know it's more hey this is intended as part a component of a mixeduse zone where you're going to have just like we got examples of it in the city some very large areas here and so uh that's the eligibility of this mixuse solely connected to a node

to a node that's that's been designated. Yeah. Okay. That that makes a lot more sense because that fixes the problem of naming the streets that are um out there too. So anyway um does anyone else have questions? Carol look like you look like you

just a clarifying question. Yeah sure. Um, you know, we had that proposal for this area of the city that a developer had had just put together to give you an idea what was possible. And I remember distinctly that it went from East Ellen to Kings Valley in a loop kind of in a S shape. And so that would affect like if we go to a node then we don't have to make that decision and we're not tied into going to Pulk Station or one of the others when in fact they were hoping to do something from one to the other.

Right. So the uh uh the the higher order street network so the collectors the arterials um those are established the location of those are established in the uh concept plan that the council adopted as part of the lock rail master planning process.

Um so those streets are more or less fixed in place. Obviously, we don't have like survey level engineering of them, but as far as lines on a map go, they're not necessarily going to move. Um, so those are a fixed point that any development kind of has to work around um or with. So, okay. Yeah. Does that kind of So, that means we're tied into the East Alenale to Kings Valley.

Yeah. And and so definitely uh Lreal is is called to extend from Ellenale through to Kings Valley. Um there's no uh real question about that unless ODOT. Is it still a question if it's a node? And of course ODOT can always mess it up because there's two highways. ODOT ODOT can mess anything up. That's that's what they specialize in. Of course they do. But um yeah to the extent that we have the the node as a defined geography um any any language that we have would only apply in that in that area

and then is the acreage that is shown here out it's all of the um it's not just the city part it's the whole node which part of it is in the city and part of it is out right so the entire node um within the urban growth boundary is what's within the urban growth boundary. Thank you. And so there's and and so that is a good point because there are kind of two sections that are changing. There's the mixeduse master plan district under chapter 2.6 which affects the entire Lreole node in its entirety and regardless of whether or not it's the city. Right. Okay.

And regardless of what that's intended for in terms of land use, it's the entire overlay. I got it. Yeah. And there's then there's chapter 2.11 the mixeduse districts which is just that portion of the Lreal node that is designated as mixed use. So not all of the LEAL node is to be zoned as mixed use. Some of it's to be zoned general commercial. Some of it's to be zoned highdensity residential. Only a portion of the node was to be zoned as mixed use. And so that's the only portion of the node that chapter 2.11 would apply to.

The other portions of the node would be subject to the base zoning um with the overlay of the 2.6. So uh wasn't this the decision whatever we decide on this is uh in regards to the mixed use was that intended to be on any other future nodes? was that I sort of vaguely remember something about that or

so uh to the extent that it could be utilized for for other nodes um that is certainly something that could be done. Part of the way that that chapter is structured there's the tables um and so at the beginning of like chapter table 211 there's the land use districts that it applies to and so it says MU. You could, like the other zones have done, add another column and retitle those. So you could have mixeduse zone lock with one set of standards and mixeduse zone mills site with a different set of standards. So um it's structured in a way that you could have other mixeduse designations in the future um without having to rewrite the entire thing. Um, but it also works standalone as is. So,

talk for a second about the two different areas we're talking Hang on just a second. We need to make sure we finished asking questions. Okay. And then we'll deliberate. Yes. Thank you. So, do we have any more questions of staff regarding the staff report? All right. Let me read my next little bit. We will now hear from the applicant. Do we have anyone on the phone from the applicants party? I already heard from him. What are you the Oh, you're the applicant. City.

Pardon me. That is correct. This is highly unusual for me. All right. We will now hear from the applicant. Hang on. Uh, as a reminder, you have 15 minutes to present. Also, please state your name and address for the record if you please. Uh, so that would be Jess Blue and the mailing address is 187 Southeast Court Street. Um, you might be familiar with that address. Uh, you're sitting in it. Yeah, I got that. Okay. Are you going to say anything? Uh, or do we have questions of that? I mean, that was that was essentially the staff.

We've been doing that, haven't we? Yeah. Okay. All right. We got that part done. Uh we now hear from those in attendance tonight who would like to address the commission on this item. Please raise your hand well or do it on the phone. If you would like to testify, are we still without telephone inquiries? There are no callers in the queue. Boy, this is getting through getting through this one. All right. There are no hands and no Okay. Will I have opportunity to rebut their testimony? You will except if nobody says anything and I'm not going to say anything. Okay. So, and I hope the rest of the planning commission is going to shut up.

I don't want to mess this up. Anyway, um okay, there's nobody here. The commission's already had a chance to ask questions. Um there we will now give you chance for rebuttal, but you don't have anything to rebut, so you lose that chance. Um any final comments from staff or the city attorney? Have I ruined this entire process yet? You know what? It's I think it's going good. Okay, good. Glad to hear it. So, is this the time to deliberate? Almost. Okay. Almost. I'll wait. Final questions for staff. Oh, yeah. Is that next? Yeah. Staff and the applicant. Yes. Okay. Separate.

Uh, okay. Final questions. Um, I forgot to ask a couple questions. Uh, no, that's going to be deliberation. So looking at table 2.6.050 on page 19, all of those acreages as part of the total are are from code is where those numbers come from.

Yes, those will be the new numbers based on the uh concept plan that was approved by city council over the summer. And so that that table uh the numbers in it replace the numbers that are there previously from the previous master plan. I didn't include that in red because that was a big chunk of text to have to have there. So the existing table just goes away and you have this new table to replace it. Okay. On page 20, uh item number two, this commercial node must be supported by multif family development and open space and must be provided with adequate public facilities. Are we assuming adequate public facilities is sufficiently defined elsewhere that everybody knows what that is. We're talking sewer, water, storm, parks, streets, whatever.

Yes. And part of the reason that some of the references to the comp plan has changed is because the policies have changed over time. The the language that was struck was originally written in 20 uh uh was it uh 1998 when it was first enacted and um some sections of the comp plan have changed since then. Um, for example, uh, on page 18, bullet point. 2, it refers to chapter 5 of the the compre comprehensive plan, the transportation component, uh, chapter 5 hasn't existed since 2007. Um, so to the extent that we can remove some of these obsolete references, um, that that sort of cleans up, uh, some language.

Last question. same page, page 20 down under 1A under multif family residential, the gross buildable multif family acres has moved from 70 from 30 to 72. Where did that come from? Uh so again, that's the that's the number that is uh in the Yes. Um so so we went from what was just in the city currently to what's totally in the urban growth boundary which is what this covers

right so as part of the uh lock node master plan update process um they changed how much land was being designated for how much use um and so they increased the multifamily component over what it was um because we have more of a need for multif family than we did in 1998. Um same with the increase in the commercial acreage whatnot. So those numbers are these this number is just reflecting that change that it's already been done. Yes.

Okay. That's all the questions I had. I think yes. All right. Now more comments. I now declare the public hearing closed at 710. Um, may we have deliberation on this topic by the commission? So, Jess, what I thought would be helpful because I'm working from memory and we don't have the map of the concept plan that was approved. Yes, that was an oversight on my part and I do apologize because that would have been very helpful.

That would have been helpful, but I'm not no rocks. I just would like to see you've you've opened up that area on the screen. What are the streets where the master plan starts and the master plan ends regardless of the the it's all in the urban growth boundary. Not all of it's in the city. What are the streets? Um so I can definitely pull that together for you. Hold on just a quick second.

Okay. and that whole area is essentially the new rail.

Sorry. Yep.

So, it's the urban growth boundary on the north and uh east sides. um Kings Valley Highway. Uh we've got Pulk Station Road. Um Allenale to Lockale, down Lockale to the Manufactured Home Park, uh Greenway, um along their border, and then down the Hawthorne Avenue neighborhood, um back up along the edge of the Barbberry development area, um including the area around Oak Villa and then along the urban growth boundary back to Kings Valley Highway. So that is that is the entirety of the master plan area. The portion that is designated for mixed use uh zoning specifically is the area that's south of Allenale uh between uh Hawthorne and Lacreal. So it's just this area that's the mixeduse zone.

That is so helpful. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry I did not have the actual map uh pulled up and ready to go. that that was an oversight on my part. It's just hard to I mean I'm so visual I have to look at it and

I'm just um again just thinking if we are going down the road here of staff is agreeable to that table change there kind of looking at pages 22 and well just mostly 22 here where kind of it's the beginning of the mixuse district chapter and the purpose and the applicability uh might be tweaked a little bit to recognize the connection of the mixeduse node. So I I do kind of marking up some things as I see the purpose statement still kind of open where somebody could come in and say, "Gee, I want to zone this mixeduse zone to my property of an acre and looks like I'm eligible to do that because it's on a corridor." Um, and if we're going to go No, you you have to develop it as a as a node. making that clear in the purpose and applicability. So in future discussions with developers as you would have at a preapp or something is to say no it's pretty clear that yeah you need a larger piece of property and it uh it's really um this district is intended to be in conjunction with other uh other z because I I I know at least that area has different zones to it that that will remain some will remain commercial some will be more residential and there'll be a mixeduse in there as well. Um but but that that we would know the allocation and and that they would go through the process of nodal development but that would be made clear. So

regarding your concern um does this possibly answer it? Um that was section A purpose and B applicability says that they're all they're uh in accordance with the policies of land use map contained in the Dallas comprehensive plan. So when the comp plan is generated, it would designate mixeduse zones. And it would appear to me from that note that

there's well there's reference to policies. Unless the policies of the comprehensive plan call out this specific zone and say here's where it is eligible, then we need to put it into into this part right here. I'm not sure. I can take a look at the zoning map uh amendment approval criteria, but sometimes approval criteria as I've seen in other cities make reference to the purpose statement. Uh it's consistent with the proposal is consistent with the purpose statement of the zone. We could kind of check and see if that's the case, but I that's one of those things that you make that connection with what's the purpose of it. And it's important for us to if we're okay with the idea of this being, yeah, you want to go for a mixeduse zone, fine, but it's got to be a larger area and you show us the the the nodal development. So, the fact that it says it's consistent in accordance with the policies and the land use map. So it would have to be already on the land use map to be able to do that, wouldn't it? I realize that's maybe a little less we have the

Yeah. So the the language that we have as as approval for criteria for for zone changes is that the request has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan um which includes the map. Yes. Um, and then if you are um that that same approval criteria because it's the same section of code would also apply for comprehensive plan map amendments. Um, a map amendment would need to be consistent with the comprehensive plan text. Um, oddly enough, if you're doing a text amendment to the comprehensive plan, it's the same section of code. And so I'm not sure how you are consistent with the comprehensive plan if you are changing the text of the plan, but that's not a problem for today. Um,

I'm just trying to make sure we're not fixing something that isn't broken, but I definitely use it's got greater knowledge in this sub. I just think it could be clear, but that could be just some clarity that could be added. Um, I can kind of noodle on some things here and and we're just making a recommendation to to council. Um, but I'm just sort of thinking that we have an opportunity to to just and and there is no 120day uh clock on this one. So, if you wanted to come back to this uh next month with a recommendation um we could certainly do a continuance again.

You have some recommendation right now. involve

certainly um that the table that we've already talked about and I don't know if you need anything else clear on that um we're we're pretty much striking out the row that said mixed use but putting mixeduse zone under master plan overlay. So that one that relationship right there, you know, hey, it's it's it's at least in context with the table, it get gives the impression that all right, if you want to do the mixeduse zone, it's only found in this master plan as part of a master plan overlay zone. Um, so that certainly that certainly shows the relationship there. I'm kind of concerned with it being the way it is right now. leaves it open that there's a hey there's a mixeduse plan designation which apparently there is not or it's confusing with the mixeduse zone uh and that you would you know there's a separate zone for that purpose so I just don't see the the need for that one one row

okay yep adding so mixed use and then the purpose statement um I would just maybe the first sentence mixeduse districts are intended to provide a balance of mix of residential and employment opportunities to create focal points of activity uh as a component of a mixuse node. Does that sound good or I see centers and corridors in here and that sort of

and uh to the extent that the applicant or the uh consultant was out of the Portland area um they're all about centers and corridors up there. So I can see where they might have copied that kind of language. Exactly. They would strike that. That That's right. That's a metro thing. So if I understand correctly, Scott, what you're saying is get rid of in the form of mixed use centers, nodes or corridors and changing that to say what you said again. Is that am I correct in your

Yeah. just just to to bring it back to hey this is a zone that that's connected to the nodes whether you create one or existing uh node but it's yeah ju just making cuz yeah I I I just see that sentence that we can I I can read it back to you if you like uh or I we can give staff the latitude but I and I think uh Jess knows where we're going yeah I I think that just deleting uh centers and uh corridors from that sentence um and leaving the word nodes would would kind of get to that point. Yeah. Yeah.

So you're saying activity in the form of nodes and and stopping there or and not corridors. Uh yeah, because corridors we don't really have defined elsewhere in our code. um we really only have the the language for nodes. That that's a good observation that that's a Portland consultant uh working in a metro jurisdiction, but we're not big enough to have corridors necessarily. So the sentence you're looking at is create focal points of activity in the form of nodes. Is that correct? Nodes of mixeduse nodes. Mixed use and then nodes. Okay.

Yeah. So just deleting the word centers and corridors. Got it. Okay. So, Jess, under option one, did you say there's no section five anymore? Yeah. So, uh Dallas, uh comprehensive plan chapter 5 doesn't exist anymore. Does um it's referred to in that OT road capacity thing. So, maybe we need to fix that reference. Oh, class B variance under section 5.1. So, that's referring to development section. 5.1 is the variances chapter. That's what I was making sure. Yeah. Thanks. Two different two different books. Gotcha.

So, Scott, are we happy with changing that little bit there in 2.11? Sure, we can.

Okay. I want to go back to since we were just talking about the ODOT thing, uh, we talked about calling out actual street classifications as opposed to naming specific streets. So, am I correct in assuming that East Ellen Avenue and Kings Valley Highway are major arterials or what's the designation in Dallas? Um, so they are currently classified as major arterials. Um, they will likely still be classified as major arterials in the new TSP. what exactly a major arterial is is something that they're grappling with, but I don't know that that designation is necessarily going to change.

So, Lreal, Pulk Station, all those others, are those collectors and arterials? Those are collectors. Just says such as Say that. So it says primary vehicular access to collectors such as and then you name some. I don't want to put names of streets in there. I mean I think

so I will say that um the language for both the Wyatt node and the Barbar node do specifically name Ellenale Avenue um in saying that no vehicle access is to take place off of Ellenale. Um, and that's a street that's probably not going to be renamed or relocated in the near future.

So, would it be sufficient? Do we need to say major arterials such as East Ellen or Kings Valley Highway or referring to just the designation? Granted, it's already in the text of the node. They're obviously major arterials and I don't know that we need to fix it if we want. designated by the node. It does just say within the node. Does the node say major arterial or does it just say those street names? Do you recall? Says the street names on the map.

Okay. And let's let's make that m major arterials such as east including east eastendale and kings valley because I think those are the only two that are currently called out specifically by street name. Um, well, I I don't know that the others aren't also in there. I just know those two are. Again, we have no map to look at, so I'm not sure. But if we say such as it's on a city website somewhere I can put it is and we can look later. That's not a big deal.

We'll ask that question later. Okay. So, um I hear that the other streets under option one are collectors. Are there minor arterials or different designations that are higher order streets that we haven't addressed? Not in this area that I'm aware of. What about in any other area in the city? Cuz we are talking about making this fit or No, this is just for the this is just the Okay. Well, yeah, because they may add Can they still add streets into this node? Yes, they can. So, then we need to make it collectors, I would think.

Well, and uh if if there were uh you know, significant changes, that might be something that comes back to planning commission, might have to go back to city council. So, because again, it was the city council that approved the uh the concept plan. But yes, so are there no streets in the lock rail node?

So um there are some conceptual streets that are shown on the uh the map. Um yes, which looks like is that it? Yes. So, um there are some some local streets that are shown um conceptually, but the uh the blue streets here are kind of the major streets. The the legend has those as bike lanes. Uh uh streets with bike lanes, but um those are the the streets that are kind of the major ones. You've got Lriel, you've got uh Board, you've got Hawthorne, you've got Ellenale,

the mixed use area, which is the blue area. So for the chapter 2.11, where you're adopting the entire chapter in its entirety and everything is blue. That only applies in the blue area on the map. So in this in this under 2.6b, 6B. That applies to everything that is in the Lockal master plan area. Okay. So, so the red, the browns, the green, the blue.

Okay. Cuz this says the only place you're going to get vehicular access is off of collector streets or these streets. And is that an issue? Don't we need to say local streets as well? Um, so the the language is tied to automobile oriented uses, right? So, um, uses that aren't necessarily automobile oriented wouldn't necessarily be limited in this way. Um,

yeah. But if you can't use an automobile unless you're on one of these streets and somebody comes up with a local street, you can't have a driveway to it because you can't use your automobile on it. That seems like a problem. Well, so I think there's there's kind of two two different questions here. And so I think we need to look at, you know, which option are we talking about? Option one or option two? Um, and then once we figured out which of those you want to go with, if if you want to make that decision, we're only going to do one of these. Is that what you're saying? Yes. You you only do option one or you do option two because they are mutually exclusive.

Okay. You cannot only take vehicle access off of Ellenale while not being allowed to take vehicle access off of Ellenale. Okay. I did not understand that. I'm sorry. Yes, they are they are mutually exclusive. Okay. I'm sorry about that. That's okay.

So, so option one is saying that um no direct access off of Allenale or Kings Valley Highway. It has to be off of the internal streets. Um, and option two is saying that major automobile oriented uses have to only take access off of Kings Valley or Ellenale and not put traffic onto the internal streets. Option one is more consistent with the way that the Wyatt and Barbar nodes are written. Option two is what was proposed by the consultant.

So is option two saying that the only place you can access a vehicle Mhm. with a vehicle is East Ellen or Kings Valley or automobile oriented uses. So if you were to build like a a Costco, the driveways would need to be off of Kings Valley Highway or Allenale, not off of like Boulevard. So auto automobile and and then there is do we define what automobile oriented uses are because that's obviously where my confusion was.

I can look in the definition section really quick. Um I'll also point out that on the following page there's language about um internal driveways which would extend um sort of that catchment area of what counts as taking access. Okay. Okay. So that's where my I apologize for my confusion. I'm thinking like a traffic engineer but not understanding what I'm looking at. Well, this is land use. This is not traffic. Apologize.

Um so automobile oriented development see development related definitions. Automobile oriented use. Automobiles and/or other motor vehicles are an integral part of the use such as drivein drive-through restaurants and banks. See also automobile oriented development which is under development definitions. Sounds like it's covered. Well, I haven't gotten to the full answer yet. So let me

my mother who has this car would be an automobile oriented use. So automobile dependent development is primary or oh sorry automobile oriented development which is separate 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. Um, so it sounds like option two makes perfect sense

unless we want to limit it to major arterials so that it's more general. I'm Yeah, I'm fine with um I mean, what was the idea behind the one that has all of the streets? Was it meant to say that we want to consider walkability or was it trying to be a better definition of what the area was?

Well, so that's a good question. Uh, from what I can tell, the consultant was trying to enhance the walkability and residential character of the area because that's what they said in the language that they wrote. Um, meaning that they they wanted to direct the vehicles kind of away from the core of the area as it were. Um, I think part of the challenge is that much of the Lacreal node is commercial. So, it's not necessarily a a neighborhood in the traditional sense. Um,

real quick question. The map, the area that's blue, is that the multi- you or this? Okay. So then again for the purpose of the yellow highlighted it's it's everything. It's everything. Yeah. Not just the mixed use. Yeah.

Is uh chapter 2.6 which is where this language is is the entire Lreal node. So everything from Pulk Station all the way over to Oak Villa and beyond a little bit. So, if I'm understanding correctly, the the intention of option one is to allow automobile oriented uses on those designated collector streets, which would be all the other streets in the note other than if they were local,

right? And and to not have a bunch of driveways coming in off of Allenale and Kings Valley Highway. And that's what uh the barberry node is designed to to have. Um so there won't be any driveways in the barberry node. It'll just be the intersection of barberry. Um so went with option two. Um be sort of the everything would from everything that wanted to be automobile oriented would have to go out on Ellenale or Kings Valley. And that's what we don't want, which is lots of accesses onto that to make it more ridiculous. Is that what we're trying to do here? I'm just trying to

Right. And so that uh that would be kind of the the that would be an appropriate uh interpretation. Yes. If that are already there, right? So obviously anything that already exists um is is it stays. Yeah. Okay.

Um, and realistically, I I think a lot of those residences are probably going to get redeveloped over the coming 20, 30, 40 years. So, um, I think a lot of those driveways will go away as part of that because ODOT's quite reasonably going to say, "Hey, the driveway that you had for a single family home, that permit's not valid for a convenience store or a Costco." Um if if we go with option one. Yeah.

Again, we're looking at option one. Do we want to add the designation of collector or or whatever as well as all those specific streets or because this is this is addressing all the mixeduse areas, right? Or this so it's the entire node. It's the entire node. So 2.6 only addresses lock mixeduse node. And so that's that's the title at the top is lock node listed are the ones that are currently in that node designation. Yes. And that's what we want things to be accessed off of as opposed to or valley.

Right. In that case, I am perfectly happy with option one. Okay. Done talking. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions or deliberation? Scott, I hate to kind of belabor this and I'm just kind of wondering to the extent how much more time is there an expectation that this is going before the council soon and have have any pressure? Yeah, like I said, there's no 120day on this. So, um if you want uh to put additional thought to this, we can always bring this back.

Yeah. I just, you know, I think it's important that we give it due consideration and I I'm just kind I'm looking at the table page uh 25. I just see some things that could be clarified kind of new table standards there for 2.130 development standards there and it's kind of a table I mean a shows minimum and maximum density there. Okay. 50 a 10 to 50 dwelling units is not called out as it per acre you know some ratio there uh doc can I save you some time I think if you have sufficient questions I think we could entertain a motion to continue this

yeah I I'm just yeah I just uh I think that we can you know if there is no pressure in time um and and question for the attorney um since this is a legislative matter would it be appropriate for uh planning commissioners to reach out to staff directly with recommendations. I see an issue with that. Yeah, this is legislative amendment. Okay. Option one where it says except by class B variance under section 51. It is that in here. Sorry. Which it's in the development code. Which which section were you calling for?

She's talking about refers to section 51 and at the end of option one. I believe that's Yeah. So that's the the section if you're doing a class B variance. Yep. Yeah. So that wasn't the one that got eliminated. So okay, we're safe. All right. Uh I would entertain a motion to continue and have planning commissioners forward their concerns and suggestions to staff. Would you like to make that motion? Sure. I'm going to do it though with the date certain so we don't have to renotice. What uh would be an before I make the motion I will ask staff for a for a possible date.

Uh well so our next our next one will be March 12. Um and we do have open space still on that one. So yeah. Yeah. if if you'd like to get uh some suggestions to me and time to incorporate, I'm have a deadline for everybody to provide you with uh Yeah, I mean uh so we need to get the the staff report uh with the proposed language out no less than 7 days prior. Um which really means that I need it probably a week before that. So um about March 1st that would work. Yeah.

March 1st deadline. Okay. March. Okay. Then I will make the motion to continue the public hearing on this matter to the date certain March 12th, 2026. Seconded by Carol. Uh, no discussion. I will now call for a reading of the role to vote on the motion. Benjamin White. And just to clarify, saying yes means we're going to continue it as in the motion since it's different than the last one. Please continue. Commissioner White. Yes.

Commissioner Newell, Commissioner Schulty, Commissioner Kash, Commissioner Grow.

Affirmative. All right. Uh, we did that. Uh, the motion passes. unanimously the commission's recommendation tonight will be forwarded to the city council for their well no the we're going to continue so at some point hopefully after that next meeting we will have something for city council but we're keeping it to ourselves at the moment sounds good I think we're done with that um and thank you all for your very intelligent deliberations on this subject um other business committee for citizen an involvement initiative. I don't know where we're at with that or did we have a report for or where are we at? Do we have anything specific or that just stays on the agenda?

Uh that we're leaving that on the agenda for now. Mr. Swanson has been working with Mr. Schulty and I do believe the last update is they were trying to get a meeting with the city manager. That didn't happen apparently. Correct. Um so at this time I have no new information. Okay.

You do? Okay. That meeting is scheduled for February 26th. Excellent. Excellent. We know something now. Um, and that's a meeting with John, you, and the city manager. Okay. All right. Commissioner comments. Anybody? Actually, both John's. So, we'll go John's and CM. Uh staff comments.

Yes. Uh so one of the things that the planning commission has asked to be kept appraised of is uh the outcome of the things that you send to city council. So um the most recent thing that you sent was the code update allowing uh gyms in the industrial zones. Um the planning commission um had uh accepted the staff recommendation uh with the uh exception that uh uh you felt that uh they should be conditional uses in uh the industrial zones not outright permitted. Um city council took that under consideration. Um ultimately they they did decide to do it as a permitted use not as a conditional use. Um so that that was changed back. Um but they have otherwise approved uh the idea of having uh gyms in the industrial zone. So

they live with consequences. So I guess we're okay. We do our best. Okay. No additional staff come. We still need to swear in planning commissionings. Yes. But Tori never showed up. The question is, do we want to wait for a meeting when Tori is here or do we want to swear in Carol? That's up to the commission. That's how would you like to do it? We can wait. Okay. As long as Carol's not in in danger of not being able to officially be here. Um the swearing in is is mostly it. It's formality. Okay. I'd rather do it when we have both of you here. And I'm not going to be here next meeting so he better be here. So,

all right. Thank you for reminding me of that fact. Um, still suspended. What time is the joint meeting with city council? Tuesday at 5:30. Tuesday the 17th, 5:30. Okay. Thanks. Okay. And if you resip, you get dinner. Okay. Everybody know that? That's the most clear thing we need to know. Okay. H what's for dinner? That's a surprise. It's normally pizza.

Oh, really? That's what my wife said and I said, "No, they wouldn't give us pizza." I guess I was wrong. Okay, we'll see. Anyway, we're not talking famemen or anything. We don't want him spending that much money. Okay, hopefully they get a deal at some place. Uh, if no further action is required, I declare the meeting closed at 8:40 7:45.