Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Awesome. Commissioner Kai? Here. Commissioner Talatson? Here. Commissioner Bands? Here. Commissioner Wydola? Present. Chair Simpson?

Here.

And I don't do we have anyone online? Doesn't look like it.

No. Thanks. Alright. Consent agenda. The consent agenda consists of two meeting minutes.

And before we take approval of the consent agenda, I wanted to ask for an edit on the October 14 meeting minutes under the public hearing. During the public comment portion of the hearing, three people expressed cons questions and concerns, and I think it appropriate to list the the three names of the people with their questions summarized. And then, the sentence right after that says the commissioners addressed and then I wanna insert, the concerns that are part of the quasi judicial review process, including off street parking. Is it it I think it was vague that said we addressed some of the public comments because we are only reviewing what's legally we can review, which are the quasi judicial parts of the review process. So I wanted to clarify it in the minutes that we were reviewing what we can review.

So those are the two edits that I would ask for the meeting minutes before we do a motion. So if I could take a poll, if if anybody else if you're in agreement of the two edits. Yep. That's a general head nod. Yes. So then I would entertain a motion to, approve the consent agenda as amended. So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we, approve the amended consent agenda. All in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Alright.

Right into council liaison announcements. Councilor Giles, thank you for thank you for attending our meeting this evening.

Of course. Unfortunately, most of my most of my news, most of you just saw, we have been working the last since the last meeting on working on the language for two charter amendments that we would like to propose to put towards the voters. In case know the public missed it, there have been several laws that have been passed by Salem that limit our ability to do public engagement about land use and certain types of housing and other things like that. And you can watch that meeting that we just had. The council is frankly, we're begging for more community involvement and we want more voices.

And so the fact that we're not able to get them by law is something of great concern to all of us. And so we would like to amend our charter so that we have a legal leg to stand on, that we it's an important part of who Sherwood is and what we do here. We want community feedback and involvement for or against things, and we think that, frankly, we believe that we can make projects better with more input versus less. That's what we've been working on since our last meeting. And hopefully are there any questions that you came across during that that you'd like me to answer?

Can I do that, I guess, is my report? Or we have lawyers here too.

I I just wanna thank the the council for taking this on as a project and an important amendment to our charter so that we do have citizen involvement as it should be a right, but to have to put it in writing that we have our own rights is, as was said before, ludicrous that we're going down this path. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you for doing that as a council. Alright. Staff announcements.

None for me tonight. Yeah. I have none. Thank you.

Alright. Well, we're moving right along. We have community comments. Community comments are limited to those items that are not already on the agenda this evening. And I do not see anybody coming up for community comments. And, Sean, you confirmed prior to the meeting that we had no citizens involved or signed up to testify electronically. Correct?

That's correct.

Alright. So we'll move on to public hearing. So this is a continued public hearing on l U2025007. The public hearing the continued public hearing on Old Town multifamily land use case file l u twenty twenty five zero zero seven s SPVAR is called to order. I'm going to turn it to staff for the hearing introduction.

Thank you, chair Simpson. The public hearing this evening will be conducted as follows. Staff will present the staff report fifteen minutes, questions if any by the hearing body for staff. We will then open the public hearing for testimony and time will be limited as follows. Applicant thirty minutes, split between presentation and rebuttal.

Person in favor of application four minutes, person opposed to the application four minutes, rebuttal from the applicants remainder of thirty minutes, then no other testimony will be taken from the public or the applicant unless the public testimony period is reopened. Final comments by staff, fifteen minutes. Questions of staff, if any, by the commission. Deliberation by the commission. A decision may be made by the planning commission at the close of the hearing or the matter may be continued to a time and date certain.

If the matter is continued to a time to a date certain, this will be the only notice of that date you receive. Staff will recognize people who have signed up to speak twenty four hours in advance to provide testimony virtually. When it is your time to provide testimony, please state your name and address for the record. Staff did not receive any notification twenty four hours in advance from anyone wanting to provide testimony virtually. If you are in the audience this evening and wish to speak, please fill out one of the testimony forms and submit it to planning staff.

The chair will recognize people who wish to speak. When you come forward, please state your name and address for the record. Any questions should be addressed through the chair. In reaching a decision on the application, the commission must consider whether the application meets the relevant approval criteria in the city's land use regulations. Those criteria are identified in the staff report.

The staff report is available online and at City Hall. The staff report was accessible to the public seven days prior to this meeting date. The testimony and evidence must address these criteria or other criteria you believe to apply to the decision. Please note failure to raise an issue with enough detail to enable the commission, the applicant and parties an opportunity to respond to the issues precludes an appeal to the city council or land use board of appeals on that issue. Also, failure by the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues regarding proposed conditions of approval, again, with enough detail to allow the commission to respond to the issue, precludes an action for damages in circuit court.

At this time, I would like to ask the commission to disclose any ex parte contacts, bias, conflict of interest. Please indicate the nature and extent of the ex parte contact bias or conflict of interest and indicate whether you intend to participate in or abstain from the hearing. I'm also going to ask for those that were not in attendance at the original hearing whether you've had a chance to review the record including the video of the hearing just to ensure that you're fully up to speed on the past discussion and testimony, etcetera. Commissioner Kai?

I have none and I plan

to participate. Commissioner Tillotson? I have none. Commissioner Mance?

I have none. I plan to participate. And, yes, I am up to speed on all of it.

Thanks. Vice chair Waidola? None. And I I did view the video and review all the

material, and I'm prepared to participate tonight.

Thank you. Chair Simpson? Thanks, Chair Simpson. Does any member of the audience wish to challenge any Planning Commission member's ability to participate? Seeing none, now I will turn to staff to present the staff report. You go.

Thank you, Eric. Afternoon, commissioners. I 'm gonna try to do my best presenting, given the technological constraints that we have right now. So as mentioned, this is for the Old Town apartments, Rock Point, locally known as. This is for site plan review and variances as administrated as administered under SB fifteen thirty seven.

Application summary that you guys are familiar with, also detailed within your respective staff reports. And here is a list detailing all of the applicable criterion that were applied or criteria that were applied to this, land use decision, including with, with the recommended findings, with SB fifteen thirty seven. There we just briefly see the zoning and proposed land uses. As indicated in the staff report, this is for multifamily dwellings, which is a permitted outright use within the HDR zone, and it is also located within the Old Town Overlay District. To give more of a visualization of where this fits within our Old Town, you can see kind of the Old Town Overlay kind of outlined, within that image, kind of divided between Old Smokville and Old Cannery, the site sitting within the Old Cannery area.

Here are the elevations, that were previously presented at the last hearing. And then just looking at the site plan again, kind of an aerial showing off street parking, building footprint, and proposed amenities, with associated access ways off of Southwest Pine and Southwest Columbia. So, here's a list of updates and revisions, that staff have done, since, the initial hearing, October 7 staff report. There's been the inclusion of attachments KLMNO, revisions to findings such as the residential land use standards, site plan review, multi family design standards, and Chapter sixteen-one 106, transportation facilities, as well as other non substantive edits, grammar, minor flow issues, run on sentences, etcetera. Furthermore, staff were able to kind of go back and look at the findings and how they, how the proposal met each particular criteria.

And there is a couple of various recommended conditions of approval that are proposed to be striked from, this land use. Kind of diving further a little bit deep in there, you can see that there is revisions to condition d one. This was kind of more associated with, future right of way or future street improvements as well as striking condition d two. And then lastly, there was revisions to condition d four previously conditioned under D5, and then revisions to condition D5, previously known as condition D6. These were just, again, more minor grammatical changes, kind of more for accuracy and less about substance.

So since the release of the 10/24/2025 staff report, There hasn't been any new testimony. Staff did wanna iterate that we did receive email correspondence, from a community member, regarding public noticing. We were able to confer that public noticing did go to the address on the tax record or assessor records on file, which I believe was a PO box. But we were able to give them all the information including, links to the website, links to where the Planning Commission hearing was broadcasted on YouTube. So they were able to have all that information, pretty quickly.

So I know that's kind of a really high level overview, but ultimately, staff does recommend, finds that the application LU 2020 Five-seven Old Town Multifamily Rockpoint will meet the requirements of the city code as described in the findings and conditions of approval in the staff report dated 10/24/2025. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application subject to the findings and conditions of the approval described within said staff report. Finding commission does have a couple alternatives. They can approve the application based on the findings and the conditions in the staff report dated 10/24/2025. They can approve the application with revised findings and or conditions, and they can deny the application with revised findings.

So at this time, I'll turn it over to the commissioners to answer any questions.

Can you go back a couple slides? The one more, I think. These are these the only two changes that were done after the 2024, or were the slides before also done after the 10/24 staff report? I got I know this is in the this is in the 10/24 staff report. So the only changes after the 10/24 staff report are the last two that are more grammatical in nature versus these substantive changes that were in the published staff report. That's what I'm trying to get clarification on.

Yeah. So there was just This

is all staff report changes. And then the next slide is subsequent to the staff report.

Correct. Yes.

Okay. And this is the only these are the only two changes that staff is recommending after the 10 '24 staff report? Just these two?

Correct.

Yes.

Okay. Alright. Got it. Any questions for staff before we open the public hearing?

Yeah. I I have one. Just within the staff report, the condition numbering, I just noticed this as the meeting started. I was already brought this to you guys earlier. But I think the numbering's out of sync between the end of the staff report where they're all mentioned in order and throughout the staff report where the findings are kind of lined out. Like, was just looking up when I'm thinking about I was thinking about earlier condition b 11 on page 36. That's during the staff report addressing something. And then later on at the end when they're all being listed, it's actually B7 in the final, like, list. So just wanted to make sure all the conditions are actually listed where they're supposed to be. And actually, that made me think of another question.

Which list are they actually held to? Throughout the staff report or the ones at the very end of the staff report? Which ones are the what's the official list, so to speak?

Yeah. No, that's a great question, Commissioner Vance. So that was something that staff actually had noticed earlier today as well. So we've gone through, and that kind of was what kind of got tied to other non substantive changes, basically kind of realigning the conditions at the end. So the end is kind of essentially the correct numerical of kind of where each condition falls and then that's translated throughout the staff report to each of the findings. And so we were able to align those correctively.

Okay. All right. So just to be clear, all the conditions throughout the staff report are listed at the end. In that final list, they just might be have different numbers, but the appropriate ones are there?

Yes. Correct.

Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. Because I had asked the question earlier because when yeah. They because when they removed, like, as soon as you can remove condition b one if you don't do track changes, everything gets renumbered, and then you have to go back and redo the whole staff report numbering. And so

Yeah.

And what made me nervous is the end had b seven and throughout and and during the main body, it was b 11. I'm like, oh, did we lose some? But yeah. Okay.

Sounds good. Got it. That was a tough on the fly change, wasn't it?

Yeah. Yeah. Sorry about that.

Okay. And so what will happen through the process is once we've made a decision, staff will do a final print of this, and then I'll have the opportunity to reread the staff report and tie down all the conditions to the conditions in the back. I know that sounds like a lot of fun, but that that'll be the last. And I know Eric and his team do a great job, so Hugo will Great.

Thank you.

Yeah. So yeah. Was my that

was my one question for

staff. Yeah.

Thanks. Alright. Any other questions for staff before we open? Alright. Then we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing. And at this time, we'll ask the applicant to present their testimony. And the applicant has thirty minutes that will be split between presentation and rebuttal. I I don't have I don't have any blue cards, so I can't I can't call by name. I don't know if that's on. I'm Adrian. I think you have to turn it. There

you go. Now you're good. I'm Adrian. Old team, the developer of the project. Is that is it coming through? Yep. Okay. And I I know that so I wasn't sure how this as far as presentation goes, we did it all last last time. So So repeating kind of that, I don't think I need to. Right?

So I don't I think based on the conversations I have with staff, like we've came to these conclusions or these, outcomes, so I'm happy with where we've agreed to. I don't have any concerns as far as where that conversation stood. So it's more or less if anybody asks questions for me, the project hasn't changed. There isn't really anything except for those last few staff decisions. So don't really have anything new to talk about.

Alright. So then you would accept the revised conditions? Accept the revised conditions. Yep. Alright. Fantastic. So I have I have a question.

Yeah. I that's Good. Do that.

And I meant to ask it last meeting, and I I'm embarrassed that I forgot. The this is a apartment that's gonna have a management company. Correct. And what I was concerned about is the active space. And I there might be a lighting plan someplace, but I didn't find it to ensure that we have both hours of operation that are mindful of being adjacent to the single family residence and that the light lighting plan doesn't put a big, huge floodlight off a basketball court going into I was planning on

every direction. So the whole neighborhood gets in, just But

but only but only if you can do the the spotlights into the sky.

So we we discussed that Okay. With staff and our plan, like, we don't really want people using it at night anyway. So it's gonna be more of dust till dawn or, you know, see the city ordinance type stuff. So the only lighting we're gonna have is, like, for safety, which is gonna be path lighting or outside landscape lighting. So we still want people to be able to go and sit on the benches in the open area, maybe sit out there or whatever, but it's it's just enough for seeing for safety. So there's gonna be there's no spotlights. There's no lights. There's nothing above. It's all gonna be landscape type lighting.

Okay.

Pretty simple stuff.

Thank you. I just was thinking

how it

fit in the community and making sure that the the neighbors would,

Yeah. We want people to kind of enjoy the space but not like especially from a property management perspective. That's a there's liability there and having people go out there at night. So that was never our intent. All just just safety lighting.

Was kinda open for a bat signal.

I was I proposed to Nerik, and he's said no. Guys weren't gonna go for it.

No. No. Archer in the sky.

I have a follow-up on that real

quick. Okay.

Okay. And this is just hearing this now made me think of it. It's not something I thought of before. Is there going to be any signage to indicate that the the basketball court is per se not open to the public, it's intended for apartments. That was

a concern, like I talked to them about people jumping the fence to go use it. So we're gonna put signage, basically it's gonna be restrictive property, whatever that wording is gonna be for sure. And that's what even the discussion about what that space is gonna be like, that was part of it, not allowing public to just go in there and start using it. So signage, yes. It's gonna be throughout. Most of it's gonna say restricted to tenants only. That's I think that's the best we can do because I we you know, we're not gonna be able to police if people jump in, but right. Yeah.

Got it. Beautiful. Alright. Any other questions of the applicant before we call for

other testimony? Yeah. I I have I have one or two, and I wasn't here last time, but I'm up to speed. So I yeah. I appreciate all the work you've done on this application with the city, some of the changes that have been made, particularly adding parking, even the parking requirements in this area and all that now. One thing I noticed with a lot of the conditions, there's a lot of stuff still yet to be kind of researched and finalized, put in place. And I'm just curious if you see any of that work potentially impacting any of the design of the building or the number of parking spaces. I'm thinking about things like the condition I was referring to earlier, which you need to move around some landscape islands, for example. Those have to be spaced better. The what are they called?

The bollards that we were talking about or the gate. There's an EV station along the street that needs to move, stuff like that. Do you expect that complying with any of these conditions will significantly change the project as it

No, because that was pretty vetted out. So anything that was any of the conditions we discussed, like pretty vetted out to the plant itself, the parking, the building, of course, none of that's we made sure none of that's going to be affected by any of the conditions. Only really the only thing that left on the table was this whole open space with fencing and lighting. Everything else, for the most part, is gonna remain the same. We can adjust as needed, but not the building, not really the parking. No. They're they're in short, no. Nothing's gonna nothing's gonna adjust from what's there.

Sure. Do you have any additional thoughts on some of where you think landscaping may be heading? I think there's still some open endedness to the landscaping question as well. I'm just wondering if you could any more thought into that. Like tree canopy and all the stuff

that So comes we about ended up the discussion with staff, like we actually meet the code. We met the code originally in some of the submittals. We met the code for tree canopy and all of that. And we I'm a big tree guy too. Like, I I I, you know, I love having trees and covering and all that.

So we ended up on our, I think on our site plan already kind of shows an above abundance of trees. And if staff was really gonna be like, Adrian, let's do some more, I have no problem with it as long as we can squeeze them in. So for what's already on landscape there, we've already, I think, exceeded the code requirement. And I'd be still willing to add more trees if that's if that's what we had to do. But I think we've you know, especially because we have neighbors and we have people so to kinda block the parking from a lot of them. I'd love to put more brush, more trees, things to kind of like block all of that. So totally open landscape stuff, but I think we've exceeded it.

But nothing insurmountable at this point? No. Great.

Last time in the previous meeting, one public comment was a concern about the potential for additional parking off on the street in residential areas. And so I asked staff the question if we had if there was anything in Sherwood's code city code that either precluded you or required you to make parking part of the rent for each unit. In other words, my question was, could you charge extra for parking? Or would you make parking just part of what you get for renting one of the apartments? And the answer was very clear that there's nothing in Sherwood City code to require that or or preclude it.

So I'm just asking if you have an intention in mind on whether parking is good the 40 spots are are, so to speak, free with rent, or if there's something that you may charge extra for.

So parking is a a big one. Like other developments we've done, like parking is one that gets brought up in these meetings. For sure for for these kinds of areas, we generally don't even have to do it based on state code. Right? So but we're big on parking, especially when we know people have to drive, people have to park.

It's a big thing in our office discussing how many parking spots we should do because we realize if we go too many and we have, like, visitor spots like, this is just a quick overview, like and we have visitor spots where people don't pay, then no one's going to want to use the other ones. It'll either just use the visitors and park out in the street. So to be honest, it's like a really tough concept of how to get tenants to use parking versus, you know, paying parking. So we've kind of landed on the fact, like, we do charge for parking, which I think is a kind of a policy for, like, a property management company. But we can't really control almost any of that.

Like, we wanna do the minimum till we know that our tenants are gonna, like, take a spot and pay for the spot, but we don't wanna do too many so people are getting, like, visitor free ones. So in all honesty, like, it's it's we wanna we wanna give parking. We can only do so many. If we don't charge for them, we would probably put it in like, if we pretend like we're not charging for them, we're gonna put it in the rent, then people just it's gonna free for all. So, like, it's just it's a really weird outcome on how to make parking work all around.

So to be at the end of the we just kinda settled on, like, we're we're gonna have one space per tenant. We're have some visitor spaces, whatever the the property management or the performer, like, has for for charging for it. And unfortunately, everything outside of that, I just don't feel like I can control. And and this is other projects I've done. Like, we most of the spaces get rented.

Most of the tenants use them. And then you will get some people, like, parking on the street. But I I think with the data and everything we've done, I get just nothing all all we know we can do is we can offer parking. And whether we charge for it outside of the rent or in the rent, which I think generally it's always kinda outside of the rent to give them that option just based on kind of the market and how it works. But that's kinda all we can do with it. I wish I wish there was a formula to be like, hey, if we people don't pay, they're gonna you know? But it it's it the way we do it is we try to give everybody a spot. Hopefully, they all wanna take that spot. A lot of people might end up parking. Actually, I take that back.

In our one of our last projects, not very many people work on the street. So most people take the spot. And then we have a few extras for tenants and some for visitors, and I'm sure some of the tenants are probably taking those, but we try to limit those so that people are forced to kinda take their own spots. But it's we're we're kinda do we're doing parking even though we don't have to, and that's the best we kind of can do considering that the state doesn't even want us to do parking. Like, of the planning commissions, they sat and they were like, I don't even want you guys to do parking. We're like, oh. That's terrible. Right?

So again, we appreciate you doing that.

Yeah. And so it's like, we're we're just we're doing the best we can with it. And I understand your concern because I I live out in the country where like, if there's not a lot like, I get my own space and doesn't matter where people park, but I I get it out here. I just there's not really a formula that we can put together and be like, this makes sense or this doesn't. So

And this this gives you the flexibility to change to the market too depending on how it works. So if it wasn't working, you you would change it maybe. Right? Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I guess my only last thought is there will be signage just like I asked about the the use of the basketball court. I assume there will be signage that says these spots, unless otherwise marked, are for residential parking.

It's all they're all lined, yeah, numbers, and they're all assigned to certain people. Yeah.

Alright. Thank you. Commissioner Gray?

Yeah. Just something off of that thought because I think a concern that you're bringing up there is if residents have to pay for the spots that are off street, the concern would be there the spillover into on street parking and the monopolization of that parking. But we as a city have mechanisms that we either can put in place or have in place in terms of time limit parking. I think that can kind of help alleviate that.

Is that correct, Eric? Yes, that's a great point. So the city all of the streets around the site are local streets. So under city control, not county or state, for example, the city council can, by ordinance, establish parking restrictions. The it's situation that would be monitored after the site is developed. And if there does become a parking problem, my hunch is that the city council would pull on that authority to enforce on street parking restrictions, which would then likely have the effect of pushing people back to on-site parking even if they had to pay for it. All right.

Any other questions? Alright. Then we'll call for other citizens that may want to testify, and we your your presentation and rebuttal's thirty minutes, so you've you've got a lot of time saved for the end in

case I can't of stay there for me.

Yeah. Let's see. I think we have we have people signed up.

Yeah. Sure. Simpson, we received one request to speak from, mister Booker.

Alright. You will approach, and then you just need to give your name and your city of residence for the record, please. And then someone at staff is keeping a timer and give you a heads up when four minutes is on.

Alright. My name is Jim Booker. I live in Sherwood. I'm in the Old Town Overlay District about three houses this direction as opposed to about three houses that direction, where we're all interested in here. I submitted some comments by email and if they didn't get through, have them right here and hopefully they can get in at this point anyway.

I just wanted to highlight a couple things related to the tree canopy because those were a major point of discussion in the previous meeting two weeks ago. These are only for really advisement on this. There's a lot of staff seems very happy with the, that the tree canopy requirement has been satisfied, and I don't think that this really relates to that directly except that it might make it easier for you, Adrian, actually to meet that. In addition to the 35 inch fir tree that was identified and talked about a lot on the corner, there are several apple trees that are just west of those fir trees. There are also, there's also an attractive cherry plum that perhaps you wish to preserve.

I like not starting from little seedlings, that's where this is really coming from, but also know that this raises construction expenses and difficulty and uniformity and all of that in construction. There are also a couple of pin oak trees in there that it's suitable habitat for and potentially could be preserved on their location that one of them especially does doesn't look like it's the footprint for the parking lot or any of the buildings. There are also several native big leaf maples that perhaps might be on an island somewhere, that probably isn't a possibility anyway, but to the extent that there are trees that are appropriate for the site or some location on the site, it would be great to work with what is there. And that's the major substance of what I have. Just call it there.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Yeah. Thank you, Jim. So we're just getting to that. You know, and I apologize. We do have it here in the planning mailbox. What I'd recommend just to make sure that it's considered tonight is that we read it into the record. And it's a little long, but I think given the circumstances, it's a good idea to read it into the record, if you don't mind. We can read it. You can read it if you'd like, but we can read it as well.

We'll have staff read it into the record. It'll be exhibit p. Go ahead. You go. And is it can you brought put it up on the screen, probably? Yeah. Let me see if I can Not that I'm asking for the impossible at the last minute. Perfect. Okay.

I'm gonna I'm gonna print it

right now. Okay. Okay.

So staff received this public comment from Jim, stating, I'm writing I'm writing regarding the proposed Rock, Point multifamily project ID, LU2025Dash007SPSlashVAR. I am a Sherwood resident and homeowner located within the Old Town Overlay District. The project appears to be consistent with the city's objective for higher density new development to be near our single fit single transit corridor. It is also consistent with what has been presented with the ongoing Old Town strategic planning process of adding higher density housing near the commercial district. The project as presented October 20 or 10/14/2025 at a meeting of the planning commission appears to also have visual and aesthetic components to blend with the existing community.

One area of concern at the October 14 meeting was the inevitable loss of existing trees within the project footprint. There was also concern about water management and impact on neighbors. Stormwater management at the site is potentially quite challenging, and it is not clear to me at the meeting about how the process for ensuring the impacts to surrounding property owners will be minimized. This could be clarified. Is this all done through CWS permitting at a later date?

Returning to vegetation returning to vegetation and existing conditions, I would like to emphasize and or add several points of consideration. A, the attention paid to and language to avoid construction impacts on the identified native 35, inch fir tree on the property line near the Southwest corner or Southeastern corner and Southwest End of Southwest Woodland Street, attachment a, appendix b, storm water calculations, PDF, 2021 survey, is applauded. Note that the adjacent 10 inch fir tree appears to do nothing to increase canopy coverage and does not appear to me on inspection to be an asset to the community or homeowner. It could be removed or stay with no concerns whatsoever. B, there are several apple trees located just west of the fir trees, which might be appropriate to keep.

C, there is an attractive cherry plum on the border of with Southwest Woodland Street, which appears clear of proposed which appears clear of the proposed basketball court and playground structures, which could be preserved. D. There is not a insignificant pin oak tree almost bordering the city well property near the southwest corner of the proposed development. While entwined with several other cottonwood trees, it appears to be well outside the parking lot and access footprint impossible to preserve without too much effort. My personal experience and quick look at the habitat identifies this non native species as appropriate for moist, poorly drained bottomland soils and flood plains, which would seem to describe the location well.

A second pin oak pin oak can be seen southeast of the site and might similarly be a candidate to keep, though it might also be too near near the parking area. Point e, several native big leaf maples are present on the site. One of one of interest might be near the Southwestern project boundary adjacent to the property city property of Budding Columbia and Pine. I note I note trees in b through e primarily as heads as a heads up to what might be possible during construction by the developer. Points a and e may involve trees literally on property boundaries.

There are many willowed willows and cottonwoods on the site, which likely would not be compatible with the project footprint or intended uses, ergo, adjacent to the playground. I believe there there is also a substantial native ash tree on the site. Even if it were possible to keep, seems unlikely due to the project footprint. It seems likely we will lose our ash trees to the emerald ash borer, so preservation would be little be of little importance. Please feel free to reach out or contact me if a clear additional clarification is needed. James Booker, 15824 Southwest 1st Street, Sherwood, Oregon.

Thank you very much for providing that information. I would ask staff to speak at this time to the tree preservation process and the tree canopy coverage. I have it in the thing. I just wanna let the people who are listening know what we go through to try and preserve trees, try to keep the big trees, and then how this applicant meets the the code in in in the in the process of doing that.

Right. So to initially start with the tree preservation component of the code, all type twos through four are required to do a woodland inventory list. That was one of the conditions of approval outlined within the staff report. Basically, that just kind of details what trees are on the site, what trees can be preserved, and for preservation purposes, how are they going to be preserved overall on the site. So protective fencing, perimeter area, on-site supervision sometimes if necessary depending on the size and scope of the property.

Tree preservation also pops up throughout the code. In our site planning chapter specifically, there's a component there that talks about preserving trees to the maximum extent feasible. That kind of ties into a lot of the other places that tree preservation pops in within our landscaping chapter. There are components there that give credit for preserving trees. So essentially, if an applicant preserves trees, they can get essentially more credits towards like the overall vegetation of the site.

All multi families are required to have 40% tree canopy coverage. And so that was one of the conditions that was outlined within your staff report. We've been working with the applicant very closely. And so just kind of like looking at opportunities for preservation. And I believe we probably are going to ultimately end up with actually more preservation overall than than what was presented, but that's ongoing.

And so the conditions that we're looking at this evening not only don't preclude them from doing extra tree preservation and encourages them to, if if if it's available, save an extra tree or two and not have to replace it. Because if they take out an old tree, they have to replace it two for one, correct, tree canopy wise? Am I saying that right? Because they get double credit for keeping a tree. So if they take a tree out, they're gonna have to double the tree canopy. Is that what I'm

So the canopy coverage is like the minimum. So that's the baseline, right? And so for specifically multi families, we require a 40% tree canopy coverage or 30 tree canopy coverage. And that's something that they have to achieve. That's kind of based off calculations from an arborist, right? If they're for specifically with parking, perimeter parking, for example, which generally kind of absorbs a lot of the heat, right? And to kind of combat that urban heating effect, we give them credits, right? So if they, preserve a tree, depending on the size and DBH of that tree, it's gonna be equivocal to multiple. So then that's kind of where the double dipping kind of comes Not into

in the regular landscapes?

No. But there is there's also credits there. There it basically the way that tree preservation in general pops up throughout the code, it's supposed to kind of be a catch 22 of like, Okay, if you can preserve this, you can potentially get that. And then essentially, the applicants can structure their site ultimately aimed towards preservation.

All right. And then the other question that came up is the water management. That's done through Clean Water Services. And because this had a wetland in it, they went through the core of engineers for their fill permit or not. Or they already had that from the previous application. You know? Water the water management of the

Yeah. So I believe that's a condition of approval from our engineering department. Essentially, have to do the joint permit. But they do have a fill permit from the Department of State Lands Yes. To fill the wetland and Yes. Which they've already paid into. Mhmm. So they're all good to go in that realm.

So it's not just managed by the city. You've got a layer of clean water services and then a layer of the division of state lands.

Correct, yeah. Okay.

All right. Those answers the the questions that I had, and it looks like Eric has

Just just reading the the specific question. It's around CWS permitting, basically stormwater management. I think the wetland is certainly related as Water management. Water management generally. The short answer is they have conditions of approval related to compliance with CWS standards.

And so essentially, the testimony is correct that the final permitting through Clean Water Services and the city assured will happen at a later date. So they're going to have to manage stormwater and erosion control through construction. That's a very specific requirement to not have mud essentially run off the site into the street. That's a construction management standard. And then at permanent build out of the site, the storm water also has to be managed on a permanent basis. And so that final conformance and approval will come after land use approval, and that is how it works in all land use applications.

But before they get occupancy?

Before they get a grading permit, really. They need to actually, don't quote me. It's either before grading or before issuance of a building permit. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, they would need to show compliance with the construction management standards. Prior to issuance of a building permit, they would need to show conformance with the full development standards.

And if I could just add one more thing because I always want to add my 2¢. I think staff will talk with the applicant about additional tree protection. I think the testimony is well heard to the extent that the site can accommodate additional tree preservation without significant changes per Commissioner Vance's questions earlier. I think commission and staff have heard loud and clear from the community. I think developer has as well that tree preservation is encouraged. To the extent we can do that, we'll absolutely work with the applicant. If additional tree preservation is not required, we will work with the applicant to get as much high quality landscaping as we can throughout development site.

Excellent. Alright. Does applicant have any rebuttal from I didn't have any other blue cards. Right? No. Okay. So no other So many. Opponents or proponents. If you choose to testify, we need the blue cards. Alright. Is it too late to see that? No. But but you might wanna run raise your hand and run up right now if you're ready to testify and Come up and fill out Come on up. Proponents or opponents, and we'll have you fill out the blue card after you testify and turn it in.

Yeah. Go and come up first, provide testimony.

And provide your testimony, and then we'll, have you give the blue card to Sean when you're done. My

name is Randy Swanson, and I live at 22550 Highland Drive. So I'm in the Cannery Row Apartments. My question has to do with what what is the developers thinking with regard

So if you could speak to the commission. Sorry.

My understanding from the meeting on October 14, which my wife attended, is that the proposed units will be a minimum of two bedrooms. And I'm just wondering what the developer's thinking is is with regard to not having one bedroom or studio apartments

available. Okay. Any other questions?

This may have come up on the fourteenth. I apologize. Wondering if any of the units will be offered at below market rate rents.

And just for the record, the testimony sounds, like neutral testimony, or do you wanna clarify if you're opposed, proponent, opponent, or neutral?

I I think I'm neutral.

Don't think Thank you. Have a position. You. So I should fill this out. Yeah. And you could turn it into Deshaun. Okay. He's collecting them over here on this side. So, the questions asked, I would look into this to the staff to say this is, not under our purview. As a quasi judicial.

We can look at the exterior of the building, not the interior, and the application itself was not dependent on affordable or below market rate housing for any of the conditions of approval. So I'm looking over for someone to make me sound smarter by giving me actual words that I should be saying because this is not under our purview to ask about rent or the orientation of the apartments themselves inside the building. Other than

that we didn't condition it for that. Correct. Yeah.

Thank you, chair. Related to unit size, the code does not get into those details. It only gets in the detail of unit count, whether that's a one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom, onward. So the unit count for this is a 32 unit apartment of two plus bedrooms. In terms of the price point, there is no condition of approval or otherwise obligation by the land use decision to require any type of restriction on the units.

Just really quickly, the Senate Bill SB fifteen thirty seven, one of the options in order to qualify for those adjustments is to offer the units at a reduced rent price. However, there is also an option in order to qualify for that bill and the mandatory adjustments that simply is that if the city grants the adjustments, there will be additional units on the site. And that is the criteria that is met through this application. So there's no condition of approval. To the extent the applicant would like to answer the question, that's great. I think they can also answer it to member of the public offline as well if that's preferred.

And the variances that we are considering this evening subject to SB fifteen thirty seven are run through the process, the checkbox that says this is providing more units than would have regularly been built there by increasing the density.

Correct. And the bill only requires one of those to be met, and that is the one that is satisfied.

So by by state law and per the process, they the affordable option is not required. And and we can't nor can we just make a determination of approval or denial based on that criteria.

Or would I recommend a condition accordingly? Right. I think that the approve or the addition of units in general will reduce prices due to supply and demand. So

Alright. So if the applicant chooses to re provide rebuttal testimony or answer any other questions if staff or, commission has any?

Yeah. Just as far as the two bedrooms, because that's based on the financial performer for the building to make it financially feasible. So it's one, two, three bedrooms is really kinda done at a financial level, depends a lot of the project. So there's not any specific reason. There's no one bedroom, I guess, that's, you know, to answer that question.

And the market value or the market rates is essentially what we shoot for, but the market is, like you had said, the more housing you have or the less, it's going to dictate that. The one I wanted to speak about is the tree canopy situation. And understood what the question was about preserving. So without, like, putting myself basically state the fact that we meet code, we meet the criteria of what we need to be able to develop the project. So whether we remove all the trees or we don't, it's it's in our legal right to do so.

After this meeting, I'm more than happy to look at the plan, look at the condition of the trees that are on the on the lot, and if any of them do fall within, like, outside in a parking strip area or something that we can preserve it. Unfortunately, to back that a little bit, when you're doing construction and you're running trackhoes and you're running excavators, trying to protect trees right in the middle, even if it's like right in the position like, oh my gosh, this is perfect area, you still got to move a lot of machinery around. So we could preserve it, let's say, but it might die in a few months because we've ran over the roots over and over. So as a developer, that makes it really complicated. So I'm not against trying to preserve them, especially because they're grown and they look, you know, they're nice.

But all I can say is, you know, like I think Eric mentioned that, like, we we could continue this conversation as far as trying to preserve anything else that would fit in a in a landscape buffer. Mhmm. But I can't commit to that. Again, you know, like, from our legal standpoint, we we we're gonna plant a lot of new trees. If we can if we can save anything, we would but I and I like I said, I understand that concern, but during construction it makes it really difficult. So as much as we want to try a lot of that stuff, we're going to be pretty limited during construction if, you know, so I want to help where I can, but that's kind of the limit on that.

Understood. Through through the chair, do you mind if I just clarify one thing? We we do have two trees that are required to be retained, and so I just wanna clarify that, that that those two trees those are

already on

the plans? Yep. Yeah. Just wanted to clarify that. Yeah. Thank you.

He's he's already got them preserved.

Yeah. Those are preserved. So yeah. Yeah. That's all I have.

Alright. That is the any rebuttal? Any final questions before I close the public testimony part? Alright. Then I'm gonna go ahead and close the public testimony and see if there are any final comments by staff.

Nothing from staff at this time.

Alright. Any questions of staff, if there are any by the commission? Go

ahead. So I have a one final question about the two fir trees, and it's a short question. The condition previously that was about that exact subject had more detail including what would happen if one of the trees or both of the trees were damaged and could not be preserved. Now I believe on page 22 of the staff report condition eight dot four, it mentions the applicant shall preserve the two existing mature Douglas fir trees as identified within the approved plan set. So very simple, sentence.

There's no longer any language at all about what would happen if one or both of the trees was accidentally damaged to the point where they needed to be removed. And so I just wonder if there is any thought to if any event would occur in that case? In other words, would there be any outcome based on the inadvertent removal of one or both of those trees?

Yeah. So I can I can try to answer that? So just just to preface, I think it's been kind of on council's radar to update the the tree code overall. And I believe that that also includes like preservation. I think really kind of where staff was at with kind of the revision to that condition here is that we essentially have to look at Title XVI for how we kind of not only write our findings, but how we also structure our conditions.

And so how staff initially thought that that would essentially be helpful to, I kind of achieve the preservation, There was a conversation about not necessarily essentially creating new criteria or kind of embedding that into a condition of approval, especially with multifamily that has to be inherently clear and objective, right? And so we kind of had to go based off of our adopted code at the time. If I recall correctly within our code, there is stuff that talks about specifically fines that get imposed if the tree is removed. Additionally, it is within the approved site plan, right? So if there is not 100% preservation of the tree, then they're kind of deviating and breaking away from what what you all have approved.

And so then that would have to come in for a modification. And then there's other components associated with that. I think that's kind of where staff landed on that.

And we have a tree code in place that says if you remove a required tree, you have to replace it. Correct? Yeah.

Can you clarify the condition? Which condition number on the on the revised staff report?

Yeah. Page 22, condition a dot four, middle of the page. Two twenty three. Three is top 23.

Oh, I see where it came under. Okay.

I think one of one of the issues with the prior wording was for all intents and purposes, it's really not possible to replace a 50 foot tree with a 50 foot tree. Right? Nobody can do that. And so now the sentence is very simple, and it is very clear, but it just doesn't give any it doesn't give any specific wording about this is what would happen if accidentally the tree is damaged beyond the point of being able to save it.

Yeah. So so you're you're really spot on too with that transplanting thing. So essentially, there you can transplant trees depending on the DBH and size, but there's usually a diminishing margin of return. And that basically means that the bigger the tree you try to transplant, the less likely it's going to survive and be able to take root and then potentially just create a hazard overall. For the 10 DBH tree, there's potential there.

But for like a 35 Douglas fir, that's very potentially dismal if it was ever ever attempted, not to mention you'd have to basically get all the equipment, which is not necessarily always readily available. So that's correct. That's kind of also what staff had kind of talked about, I think, when you're kind of looking at the condition on top of that. Again, there are fines kind of associated with tree removal, right? And so that's kind of just embedded already into the code.

So there is a mechanism in existence right now that would essentially allow staff to say, you know, if if there was something that happened with the preservation of the tree or the protection of the tree, that we would have base we would be able to address it directly. And also, this is a good conversation, I think, when we start looking at tree code updates, which is kind of still within the pipeline of planning.

Okay. But but the mechanism for the fines for the for tree removal outside of an approved process is not part of our review process. So if someone like, if I take down the street tree that's required in front of my house, it's not part of the land use process. It's part of code compliance.

Yeah. It would be a code enforcement problem.

Yeah. I just 2¢. Sorry. I was gonna make it. So so we we removed that section that you were talking about, commissioner to Watson, because code in rereading the code, we really didn't feel like the code and the condition allowed that type of out, if you will, during construction.

So we revised the condition to be much more clear. To your point, you shall protect the trees. If the worst happens and those trees are not protected, we would have to consider what to do. Either they would need to come back to you and because it was a very clear condition of approval, well, you protect these trees and potentially get another approval from you guys to reverify that the 40% is met. I think that's probably worst case and most burdensome for the applicant.

The alternative and less burdensome would be that staff would then verify through the final site plan or prior to occupancy that the 40% is met again. But we removed that language because we wanted it to be very clear that those trees need to be protected and not provide that that much easier out per the code through the condition of approval that if there something happens, oops, they can be removed. We wanted to be very clear that they shall be protected. If they're not, then we really need to talk, basically, is why that why that section was modified.

And

so just kind of looking through the code just to confirm, it is yeah, there's penalties addressed under 16,140.07 trees on property subject to certain land use applications.

All right. Does that answer the question? It answers the question. All right. And did we have any other questions of staff? Yeah, got

one question for staff. During the previous meeting and the video, I saw there's a conversation around fencing. And did I hear comments that we were going to do conditioning around fencing? And if so, are they updated here, or do we decide not to

do conditioning around fencing? I I remember asking about it and then through further discussion about protecting these trees, putting the fencing near the trees might be I I guess what I got from, commissioner Barnes' comment was that trying to put fencing near trees might harm the trees. Okay. That's why I stopped it. But, I mean, that's why I didn't go any further with it. Require a fence.

Code does not require a fence. The code does not require a fence. There you go. Typically, it's between commercial residential. This is residential to residential. It does not require a fence. Sounds like developer is going to put in a fence, but they're going to be careful around the tree. It does look like the tree is more or less on the property line. Probably split the fence as it approaches the the tree. All

right. That was a good discussion. All right. Is there any further deliberation before we entertain a motion?

Alright. I would just say I I appreciate the work you guys have done with staff to try to fit how this how Sherwood kinda is and generally try to understand our desires as a community. For others, I mean, there are routes to go now that are very, I think, outside of the line with what Sherwood would view and desire as a city for these types of applications and these types of zoning and so forth, and particularly around, for example, parking. Like you may have heard us mention earlier, parking is not required. I know you mentioned this last time as well, Gene.

And that's a result of mandates that we now have from the state level. And so we have to comply with things like that. So I I very much appreciate it when we have a developer come in and and say, no. I I understand that needs are for what I know you're trying to get at, and I'm gonna try to do something, you know, there. So that's very good.

Thank you.

What's that?

There's logical stuff. Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. Logical logical to have parking and Yes. It is. And to the

It is logical. And I

don't know how it showed up on the YouTube channel, but the before and after on the architectural renderings were really quite quite startling. When you see them, I mean, they're they're not just nuanced. They're impactful when you look at them side by side. And so what you did with your architect to bring bring forward those window glazing, the all that really fits to what community is looking for.

I can look super wet. Alright.

So I have a motion ready.

I am ready for it. Are are we all ready? Okay. Alright.

And the one amendment is the addition of exhibit B. Correct? Is there any other changes that I'm missing?

Not already mentioned in the staff presentation. Correct. Okay.

Well, correct me if I say this wrong. Alright. Here we go. I move the Sherwood Planning Commission approve the application for Old Town multifamily project number LU2025Dash007SPVAR based on the applicant testimony, public testimony received, and the analysis findings and conditions in the staff report as amended by the addition of exhibit p.

Second. Alright.

It's been moved and seconded that we approve LU 2025007 S P V A R site oh, sorry. The public oh, it doesn't have the name of the thing. Sorry. Old Town Multifamily Project number oh, I got it. LU202507. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Discussion. Alright. That's it. That's as that's as good as we get. Thank you very much, guys, for that. Thank you.

And thank you to the public for testifying and caring to come to our our meeting.

This is Before the

public leaves, just if I can make a quick comment is if the trees are important to you, please go to city council and and let them know and let your voices be heard there. Other cities have heritage tree programs to identify trees that are important to the community and be proactive with city council so they can direct staff to prioritize that.

We we work at the the will of the city council, and if they hear it, especially during budget time, that that's important in the community, then it gets elevated up on our work programs. So thank you.

And I will say we our staff knows that it's on their agenda, their list to redo the or to look at our tree code. It only got bumped out by some of the stuff in Salem and some of the other stuff that we're having them look at for the urban growth boundary and stuff. And so it's really in the top list of things. So we will you know, they're short staffed a little bit and we're and so we it is very important to us, but it won't hurt to hear it a few more times in the meetings. So

And I appreciate our council liaison, Giles, being here so he can hear it. Alright. We have any new business not on the agenda? Probably not. Commissioner comments, are there any comments that need to be brought up at this time?

Okay. Then if there's no further business before the commission, we are adjourned.