Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I think we're ready to roll. This is the uh March 23rd, 2026 planning commission meeting. in the Hanland Commission chambers in the LI Libby public safety facility at 1234 Lynn Avenue and um I will convene the meeting at this time and uh have the roll call. Yes sir. Commissioners Lasowl here, Laws here, Gmont here. Commissioner Henderson and Minig are excused and vice chair Dole is also excused and chair espie

here. Are there any public comments that anybody would like to make that are not related to items on the agenda? Any general or public comments? Hearing none, uh we will go ahead and move on to the first item or actually what we're going to do is we are going to have items A and B heard together and then um if we get to that point this evening, we will have them decided upon under two separate motions. But we will hear both items at the same time, have them presented at the same time and we will deliberate accordingly on those two items. So we have public hearings on GLUA 250025 CU25 4 Z and a1 MAS254 zeros and a1 park 254 zeros and a1 1367 Malala Avenue. It's a master plan and general development plan approval, conditional use permit approval for drive-thru for two drive-thru uses, and a an adjustment to the maximum parking. Then we also have glua 250025, mas254 zeros and a two, go 254 zeros and a 7, nod 250012 1367 Malala Avenue detailed development review DDP for the construction of a new public road parcel C. And so I will stop there and um at this point uh this is the time for the quasi judicial land use hearing and I will go ahead and read the script and all of the things that we need to do procedurally for the public hearing. Uh public hearings on land use

applications are scheduled for tonight and our role is to conduct the public hearing and to make decisions about the matter before us. In making those decisions, we must apply the applicable codes and laws and cannot vary or change those laws or codes. A staff report has been prepared for each application and has been made available to the public 7 days before the first public hearing and the staff report identifies the approval criteria that apply to each applicant's proposal. Staff has analyzed the criteria and which are contained in the staff report. The hearing procedure that the planning commission will follow is set out in state law and the Oregon City Municipal Code. And the hearing procedure steps are shown on the planning commission website. Public testimony will be called on the order that it was requested. And if you wish to testify in person, please fill out a speaker card available here. And they kind of look like this. They're over there on the back table. Make sure you fill one out uh so that uh we can call your name at the right time for you to testify. If you wish to testify virtually, you will be called either from a request to speak, emailed to city staff at at the appropriate website in advance of this meeting or by raising your virtual or physical hand when I ask if there are others in the audience who would like to participate in the digital realm. Um, for the public record, please begin all testimony testimony by stating your name and city of residence. You don't necessarily have to give you your address unless you wish to have additional uh uh material sent to to you based on your testimony. Testimony and evidence should be directed toward the applicable at the applicable approval criteria. And if you believe other criteria apply in addition to those addressed in the staff report, identify and discuss those criteria and explain how and why you believe they

apply to the application under consideration this evening. Any person may submit written material while the public record is open on each application. Any written materials received by the city staff during the time period in which the record is open will be placed in the record. Written material submitted during the public hearing must be presented to the city staff in order to become part of the record. If a person intends to to um submit a PowerPoint presentation, reports, pictures, or other exhibits used in that oral testimony will be placed in the record. Copies must be submitted to the city staff while the record is open. And if they are not given to staff, they will not be included in the record. Any person wishing a continuence to present additional evidence and testimony or keep the record open to respond to new evidence must make that request before the public testimony portion of the initial hearing is closed. If planning commission, if the planning commission makes the decision in which you disagree, any issue that you may wish to appeal must have been raised before the planning commission in order to be considered by the city commission and in the event of further appeal to the land use board of appeals without without raising the issue on the record with sufficient detail and accompanied by statements of evidence allowing the city and all parties to respond. The issue will not be considered on appeal. In addition to participating orally or in writing and raising all issues during the planning commission proceeding, the filing of appeals must include the required fee. A city organized neighborhood association may request a waiver of the appeal fee subject to the requirements set forth in OC 17 OCMC 1750190

C5 and 1750290 C. In addition, the failure of an applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient detail to allow the local government or its designate to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. So now we will open the public record for both of these items. uh items both items A and B which I have for mentioned at the beginning of this uh of this hearing and um I will also ask the uh if the planning commissioners have any uh potential conflicts or bias if they've visited the site they can just go over that at this point in time this point do any of the commissioners have any conflicts or bias commissioner laws I have no conflicts and no bias.

Okay. Commissioner Lel, no conflict, no bias. Exparte. I've driven by the location countless times. And Commissioner Carmat, same. No conflicts, bias, um, exparte, but I drove by the site just on the way here. It's on on my route to coming here. Excellent. And I've been by the site numerous times, but I have no conflicts or bias. Without any further, I think we are ready for the staff's presentation. Do you want to pull the audience to see if they have any um concerns about these disclosures?

Oh, right. Does anybody have any concerns about the disclosures that the planning commission has made? Thanks, Gary. Okay. Hearing none, we will uh have the staff presentation. Okay. All right. Thank you, Chair ESP. As I mentioned, these are two uh land use applications bundled under the same glua number 2525. One is for a master plan and one is for a detailed development plan that would normally be a type two review, but the applicant asked for a concurrent review and so therefore it's in front of you this evening. That's great. Okay.

As I mentioned, um we have one presentation and two staff reports. Um and would at the time of any um motion you'd have two motions um for approval, but we'll combine this. And um anything that's been added to the record, we're just for the sake of um expediency just adding it to both records. So the full um master plan and GDP will have the same public comments that come in. So, since the uh publishing of the staff report uh at the agenda last week, we've had a couple of public comments that have come in. Um those have been forwarded to you and there's hard copies um at your desk. Those will be entered into the record. Um the Oregon Department of Transportation provided their analysis letter and they found um that they support the findings in the transportation analysis and the key piece that they're concerned about is proportional contribution to their project um at the intersection of 13 213 and Beaver Creek which is a new uh right turn slip lane. And so at the detailed development plan for any of the parcels, uh the applicant will be assessed their proportional share to contribute to that project. And um during site plan design reviews all around the um area that are connected to the intersection of 213 and Beaver Creek, people um submit I mean people are uh subject to that proportional share. Uh the next public comment was submitted by Gary Shepard the attorney with Metro and that letter is available um on your dis as well. Kind of had three uh topics of comments. One was the location of the shared use path and concerns um for attractive nuisance near their new creek property. Two, uh they have a easement, a private easement on tax lot 500 to access their property. They just want to ensure that

they'll have ability to gain access uh with through their easement. And they had some comments about the storm water outfall. Uh the uh additional comment we received today was um some comments related to the transportation analysis by Mike Ard and I believe he's available online or in the audience but did submit uh today uh an email with his public comments. We have uh staff emails and response re from uh Josh Wheelers, our assistant city attorney, excuse me, assistant city engineer and um from DKS and associates, our transportation planners. So those are also available uh on your dis and will be entered into the record and we'll be uh discussing analysis response to these through the presentation. So the property is located at 1367 Malala Avenue. You'll see to the left the parcels that are involved in this uh master plan application. Um the main parcels um let's see if you can see my there we go. The main parcels are uh up here. What you see down um these three smaller parcels and are uh required to connect the public road to Beaver Creek and will be removed from the master plan once the detailed development plan is completed. Uh here is a zoning map showing the kind of myriad of zoning around this parcel. The parcel zone mixuse corridor 2 which uh a lot like mixuse corridor 1 allows a lot of varied uses of uh mixuse or and also uh standalone office standalone retail and standalone multifamily. What is different from mixuse corridor 2 from mixuse corridor 1 is there a is there a minimum F or floor area ratio in mixeduse corridor 2 and the applicant

has submitted findings showing they're well above the minimum F for this zone uh in red you'll see general commercial that's uh where the Safeway development is and as you move farther south kind of where the Fred Meyer development uh that's our general commercial zone um drive-throughs or permitted uses is um as and um that's kind of your your general hilltop uh commercial kind of more suburban oriented development campus industrial just farther south is related more towards uh the Clackmus County campus and our associated campus industrial uses that are more employment based. To the north you'll see R3.5 and R10. Those are our residential zones. And at the very top of this map, you'll see New Creek Canyon parking lot. It's just a little bit outside of this map, but in the uh as part of the presentation, there'll be some conversations about the Sheredes path, and the goal is to connect up one day to the parking lot of Metro's Mule Creek Canyon access. Um, and that's just outside of this map. Um, right north of Beaver Lane and Otterlane. So, the summary of the master plan elements, that's the general development plan, um, are kind of on the slide, and I want to go through them, and you can kind of look at the map. You don't have to read all of my notes, but you can kind of look at the map while I talk. Uh, the applicant didn't have to come in for a master plan. Um, this could have been done through site plan and design review to do a multi- parcel redevelopment, but the applicant came in for a number of reasons. one, they wanted a 20-year master plan to allow uh clarity and certainty in our development code. Um once when you apply for a master plan, you're allowed to utilize the code that's in place at the time you apply over the many uh implementation phases of a development. So as the parcels A, B, and D are developed, they

all are sharing the same development code as when the applicant submitted. So that allows flexibility in the master plan process. uh you're able they're able to look at a full transportation analysis for the whole site buildout to see if there are any off-site impacts rather than coming in individually. We wanted to have a whole wholesale approach. This allowed us to kind of look at the worst reasonable worst case scenario and what any off-site impacts would occur. Um implementation would happen at the detail detailed development plan, but this master plan allows us to do that. um we can look at the public road and utility locations and site grading as a general approach to see if it um meets the intent of our code and then it can be implemented through each detailed development plan. There's two excuse me there's two things that the applicant does need planning commission review on and that is conditional use review for drive-through facilities in the mixeduse corridor 2 zone. So, parcel A and parcel D are proposing drive-through facilities as well as parking maximum adjustments. So, parcel A and parcel D are requesting approval to build parking spaces above the maximum ratio as allowed in our code. And those two things do require a planning commission review. uh park parcel B which is a future apartment complex is not requesting uh any conditional uses or any parking maximums they plan on building to our development code requirements. One thing the master plan will also do is clarify process and timing. So, one thing the conditions of approval with a master plan provide for that 20-year time period and identify the date that the application was submitted as the as the allowable code over that 20-year implementation. Um the um specific uses are not tied to the master plan approval. This is a lot like um the previous TA village review the planning

commission did about a year ago. It's really setting out a framework plan and then when each detailed development plan comes in, they'll be reviewing to what's ever proposed. So, you know, if the building slightly moves or it's just a slightly bit bigger, they'll need to show compliance with the detailed development plan requirements and any conditions in the master plan. So, while the layouts are here to help you um understand, it's really the detailed development plan. They'll be the final development review. Um let's see. Uh so they're not requesting any master plan adjustments to the development code at this time. Um that's something you can do through the master plan process is you can request an adjustment to any of our development code in title 16 or title 17 and the planning commission can um review that and provide conditions. So right now they're really looking at building um the developments at each time based on our current based on the adopted code. Let's see. So, um, a little confusing, but um, parcel C is the new public road. And so, that is what is also being reviewed this evening in your detailed development plan. So, parcel A looks at a multi-tenant building. Parcel D is the quick service restaurant. Parcel B would be a proposed apartments. And parcel C is the uh, new public road. See, go to the next thing. So, as I mentioned, the two requests in front of the planning commission this evening that are type three reviews and have a clear nexus are the planning the conditional use for the drive-throughs and the parking maximum. And really the two questions um I would pose to the planning commission as part of this is has the applicant adequately demonstrated a need for an adjustment to the parking maximum standards on parcels

A and D and have any adverse effects been mitigated? And two, has the applicant designed drive-through facilities on parcel A and D that are safe, contain adequate Q storage, and have any adverse effects mitigated? and I'll go through and kind of lay out both Parcel Andy's request. But when you're thinking about um the conditions and the master plan and any questions you may have for the applicant or staff, that's the lens you should be looking at in regards to the parking maximum and conditional use. So, the parking adjustment for parcel A, um, what you see here, the applicant initially was working with staff on an specialty ger on parcel A. Uh, at that time, staff really understood that a specialy ger probably had a a direct reason to need a parking maximum. And um because of the odd layout of that parcel A and where this the road comes in, there's a there was a constraint area what you see to the left is a no build easement. Well, you can build a parking lot there. You cannot build a new building. So having the building right up against Malala Avenue was tricky. uh about January of this year, the um proposed uh specialty ger came to back to the applicant and that agreement didn't move forward and so the applicant work with staff on redesigning that building on parcel A to be more of a spec multi-tenant building. Um the building would stay in the same general location would front the new public road and what was the back of house kind of loading and unloading was repurposed to Q storage for a drive-thru. So um kind of at the north of the property at the end edge of the building would be where the drive-thru would be. So you would have the Q storage along the side and then the drive-through would be in the

rear. So with this analysis, the parking maximum um request um really staff saw it as not necessarily um tied to a use. Um there is no use tied to this building. It could be many different options. It's really spec at this time. But um I really understood the constraints of that no build area. So pushing a spec building against um Malala Avenue being long and skinny did not make as much sense. that did not make developable sense and would be awkward for both pedestrians and people parking trying to get access to the building. Um and so in this sense I really see it as a mitigation for um um the constrained site. Um, let's see. I say staff used the approach is allowing additional parking in a no build constrained area of the parcel subject to enhanced landscaping to create a gateway to the site. And that's condition of approval 14 in the staff report. Um, so rather looking at a a a use analysis and have they made their case, I'm really looking at as a site planning um a kind of space analysis of if a building can't go at Malala Avenue, what would what would would you rather have um uh additional parking to support whatever is there, but also make sure that there is a uh a gateway of enhanced landscaping if the planning commission denied the applicants maximum parking adjustment, then um there would just be a very large landscaping area most likely and I don't know if that necessarily would serve the people visiting the site or also um would be beyond what would be required as the gateway. So that's I'm available for any questions when we get to that. But that's what staff has really seen for the parcel a be more of a site planning

analysis rather than a parking analysis. The parking adjustment on uh parcel D is a quick service restaurant. Um they've designed um a drive-thru which has very large cues. And um one thing I like about it is this design. If you are going into the Q storage, you are not blocking people that are parking at the restaurant and walking in. And sometimes you'll see a drive-through design where the out overflow Q storage goes into the customer parking and then you're blocked as a customer trying to get in and out. In this way, um they uh they have their own um egress drive-thru to the north here. And there is a double stacking storage all the way through. and they would not be um blocking this way for people who were parking and walking into the restaurant as part of the analysis both through the drive-thru and the um parking adjustment really seen as a gateway look on Malala Avenue. So, the applicant initially showed some enhanced landscaping areas you'll see uh kind of right along the intersection along the new public road to Malala Avenue. But really, I think as part of the conditional use, making sure that that car and Q storage is blocked from the pedestrian experience on Malal Avenue, staff has added some additional areas in red that will be added to that enhanced landscaping area. And those conditions that look at um it's like it's based on square footage of enhanced enhanced area and there's a certain amount of additional trees and shrubs that will be required in there both in parcel A and parcel D. So, the conditional use drive-through facility for parcel A, as I mentioned, um it uh nicely repurposed to have a

double Q storage. Um these are both permitted uses, both um whatever the drive-through will be, it'll be for a restaurant or other type of use that requires a drive-through that's permitted in the zone. The drive-throughs are located to the side and rear. And the buildings are not exclusively dedicated to drive-through. Drive-throughs are an ancillary use. This is not a small little drive-through coffee facility. This is a larger building that has uh drive-throughs as ancillary. You know, the planning commission can consider each development separately and they can conduct a contextsensitive review and place reasonable conditions on the proposal. you know, if the planning commission was reviewing a drive-thru uh down in our main street or in our downtown area, that's a much different context and you have might have a different analysis of the impact in mitigation. So really when you're thinking about the conditional use review for these two facilities, I think a key thing is is understand the context of where you are in the hilltop area, what its impact would be both for pedestrians and vehicles as well inside this hilltop area and you can put reasonable conditions on this application. So the condition use driveway facility for for parcel D um as I mentioned uh it is welldesigned. It has a large Q storage and staff has identified that additional enhanced landscaping. The one thing uh I do want to add that we put a condition on. You know, anytime you have a popular quicks serve restaurant, the first couple months of opening days sometimes can be more popular than what is a standard transportation analysis impact. And so, as part of the DDP application, staff is requesting the applicant implement an on-site and off-site opening day pedestrian and vehicular circulation and safety plan to address some of that additional traffic congestion that may happen during the

opening days of any restaurant. So that would be excuse me scoped out with our transportation engineer about how do you do flaggers? What's the opening day uh approach to if there's any um kind of additional transportation impacts uh while the the restaurant is popular before it kind of goes back into background conditions. So as part of the master plan, we do look at a utility analysis. Um, one, uh, we did a transportation an analysis, uh, with the applicant to see what the any off-site impacts may occur. And both the application submitt and our review by our transportation engineer identified that um, the there were no additional off-site impacts beyond um, the the two signals at Beaver Creek and Malal Avenue that they would add to their leg of the intersection. Each detailed development plan will be paying for the systems development fee at the time of DDTP application as well as that proportional share for their contribution to the project at 213 and Beaver Creek. Uh the shared use path as you see on your right is a um bicycle and ped path that's been identified in our uh transportation system plan. And it really when you look at a transportation system plan level, we're really just connecting points A and B. So often time you'll have a line on the map, but when you get to the detailed development plan or just a normal site plan design review, you look at the actual path of where you get from A to B. So the goal is we want to have a connection for pedestrian and bikes from Beaver Creek along the site through the site and connect up to that parking lot at New Creek Canyon. So, how do we get there over time and ensure that our

development applications can provide for that long-term buildout? The exact location can be amended on the site where it makes the most sense for the development, safety, grade, all those kind of things. Uh finally, uh there was a public comment related to storm water from Metro. And I just want to reiterate that um our storm water design standards require storm water to be released back within the basin that it's from. So we don't move water from one basin to another. But also the release of storm water is done at pre-development rates. So if you hold water within a detention pond, you have the water quality. So it's being cleaned, but you're also doing the retention. So that clean water is then released back to the same basin at pre-development levels. So uh our assistant city engineer is here tonight. You can ask him questions about our development code related to storm water. So, as I mentioned, the detailed development plan um was for parcel C, the public road, and that public road runs along the master plan site, but then also down along those additional parcels um I spoke to you about. Now these parcels right here um are required u to be in this application because um that was an agreement they had with a previous prop with those property owners that this road gets built but it is not part of the master plan moving forward. So moving forward it it's kind of brought in to be reviewed and then once the the street is completed those tax slots will be taken out of the master plan moving forward. So, two items I want to review as part of the detailed development plan for the streets. There's a small section um in our natural resource overlay district. Uh there is a stream that's culverted, but the culvert opens right towards um where the road connects to Beaver Creek,

uh the new public road. And I if you kind of see it right here, if you look at my arrow, my arrow doesn't show up. Oh no. Um if you looked farther down um to the bottom of the left hand um figure oh there it's working. Can you see it? Okay. Um right down here this is about Beaver Creek Road. So as the road comes in it will um it will not um cover any of the existing uh open uh resource but where it's coververted in the 50oot buffer. So as part of that um the road will kind of nick a little bit of that 50 foot buffer and the applicant um is required to mitigate for that per our natural resource overlay district. They have a mitigation area they've identified um it actually is in the same location as the shared use path. So as that gets resolved, one the way our natural resource overlay district code works is you can um mitigate on at the exact location if available and in this this is not able to mitigate because it kind of goes down a hill and there's not a lot there's no location to mitigate right at the resource. You can mitigate farther on site or you can mitigate within the same basin. So there's a couple opportunities and that's written in the condition. Um they could work with Metro, they could work with other parts of the New Creek Canyon area to work on their mitigation. But our mitigation in our natural resource overlay district is clear and objective. You have X feet of impact. You have Y square feet of mitigation. And this even the trees and the bushes is a it's a math calculation. So, if you look in the conditions of approval for the street, you'll see that they have a um per our development code, they have a math calculation, and they've also provided the findings and they have a a a um landscaping plan that meets our code that's in their um submittal application

packet. The other piece I want to identify as a geological hazard overlay district. What you see uh in the district is both steep slopes and landslide deposits. Um we have a buffer around our landslide deposit and that's that um of orange color as well as this is kind of the top of the slope right here. Um, as part of our geological hazard review for the shared use path, we were able to conditionally approve the shared use path in its location. Um, so we did have conditions related to that, but um, the shared use path construction is a lot different than a street. Does not take a lot of ex excavation. Whereas if you build a street, you'd have, you know, feet of excavation. You only have um very few very few amount very few amount of excavation for a shared use path. And so we felt that staff could conditionally prove it in that location to meet our geological hazard overlay district. Um what I'll just describe in additional slides is it may not be the best location to meet our code for other aspects but for geologic hazards uh questions we have Josh Wheeler available for the conditions we had for the proposed shared use path in that area. So there um kind of I wanted to briefly respond to Metro's three comments. Um and the shared use path has been reviewed as part of the DDP and can meet the require excuse me can meet the requirements um of the geohhazard zone as conditioned. However, additional design work is still needed on the applicants and denture compliance. Based on recent public comment, the city has reviewed the path locations against the master plan policies for consistency with the

comprehensive plan and finds that there is an adequate nexus to require redesign on parcel B. And I'll after this I'll show I'll go back to the map again. Um the metro made comment of assuring access to their gate on tax slot 500, Mr. Younger's property. The metro easement is a private easement that the city can't compel access to. The applicant can apply for a driveway access permit on tax 500 at any time during or after the construction process. So, nothing in this approval prohibits um Mr. Younger from uh requesting a driveway access permit to allow Metro to have access through his property. And finally, the storm water outfall. The storm water code regulates storm water flow to remain within the basin, ensuring that is released at pre-development rates. staff conducted this analysis and established conditions reflecting this requirement. So, I'm going to go back a little bit on that shared use path. The crux of the conversation that I think will happen either this week and if this meeting is continued is um do you allow the shared use path kind of in this lower area below where the parcel B development will be where the apartments would be? So, some of the concern is it's not at grade with the apartments. So, it's kind of a little bit out of sight, out of mind. Um, not a lot of eyes looking at the shared use path and at this time there's not a direct connection to the north. So, people can walk on it, but at this time they can't quite get to that connection up to Hilltop. So, until the city is able to bridge that gap of an area to Hilltop, the path can't go any further. Now, there is a a large uh canyon um just on the other side. And so there's not really access to the New Creek Canyon area of Metro in this location. To access this, you would have to make your way up to the parking lot

to get access to the metro site. There's really not to topographic wise a way for kind of a side trail to get down to the new new creek space. So staff has identified um some revised conditions of approval. Um, one relates to the master plan that really looks at the shared use paths safety in its location. While it can be technically built through a geologic hazards code, um, we as staff are recommending a revised condition of approval that requires the applicant to relocate that shared use path higher up and integrate it with the parcel B redevelopment with the apartments. So it's integrated with the development eyes are kind of on who uses the path and it can be seen. Um, so I have the those conditions. I don't won't read it, but I have those conditions on this screen. With that, the detailed development plan would be revised to remove the conditions related to the path on the detailed development plan's approval. Um, with uh one condition remaining that says the applicant kilions construct their portion of the TSP project within parcel C as a public um 7 to 10 foot path. So, the road portion as you come up from Beaver Creek Road will have a sidewalk that is the shared use path. It's only when it leaves the the rideway that um they'll have to come back with um on parcel B, the apartment section. One final um revision I just want to uh highlight. I was speaking to the applicant about um parcel D the um quicks serve restaurant and I didn't they brought it up and I didn't realize it. I'm glad they did. There are some um power lines right at Malala Avenue and

the condition as written some of those trees may conflict with power line requirements and so um we added in an extra sentence that said it was not changing the number of trees but if those trees are planted near power line easements then the final height can go down to the height that you could put a under like a street tree height under a power line. So we had I think it was either 35 or 45 ft final height in those areas it would probably be like 25 ft which is allowed under power line easement. So it's just an extra technical sentence uh acknowledging that in that gateway area there may not be ways to put um some full trees where their power lines. So staff uh recommends approval of both applications with the revised conditions outlined in the presentation and um you have many options this evening. I think the applicant will be requesting continuence so we don't have to go through these uh this evening but um I'm available for staff questions and I know Josh Wheeler is available for any um engineering questions you may have related to storm water and the shared use path and transportation.

Okay. Are there any questions that the commissioners have of staff? uh regarding this regarding her presentation. Sorry. Yeah. Hi, Commissioner L. Um I was reading the staff report for the master plan and on page 25 it says the application was deemed complete on December 18th, 2025.

That's correct. The uh the 120day decision date for this application is April 7th, 2026 with an extended application to May 17th. Why are we just seeing this now? I mean, it seems it's putting everything on a pretty short timeline.

So, the applicant turned in the application in June and then was incomplete and worked through the summer and fall to complete the application. And right around January, as I mentioned, their tenant and parcel A kind of fell through. And so they actually extended 30 more days to staff, went back, worked on uh reworked on parcel a redesign and and now we are here with a hearing. Well, a short time like like this makes me a little nervous because if there is an appeal and it goes to the city commission, the same 120day timeline with the extension would would still extensions to May 17th. Um, and we are working with the applicant to ensure that we have adequate time for any appeals.

Okay. Um, let's see here. I'm sure that this is a standard statement, but it makes me a little nervous. Uh, in the staff report, it states, quote, the statement, uh, quote, subject to change bothers me. An example to subject to change is the cove which the pleasant present plans for the cove don't come anywhere close to its original applications. So can you

if we make it if we make a decision here tonight it's still subject to change. Well, can you specify what is subject to change on uh it's the in staff recommendations I'll quote

what what page you on Bob? Oh gosh, I didn't put the state the page down, but it says staff recommends conditional approval and there is a statement. The buildings and their locations on the three development parcels are subject to change unless otherwise specified by conditions in this application. Yeah, that's my my goal with that would be that the final design of the buildings may slightly shift or maybe it gets couple thousand feet bigger or maybe a little bit smaller. What I don't want to have is um this is a general framework layout, but the detailed development plan for those three parcels haven't come in. And so when I say subject to change, they still need to meet the conditions of approval. So any conditions you put on the um we put on the transportation, any conditions that are put on utilities that are put on the conditional use review or the uh uh parking maximum adjustment. They also have to meet that. And what I want to make sure is, you know, there's always a gap between when you do some initial layout and then you actually get to the design. What I don't want to have is they proposed 5,013 square feet and now it's 6,000 square feet and they can meet all the conditional approvals and they've looked at the transmission impact and everything's fine. I want to be very clear that that does not require you to go come back to the planning commission because this is a general approach, not a pre-review of each of the development parcels. Okay,

if that makes sense. Yeah. Okay. Let's see here. I've noticed in parcel A there's a whole bunch of compact parking spaces. Is is that a requirement for so many compact spaces? No, actually in this situation because of CFKC, the previous CFKC and they're on a they're within, you know, a quarter mile of a long 15-minute service, they don't have any minimum parking standards. So, they don't so they could if they wanted to, they could do any ratio of standard to to compact.

Okay. So, there's no requirement. Yeah, we do have, you know, some if this was a required, but because it's not required, they could find their own ratio. Okay. Uh you talked about the landslide area there in the back. How close is that to the new road? Um and this where I might bring our assistant uh city engineer Josh Wheeler up. Let me know if there's any slide you want me to. I might go to this one. What's What's the question? Uh, Commissioner Lel, um, how close is that is the new road to that landslide area on the back side there?

I I don't have an exact distance. That that question is best answered by the applicant after their presentation. I'm just a little concerned about the possibility of the landslide. It's been reviewed by uh their submitted by their consultant, reviewed by our consultant and we've provided conditions of approval um based on our review of that. So it has been reviewed and um generally approved in that location with any adjustments based on the conditions.

Okay. Well, I'm just I'm I'm satisfied that it has been re has been reviewed. So that's um let's see here. The shared youth's path, if I understood it correctly, is that requiring the applicant to pave that path and light it?

Yeah. Uh the is currently in the staff report that you see in front of you is requiring that path in the existing location for you know down below to be a paved bike ped share use path. And so our recommendation is to to move it up and integrate it in with parcel B, but it would still be a paved shared use path. Okay. And let's see, one more question. Yeah. And sure. Um,

so it's in the transportation system plan. So even if they came in through a site plan design review, they would need to build it. It's not necessarily, you know, it's not the master plan doesn't trigger it. What we're looking at as part of the master plan is is it in the right location based on the proposal. And my last question may be need to be answered by the applicant, but what mitigation is proposed to prevent dust and mud from being carried on to Beaver Creek Road and Malala Avenue, who are, you know, every time you get a really big construction project, it seems like the adjoining streets are an absolute terrible mess. Yeah. So, I can answer that. Uh the um chapter 1747 of the Oregon City Municipal Code requires all developments to meet our erosion control standards, which deals with dust control, which deals with um dirt sliding out into the road. It doesn't mean that it uh doesn't happen. Um, we had a project recently on Warner Parrot that had um some erosion uh being being done incorrectly and um we drove by and saw it. We addressed it. We placed a stop work order on it until they resolved it. So um there are permits associated with that as well as design features that staff um addresses and regularly inspects.

Okay, that's all I had. Thank you for your responses. Mr. Los, what in the relationship uh does this project have to do with the city projects right now on Malala Avenue? Um will the timing work out well with the projects currently with the city on Malala Avenue? Um in terms of timing obviously there's a lot of plans obviously the water line and then just overall avenue.

Yeah. Um their uh timeline is not known at this time. The applicant will have to tell you what their intention of construction is. Um but I can just generally tell the planning commission in general. There are several projects in development and in um the city um projects and budgeting process that um are going to make some things quite congested in the next couple years. And we're trying to do everything we can to do some public outreach about that. Um, I won't get into those now, but um, be on the lookout on social media and other things. There are going to be some conflicting things with a lot of construction going on. The only concern too I have is um, police enforcement just because I mean just as a just a normal resident, I've had like three times where I've had two just with the road construction.

Mike, sorry. Thank you. It's been highly aggressive in terms of drivers like where there's been almost like I've had two vehicles personally slam on their brakes where luckily I have a vehicle that locks its brakes where there there's been highly aggressive drivers almost criminal um and I really appreciate our police officers, you know, out there. So, I'm hoping there can be more patrolling, especially with all this road construction because when the city was doing their work, it seemed like there were more aggressive drivers. So, I'm hoping that there can be more implementation to support our police officers right now with all this going on.

Yeah, I definitely recommend um having a conversation uh with the police department. Um when we pave Malala Avenue, um I somewhat anticipate speeds are going to increase. Um they're a little slower because of some of the rough pavement now. I have a feeling it's going to get a little fast and um I can't speak for the police department on what resources they have for enforcement. Thank you.

So, I'm curious about the design of the road. Um, that intersection there between Beaver Creek and Malala is already kind of interesting with that bypass that goes I think it's an Exxon gas station that's kind of chopped off and now we're chopping it off again with another like bypass road. It seems a little strange that it would connect through like it does there as opposed to maybe just being a stub out across from the Safeway parking lot.

So, that's intentional. Um, a number of years ago, there was a um plan that was adopted as part of the TSP called the Beaver Creek uh access plan. And that access plan um tried to limit some of the access on Beaver Creek um to reduce conflicts and at the same time it intended to someday, don't know when that day is, uh get rid of Beaver Creek Way um and not let that go through anymore. And this road is the alternative to Beaver Creek Way. So, if this were to be built, I would somewhat assume that there's going to be um talk at the city commission level and at the public works director level of now that that's in, do we go forward with a capital project to cut off Beaver Creekway? But this was what we were waiting for for that to potentially be implemented. Got it. Okay. Thanks. Um there was a note about the street trees and the height with the power lines. I want to say I read this somewhere. Don't remember if it was in comprehensive plan or something like that, but there's like goals of under undergrounding our power. Could we require the power to be undergrounded for that frontage and then allow us to plant the 45 ft beautiful trees instead of requiring them to fit under the power lines that are there?

Sure. And this is for the on-site property, not the street trees. This would be for the quickserve restaurant. Yeah. The enhanced, right? It's not It's not the street trees. Those are still being planted, but this would be on their private property, but it's still real close. Yeah. To alleviate the concerns, could could the power lines be undergrounded or could that be required as part of the conditions?

So, the the city code requires uh overhead lines to existing overhead lines to be undergrounded when practical and feasible. Um and practical and feasible generally means if it's not a high transmission line and it's just a a basic local line then we can get them uh under which we do quite often. The lines along Malala are high transmission lines and so it's not um it's not in everyone's best interest to um to get those under because of other reasons dealing with the communications and the electrical etc. But all the new lines that they will be putting in on the new road within their site will all be underground. Okay. I didn't realize they were higher power lines.

Um there is there any possibility as part of this to have them work with Metro to extend that mixed use path just to get it to the the the nature part Metro's nature nature park since Metro owns that land. Could could that be part of the approval to just otherwise we kind of have this weird useless as you guys mentioned deadend excuse path that potentially is down a slope that nobody will see or use. That would be more of a question for the applicant. Okay.

But I I can tell you the public works department would be open to working with the applicant metro or the private property owner. It could go through a private property as well. It's about a 100 foot section to to finish it off. Um and we would definitely be open to partner working with anyone. Fantastic. Y um one final question uh if I may. Oh, absolutely. Uh there was the no build section of uh plot A, I think it was. Yeah, towards it. There we go.

You mentioned you can't build a thing uh you know building, but you could put parking there, but we also want enhanced landscaping. What about a park for the apartments that are there or something like that as part of the enhanced landscaping instead of parking?

Yeah, I I that was some of the conversation we had. I think because it's right at Malala Avenue, it it's far too far away from the apartments and they actually do have a little dog area as part of theirs and they have their own open space between their three buildings. So, they'll have their required open spaces when they do their detail development plan. I think the larger thing is it's a private open space that would be like an acre, you know, like a half acre right at Malal Avenue. So to me that whole area is almost too big for landscaping because people don't quite know what to do with it and it's private space so it's not a public open space. So then

then that's really an attractive nuisance in some point. So to me, putting the energy into a really nice designed gateway landscaping and allowing that additional area to be used for parking to me, I think makes sense for the city's needs to have a better pedestrian experience along Malala Avenue and then to acknowledge that, you know, the the other area could be used for parking.

Got it. And then one more question, uh, maybe two. So, the the two drive-thrus appear to have a flow that kind of puts vehicles after they've received their items immediately into a parking lot where pedestrians are going to be walking to access the stores. I know I've experienced this at various fast food restaurants and it it kind of sucks when you're a pedestrian because people are too busy trying to eat their food or make sure their order is correct to be paying attention to me walking to the store. Um, is there a way to address that as part of this design? Because like you can see there on on that example, the entire parking lot is basically cut off by the people exiting the drive-thru after immediately getting their orders.

Um, and on the other one, it it's similar where it goes behind. That one might not be so bad if you just reverse it and had them exit onto the road instead of the parking lot. But for the other one, it's it's you know, you got that problem of people will get their stuff and then try and run people over. You know, on a transportation uh analysis, it wasn't brought up by um our transportation engineer um or engineering department. So, I'll pass it over. I mean, it generally we look I mean, if that is a safety concern about that, I can we can ask you can ask that to the applicant. Okay. Industry standards. It wasn't brought up as a industry standard concern. Got it. Yeah.

Got it. One more. Okay. Quick. Yeah. Real quickly, does does that does that property abut Wendy's uh to the north? Yeah. Yeah. That's Oh, yes. That is the Wendy's. Okay. Thanks.

Okay. I just want to make sure that since we have multimodal a new multimodal uh transportation system plan I will probably make sure that or I will try to hold the city's feet to fire on making sure that those multimodal aspects are well implemented. So my question, my line of questioning is really along uh uh will there be any uh bike and pedestrian ways improve any any improvements uh along Beaver Creek Road or any of the perimeter uh street systems around this development at all? So that are you asking about off-site improvements? So there'll be improvements to the frontages on Beaver Creek and Mobile Avenue. No, that this project did not trigger offsite improvements.

Okay. And then um I noticed that on the roadway it looks like there is going to just be a pathway um that uh is on the east side of the roadway and not both sides. Right. Yeah. And and that is really trying to proportionately put a new city road

all the way through the site. So then I and then I also noticed that um you're we're putting in trees that are also on the on on the east side. Normally you know planning practices we usually have trees. We have this the pathway and then trees and then the roadway to create a little bit more element of safety mitigate maybe some of the sound etc. So was there a reason to have the trees on that side of the sidewalk instead of the other? Sure. I know this the sidewalk design had was um revised over time to try to fit a whole street in with this geometry. So I'm going to pass that over to Josh Wheeler, a city assistant city engineer.

Yeah. So the shared use path on the east side of the portion of the road that goes north south um uh it needed to be a 10t wide for bicycle and pedestrian combo purposes um which did not lend itself to have a landscape strip in between you know the normal five and five 5ft landscaping 5ft sidewalk. In addition, uh they needed um their tree requirements and there's a natural resource overlay right next to it. Okay. And so by putting the trees in the natural resource area or in their buffer is a lot more reasonable than a hard surface.

Okay, that's reasonable. Um all right. Uh let's see. So, I've got a couple of other questions about um the storm water management if there I mean I know that there isn't any nexus for this but I would like to encourage maybe some kind of a design storm water design that integrates a little bit more with the landscape and and you know providing landscaping to enhance that area so that we're not just looking at a a hole in the ground next to the roadway. I mean, I just really have an aversion to giving that to the community, you know, in in exchange for having this uh master plan happening. And I know that I'm going to get the the finger wag for not having a nexus for that requirement. But, uh, policy-wise, if we don't have things like that in in, um, in our engineering requirements, we should probably take a look at that and maybe, you know, and I know this is a this is a soap box thing, but I think that we really should start exploring those kinds of things that that have, if we're going to have these big gigantic storm water facilities, they should really be designed to integrate with the with the both the development and the the natural features of that area. and and and if I could go ahead SP I would recommend a meeting with um potentially myself sometime if you have time so we can go over those storm water standards so I can understand that that comment better.

Yeah. Yeah, that would be great. Yeah. I mean I just that's a general comment that I make because I see a lot of detention ponds that kind of look that way and and I know that there are site constraints and and um you know uh need to put enough parcels on the lot and all that other good stuff. I understand that. But at some point there needs to be an effort to try to integrate some of that. But okay. Um and then uh my other favorite topic is light trespass. And I know that that's also a design review um kind of topic, but I would encourage making sure that uh we have um you know subdued lighting both on the public pedestrian walkways for first you know making sure that they have adequate um uh adequate lighting but then not you know cuz like with the new LED lighting that can be extremely extremely harsh for light trespass. And then uh another part uh lighting on buildings, making sure that the lights are downward cast and and not um not pointing into neighboring properties or uh other parts of the development. Finally, signage, making sure that uh you know, a lot of times these uh these developments uh especially fast food, and I don't want to pick on any kind of particular fast food, but some of the some of the signage uh it can be so bright it can be seen from space. And I I really think that you can still get your message across and attract your clientele without having to have super bright bright bright signage. And we see a few examples of that in Oregon City that I won't. But

um I'll kind of take it a little bit. The Shar's path is pedestrian level lighting. So it'll be low lighting. Yep.

Um we do have a foot candle of 05.5 foot candles for anything offsite. um when they do a phototric plan and each of these parcels will be their own site. Um and then we do have a cuto off requirement that they can't that lights can't um shine up. Um so we'll make sure that those are all condition. I mean those are all standard DDP conditions. Um and uh for signs um yeah I mean let's just encourage the applicant um to make sure that their signs are not super bright. But I don't know if we have necessarily the those aren't necessarily in our lighting. Well, I mean, yeah, the signage components can usually have an LED component in the back and then and then if it's not opaque enough to have that shine through, it shines through very brightly. Yeah. And in order, you could either, you know, kind of dim down the the lighting if you can, if you have control with that in your sign code, or if you can change the design of the sign to have maybe a halo lit sign instead of, you know, so you have, you know, metal letters or something like that with the halo in the back so that it it shows the lettering but doesn't, you know,

all that have the super bright. The applicant can respond to that red and yellow lighting. Yeah. Sorry. But I'll just add a quick comment. Uh RBridge Park in Hillsboro has some really cool street lights uh on the paths that are dim, but they have like motion sensors. So as you walk, they brighten up and then they dim down behind you, which helps keep the like natural area nice. It'd be really cool to have something like that since it's bordering a nature area. I know that's not necessarily under our purview, but yeah, I can tell you and something you might want to comment at at another venue is that um a few years ago we adopted street standards or the city commission adopted street standards and within those we have the pedestrian path lighting standards in there.

Yeah. And so yeah, if that's something that you feel needs to be um improved um feel free to bring that to the public works director and we can go through the process of looking at something different.

Okay. Okay. And then finally, just just to finish up, um I'm looking forward to hearing the rationale from the applicant to uh increase the number of parking spaces for the site because I didn't really that didn't come through clearly in the submitt. And maybe I just got tired and couldn't read it. But um and then also um the other the other one was to see if we were to make sure that the um the queuing uh road for the um for the restaurant um is safe and all that. And so for me, I mean, I I don't really feel like I'm qualified to determine whether or not that's safe. So, I'm going to defer to the traffic engineer, city engineer, uh, for any input on on safety concerns, but I will be interested in making sure that it's well landscaped. And you did address that, um, in your in your, uh, presentation about that, but I just want to see, you know, maybe some more three-dimensional um, uh, more of a threedimensional view of of that uh, further down the road. All right. And with that, I think we're ready for the applicants testimony. Is there there are no more questions? Okay. Oh, okay. Thank you. It's a good mic. Good evening. Uh, for the record, my name is Greg Hathaway. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Hathaway Larson. Uh, my offices are at 1125 Northwest Coot Street in Portland, 97209. I represent the applicant Cypress Equities. Uh and with me uh this evening is um Kirk Williams who's the managing director for Cypress. They're located in Dallas. So uh Kirk flew here today from from Dallas to be with us this evening. Also uh with us tonight is Scott Franklin uh who is our project engineer who really was the mastermind behind

putting uh this master plan uh together. So Scott's here to uh to represent us with regards to that. I just like to comment at the beginning that uh I thought Christina did a really good job of outlining the plans uh and especially the the the slides that were used. Uh I think what's really important here is that the planning commission understand the significance of this project uh and frankly this the economic benefit uh that this project will have for the city of Oregon city but the applicant still has to meet all the requirements uh to be able to master plan and develop the site. Uh I think Cypress has done a really good job uh of trying to do everything it can to comply with all the requirements and to make all the necessary improvements to make sure that any impacts that is created by the development are being properly mitigated. Uh I will say that for the most part uh the applicant agrees with the staff recommended conditions of approval, but there are conditions related to the shared path where we have concerns and really question whether the city has the authority to require Cyprus to make some of the improvements that are being recommended for the shared path. uh which is certainly in the TSP uh and is certainly located on this property, but uh the city staff is asking the applicant to bear the cost of making improvements to this entire shared path uh where perhaps they only have a small proportionate impact uh on the path that we're talking about. So we were prepared tonight to talk about that because again uh from Cypress's perspective if you look at the entire staff report uh we agree with the recommended conditions of

approval but we are concerned about conditions related to the to this shared path. But then tonight uh we got surprised uh by uh and I don't think Christina intended to surprise us with this because we learned last night late uh I think about 8:00 last night that Metro had concerns about the location of the shared path. So pushing aside for the second just whether or not Cypress has concerns about the conditions of making certain improvements to the path, we learned for the first time this evening that staff is now recommending to relocate that shared path on site. And we believe that that's the result of the Metro letter uh that Mr. Shephard drafted for Metro on behalf of Metro concerned about where the proposed shared path was located on the site plan and that's the location that both Cyprus and the staff had agreed to. But uh once we learned of that new condition and and Christina did a good job of describing what that new condition is and I believe that you have that condition in front of you. But I spoke with Mr. Franklin and Mr. Williams about this new condition. And the problem is is that it could significantly impact the entire design of the project. And so we're not prepared tonight to make a presentation about what we had proposed to you because this condition which we've just learned of could in fact change and alter the design of the project. And so we need time to evaluate that condition uh to determine uh whether or not it's something we can even do uh and still leave open the question as to whether or not the city really even has the authority to require some of these improvements. So with that uh we would like to request a twoe

extension to speak with Mr. Shepard uh about the metro's concerns as well as talk to staff about this uh new proposed condition which relocates the shared path to a different place on on the property than than what we had expected. I'm hoping that in the next two weeks we can deal with the city's authority question that we have about the shared path in general and then also if we're going to have a shared path where it's going to be located. But I also appreciate uh Commissioner Lasal's comment about time and we already represented to Christina at the beginning that we understand these tight time constraints and so Cypress is going to do everything within our power to make sure that we move it forward. We're not going to delay. We're going to try to be as efficient as we can uh to make sure that we meet these timelines because we understand how important they are to the city. But it's also important to Cypress because Cypress wants to get building and so we need to uh do everything within our power to get a final decision from the city. Uh so with that we would like to request a a twoe extension. Hopefully we come back in two weeks. Uh we can answer a lot of the questions that you might have about the project then and hopefully be able to represent to you some resolution of the shared path issue. So with that, we would specifically request that and then defer any presentation until uh two weeks two weeks from now.

Very good. Is that is that all you have? That's all I have. All right. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Really appreciate it. Um I would like to enter I don't want to entertain a motion at this point. I would like to We do have public comment. Have public testimony and that's So we'd like to make sure everybody who came this evening is online can make public comment. Yeah, that's I totally agree with that. Um, do we Yeah. would you Yeah. Questions of the applicant from the commission. Thank you. Yeah.

I would just had a couple questions. Um, I was curious if there was So, it sounded like there was a tenant in mind for the uh parcel A, but they pulled out so now it's a spec building. Um, is there a tenant in mind for the quickserve restaurant um that you are able to share just to be taken into consideration as part of this or up. You need to come up and I appreciate you flying in from Dallas. No, no problem. I I love coming up to Portland. So, thank you, Trace. Um, the answer to your question is yes and no. Fair enough. Fair enough. But, uh, they do want you to eat more chicken. So, how about that?

I'll take it. All right. Any other questions? All good. Okay. Okay. So, um, was that any further? I have Oh, Commissioner Lel, the the applicant requested a a continuence continuence two weeks from now. How will that look on our schedule? Uh, we do have quite the the busy agenda for two weeks from now. Um, but to make sure that we are being cognizant of the the timing, um, we can make it work.

Yeah. And I think we can talk a little bit more about that when we are at the doorstep of making the motion for that continuence if that's okay with you guys. Okay. I have three speaker slips this evening. Um and are there more? Is there anybody else that is interested in speaking to this item this evening? Okay. Uh, Joyce Gford

microphone red.

No, it's No, it's green. Now it's on. Okay. My name is Joyce Gford. Live in Oregon City. In fact, I live um right at the end of that shared youth path where it would come out onto um Hilltop Avenue. Hey. Um so there were a lot of things discussed tonight about that path and and um actually there are three of us that are going to you know talk about when I first heard about this path coming in I thought well great I can just jump on that path. I can walk there along the edge of the canyon, get out to Beaver Creek Road, cross a couple parking lots, and I can get to the post office without ever walking on Malala Avenue. That would be really wonderful. But living in that neighborhood, I also see the other people that um use and walk our streets in the neighborhood and and the canyon dwellers that come down. I thought that would be really convenient also for them. And then I think about lighting and I think about the house that's right there at the end of Hilltop Avenue and how outside their bedroom window they're going to have a lighted pathway and that is not going to be convenient for them. Um the other thing is that shared use path that comes out onto Hilltop Avenue. That whole neighborhood we have no sidewalks. We have nice wide streets. We have a lot of neighbors. We all park our cars in the streets, but there are no sidewalks. And so if you're wanting safe paths to get to places, what are they going to do to our neighborhood? Are they going to require sidewalks in my neighborhood next? Taking up part of my front yard to put in sidewalks. Um, it just didn't seem like the whole thing was well thought out. And if they want connectivity, I have asked and been told by the city no,

but when I walk down by New Creek Canyon and I walk at the end of Gail's Lane, I would really love to walk into the city park that's called the cemetery and be able to just walk through the cemetery there, but there is no gate. There's no fence there for me to have access from New Creek Canyon Park to another city park. Okay. But I understand the concerns because of misuse of some of those walkways. So just I was hoping that three minutes would start so I knew how long I had to talk. You got about a minute left. Okay. Yep.

Um just want to know and now when they talk about moving that pathway even further up the hill, how close to those houses is it going to be getting? Thank you. Thank you. Thanks,

William Grey. Thank you, commissioners. My name is William Gford and I live in Oregon City. Um, I wanted to say upfront that I'm not really opposed to uh the apartments coming in there. I I think that the city needs the housing and uh there's not too much that they can do about the uh the limited parking, but the states have different the state has different idea about parking. I understand that. Um but I I do have a concern about that path. Uh that path is the is the bugaboo of this whole plan right now. Well, the the road is going to be even more significant, but that path, I don't know that it's been mentioned that the end of that proposed path on the north side where that comes to Hilltop Avenue, there is a sewage pump. There's a pump station right at that intersection. I don't know which side of that pump station they're proposing that path to go on. Uh I imagine it's on the outside. and the person that lives on that corner who's also up next to speak um would appreciate a little privacy. Right now she's getting a lot of um canyon dwellers that uh that go through that unpaved path and uh wind up in her backyard. It would be nice to get a retaining wall up there, but uh whether or not that's the developer's responsibility or the city's responsibility seems to me as though the city is uh making the requirement of of having this interconnected paths uh between the parks, which is a noble idea, but I think it needs to be more carefully thought out in this particular area

where as was pointed out there are no sidewalks. So, uh, to dump a connecting path directly onto a street doesn't seem as well advised as I would think. Okay. Thank you, William. Okay. And I have one more speaker, Terry Clark, and then I think Oh, there. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

Thank you, commissioners. U my name is Carrie Clark and I live in Oregon City. I live on that last house on the right, but the path is going to be determined where it's coming through. Um I have problems with homeless people already that come through my yard 4 or 5 in the morning and without that retaining wall on behind our houses on the back side, they tore a bunch of debris and they took all the trees out and everything and there is nobody to watch that. I understand our police officers are awful busy, but every time somebody calls 8, they can't come out. I mean, this happens all hours of the night. Um, there's no lighting there on the path. So, that's really main concern. I don't I have a dog and she barks continually and it's like I know somebody's out there, but they're unless they come through my backyard and I have my gates locked, they hop the fence. So I I don't know about that path about how it's going to hinder or help me. I'm not quite sure, but it's a pretty big concern of mine. And like we don't have sidewalks and it's pretty well, it's an end in the street. So it's pretty calm most time though. You have everybody wanting to walk the path and be in it's going to be summer or be nicer. There's going to be more foot traffic back there. So and not saying that homeless people are bad people. They just was they leave their garbage and everything everywhere and it and it's not getting picked up. It's not you know you where do you put it? I don't want I mean I can't afford to pay for their stuff. It it just looks terrible. It looks bad. So that's all. Thank you very much. That is all of the uh um testimony that I have this evening.

Two people on there's two people. Okay. Very good. Gary Shepard and first up. Okay, Gary Shepard. Thanks, Christina.

Good evening everybody. Uh, first off, I want to thank uh staff for for your presentation, rather than nice presentation this evening. And I want to apologize to Mr. Haway. Uh, Greg, I did not know you were you were involved in this application process. So, we have certainly uh reached out to you. Uh we spoke uh I did not get uh notified of the application until about Tuesday afternoon when I one of my staff members were um visiting the site through our access easement and noticed a a notice um indicating this hearing. So, uh my problem has been late. Just want to apologize to staff for that lateness and then to applicant and Mr. Hathway for their need to uh continue the hearing today. Uh but Greg, I look forward to your phone call. We'll certainly go over some things that uh you have concerns with and hopefully be able to hash it out for the city here today. Um I uh you know I've heard some some testimony from the neighbors this evening and and they share similar concerns that that Metro has with the master plan path um about its attractive uselessness nature, it its safety nature. We, Metro, the neighbors, the Walmart property, Mr. Younger, we've all been having to sort of deal with the um ridgetop and the desire of people to make their way down the hillside. It's an ongoing situation and I I think what you're hearing tonight is um people asking for well thoughtout designs designs that don't create problems, designs that are more solutionoriented and that actually represent a public bin that the city will be taking ownership and possession of any any pathway is my understanding um uh whether it's through easement or whatever but um I think you

Now is the time to to have these discussions and now is the time to sort of um make those decisions so the applicant the developer can uh begin the process of of creating a a big benefit for you. We're generally supportive of of the effort. Uh there's just a few things as a rather large neighbor right next door to the applicant uh that uh will have some impacts on Metro that we want to make sure that our public asset um is um recognized um and uh a part of a discussion today since we have not been a part of any discussion um as of yet. I look forward to having those conversations with Greg. Um, I've heard some conversations today about um an easement in the northwest corner and how that is a a um a no build easement or has some height restrictions on it. So, I see a an easement up in the northwest corner being respected, but I see an easement that we have and need for access to our property that we utilize for um maintenance for addressing homeless um encampments issues uh not being respected in the south. So, um I know that is a primary issue between uh Metro and the property owner, Mr. Younger. However, um this development does create some conditions that adversely affect those easement rights. Um and I'm not sure uh if if sending developments on the way that creating that friction is is a good idea. Um there are a couple provisions of city code that that I believe are applicable that require um people to have discussions before decisions are made and we just want to have those discussions take place. Um the only other issue of concern was storm water. Um one of the commissioners this evening spoke about um storm water and storm water protections. We have a hillside uh we have an area that um is subject to significant slumping and

landslides. We've seen it. um we try and do our best to to promote and uh design developments to prevent that from happening. Obviously, nature's nature. Sometimes things happen that we even we do our best. We can't we can't uh protect ourselves from it. But in this design process, I think we have to make those considerations. One of the standards when developing um adjacent to or within a geological hazard area is to do your best to to to propose something that that is the least impactful. That's a discretionary standard the city has in its review. I think uh that does give the city some authority to to direct what's in the best interest of the city, what sits in the best interest of of of um of what it views as is important, what it views as is protected. Um but that storm water outfall, I'm not sure where it is. I don't I don't know where it is. I didn't see it in the application where it was. You know, I'll use the next two weeks to figure that out. Uh but um our concern would be um dumping uh storm water. Um I heard heard comments today that that city respects basin approach. I support the city staff. I support city engineering respect our work. Um I just have to learn a little bit more about where that storm water outfall is and how the water is getting to to our property. Um make sure that it's it's ready for it. uh this will be taking water from an area that's up north and dropping it down to an area to the south um where it didn't receive that water previously. Want to make sure that that that you know it's it's our property that that it's ready for it and um it won't cause adverse conditions. So just a few things that I got to learn a little bit more about. Hope to have good conversations with Mr. Hway and his team and um I look forward to seeing you in two weeks.

Okay. Thank you, Gary. All right. And our final public comment this evening is Michael Ard. Michael Ard. Right. Michael, thank you. Is there a way that I can share my screen? Is that set up? Uh, yes. One second. I'll send a request to to do that. Were you able to accept? Just a second. Hang on. Just a second. Not sure that it's sharing the correct screen, but I think it gave me the ability to. Okay. So, are you seeing a map now?

Not quite. I think it's No, we do see it now. Yep. Okay, good. Thank you. Uh, I wanted to share a few things regarding my review of the traffic impact study. The reason that I had some questions, real quickly, can you state your name for the record?

Oh, yes. Sorry. Mike Ard. Uh, I am a professional transportation engineer with Art Engineering and I I reviewed the application. I was interested in seeing what the application had to say about the intersection of Warner Milney Road at Lynn Avenue uh, in particular because I know it's in close proximity and that's an intersection that's been subject to some significant discussion historically within the city. And I was surprised to see only 15 pm peak hour trips or about uh just a little under 8% of the site trips shown headed that direction. The traffic impact study indicated that 5% of the residential trips would be shared between Warner Milney Road and Bark I'm sorry the street name is not showing up but it's this blue one that's highlighted here. Um uh uh Holmes I think it is something like that. um and then 10% uh each of the commercial trips on each of those roads. And what I wanted to show is why I find that uh likely to be incorrect. So if trips are headed to locations that are on Telford Road or uh going down the hill via Center Street, it's about the same travel time and distance to take Warner Milney Road versus the alternative to the north. And uh so that's kind of a dividing line where things that are to the north side of Telford Road generally would not attract significant trips from Warner or Milni and things to the south would. Um boy, I kind of blocked off my tabs here. So I need to just resize this real quick so that you can see. Uh looking at other destinations though, you can see anything that's on Warner Parrot Road. Anything that's on uh South End Road uh before you go down

the hill is most conveniently accessed via Warner Milney Road. Uh anything that's on South End Road to the south is also uh best route is via Warner Milney and through that intersection. If you're going out Central Point Road, same thing. you go down Warner Milney to Central Point Road. If you're going to Leland Road, uh Leland Road, the fastest route to get there is again Warner Milney Road. So, there's a significant amount of traffic uh in the city that's going there. If you're headed to Cani, like 5% of the residential trips appear to be showing going to Canbi. Again, the fastest route is via South End Road, which again would take Warner Milney Road. Based on all that information, I drew a little area and I put this into my comments via email that shows the basin within the city of Oregon City that is served by Warner Milney Road with respect to this project site. So, this was all for trips that are that have an origin at the site. Uh, and it's a very significant portion of the city. uh even if we assumed that all of the distribution assumptions that the the applicant made in their traffic study were correct but then corrected the routing to reflect the fastest and shortest travel paths, it would be a very significant change to the to the uh trip distribution model and there would certainly be more than 20 trips that pass through that intersection of Lynn Leland and Warner Milney Road. So, I do feel like uh the obligation based on the city standards would be to analyze that intersection and provide some information about it. I did have some comments as well about trip generation, the fact that uh a fast food restaurant with sidebyside drive-through lanes is covered in the new 12th edition trip generation manual and has trip rates that are about 85% higher than for a standard fast food restaurant. I think that that's largely going to be offset, if I heard correctly tonight, by the

fact that there is not a growth rate on the site. The overall trip generation, I expect it'd be relatively similar because there's a reduction on the one side of the road and an increase on the other. But that does mean that your cues will change um based on the the higher volume that's going to the south side of the road to that new restaurant. So, might be something that the applicant wants to all summarized in your written testimony. Is that correct, Michael? Because I think I have most of that summarized. I didn't have the shots of how I came up with the service basin. Uh I did say something in my written testimony as well about the crash data uh and concerns about 213 in Beaver Creek and u Okay. And that's about it. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Share.

So now we are at the point where uh we want to entertain motions on both of these items, right? Um, yes, but I might um because we we may be in a con compressed time frame. I think uh Commissioner Lasal raised that if the commissioners have any questions or have any initial feedback. I think it would be really helpful for purposes of everyone in this room to hear that feedback. I know Chair Espie, you made a couple of comments about um about signage and light trespass and um pedestrian paths on Malala. Um but if the that's pretty much all I have.

That's that's the kind of feedback that I think it would be helpful for us to get because I think that on the 13th we're going to be in decision making mode. Correct. Yeah.

And so we're going to have to we're going to have to um move this along. And so if there I'm not meaning to put I'm not asking you all to make a decision or to tell me whether you would vote for it yes or no. What I'm asking for is if you have additional feedback where you'd like to see some additional information, you have additional questions that you'd like the applicant to respond to. If you think that the path um you know is needs to be more integrated as staff has recommended or if you think that it's better um you know if you have a better idea or another idea that you would like the applicant to explore now would be the time because I like I said I just don't know that we're going to have time on April 13th the continued hearing. If you don't want to that's okay too but I just want to throw that out. So, I think design-wise my main question would be why they want to have more parking spaces, but I'll answer I'll entertain more questions from the commission. Commissioner Lel,

would it be permissible if we have any further questions or concerns to email those to the planning department for for sharing with all the rest of the No. Um, no. We need to have it happen in the public meeting if we can um so that everyone hears it all at one time. Um we don't want to create a serial meeting by having those discussions. That's why I asked the question. Commissioner Walls,

I would like to also have it entertained. The neighbors have made a comment about having kind of like because I I recall I've gone to Wendy's and they have a cement wall behind their area, their parking lot and the neighbors brought up concerns about safety and you know in a way this development is going to fill in some good space obviously of tra foot traffic that hasn't been so good in that area, right? That has been bugging the neighbors but at the same time it could bring foot traffic. So solutions on what type of that walking path to the neighborhood like possibly entertain a solution for those neighbors to as you know look at that because the neighbors have brought up some concerns about that. So at the city's perspective as well.

Excellent. Thank you Commissioner Garma.

Yeah. So I to add on to that, I'm actually wondering if the lighting and shared use path might help with some of the concerns and the increased foot traffic might help address some of these uh concerns uh in terms of having more people there might might actually make thing the situation better versus worse espec es especially having a a lit path there that the neighbors aren't having to pay the electricity bill for and the city is. Um, but I think there's a lot of interesting discussion happening about the shared path in terms of whether or not the applicant even necessarily wants to provide it or not, as well as the requirements from from the city and the neighbors. Um, I think the rest of the plan overall looks solid. Um, so it's really just trying to address those concerns that the applicant, the neighborhood has, and and some of the commissioners have shared as well.

Yep. Yep. And finally, I see a lot of pavement out there and I'm just hoping that um landscape landscape I see some islands which is good. Um but hopefully there's adequate trees and landscaping. Uh we're always have an aversion to acres and acres of bark dust with just you know little cannonics um you know throughout the throughout the landscape with some arborvitas somewhere you know interspersed. We would like to see something a little bit better than that. Anyway, um so that's pretty much it. I I think now we can go ahead and entertain a motion to continue. Uh item A, GLUA250025, uh CU254001, MAS-2541, Park 2541, 1 1367 Mall. Do I have a motion?

I have a motion. And that is to continue. Uh and we need to have a a date certain for that, right? the April 13th. So that would be April 13th. Sorry, the April 13th planning commission meeting. Okay. 7 p.m. Very good. Do we need to have an additional meeting that would be not our normal schedule to accommodate this or No. What else do we have planned on the 13th? Don't we have uh the park place, right? So that's a big one. Yeah. Well, I don't think I would want to move this any further down the road given the timeline. I was thinking April. We got to or yeah cuz if it's sooner I if you guys can do that but April 6th would be two weeks.

Yeah. So if if I can just do a quick interruption we do have quite a few applications on the April 13th. There is some flux in um the the Parkplace application that may or may not have it occur on that April 13th date. Um but I would recommend that that we would still move forward with uh the April 13th date for this hearing. Um, and if we uh need to accommodate and move some things around, we could think about doing that. But I think that we should be able to accommodate it. Okay. Mo motion to continue this item to April 13th. Is there a second? Second. Second. Okay. Call the vote. Uh, Commissioner Laws I. Commissioner Lasal. Hi. Commissioner Gmont

I. And Chair Espie. I. Item B, GUI 250025, MAS2504 and a2, GEO 254 and a7, NROD 2530 and 12,367 Mala Avenue. Do we have a motion to continue this item as well to April 13th? Yeah, I move to continue April 13th. Second. Very good. Call for the vote. Call the roll. Call the role. Yeah. Sorry. It's okay. Commissioner Laws I.

Commissioner Alell. Hi. Commissioner Gman. Hi. And by and chair SB possible. I recommend we be a we have five minute recess. That's what I was going to ask. Yep. Okay.

this one. Um, I think all the people I think all the people were here and heard the first one, but you will need You don't want to hear that, do you? We were here. We're the applicant. Yeah, you you you want to you want you you do want to poll each other. You want to pull the your fellow commissioners to ensure no um exparte contacts, conflicts of interest or bias.

All right. Well, let me let me introduce the item and we'll do that. Okay. So, this is GLUA250058, CU2543, SP250014814625 Oakland Boulevard. Um, this is a conditional use review for a public educational facility in a residential zone with a concurrent site plan and design review for a uh 4,518T cafeteria, kitchen addition, much needed miscellaneous uh and miscellaneous um site improvements. So, uh, let me pull in the commissioners and, uh, find out if you have any conflicts or bias with the school district. Um, if you've been to the site, what did you see? What happened?

Commissioner Laws, sorry. Um, I have been part of Jennings Lodge PTA and I used to volunteer at Hulcom and I was friends with the XP PTA person and been on budget committees in the past back in the 2010s, but and then overall I went to the school district budget committee meetings years ago, but nothing recent. So, Commissioner Hel, I have no bias, no conflict of interest. I live within blocks of the school. And Commissioner Gma, uh, no bias, no exparte, haven't been to the site, don't have any kids.

My wife used to work at the library there. Um, but I don't have any conflicts or bias. It's been quite some time since she has been there. So, um, yeah. And I've been up to the site probably about a couple years ago. And that's that's it for me. But no other bias or conflicts of interest, by the way. Yeah. Anybody else? Sorry. No other bias or conflicts of interest. My mic wasn't on. Okay. Can we have the staff presentation?

Okay. I am Melissa Lopez, the assistant planner here. Um we are here to discuss as you um noted the Hulkcom Elementary School expansion which is a conditional use review uh at 14625 Hulcom Boulevard. Um Hulkcom Elementary School was originally constructed in 1966 with the approval of Clackmus County. Uh this was prior to the annexation of Parkplace neighborhood in 1989. Many aspects of the site of the existing site are considered lawfully non-conforming. Uh the site is zoned R10 lowdensity residential and where a public educational facility is a conditional use within this zone. Uh due to the current proposed addition, this use has been called into review. So the reviews that are required is a site plan and design review along with the conditional use review. Um basically uh for the site plan and design review uh we are do they're do proposing the new 4518 square ft cafeteria addition a parking lot expansion with seven new parking spaces parking lot resurfacing relocation of a trash enclosure new pathways and other miscellaneous site improvements. Um lawful non-conforming upgrades mainly to the parking lot will be proposed by the applicant as part of a separate review. Um the conditional use review um basically the proposed addition exceeds the 1,000 square foot threshold for the minor expansion and that's why we're here today to review for conditional use. Um this next slide just shows the street view, a 2025 um street view. In the corner here, you can barely see it now. Uh the highlighted portion is where the

new cafeteria is going to be located. Here on this slide, you're going to see the um elevations and there's some arrows just kind of pointing to which elevation is going to be to which um location on the building. So, um you'll see where the northeast links up, the southeast and the southwest portion. This slide just lists the conditional use approval criteria. Um I'm not going to read this whole slide, but basically um it's asking if the conditional use is um allowed in the underlying district. Um talking about the characteristics of the site. Um compliance with 1612. um that it's not going to alter the characteristics the character of the surrounding area um and that it satisfies the goals and policies of the city comprehensive plan. Um and then there's a specific um call out for schools as a conditional use. The next slide is a summary of the staff's findings. Um, basically Hulcom Elementary School is within the R10 zoning district where public educational facilities are an allowable conditional use. The site expands across 13.04 acres where the shape, location, and topography are suitable for the proposed expansion while maintaining adequate access. The surrounding area is predominantly residential which promotes walkability for school-aged children and accessibility from uh with different modes of transportation. And schools provide a necessary service to the public while also providing jobs

which meets OC 240's diverse economy goal one. There were no conditions based on the conditional use review. However, when the agenda went out, um there was some discussion with the applicant for some clarity um of the of these conditions that are related to the site plan and design review. Um so you can see condition 12, condition 15, and condition 21 have all been revised um for clarity. And we're kind of going into the options um where you can either approve the proposal with the conditions, which is what staff is recommending. Uh approve the proposal with modified conditions and provide any revised findings, or do not approve the proposal and provide direction to staff. And if you have any questions for me at this time, that would be

Thank you very much. Are there questions of staff? I just have one. Was there was thereitional use permit on this site? It was approved via Clacamus County. Okay. Um and since it's been annexed, it has not gone through a conditional use review. It had a review back in 2020 for a minor uh site plan and design review which didn't call into uh it there was no um expansion over 1,000 square ft. So it didn't need to have the additional conditional use review at that time.

Okay. Can I entertain a motion? We need Oh, yes. Let's hear for

We can We can make it this quick.

Hello, my name is Mercedes Sarah. I'm with 3J Consulting. Uh my city of residents, Milwaukee, Oregon, and I'm here representing the district this evening. Um Melissa gave a great presentation, so I'll just add a little bit to that. Um, I'm here to discuss Hok Elementary School and the prop planned expansion to add a new cafeteria and kitchen to the uh school building in the souththeast corner. Next slide, please. Um, as mentioned, the school was built in 1966 in Clackmus County. Uh, it has a current enrollment of 543 students with a maximum capacity of 564 students. Um, it is in the R10 zone and 13.04 04 acre campus. The main school building is just over 5200 or 52,000 square feet and it is accessed from Hulcom school road which is local. Next slide. Uh as part of the proposed condition uh proposed improvements, there is the cafeteria there in the southwest corner as well as a trash enclosure which will be adjacent to that cafeteria to provide uh easy access for the kitchen. uh new storm improvements along the uh east side of the school where new pathways will connect from the cafeteria over to the play area, new soft play area and new hardscape play areas. Well, new painting on the hardscape play and new soft play areas are proposed. And then just a point of clarification, the parking lot is being reurfaced only in the area near the cafeteria. um in the other area is being resealed and restriped. There are currently 65 parking stalls and the restriping to meet the city's current parking standards will mean that there will be 77 parking stalls total for the site, not added. Just want to make sure that's uh clear. And that's just meeting the city's width standards and depth standards for parking. Next

slide. Can I just ask a real quick question? Sure. What's a soft play area versus a hard play area? Uh, I believe it is not an impervious surface. It is uh like chip area with play equipment. Got it. Thank you.

Yep. Um, the new cafeteria will accommodate more students than the lunch per lunch period. The current cafeteria is fairly constrained. The new trash enclosure again mentioned is there adjacent to the kitchen area and there's a new outdoor eating area just adjacent to the cafeteria to the north there. Next slide. Uh here are the elevations. Uh the glazing is primarily focused where the cafeteria is and then the area where the kitchen is um has some upper glazing added just to provide natural light and where the the kitchen equipment is. Next slide. The materials will be complimentary to the existing school uh combination of ground face block, metal panel sighting uh and flashing cement board sighting as well and the color palette is shown there. And then uh there will be two new storm swelles uh low impact swailes uh on the site. One near the new pathway and one in the parking lot to help uh treat the new impervious area that's created by the proposed project. Next slide. So in summary, we request approval of the land use application for the proposed expansion. We agree with staff's findings. Um, and the suggested condition changes to 12, 15, and 21 as presented in staff's report.

Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the commissioners? Hearing none, I think we can entertain a motion now. Right. We could close the public record. Okay, we'll close the public record. Right. And do we need to ask for public comment? I haven't gotten any speaker slips and so is there anybody online? I don't think so. Cool. Yeah. Fantastic. Everybody likes schools.

Yeah. I'll make I'll make a motion to approve GLU25-000058 CU25003 SP2500148. additional use for the Hul School addition of a cafeteria. I second. Call the roll. I, Commissioner Lel, I. Commissioner Goff, I chair Espie. I do have communications. Any communications?

Uh, yes. Thank you very much. Just a couple. um our uh wonderful administrative assistant has emailed the the commission uh to try to identify best paths forward to uh hear from you all about getting a quorum for each meeting. Um so we've received about half of the comments. Uh so it would be great uh if everybody could respond to that either via the survey, that's the right word.

Um or just email her directly. That would be fantastic. Um as we did kind of indicate, we are going to have a bit of a heavy meeting uh at the next meeting. Um but we will uh keep you a breast if there's anything that needs to change associated with that. Um, we also do have agenda items scheduled for every meeting through the first meeting of May and specifically on uh the May 11th meeting. We do currently have our uh wonderful legal team uh planning to do a presentation on sort of the end of what has occurred in the short session uh for the state legislature and specifically provide a readout for uh house bill 4037 which was the the main bill that does affect uh the land use planning system uh as of late. So, um, full dockets for the next couple of weeks and, uh, an interesting one, uh, in May. So, uh, that concludes any comments I have. Okay. And that would include that includes because I think there's a that includes a bunch of stuff about how boards and commissions are supposed to behave and how they talk to each other these days. And

so there are interact with there were a number of bills um that were passed uh regarding uh the boards and commissions. There's three. Yeah.

Um one of them was regarding um food and availability of serving food as a a benefit of being on the board. Another one was clarifications about what a serial meeting is. Um and then uh the third one was uh for the Oregon Government and Ethics Commission um uh requiring that a local government representative be on it. So there was there's quite a bit of changes that occurred in in terms of meeting uh makeup and laws this short session. So we can definitely make sure that there's a readout provided on that as well. Right. Okay. Cool. Okay.