City Council - Special Meeting

Heather, Tom, can you hear us?

Can you hear me okay?

You're a little low.

Okay. I'll try to speak up a little more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, are you guys? All right, good evening. It's 6.02 and it's time. I will now call the special session of the city council meeting to order and request that Claudia do a roll call. Councilor Tucholsky.

Here.

Councillor Chenoweth.

Here.

Councillor Benner.

Here.

Councillor Geary.

Good evening.

Councillor Cunningham.

Here.

Councillor President Peralta.

Here.

And Mayor Morris. Here.

So tonight we have a public hearing. The public hearing is on ordinance 5182, an ordinance approving a zone change with conditions to the R4 medium high density 5,000 square foot lot residential zone, docket ZC1-26 for the easterly portion of tax lot R4409CD00100 upon annexation into the city limits. Approximately three point one seven acres including a budding right-of-way located on the west side of Northeast McDonald Lane Generally between Shegwin farms neighborhood Park and Grand Haven Elementary School counselors you can find it between pages three and 542 Just light reading the order of the procedure for tonight's meeting is set up out in detail in our city code and In brief, we will start with the staff report. Next, the applicant will be asked to provide testimony. The applicant's presentation is limited to 10 minutes. Next, the public will be asked to provide testimony. Testimony will be first taken by those testifying in support of the application, then from those testifying in opposition to the application. The applicant will then be given time to respond to and or rebut any evidence presented. After the staff report and after people testify, counselors may pose questions to the mayor to be addressed to the person who testified or to the staff to clarify any information that was conveyed in the testimony. I will ask everyone who signed up in advance to testify first in the order in which they signed up. Then I will ask if anyone present at the Civic Hall would like to testify. And then I will ask anyone who is on Zoom who has not testified but would like to testify to do so. As a courtesy to the city, the applicant has signaled in advance that it will be requesting a continuance at the conclusion of this hearing to synthesize the evidence presented at the hearing and prepare a meaningful response. If council agrees, I will call at that time for a continuance of the hearing to hear their response as well as the first reading of the ordinance 5182 to September 22nd. We wish to hear from everyone who wants to testify. However, we request that you refrain from repeating testimony already given by someone else. If you agree with what someone before you has said, but you also want to make sure that you're on the legal record standing in the public record, please provide your testimony and you can indicate that you concur with the person previously in front of you. Public testimony will be limited to three minutes. We will time the testimony and provide you with a visual warning when there is one minute remaining. Since this is a legal process for considering a land use decision, we need you to state your full name and address for the public record so you can receive a written notice of the City Council's final decision. We ask that you keep your comments relevant to the discussion. A staff report was published seven days before the hearing and it identifies all of the applicable criteria. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed towards the criteria or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which the person believes to apply to this decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence of sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the board based on that issue. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the local government or its designee to respond to the issue will preclude an action for damages in circuit court. This is a quasi-judicial land use hearing. This public hearing is to consider ordinance number 5182 to approve a zone change with conditions to the R4 medium high density 5,000 square foot lot zone docket ZC1-26 for easterly portion of tax lot R4409CD00100 upon annexation into the city limits. Approximately three point one seven acres including a budding right-of-way located on the west side of Northeast McDonald Lane Generally between Shugwin farms neighborhood Park and Grand Haven Elementary School the property is tax lot I'll repeat it again are four four zero nine C D as in David zero zero one zero zero the applicant is Mac multi multi LLC and also Corey reading the public hearing is open. Does anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the city council to hear this? Does anyone object? Excuse me. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the city council to hear this matter? Okay. Does any city councilor wish to make any disclosure of a conflict of interest or abstain from participating or voting on this application? You may have made comments before. Um, Council President Peralta.

Mayor, I don't have a conflict to declare, but I did have an ex parte contact after the last meeting. I spoke to the applicant briefly, just apologizing that we didn't complete the business at the last meeting. So I don't think that affects my ability to hear the hearing today, but I wanted to acknowledge it.

Okay. Anything else? At this time, to David, our County City Attorney, Dave Leitberg, whether we read anything in the paper needs to be noted. Okay.

So in your script, that's just below for ex parte.

Sorry. Does any counselor wish to make any disclosure of a conflict of interest or abstain for participating or voting on this application? Have any counselors visited the site? I have. Okay. Does any counselor wish to discuss their visit to the subject site? Okay. Does any city councilor need to declare any ex parte contact prior to this hearing with the applicant or any other party involved in this hearing or any other source of information outside of staff regarding the subject of this hearing? There you go. Councillor Cunningham, do you have anything?

Just that, yeah, I read the newspaper articles and any email I received, I sent on to the planning department.

Councillor Chenoweth.

Just a clarifying point, all of the news register articles, excuse me, will eventually be part of the record, correct?

That's what I understand. Appear to be, yeah.

Yes, they'll be included in the record. Then I have nothing to add.

Councillor Peralta already mentioned.

Yeah, no further comment.

Okay, and myself was just the news register, all that, the emails, and then early on, I just had a conversation with, Kathy Christie, but didn't talk about it specifically, referred it on to Heather Richards.

Nothing to add?

Councilor Takolsky? Councilor Benner? Okay. Does any person wish to rebut any of the substance of the communication that was mentioned up here? If so, please raise your hand and you will be called forward. Okay. Will Tom Schauer, senior planner, please give a staff report on ordinance number 5182. One moment.

Thank you, Mayor and city councilors. Can you hear me okay?

Not very well. Are you able to increase the volume?

I'll speak as loud as I can and as close to the mic as I can.

Thank you.

Thank you. Again, this is a public hearing. It's a quasi-judicial hearing to consider ordinance 5182, which is related to docket or addresses docket ZC-126 zone change. This is a quasi judicial public hearing to consider that land use application ordinance number 5182 that's before you in your packet would adopt the planning commission recommendation of that quasi judicial application and adopt a decision document of the findings and conditions. The property information that's on the slide before you was previously read by the mayor. So I won't read that again. I want to talk through the application itself in the decision and decision making criteria. I'll go through those briefly and then I'll go through those in more detail as the presentation progresses. I also do want to note that we did receive additional public testimony after this public hearing was scheduled that has been distributed to council and posted on the website. other than the additional testimony that was received after noon yesterday, which we notified the person that they would need to submit that directly at the hearing this evening. So there's been a lot of questions about what the application before is as part of this application. It's zone change 126. And so this quasi judicial decision is only to consider the submitted application for the zone change to R4 based on the applicable rezone criteria. The rezone to R4 would not approve any specific use or development plan for the property, nor would it limit the property to any specific use or development plan. And then further, the review is only to determine whether this request meet the criteria for R4 zoning, not to consider whether there's alternate zoning proposals that haven't been requested as part of this application. Just for clarification, when we talk about what that means, each zoning district has a list of things like development standards, as well as a list of permitted uses and conditionally permitted uses. So this rezone application, if approved, would allow once that property is in R4 zoning, Someone could come in and seek to develop any of the permitted uses in the R4 zone subject to the applicable development standards or to apply for conditional uses provided they could demonstrate that they meet the criteria for conditional use permits and also the applicable development standards and those would go through a public hearing process. So as with basically all of the zoning districts, there's a considerable list of the uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted. And there's 26 different permitted uses in the R4 zone and an additional 20 conditional uses for that zone. I wanna talk about some of the key comprehensive plan policies. So chapter five of the comprehensive plan deals with housing and residential development. There's a section there that talks about the location of where different zoning districts are to occur, what the characteristics are. Those are listed on the slide. There's five of those, and I'll talk through those in more detail later. The other key review criteria for both, if there's a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change, in this case, we're only dealing with a zone change. There's no comprehensive plan map requested, but the criteria are the same. Then it's subject to the criteria noted on the slide above. Those are found in 1774.02 of the zoning ordinance. And I'll talk through that in more detail as well. The subject property, I think you're pretty familiar with it here, is just a little over three acres located on McDonald Lane between Grand Haven Elementary and Chagwin Park, as shown on the overhead. Again, the comprehensive plan map designation for the property and everything within a pretty good radius of the property is residential. And the comprehensive plan designation of residential allows for any of the residential zoning districts subject to those policies that address where those are to locate. Again, the property, as I think you're aware, everybody in the room is an unincorporated island surrounded by city limits on all sides. So this is a rezone, there's a separate decision for an annexation and the rezone would be contingent on the property being annexed into the city at which time the zoning would be applied. The surrounding zoning is a combination of a variety of different zoning districts. I'll go through that further as well. And it's a range of everything from R1, R2, R3, and R4 zoning. As you go farther north away from the property, you get into some unincorporated property and then again land that's outside of both the city limits and the urban growth boundary. There's a variety of housing types in this area ranging from detached homes, some duplexes, apartments, manufactured housing, and as you get a little bit further away from the site, some assisted living facilities as well. Again, the property currently has county zoning, so the proposal would rezone it to R4. And now I'd like to go through the findings that are in the decision document that relate to those key criteria talked about earlier. So first of all, in terms of where what's medium density housing, which is characterized by the R3 zone and medium high density residential, which means R4 zoning, these are the five components that talk about where those are to be located. So areas that aren't committed to low density, proximity to certain street types, and I'll go through each of these in detail one by one on the following slides. areas not subject to develop limitations, existing facilities have adequate capacity for additional development, and then the properties in proximity to public transportation routes, either existing or planned. So first for R4 and R3 zoning, this is areas that are not committed to low density development. So the term low density is used in the comprehensive plan means properties that have R1 and R2 zoning and development. And as noted on the previous slide, the surrounding use and development includes a mix of zones and a variety of housing types. The directly abutting zoning is R4 to the north, R3 to the south. To the east, there's the R2 zoning, which includes the Grand Haven Elementary School site and the property north of that, which is owned by the school district. And immediately west, the R2 property that's the Shegwin Park. Second, R4 zoning and R3 zoning are to locate in areas that have direct access from a collector arterial street or direct access from a local collector street that's within 600 feet of a collector arterial street. So first of all, the terms minor collector and local collector used interchangeably and then collector or major collector used interchangeably. So the subject property has direct access onto McDonald Lane, which is a minor or local collector. And then the property, the map shows a buffer of 600 feet from that and shows the distance from the subject property to Grand Haven. It is within 600 feet of Grand Haven. It's about 390 feet to the right of way. And that is a collector. So it meets the requirement for the location relative to the major streets. Third is R4 zoning is to occur in areas that are not subject to develop limitations such as topography, flooding, or poor drainage. The site's generally level. The map shows topography here. There's no floodplain zoning on the property or around it. And there are storm drain facilities in the area and there is feasibility to provide drainage from the site into the stormwater system. So it's the third requirement for location. Fourth is dealing with areas where existing facilities have capacity for additional development. And I'll go through these. This is a slide that the text is a little bit small here, but the recommendation from the planning commission has approval with conditions that includes these three conditions of approval. The first condition deals with the effective date of the zone change wouldn't be applicable until and if the property is annexed into the city. The second one deals with transportation and the third one deals with sanitary sewer and I'll go through them. So from a transportation perspective, the issue here is dealing with the long-term capacity issues of the transportation system based on the zoning, based on a comparison of the current zoning and the proposed zoning and how that relates to what was originally in the transportation plan. So essentially there's a requirement in state law when you look at changes to your land use program to make sure that the transportation matches the land use. And that's the transportation planning, what we call it for short, sometimes TPR if I use that acronym. So again, the transportation analysis for a zone change does not look at a specific user development. It looks at what the kind of the so-called reasonable worst case scenario is. What's the difference between traffic that would be generated based on the uses that are allowed in the current zoning versus those that would be allowed in the proposed zoning? And what's that net difference and how does that affect the transportation system? And then as far as any traffic analysis that's done for any specific use or development, one of those 26 permitted uses or 20 conditional uses, if the applicant comes in to develop those, then there's a traffic analysis that's done at that time to look at what the actual impacts of the specific proposal would be on the transportation system and any mitigation needed. So for the transportation system, we did recommend a condition such that any use in the zone could develop up into this number of trips that would be generated, daily trips. If they did additional analysis, they might determine that there could be additional capacity for additional trips that might require additional mitigation to the system. So trip caps are allowed by the transportation planning rule. establishing a trip cap that is in place unless the applicant does the other option that would show how they could achieve additional capacity for additional trips beyond that cap. So that meets the requirements for transportation capacity. As far as sanitary sewer capacity, again, this is based on the zoning. So our sewer capacity model makes an assumption for R4 zoning of 20 residential units per acre. And that was analyzed and found to have capacity up to that assumption. Again, this addresses the requirements for the modeled zoning for properties that have R4 zoning and not a specific use or development. It looks at that demand. If an applicant were to come in with a specific development proposal and propose something that would have density greater than 20 units per acre or equivalent, They could do a specific analysis or do mitigation that would add capacity and those would be at their expense to allow that additional capacity. If they stayed under that, then there's nothing further that would need to be done for sewer capacity. So this meets the requirements for sewer capacity. Finally, the last locational requirement for the R4 zoning is for the property needs to be within a quarter mile of existing or planned public transportation. The property is about 1.16 miles from Meeham Hill County's current transit route 3, the McMinnville North line, and a quarter mile radius extends out beyond that proximity to that existing transit line. Going through those five criteria for where R4 zoning is to locate, it meets all five of those. Going into the McMinnville Municipal Code, the zoning ordinance provisions that deal with the criteria, it's listed on the overhead and I'm gonna go through these a little bit to talk about some of the language here. The first one essentially repeats the policies of the comprehensive plan. This paragraph kind of below those first three criteria says when the proposed amendment concerns needed housing is defined in the McMinnville comprehensive plan and state statute, criterion B shall not apply to the reasonable land designated for residential use on the plan map. So we already know the plan map designates this property for residential. The question is, does this concern needed housing? And then in addition, when we're looking at the comprehensive plan policies, the housing policies of the comprehensive plan are given added emphasis and the other policies in the comprehensive plan are not to be used to exclude needed housing, unnecessarily decrease densities, or three, allow special conditions to be attached, which would have the effect of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. So when we look at that together, what does needed housing mean? There's a memo that was distributed to you from a prior land use action. It's attachment two to the September 14th staff memo that I distributed. It goes into more detail on the detailed legal analysis, but essentially, All housing in McMinnville is considered needed housing consistent with the definition of state statute. Given that in the comprehensive plan designation of residential, criterion B does not apply. So you're not to consider criterion B. And that means what we're really looking at is criteria A, C, and then that additional language about the housing policies in the comprehensive plan being given added emphasis. So when we talk about needed housing, there's a lot of information in the record about census data or number of building permits that have been issued. What we're required to rely on is the city's adopted and acknowledged housing needs analysis that was acknowledged by LCDC in May and that it was not appealed. So that is the city's official adopted and acknowledged housing needs analysis. And that document has several exhibits to identify the need for between 219 and 226 new gross buildable acres of R4 zoning for our planning horizon to meet the need. The zone changes that have occurred since January 1st of 2022 are listed above that were rezones to R4. The findings document does have an error regarding the Baker Rock property. So the notes that are on the slide in red are corrected texts that would be incorporated into the findings replacing the erroneous information. So of the needed 219 to roughly 219 to 226 new acres of R4 zoning, so far there's been rezoning of just under 46 acres. To go back to... The first criterion about consistency with the goals and policies and then utilities and services being able to be provided. Just wanna note again, I already talked through the provision dealing with the provision of services that are listed here. So I won't go through those again. Those meet the needs of both the comprehensive plan policy and the criteria in that section 1774.020. Just by way of background, again, the ordinance sits before you reflects the recommendation of the planning commission. So they consider this in July at a public hearing, they heard the staff report, the recommended decision document and findings and conditions from staff. They hear the application, reviewed the application and the testimony provided by the applicant at the hearing. There are 18 pieces of written testimony that were submitted. 13 people spoke in opposition at the hearing. And then the applicant provided rebuttal testimony. Planning Commission had an opportunity to ask questions of those who testified and closed the public hearing the record and deliberated. In reviewing the testimony and the materials, they consider those criteria and how the testimony related to the applicable criteria. They found the criteria were satisfied with conditions as provided in the decision document and voted seven out to recommend approval with those conditions to council. The public testimony that was provided at the Planning Commission hearing is noted on the overhead with the written testimony noted to the left. Some people provided multiple written testimonies. Those are all included in your materials. And then oral testimony was provided by the people on the right-hand side. In brief, the applicant's testimony, they noted that the zone change would allow creation of housing opportunities in McMinnville that would meet a need in the community. They summarized the provisions regarding needed housing, demonstrated adequate utilities and provided, I'm just noting essentially their oral testimony pointed back to the application, which is several hundred pages. So they summarized what was in their application, noted that they provide the findings regarding the applicable, excuse me, applicable criteria and how those are satisfied. And they noted that the staff report included also the analysis and findings that those were satisfied with conditions. And they expressed that they had no objection to the conditions recommended by staff and ultimately incorporated and recommended by the planning commission. There is a number of items of testimony that address things like a number of items related to the conceptual plan that the applicant provided at the neighborhood meeting, as well as in the application submittal materials they had. Again, to clarify as the testimony was submitted and in consideration of the rezone criteria, several of these related to the concept plan and not to the zone change itself. So there were things, some of those focused on height, setback, scale, shading, parking, number of units shown on the plan, concerns about how that related to surrounding development. Same thing, discussion of the illustrative plan relative to the great neighborhood principles and the comprehensive plan. comments about traffic congestion safety relative to the neighborhood overall, to the school streets and all different modes of transportation. There's testimony that's in your packet. There's additional testimony that came in for this hearing raising the question of whether the site was restricted to use for an education center and community garden. There's no covenant or other restriction on the title for how the property can be used. There were concerns expressed about if property is being developed, how does that construction phase traffic impact the neighborhood in the school? There was discussion about whether census data, what it said about the need for new apartments, and there was concern that other zoning districts with lower density zoning were not considered. So I think in going through the prior discussion of the findings relative to the criteria, sort of provide some information about how these concerns that were expressed, how the planning commission reviewed and considered those relative to their recommendation. For city council this evening came originally to you the ordinance for consideration on August 25th, where council can make a decision on an ordinance on the record based on the planning commission recommendation without a public hearing. at that time you called for this public hearing for September 16th. We subsequently provided mail, the newspaper notice and provided the staff report and decision document, which was distributed last week with the planning commission's recommendation Again, we received additional public testimony that's been distributed first in a September 14th memo from staff that included the three items, correction to the findings regarding the R4 zoning that I just described earlier. Second, two attachments, copies of all the testimony that came in as of that time after the August 25th hearing was announced. And then the legal memo that points to The discussion about needed housing I talked about earlier. You also have a September 15th memo that included additional public testimony that came in within the following evening and day. They include additional testimony other than anything that came in afternoon yesterday. And then the... Sorry, the only other thing to note is that we have the materials from the news register that are entered into the record that included an ad that was published by, says paid for by Grand Haven Shedwin Petitioners. It was in the news register on August 14th. And then the article that was ran in yesterday's new register, September 15th. And then again, the additional public testimony, the written testimony that came in afternoon yesterday, we advised the I think there was only one to date. We notified them that they would need to submit that to you directly in writing in hard copy form at the meeting this evening. So again, with that, the planning commission recommends the council approve the zone change with conditions per the decision document. So you'll next conduct the public hearing, then deliberate as needed and ultimately render the decision according to the timeline that David discussed at the beginning of the meeting too. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have for me at this time or later as well. And otherwise, thank you.

Any counselors have any questions of staff? Councillor Chenoweth.

Yeah, I just want to clarify a couple of things. First, what's the difference between R3 and R4?

So there's some overlap in the zoning districts and the uses that are permitted. There are a lot of the same permitted uses and conditional uses in the zone. The lot sizes are different. And then most notably, the R4 zone includes apartments as a permitted use, provided they meet certain locational requirements. And the multifamily or apartments is defined as five or more units on a site.

So our three would not allow for three-story woody walk-ups?

It would allow for, it could be three stories, but it would be limited to four units on a site or other housing types like cottage clusters that could have more housing units on a site. You would be, other than cottage clusters, you could do something like a fourplex on a site that could be up to, there's some height differences as well. But you could do a subdivision where each lot had fourplexes on it, for example. It's when you go to five units, so that's considered apartments and not a middle housing type. And those fourplexes could be three-story woody walk-ups. You could get them within the height limits of the 35 feet of the zone.

Okay. So you could, in effect, do multi-unit housing with R3, but the big difference is going to be height limitation. Am I carrying this correctly?

It's a little bit confusing, right? So if you had eight units on a lot that would not be allowed in the, the R3 zone, unless it was constructed as a cottage cluster. But if you took those eight units and put four on one lot and four on another lot, then you could do that in the R3 zone. Okay.

And then I'm clear as mud on that, but that's good. I think I kind of got most of the gist of that in terms of, You had said we're entertaining our four rezone here. What if the council chose to rezone to a different, on the rezone app? Are we limited to only saying yes or no to the R4? Or are we capable of making a determination that we will rezone to something else?

So the application before you is for R4 zoning. And because this is a quasi-judicial land use decision, if it meets those criteria, then you would need to find that it would be approved. If it doesn't meet those criteria, then you wouldn't approve it. I hate to use analogies, but if someone came in and wanted to develop a restaurant in a commercial zone and you said you think you should develop an office on that site, they're not asking for that other thing. They're asking for R4 zoning. If it meets those criteria, then it needs to be approved. If it doesn't meet those criteria, then no. it wouldn't mean that they're requesting something different or that you could choose to make a decision about something different than what was applied for.

So was that a yes, I need to stick with R4 as my only option for this application? Correct. Okay, thank you.

Councillor Cunningham.

I'm going to actually ask a question in that same line. Some of the information that's been put out there is that the budding properties are R4PD. Can you give me some information on PD and are there differences within R4PD?

So an applicant has an opportunity to apply for what's called a plan development overlay. We have a lot of those in McMinnville. And you're essentially approving an overlay. And at some point, either at the same time or a separate step, they would apply for essentially the master plan for the property. And that if someone applies for a plan development, they can have some flexibility to the standards as long as it results in a better product. And a plan development also allows the introduction of some uses that wouldn't normally be allowed in the zoning district up to 25% of the area. So if somebody applied for a plan development, you would be reviewing it based on the plan development criteria. For the R4 zone, it would strictly be subject to the R4 standards without the flexibility to those and the other applicable development standards such as parking landscaping and residential design and development standards.

Okay. So Tom, the, the, in this particular case, the R4 PD PD refers to plan development.

Correct.

Okay. And the, The question that was proposed was that in this particular planned development, which I assume is the Chiquin Farms planned development, that there was height restrictions that would effectively only allow for two stories. Is that correct in what they're stating?

I am not aware of that. I know that there were multiple phases there that include, you know, detached homes, apartments, some alley-loaded products, smaller lots, but I don't know of anything that specifically restricted the height limits, but I don't have that answer for you.

Counselor, we can look that up for you and get you that information later in the public hearing because we'll have to go look at that land use decision. But I would say when you talk about height, we don't talk about height in terms of stories. We talk about height and overall height. So a two-story house could be 25 feet. It could be 35 feet, right? And so the... the underlying zoning gives you a maximum height that you can build to. And then it's very unusual for a PD to limit that height, but we'll look that up for you.

Okay.

And I doubt it limited to two stories though, because that's typically not nomenclature that we use in planning. We talk about it in terms of feet.

Right. So, but when, when we're looking at the, placing zoning that is like adjacent zoning, all we're really looking at here is the R4 as it's written in our code.

Yes, that's what's been applied for.

I just have one more question, just a clarifying question. Early on, you talked about when zones could not be changed and there was, when an area is committed to low density housing, what would be an area just for my information that is committed to low density housing that doesn't have an R designation?

So to go back to that, low density is used in the comprehensive plan means property that has R1 and R2 zoning. So out in the West Hills, generally there are locational criteria for low density too. R1 is only to be applied in areas that are generally steeper slopes, things like that. So R1 and R2 are typical of what you'd find in the West Hills, for example, almost exclusively.

Okay, so they do have R designations. They're just committed to that R designation.

Yeah, so the provision for R3 and R4 zoning says these are to be designated in areas that essentially aren't already committed to just R1 and R2 zoning. Okay, thank you very much.

Councillor Peralta.

Thank you, Mayor. Tom, great analysis and presentation. I really appreciate your work as always. Heather, same thing. I had a couple of questions about the infrastructure capacity in the area. So in the packet, it says that above 20 units per acre density, the city can require or may require additional sewer modeling facilities. And the density for this parcel is 26 units per acre. How does the condition that we have in there establish that there's currently sufficient sewer capacity to serve the area and the property?

Yeah, so the basically this establishes a limit of 20 units per acre in less that second half of that condition is fulfilled. So if there's additional analysis that shows more capacity than what is. modeled across the city for R4 zoning, then that density could increase. Additionally, if, for example, there was capacity for 20 units per acre, but if the applicant said, I can reconstruct this bottleneck by upgrading whatever sewer line from eight inches to 10 inches as part of my project, and that adds capacity, then they can go over that.

Councilor, I might also add to it. So since it's a zone change, we are by law required to use what our assumption for sewer use would be for an R4 zone. So per our wastewater master plan, the assumption for R4 zoning is 20 units per acre. So that's what was analyzed since they didn't submit for a development project. And the Planning Commission's finding and condition of approval is if they are doing more density than what is assumed in our wastewater master plan for the R4 zone, because we don't take the highest density, we take an aggregate, then they will have to do an analysis at the time of development to show that they have capacity to support that project specific.

And help me to understand the conditions. So is it just for the subject property or is it for the overall area?

No, it's just for that subject property associated with this land use decision. But it is something, if you look at our recent rezones that we've done in McMinnville, because our infrastructure system is getting to a place, now that we're getting fully built out in the community, we're now watching all developments as they go in. So if you look at our rezones that we've had recently in the last five years, most of them have this condition on it that if the project is built at a higher level than what the assumption is in the wastewater master plan, we do require another analysis to make sure we have capacity to support that specific project. your assumptions in your wastewater master plan are, you know, some R4 land, just like you see around this neighborhood, some R4 land is built out at lower densities, at medium densities, maybe at higher densities. And so throughout your whole system, it's averaging 20 units per acre, but you could have a parcel that's doing more density than that and a neighboring parcel doing less density than that. Now that we're at the, you know, we've built up most of our infrastructure system. We're watching it more closely. So that's why we're putting that condition of approval on any project that goes above our assumptions.

Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Um, may I ask another question?

Thank you.

Um, so the other question that I have is with respect to traffic, um, If I understood it, you had two different analyses on traffic and one of them basically said it's another 229 or something daily average trips. And another one that said it's about 410. So I assume this establishes a range of 229 to 410 and the property is allowed to, the cap is 519. So I just wanted to make sure that, Also, I noticed actually on that point, the current zone on the property is EF80, but the underlying analysis used R1, I guess, because we're pulling it into R1.

Yeah, so for clarification, this is based on the modeling that was done for the transportation system plan, and that assumed land within the urban growth boundary was going to develop for urban development, not, it wasn't modeled, what would the, you know, what traffic would this ag land generate, you know, for our 20-year planning horizon, it assumes that. So the analysis is based on taking our lowest density residential zone as the existing most conservative baseline zone and saying, what's the difference between that and the requested R4.

Would EF80 have been a more conservative?

But our transportation system didn't assume that land would develop to agricultural densities.

No, I get that. But I mean, do you know, as a planner, would an agricultural density have a lower... than an R1 density for traffic. I assume it would, but.

Yes, obviously, but we're not allowed to use urban, I mean, county zoning for urban planning purposes.

Right, I mean, I guess the reason for the question is that the 410 daily trips would put it slightly above the 519 for the property, wouldn't it?

Just to be, I want to make sure I understand that there were, there was analysis done.

Hang on, Tom, we have some noise in the. Go ahead, Tom, thanks.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, there was analysis done. There's a couple, I don't want to go too technical, a couple different ways to use data in what's called the IT Institute of Transportation Engineers manual. And the analysis data initially assumed higher traffic generation based on the existing conditions. We looked at a different, both methods allowed by the IT manual and use the more conservative one. And that's what led to the trip cap. So if they were to exceed that trip cap, they'd either need to look at additional analysis, but again, sorry, it's confusing because, The rezone analysis looks over the long period, comparing sort of the worst case of the existing zone to the future zone. If they come out with a specific development proposal, they will need to analyze what are the new trips coming from that on the day it opens, not just a future estimate, but actually what are the impacts of that development and how do they mitigate that on the day it opens?

Thanks, I just had one final question. And these were included, I think, in both answers, but I just want to be really clear on it for the record that the next step, assuming that either of these two things were sort of above, you know, for example, the sewer wasn't quite right or the traffic analysis appeared to be slightly above, there would be an opportunity at a future date when the development is moving forward to have amendments to what they're providing to the city to meet those needs. They have to give us additional studies and additional information on how they're gonna mitigate. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, that's all I had. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilor, anybody on this side? Councilor Tucholsky?

Yeah, thank you. So Tom, I have a question specifically because if R4 is the only item that we can select for the density, which is either a yes or a no, R4 has a maximum building height of 60 feet. And the reason I'm bringing this up is because I don't think this is just a... zoning issue, it's also a Senate Bill 1537 issue, because after the, let's just say the zoning's approved. If the zoning goes from 60 feet originally, they can have a 20% increase on that, according to Senate Bill 1537, which takes that up to 72 feet, so we'd have a 72 foot maximum in this area. And then with 75 units, if you also take that up to the 20% allowable increase, you would actually go from 75 units to 86 units. The question that I have is you've got density unit per net acre and right now this project sits at 26.22. Do you have any idea how 15, set about 1537 would apply to that one because I'm having a hard time doing the math on that one because it's a little fuzzy.

Let me note one thing first of all, and then I don't know, Heather, if you want to weigh in on this, but the first thing is in the R4 zone, there's also a provision for the yards, the setbacks essentially, and it goes through front yard is 15, side is 6, rear is 20. And then subsection E says, all yards shall be increased over the requirements of this section, one foot for each two feet of building height over 35 feet. So at some point, there's going to be a practical limit when you start stepping that back as to, you know, for that, you know, doubling the height, you're going to be set back pretty far from property lines. And I don't know, you know, what that would ultimately look like if you were to go go to that high with how much that would, you know, pretty significant setbacks that would occur.

Sorry, Evan Hippis, Planning Manager here. Just as far as Senate Bill 1537 goes, I just wanted to note that that does require an application and also for an applicant to show that they're eligible for those adjustments. So it does require notice and it requires them to show that they are eligible under that criteria to be eligible for the mandatory adjustments. So just wanted to note it's not outright permitted. There is a process that goes along with that.

May I respond?

And I want to follow up on the height issue. I've been looking that up as you've been asking the question. So for the R4 PD in this area, It was originally approved by ordinance number 4953. I think that was in 2014. And that ordinance did not have any height restrictions. So the R4 height is the maximum height for that PD. It just talked about lot sizes and setbacks were the variances that it needed for the plan development. So it had smaller setbacks. That ordinance was amended by 4990 in 2016. And again, that did not have any height limitations. Just again, narrowed the setbacks further. Thank you.

May I continue?

Councillor Tucholsky.

Evan, I want to say thank you for bringing that up. I do understand that there's another process that we do need to go through, or if the applicant chose to make that happen. My presumption is that if they could increase the density, obviously they can increase their capital, and I don't see why they wouldn't do that at this time. So that's speculative, but I'm looking at what's the worst case scenario that we could be dealing with here, because when 1537 comes up, we have in it and that project applies, we have very little pushback as we saw with the 72 units downtown a few weeks ago. That's the reason I was asking for that one. And then the traffic trips, if those are, let's just say that you're moving up to, hey Tom, if you're moving up to like 90 units on this one, we would have to also adjust the traffic trips, but if you're already close to a limit, if not over the limit on the traffic trips that are allowed, how do we know that this is not going to cause a challenge in the basically access and traffic flow?

So basically, sorry, if you, if you had traffic that generated more than what the number is, 519, or I think it's 400 net trips between existing and proposed, then you'd have to do that analysis to address that.

Yeah, so maybe I can help a little, Tom. So, Counselor, we wouldn't allow a project to exceed the trip cap unless they came in and did a new analysis that showed what sort of transportation mitigation they needed to do to make it safe. right, with additional trips. So that could be widening the road. That could be all sorts of different transportation improvements. But they would need to do that. And if they came up with a project that exceeded that trip cap, they would need to do that analysis. And then they would also need to build the improvements that would create more safety for the additional trips.

And if they couldn't do that, then they would be limited to that cap.

One more.

I guess if you're talking about the traffic itself, it feels like we're constantly bumping up against the threshold of traffic within the city of McMinnville and Yes, we could use more bike lanes and everything else, but predominantly this is a vehicle-based community. And I'm just concerned that you have a, you have Grand Haven directly across the street there as well. And if we're talking about widening roads, we're actually talking about removing people's front yards, side yards if they're on a corner. Is there any analysis that we could do that tells us if they did, if the applicant did apply for 1537 and it was granted, what that traffic impact would be? Or is that something that has to follow up later just because of time and finances?

Well, yes, it costs money to do that analysis. So obviously the city hasn't invested in that and we can't require the applicant to do that because they haven't submitted an application in that regard.

I guess I'd just like to state to my fellow councilors that this is a, I do believe that this is a prime opportunity for this, if it were to be zoned R4, that this would actually be applicable for Senate Bill 1537 to increase the density, reduce the parking. And I'm just, I have general concerns about that. 1537 scares me.

1537 does not mitigate the need for an applicant to do what we call a TIA traffic impact analysis. It also doesn't remove trip caps that are in decision documents. So 1537 is not going to remove a provision that is in place for safety reasons. It's typically removing provisions that are more, you know, community values in terms of aesthetics on projects, but it will not be able to remove the trip cap that's in place. And it will not be able to remove the city's requirement for a traffic impact analysis, nor will it be able to remove the city's requirement for mitigation for anything that the TIA shows needs to be improved. And, you know, if playing it out, if the applicant decided to go for more trips and the trip cap analysis says you need to widen the roads, if they can't get the right of way to widen the roads, then they can't do that mitigation and that doesn't move forward. The city doesn't come in and condemn people's front yards to get right of way to widen roads for private projects.

Okay, well, regardless, it could still go from 60 to 72 feet. And if you're applying the real challenging part of Senate Bill 1537, we could take parking from what it is today to absolute zero because you can take it down to zero. So at that point, you have however many cars on the road. Thank you for the time.

Yeah, and I just want to remind you that that would come into the development part that right now, what we have to talk about is the zoning of R4, just that particular one at this time. So is, Councilor Benner, did you have something? Okay, Councilor Benner.

Thank you, Mayor. Heather and Tom, thank you. If we approved the zone change to R4, and then the developer decides to build something, Is there another approval process? So if we go to R4, they can do anything that's allowed in R4 or is there a next step that says you have to approve this set of plans with detailed setbacks and heights?

There is, so I think, there's two different processes, and I think the people in the room will be concerned about both, right? So if it's a permitted use in the zone, you don't go through a public hearing process again. It is reviewed administratively by staff, so it will be reviewed by planning staff, building staff, and engineering staff to meet our local regulations to build a project. So there is another review process, and that's when we would be looking at How many units are there? Is it exceeding the trip cap? Do you need a TIA? All of that technical information and expertise that will all be done administratively by staff. If it's a conditional use in the zone and a conditional use permit is applied for, and that goes to planning commission and there's a public hearing for that.

Thank you. And then do house bill 2183 or Senate bill 974 apply to this project?

Do you have a name for those bills that the community?

Yeah, so the 974 applies in terms of everything has to be reviewed for public improvements within 120 days. But what else is in 974?

I was thinking of the previous development that we just looked at where we were limited on what we could approve. That's HP 4037.

Senate bill.

1537.

Thank you.

So there's 1537, which is the mandatory adjustments. So that's what Councilor Tchaikovsky was referencing. House Bill 4037 is the new requirement that cities cannot have public hearings for housing developments, nor can they be appealed by anyone but the applicant, but this is a zone change and not a development project. That's what you're reviewing is just the zoning. So this doesn't fall under House Bill 4037.

Last question, can you clarify the extent of our decision-making criteria? In other words, we may or may not like the project, but we have to make our decision based on

Yeah, so your decision document goes through every criteria we need to use in which to make a decision and it provides the applicant's response as to why they think it meets that criteria and then the staff has reviewed that and provided a recommendation to Planning Commission. They reviewed that and the document you have in front of you today is the Planning Commission's findings. based on that. The primary criteria are the two sets of criteria that Tom walked you through. So the comp plan policies, which are locational criteria for R3 and R4 zoning, And then the zone change criteria, which essentially A and C, so two part tests, because B is no longer relevant based on needed housing provisions. And then you can't use comp plan policies to deny housing under those provisions of denying it based on density. I forgot what the three provisions are, but there are three provisions that you can't use comp plan policies to deny housing projects or housing zones.

Thank you. I can turn my screen again if that's helpful.

Oh, that was Tom. Any other? Councillor Cunningham.

Yeah, something came up while Councillor Tokolsky was asking his questions and specifically to setbacks. When we're looking at this property, Are we assuming it is one parcel and so in essence the setbacks are the 20 feet from the front, 20 feet from the back, but six on either side of it?

No. So setbacks are development standards. So it's not a criteria for zoning for a zone map amendment. When the development comes in, which in an R4 zone could be a subdivision. So it's, per the north side of this property, which is mostly R4, that was all subdivided. So the setbacks would pertain to each individual parcel in that subdivision. Or if you had one larger parcel where you had an apartment project, the setbacks would apply to that apartment project on that one parcel. As Tom described, you could have it subdivided and have four plexes, and the setbacks would apply to those four. four plexes on each individual parcel. You could subdivide and have a cottage cluster, which is a bigger parcel and the setbacks would apply to that. So it's based on when the development comes in and the setback will apply to that development. And all of that is to, setbacks are in play to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties. And so as you create your individual parcels, that's when you're applying your setbacks.

Correct. So can you give me. Oh, sorry to clarify the earlier question about process and what would come back. If someone were to come in and subdivide, then that would go through a different process too. So smaller subdivisions initially have a noticed staff decision. And then if it's more than 10 lots, then that would go to the planning commission to review a subdivision.

So in the packet, it refers to the shading specifically on the north side of the area. And it... basically refers to that north side as a side yard, I believe, or something to that effect with the six foot, but with the height of the buildings, it going to like 13 feet or something like that. But when I, you know, what I don't understand about apartments is when you're plotting apartments, Is the backside of the apartment truly the backyard or can it still be considered the side of the building so it only needs the six feet then plus whatever for height?

So when you're applying the setbacks to, let's just say the parcel stayed the way it is, the definitions of front, side, rear are all defined in the zoning ordinance. And front is that abutting the street. The rear is the one that is opposite and most distant, the front. And then all others are sides. Thank you.

Okay, so just a reminder that this is asking questions of staff, but you're doing great. Just want to make sure that you understand it's not deliberation time. That'll come later. So, um, counselor Gary, I have two questions of staff.

Um, The traffic impact analysis they put in their application, am I correct that it just looked at one, two, three, four, five intersections and the burden on those five intersections kind of where all of the driveways from Grand Haven were spilling out and then the Grand Haven McDonald and then the 27th and McDonald intersections, that was the extent of it just and now analyzing those intersections?

I believe that's correct. I don't have the map right in front of me. There's essentially two approaches. The first one is we go through a scoping process and look at what intersections need to be analyzed. Part of that is going out and looking at, depending on how many trips are going through each intersection, they would need to go out and include some additional intersections until they don't exceed that volume. Understood. And was that our direction or their selection? Go ahead.

Go ahead, John.

I was going to say, I believe we identified specific intersections for them and also said they needed to look at those that would have whatever that number of, I think, 20 trips in the PM going through additional intersections and stop it beyond that.

Yeah, so as Councilor Geary, we provide a list of intersections that we'd like them to examine. But if their analysis shows that less than the threshold number, the 20 additional trips are going through that intersection, they aren't actually required to analyze that intersection. So I believe our initial list took it further until it sort of hit some of the like 99W and some other larger intersections down the intersection. down the transportation network, but as traffic continued to disperse in the model, the impact was less and less and they didn't have to analyze further.

Okay. And then I didn't see it in there, but I know there's always multiple pages of all the tabulated data in the show your work appendix of those. So maybe it's in there, but have, is there, does that include an analysis of the current or potential burden in total trips to the street itself as a minor collector? not just intersectional impact, but the total trips on that street now per day with the 543 added?

I guess the way I would answer that is typically it's the intersections of the problem area. If you think about like an interstate and the access control and on-ramps and off-ramps that can handle a high volume because nobody's stopping. So when you get to a street like this, if there was, no side streets and no traffic control you wouldn't have any capacity issues it's when you get to those intersections that the intersections are the pinch points understood are uh evaluated okay and i'm what i'm going off of is the tsp's table for uh the definition of what you see on a type of street also includes that street's max

The design bar. Max average daily traffic. And I would love, after all that build out, what that section of McDonald's total daily traffic is. Not just one intersection or not just this project's burden on one of those intersections, but that street's cumulative so far would be helpful to know.

Yeah, so again, for the TPR analysis, this is looking at the impacts essentially 20 years in the future and the cumulative effects of that, not just this project, but it's looking at the cumulative effects, assuming this is additive to what would be occurring over the 20-year period.

What's the total number it gets for daily trips on that section of road?

You know, that I would, I'm not sure that is, I'll have to look to see if I have that, but usually what's analyzed in these is the peak hour traffic. So that's the congestion. I don't generally understand your question about the volumes that the different street classes are intended to carry, but The capacity analysis usually looks at the intersections at the peak hour. And I'm sorry, I can't see who's in the room. I don't know if the applicant intends to have their engineers speak to this. But a rule of thumb, it's not perfect, is that your daily volumes, your PM peak traffic volumes are about 10% of what your daily volumes are generated from the development. Very good. I'll just leave it.

Councillor Geary, I would suggest ask the applicant that question. We'll look for it as the public hearing continues. When we get a traffic analysis into the city, we are not transportation experts. So we do have a contract with David Evans and Associates who are transportation experts. They review all the transportation analysis we get against our standards and let us know if it meets it or doesn't meet it. and what concerns would be and recommending conditions of approval to mitigate those concerns.

Understood. And I think it's on us to, to manage the ongoing burden of the TSP overall too. So I understand where you're coming from, but yeah, if staff could get that number of what that total daily trips are now on that section of road, that'd be great. Thanks.

Councillor Chenoweth, you have a last question too?

I do. I have a couple. I have a question and a comment. Question. Senate Bill 1537, one of the waivers is setbacks one of the waivers? Potential?

Sorry, I switched in here. must allow an adjustment of up to 10% of required setback distance for side and rear, so not front setbacks.

Okay, so just in terms of that question posed by my fellow Councillor, I think that's important to understand. The second thing I would like to clarify, House Bill 4037, you said that the two paths for the development portion of this is going to be either administrative, or it's gonna be the Planning Commission. When those two decisions, when either one of those decisions are made because of House Bill 4037, there can be no appeal to us. So our only opportunity as I understand things to Senate bill, or excuse me, House Bill 4037, to address any construction, even though that's not in the play in this particular application, is now. Because once it comes in as a develop, if we grant the zoning change, and we grant the bringing it into the city, At that point, the council will have no more opportunity to talk about this based on my understanding of House Bill 4037. Am I missing something?

I would say to you, Councillor, You are required to review the zone change based on the criteria that's been adopted by the city for how to review zone changes. And your decision, if appealed to Luba, will also be looking at how you review the zone change against the criteria that the city's already adopted for zone changes.

That really didn't answer my question, but I think it did answer my question and that is we did Our hands are going to be cuffed again if we allow this to come in under a change zone And we allow it into the city and at that point we're stuck with whatever 50 if they go through the 1537 process we have no control and I think that's very important for this council to understand that this is the reality that we live in now and And I think it's very important for our constituents to understand that. I think it's very important for the people of the state to understand that, that this is now the reality. Thank you.

Any further questions for staff right now? No further questions for staff. Okay. So then we're going to go to the public hearing part where you get to speak to us. Um, Just let's go back down here. We're gonna start with the people who have signed up in advance to testify in support of the proposal. Please remember to include your name and address for the record. Claudia, do we have anybody that is signed up in advance to testify in support?

Yes, we'll start with Barbara Boyer.

Good evening, Mayor Morris. Sorry, that's loud. And Council President Peralta and City Council members. My name is Barbara Boyer and I reside at Boyer Road in McMinnville. I am chair of the Soil and Water Conservation District. I would like to provide some history and background on the three acre Hembury property.

We actually need to stop. We skipped ahead. So after... Number six, it says, does any counselor have questions for staff? And then it says, does the applicant wish to provide any testimony before we start? Oh, my apologies. My apologies.

Excuse me. There's a long list here. Does the applicant wish to? Sorry. Does the applicant wish? Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you, Claudia. Sorry about that.

That's okay. Doug Rucks, the Rucks Group, LLC, 15537 Southwest Thrasher Way, Sherwood, Oregon, 97140. I am the land use consultant for the applicant MAC Multi LLC. So mayor and council members, so we're here tonight to talk about ordinance 5182, which is zone change 126 for the Parkview Living Apartments. It's the zone change. It's not anything about site design and setbacks and building heights. As your staff had indicated, there are two criteria. So as Tom had indicated, property is currently EF80. We're requesting an R4. As Tom mentioned, it's a residential comp plan designation. Growth site, 3.17 acres. The net after any right-of-way dedication that would be associated with development would be 2.86 approximately. We did an annexation agreement. So that was annexation 125, resolution 2025-51. And as part of that, there was a condition that we had to obtain zoning for the property. So we submitted the application to comply with that annexation agreement condition. It's always important to state the request is a zone change, only and not a site plan or development review. And that's noted in your staff report on page six of 542. I apologize, the 450 pages are my work. The balance of it was the city staff's. Any development on the site, as Heather has indicated, is a separate process that you have to go through. We're here only to talk about the zone change. We talked, and there was discussions about the TPR analysis to do a zone change. We have to do a transportation planning rule analysis. We did that. We have our transportation engineer here this evening as well. We were not required to do a traffic impacts analysis. But through our neighborhood meetings and conversations with staff, based upon our conceptual site plan, it's only a concept, we haven't designed buildings, we haven't finalized anything for setbacks or anything, it's just a concept, is that We did a traffic impact analysis based upon that concept because the public said, what's the impacts? So we did that. And that analysis indicates that the TPR, there's no significant effect on the transportation system. And the TIA is that there's no mitigation required. In the annexation agreement identifies that we have to dedicate right away and do the frontage improvements. We know that there's no sidewalk on the east side of McDonald Lane. Our traffic analysis identified a new pedestrian crossing mid block crossing would need for development of this property of some type because of the school. But everything operated within acceptable standards on the intersections that we had to study that was scoped out with the city staff and our transportation consultant followed that scoping requirement and analyzed those intersections. Again, that's on a concept of a development. We still have to do a final traffic impact analysis based on whatever development gets proposed. We did the neighborhood meeting. We've heard comments we didn't listen. Yes, we did. That's why we spent an extra four months of time to do this preliminary TIA analysis so that there was information so they could be answered at a public hearing. And that all that neighborhood meeting is in your packet on pages 26 through 43 of 542 and attachment ones, exhibit three through eight, pages 136 through 215. and attachment six exhibit A pages 447 through 468 of 542. So we considered these comments and in talking with my client, we will look at the north side of the site. That's a place that has been the most comments. And we will look at it. Don't know, we haven't spent funds. All this process is very expensive. We haven't looked at it yet. But we will look at it, so it's on our list. So we did listen. The needed housing, Tom went through all of that. So MMC 17.74020, ORS 197.018, ORS 197A, 348, and your housing needs analysis. And Tom went through those. I will concur with Tom's comments about 1774020. And... which says, in addition, the housing policies of the McMinnville Comprehensive Plan shall be given added emphasis, that's important, added emphasis, and the other policies contained in the plan shall not be used to, one, exclude needed housing, two, unnecessarily decrease densities, or three, allow special conditions to be attached which would have the effect of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay. We did a full and thorough analysis on the comprehensive plan goals in our pre-application meetings. Staff had indicated you have to identify which goals would apply. Part of the reason it was 450 plus pages is I responded to everything. So if something didn't apply, I said it didn't apply and because why? But there was one primary goal and that was your housing and residential development goal. And so we addressed each of those provisions. that are in your plan, and that analysis concluded that it complies. We looked at what I call the secondary comprehensive plan goals and policies, and those are chapter six, your transportation, chapter seven, your community facilities and services, and chapter nine, your urbanization. And so we went through this, and you'll have a copy of my written comments, but we meet all the goals and the policies. Your staff concurred, your planning commission concurred that we met all of the goals and policies under the housing. On the secondary goals, again, all the information is in your packet, but we complied with all of the goals and the policies on transportation. We complied with all the goals and the policies on services. And out of your great neighborhood principles under your urbanization goal, there's a list of 13 factors. There's one, and that identifies a variety of housing types. Many of those are physical improvement, something maybe next to a park or next to a park. STREET CONNECTIVITY, WHERE ON A STREET IT CONNECTS TO OTHER STREETS. BUT THE ONE THAT WE FOUND THAT WAS REALLY APPLICABLE WAS THIS VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. ON THE UTILITIES AND SERVICES, THEY CAN BE EFFICIENTLY PROVIDED. WE'VE ANALYZED IT. IN YOUR PACKET THERE'S MATERIAL. WATER LINE IS ALREADY IN MCDONALD. YOU JUST HAVE TO DO A LATERAL AND STUB IT TO THE SITE. STORM WATER, THERE'S A LINE IN MCDONALD. We have to do an extension, we have to widen the road, we'll have to mitigate that storm water, but it connects to the existing pipe. And on the sanitary sewer, we were requested and we paid for the city's consultants to do an analysis on the sanitary sewer system based upon our concept of 75 units. And it showed that the sanitary sewer system has the capacity to accommodate that. Now, at the time of development, we have to go back and look at that. And if the unit number was to change up or down, we'd have to look at it and see if we have to redo that or not. But again, we took a step early. as a developer should, is if you're going to have an infrastructure issue, you want to know up front. But that analysis identified that there's no issue there. Statewide planning goals, we addressed all of those. And those are noted in attachment 1, pages 100, 105, 542, and attachment 6. ORS 197A, 146 doesn't apply to this application. Back Multi does not object to the three conditions of approval. We understand the trip cap. We understand the sanitary sewer. And it's important to note in Tom's PowerPoint presentation is that this is abutting existing R4. It's R4 to R4. It's a zone. We're not talking about the physical development. We're talking about the zone. The properties to the north, which is approximately 53 acres of R4 zone, does have a planned development, and that was talked about by your staff. It's an overlay on top of that particular property. Your Planning Commission, in your packet, there's a copy of the minutes, and Tom went through in more detail, but that identifies the comments that were provided verbally, as well as those that were in writing that were provided to the Planning Commission. So for our conclusion is that the McMinnville Planning Commission voted unanimously recommending the City Council to approve Zone Change 1-26 on July 16th of 2026. Mack Multi agrees with the staff recommendation. Alternative 1, staff recommendation, adopt the ordinance approving Docket Z-126 with conditions and adopting the decision findings and...

Your time's up for that. And now the counselors can ask you questions. Does any counselor have any questions of the applicant at this time?

Excuse me, mayor. I'm trying to get my video on it. It's not going on, but as a point of order, um, we don't normally limit the applicant to three minutes. Is that what we just did? It was 10 minutes. Okay. Thank you. And that was noted.

I practiced at home. I got it done in less than 10 minutes. You were close, but I have one paragraph to go.

So there were no questions of the applicant at this time.

Okay. Oh, excuse me.

Counselor Peralta does have a question.

Oh, did you have anything material that you wanted to finish saying?

Oh yes. I think it's very important. If the City Council deviates from the recommendation, we would note that the City Council will need to clearly articulate and prepare any necessary findings and conditions, not the city staff. Everybody, applicant, public, needs to hear what your findings would be if they deviate from what staff has proposed. And those findings and conditions need to be in adherence with MMC 17.74.020. That was the last thing I had.

Thank you.

Mayor. Okay. Mayor, my name is Ezra Hammer. I'm also here on behalf of the applicant. There were two questions left unanswered previously. Would the councilors like the answer to those questions now? Would they like us to save those responses for later?

You had a question in regards to trips? You can ask that question, right?

Is that one of my questions that you have the answer to?

One is, yes, Councilor Geary. We do have some slides and materials that relates to the traffic. Our traffic consultant is here. We anticipated there being lengthy public conversation on traffic. And so we anticipated showing those slides at the end. But I did want you to know that we have those all prepared and are prepared to talk through those with you. Also, Councilor Chenoweth, you had a question about the applicability of appeals in a 4035 context. And I just want to highlight that the answer to that question is the type of development filed. So we've had conversation about plan developments. Plan developments are discretionary. And projects, if we were to file for a plan development like our neighbors to the north, that would not be subject to the no appeals rule set in 4035. So it's There is a choice, but as you see with the Neighbors North, some people choose to file for a planned development, and in that context, that project would be appealable and be subject to public hearings. Councillor Chenoweth, do you have a question?

I just want to follow that up. Thank you so much, Mayor. I really appreciate those comments. The problem I have... And I think I made it clear. But the problem I have is we just experienced. We don't know what's going to be chosen. We don't know what it's going to look like. And what we now know is we have zero control after the fact. If you choose the pathway that would put us in a position that we don't get an appeal. And you know that, I know that. I don't like it and I wanna make it as public as I can because I think the state is cuffing local control in a way that's inappropriate. And the way to make that clear is in public forums like this.

Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Oh, wait a minute. I guess Councillor Tucholsky does have a question.

Sorry, I'm trying to put this together in a way that it's not based on speculation, not based on emotion, based on something that could be considered quasi-judicial because that's what we should be doing. So within the goal number two, V2, and let me get to what I'm looking at. I'm looking at the McMinnville Comprehensive Plan right now. Within the McMinnville Comprehensive Plan, there is a Section 71.09, which applies to medium and high density residential, which is R3 and R4. And the requirement says the majority of residential lands in McMinnville are planned to develop at medium density range, which is four to eight dwelling units per net acre. Medium density residential developments uses include small single lot family detached uses, single family attached units, duplexes, triplexes, and townhouses. High density residential development, which this would be, eight to 30 dwelling units per net acre usually, typically townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. The area that I'm concerned is not being met, is section six of 71.09, section six. And section six specifically states areas that can be buffered from low density residential areas in order to maximize the privacy of established low density residential areas. When we have the opportunity to put a 60 foot, I'll call it a apartment building next to established single-family homes in the backyard. I don't believe that we have met this criteria, 71.09 Section 6, and that's why I don't believe that it qualifies. Can you tell me how you believe that this qualifies? Certainly.

Tom, would you be kind enough to pull up the zoning map? Sure, just one. Thank you. Sorry.

And just before we do that, I'm actually going to double check because I think, Counselor, the section that you're talking about was removed from the comp plan policy in 2020 when we adopted the MGMUP because it shows up as removed in our master that we have.

I'm looking at the city of McMinnville site, goals, policies, master from May of 2019. Is this, you're telling me this is outdated? Outdated, there's a 2022 version. Okay, could we maybe remove that from the?

So if you look at what Evan just brought up, ordinance 5098, adopted December 8th, 2020, amended this particular policy, 71.09, and six was removed with that amendment.

That was a poor choice, but all right. No further questions, thank you.

Okay. We're done with questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

All right, thank you so much. Okay, now we will start with people who signed up in advance to testify in support of the proposal. I think we know that's Barbara Boyer. Again, my apologies, Barbara.

No worries, take two. Good evening, Mayor Morse. Council President Peralta, who's not there. There he is. My name is Barbara Boyer and I reside in Boyer Road in McMinnville. I am chair of the Soil and Water Conservation District. I would like to provide some history and background on the three acre Hembury property that is proposed for annexation and rezoning. As I have served on the board for over 25 years, I have been involved in this land donation and can speak from firsthand experience and knowledge in addition to the numerous records on file at our office. In 2008, Charlie Chaguen donated the seven acre parcel of land between McDonald Lane and Hembury Street to Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District. The property never had a conservation easement placed upon it. It has always intended to be developed. Separately, Charlie Chaguen graciously donated 168 acres Chaguen farm to the district and placed a conservation easement on it permanently to protect it for agriculture, habitat, education. While I would love to talk about the agricultural habitat restoration and stewardship work that the district has accomplished and is thrilled to continue on this property, that is not why we are here tonight. The seven acre property, the seven acre Hembree property was donated to the district through a completely separate deed, unencumbered by a conservation easement. It had to be unencumbered in order to see through Charlie's vision of a four acre park. always intended to be developed into Chaguen Farm Neighborhood Park, a park that was designed with inspiration from Charlie and Chaguen Farm, connecting and developing the neighborhood around it to its agricultural past. The remaining three acres was intended to be developed into a service center for Yamhill Soilwater Conservation District, USDA, NRCS, and FSA, and other conservation partners, or to be sold to generate revenue to help fund new office or service center elsewhere. The possibility of the district selling the property was part of the conversation with Charlie from the beginning. Over the past 18 years, the district has acquired the property. Our programs, needs, and equipment have changed. The three acre property is no longer appropriate location for an agricultural service center. A service center is not just an office, but includes storage, maintenance, partner access of large farm equipment, tractors, and herbicide spray equipment. The location is not ideal for those needs. We hope to expand our agricultural equipment rental program and need a space better suited to farm equipment and farm activities. As such, we are selling the three acre parcel to generate revenue to build or acquire a service center elsewhere. Finally, Yamhill SWCD's mission is to provide local leadership and conservation, restoring and protecting water, soil, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources in Yamhill County. Part of that means supporting responsible development that minimizes impacts on productive agricultural lands and wildlife habitat. As towns and cities grow, they often expand into rural perimeters, developing some of the highest quality farmlands this state has. The proposed development on the three acre property reduces development pressure on surrounding farmland. We are in support of this ours or zoning.

Thank you. Stay right there for a moment. Any counselors have any clarifying questions? Okay, thank you.

Thanks for your time.

Claudia, do we have anyone else signed up in support? That's everyone in support. Is there anyone in the civic hall that would want to speak? Okay, nobody on Zoom or phone? Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who did not speak up? Have we talked about that? There is a long list I have to go through.

13, Mayor.

What was that?

13.

Yeah, 13. Got down to that one. Does any person in the audience wish to speak in opposition of this proposal? If so, please provide the state regulations or a McMinnville City Code criteria for the zone changes that you feel that the project does not meet. Why it does not meet that criteria and why you feel that a condition of approval will not help it meet that criteria. If you have a proposed condition of approval to help the project meet the criteria, please provide that as well. Please remember to include your name and address for the record. And Claudia, who do we have signed up?

First, we're gonna start with Jeff Kaikala and then followed by Debbie Hammond, okay? Good evening.

Thank you My name is Jeff cake love I live at three five eight seven Northeast Golden Leaf Lane in McMinnville and I wrote up a three minute thing, but I'm going to go off and To separate things into zoning, okay, here's my argument. I do not believe that this is in keeping with the comprehensive plan, mainly because you guys established the principles of great neighborhoods. And I believe this project, as it's listed, violates those in numerous manners. You know, a three-story development in the middle of a predominantly single-story homes that will push the boundaries of code limits and tower over neighboring residents, robbing livable areas of the living areas of backyards of light and privacy. Mac's response to that is, Like I said, they elicited response. They calculated that the roofs will still get enough sunlight to accommodate solar panels. Their response to our concerns about traffic was essentially to say that the McMinnville police will simply have to enforce traffic regulations more thoroughly. What I'd like to say is I'm an electrician by trade, and the National Electric Code states that code requirements don't guarantee a good installation. They're just one essentially free from immediate hazards. It's up to the engineer or the craftsman to make sure the installation is appropriate. I have no doubt that Mack Light LLC has dotted sides and crosses T's in terms of regulations, but that does not mean that their proposal is a good project or something that should be built in this location. The responsibility for protecting our environment falls to this commission and I hope it makes the right decision in zoning. Mr. Shenworth, I thank you for bringing up the thing because again, going back to the fact that MAC LLC is a company that's sole purpose is putting as many dwelling units into a given space as can mathematically be accomplished without any respect towards existing neighborhoods or regards for residents. What we're concerned with is that they're going to dot every I and cross every T and get it to where we can't say anything. And they're going to build that three-story complex and it's going to loom over the neighbors and it's going to deplete their sunlight and it's going to deplete their privacy. We are asking you guys, please, to stand up and put the human aspect to it. understand what this means, look at it and what it'll do to this neighborhood as far as traffic, as far as livability, as far as safety, as far as property values. You guys are the folks that we're relying on and I'm asking you to please make the right decision.

Thank you. Does any counselor have any clarifying questions for this speaker? Thank you.

Claudia. Next we have Debbie Hammond followed by Patrick Evans.

Can you state your name and address? Okay. My name is Deborah Hammond, 3671 Northeast Joel Street here in town, Mayor Morris and Councilman. On May 2nd, 2008, Percy Charles Chaguen deeded a 7.17 acre parcel to YSWCD. The westerly four acre portion was then leased to the city of McMinnville on a 100 year lease. The Chaguen Farms Neighborhood Park was established in 2011 on that donated land. At that time, all public and verbal information indicated that the donated land be utilized for public purposes. The city's current webpage for the Chagwin Farms Neighborhood Park states that the park is named in honor of Charles and sister Agnes Chagwin, who approved the park being constructed on part of the larger 185-acre Chagwin Conservation Easement created to preserve their family's farmland in Northeast McMinnville. That approval by Charles and Agnes Chaguin was given several years after the 7.17 acre parcel was deeded to YSWCD. The easterly 3.13 acre parcel, subject to the current zone change application, was determined by YSWCD to be surplus land in September 2024. Land donated for public purposes to a public agency should not be transferred out of that public domain into private for non-profit groups without clearly stating public agreement much less done with a minimal public knowledge of the proposed action. This particular vacant 3.13 parcel of donated land is directly across from Grand Haven Elementary School. This parcel has a far higher and safer use by the public that of expansion of the existing park. YSWCD should build an education center adjacent to the park. In March of 2009, the Chaguen family was honored by the district and awarded certification for the Oregon Century Farm. The farm is one of 36 century farms in McMinnville. This year, McMinnville is celebrating 150 years. The Chagwin Family Farm is celebrating 117 years of three generations of family farmers. I urge you to continue to honor the Chagwin family and their land donations to benefit the city of McMinnville by denying the application ZC-126. I have a good friend of mine who is a third-generation farmer. Her comment is, why should farmers donate land if it will only be sold after they pass away? Charlie passed away five years ago. That's all I have to say. Thank you for listening to me. Thank you. Any questions?

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna have two people come up at a time, and we'll have Patrick Evans and Jordan Christie, and we'll start with Patrick Evans.

Good evening. Patrick Evans, 3587 Northeast Joel Street, Chegwin Farm, McMinnville. Mara Morris, City Councilors. I'm going to address two issues. One is we were told that we need to, in essence, have specific reference to the comprehensive plan and other portions of the city's legal documents in order to object to the project. I have in general terms previously included in your packet specific issues that we have with the project and I have referred to specific areas of code. I am not an attorney, I don't pretend to be one, but if there are specific code references that need to be supplied for you to deny this project, I believe I've given your city attorney sufficient information to include those references. Those in general are number one, When the recommendation for approval was made by the Planning Commission, they relied on incomplete and in some cases erroneous information. There's an old joke about when a farmer standing in a field and someone comes up and says, how do we get to Newburgh? And he starts pointing in directions and saying, you turn left, you turn right, you go here, you go there. Finally, the farmer says, you can't get there from here. That's what I'm proposing tonight based upon the lack of comprehensive, clear data in the original approval by the Planning Commission. I'm not faulting the Planning Commission, only that the information that would have possibly changed their minds about the approval was not present at the time the approval was given. That makes the approval fundamentally flawed. I have given you specific information as to language for a denial. If that is not sufficient, I would ask that you ask your city council to revise it as necessary. But representing nearly 150 residents of Ward 3, we are uniformly opposed to this zone change. Uniformly opposed to it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any questions for this? Any follow-up questions for this? Nope. Okay. Thank you. Can you state your name and address?

Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. My name is Jordan Christie. My wife, Catherine, and I have lived in 982 Northeast Sampson Street since December of 2018. Our property with... wider Chigouin neighborhood would be directly affected by this proposal. We have purchased the lot and built what we have intended to be our retirement home for both and from the builder and the realtor assured us that the land behind us property would not be developed. I asked and spoke to Charlie Chigouin himself who confirmed that with understanding relied on those representations that we were gonna make this large investment of our lives. We now face the proposal of involving the sale of this land approximately $1.3 million and is developed as a three-story apartment complex. This relates serious questions that property was donated to the AmHill Soil and Water and Conservation District. We have evidence concerning the donor's original information for this land. This information appears consistent with the developer and not being proposed. We asked the council to examine history carefully rather than treating this as an ordinary development site. The proposal would also create a real effect for existing residents a three-story apartment complex would overlook neighboring backyards, which would be mine, reduce privacy, which would be mine, because it's going to be in my backyard, reduce privacy, enjoyment over our homes, and alter identified as important to the area. Of still greater concern is the additional traffic near the Chagwin Elementary School, and the potential effects to the safety of children walking, cycling, and being dropped off and collected. Four members of a Chaguin neighborhood committee together with our residents have devoted countless hours, substantial personal funds to review this proposal. We have identified concerns involving this use, procedure, traffic school safeties, neighborhood compatibility and visibility of the project. This concern deserves a substantial answer. The project being controversial from the outset cost of when it first came out and the developer has acknowledged that elements of this proposal may still need to be changed. The uncertainty of this other reason for to have forward

Thank you. Did any count have any verifying questions?

Thank you, Mr. Christie. Appreciate it. Next we'll have Ron Larson and Peter Asher.

Heaven is gone. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and City Councillors. My name is Ron Larson. I live at 3672 Northeast Joel Street in the Chagwin Farms development. First, I want to thank you for listening to and responding to our request to hold this public meeting. Thank you. This public hearing, excuse me. In my testimony tonight, I'll show that the city's housing statistics now show no current deficit and no current need for the more multifamily housing in 2026. Rather, the data shows a surplus of multifamily housing in 2026. And if you will please refer to my handout sheet in front of you now, I'll explain the issue. I looked at the city's housing needs projections in the revised housing needs analysis of November, 2025, along with the city's building permit data from January 1 of 2022 through June 30th of 2026, a total of 530 multi-family housing units permitted in those five years. The charts in my handout show these two data sets together. The result now in 2026 shows a surplus of 236 multifamily housing units. That surplus puts our city a little more than three years ahead of the projected need for more multifamily housing. I have thus concluded that there is simply no current deficit and no current need in our city for more multifamily housing as of 2026. The two charts on page one of my handouts support that conclusion by showing the actual number of multifamily permits issued by the city from 2005 to 2026, shown by the number on the top chart, and the bottom chart zooms in on the previous five years from now, showing the same housing data, but only for the last five years, 22 to 26. The zone change application also used the now outdated housing needs analysis projections, and more importantly, the application failed to include or even recognize the significant growth of 530 multifamily housing units permitted in our city over the past five years. The chart at the bottom there simply demonstrates that growth. Based on the information before you, I urge you to counsel to deny Zone Change 1-26 based on a lack of need. An applicant has also failed to address, in my opinion, the significant difference of densities between the proposed 26.22 dwelling units per acre and the much lower densities of all the surrounding built environment. that does not comply with the Great Neighborhood's principles of the comprehensive plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Did any counselor have any clarifying questions? Just one moment. Counselor Peralta has a question.

If we had questions of staff related to the testimony, would this be the time or should we wait?

Any clarification from our attorney on that?

You should limit the questions to the... to the people providing testimony at this time. Thank you.

Make a note and we can ask later.

You have one to the- I just have one clarifying question. On the sheet that you have underneath the main graph, the one that talks specifically McMinnville City Housing data, I just wanna confirm, is that your information that you've compiled together or was that pulled from our- You're talking about this top one? No, the bottom left.

Bottom left. That is, I did that. that table from the data provided by the city here and the email provided by the city here. Okay. Thank you. Copy it in there. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can I have Peter Asher and Gary day come up and we'll start with Peter Asher.

We'll have you both come up to the table. Who was the other one, Claudia?

Peter and Gary Day. Gary Day, are you in the room?

Yes, I'm right here.

Oh, where's... It was Peter. They said Peter left. Oh, I didn't hear that. I wanted to make sure we had them both. Okay, thank you.

Okay. My friend's not coming. Okay. Yeah, you're alone. My name is Gary Dye. I live at 3574 Northeast Joel Street. And I've been asked to address the situation with the traffic situation. The zone change application and the staff report have failed to include a response to the comprehensive plan, which states in part, The design and implementation of transportation facilities and services shall be based on serving current and future travel demand, both short-term and long-term planned use. 120 page traffic impact analysis summarized in ZC1-26 applications and attachments misstates the increase in traffic by assuming that 371 daily trips are currently generated from a vacant parcel. Subtracting that number from the proposed R4 daily trips and then concluding the new net increase is below the threshold for a reasonably worse scenario per the transportation planning rule. That is an incorrect starting assumption and totally misleading. The application staff analyst and the trip generation analysis submitted all failed to include all future travel demand. There are two parcels immediately to the north and east of the existing Shagwin Farms project. The northern parcel contains 37 acres And the east parcel of 24 acres is owned by the 270 district and is currently is zoned partially R2. When the 37 acre parcel is annexed to the city of McMinnville in the future, it will likely have a zoning designation of R4. With the development of the school district property, there will be an anticipated increase of 1,500 trips per day, in addition to the projected 600 trips per day from the currently proposed multifamily project. And when the 2.93 acres, 60 to 75 unit newbie multifamily project currently in process is developed. There'll be around an additional 400 trips per day. When the 37 acre north parcel is developed are four.

Thank you. Does any counselor have clarifying question? All right.

Thank you, sir. Next, we have Wayne Thomas.

Hi. Hi. Excuse me. I'm Wayne Thomas. I live at 3687 Northeast Joel Street. I've lived there since December of 2021. You've heard from several of my neighbors this evening, I think expressing all our concerns and I'd come with a kind of layout of those to kind of summarize it back to you, but I'm not gonna do that. I think you know what you've heard. For me, the issue is that this started last November when the developer told us what his plan was, building these apartments on this property. We have watched an administrative conveyor belt slowly move forward where we've had limited opportunities to be part of a process. We've got no feedback from the developer on what is gonna be proposed. They say tonight they're not sure what they're gonna do. I think of trust but verify. That's where I live. They have told us they're gonna build apartments and I think that's what they're gonna do. My neighbors live adjacent to this, I don't, but it's gonna dramatically affect their properties. And I'm concerned. School is gonna be dramatically impacted. We've told you the failure of their transportation study. The density on this property is far exceeded what's around it. It's gonna be just ugly. And sometimes it are things that are just wrong. And this proposal is wrong. It's in the wrong place. We're not opposed to developing this property. That's the last thing I want you to take from this comment. Development that's consistent with what's around it would be well received. When you are proposing to build giant apartment blocks right across from a school that backs up to a park that everybody loves, it's a failure. And you as the city council have the opportunity to deal with this. It seems that we've turned over our development of the city to the developers. And we have a set of rules that if they follow, they get what they want. Where's our opportunity to say enough? Where is our opportunity to say, this doesn't work for us in McMinnville. This doesn't work for us in Shegwin Farms. We expect something different. And that's where I come down to from listening to all this conversation this evening. And thank you, Mr. Chenoweth for what you said, because the state has made a decision to exclude the public In all places, Oregon, where we cherish that, the state has made a decision to exclude us from being part of this. It's shameful. We could have a better community if you included us instead of excluding us. Thank you.

Thank you.

That's everyone that signed up.

That's everyone that signed up. Is there anyone else in the Civic Hall that wanted to... testify that didn't sign up. Okay. Still need to fill out a form. Okay. If you raised your hand, I think there were two more.

My name is Ray Clark. I live at 3696 Northeast Joel Street. I want to concur what Wayne said. Thank you. Thank you for bringing up some questions that I had sent earlier. I just think there's too many ifs on the application, traffic, sewer. I look at some things, what's the difference between medium homes and high density homes? This neighborhood doesn't need a high density home. That middle school gets built down farther of McDonald, where does our public works come in? How is that gonna affect it down the road? Does the streets have to get all ripped up, larger sewer lines, larger water lines? You put that many people into a small area, It just doesn't work. And I agree with Wayne, you know, when do we get a voice? You know, instead of getting everything shoved down our throat. I do live at the top of the hill and we know the sewer rolls downhill. I don't wanna backing up the hill. So I appreciate it, you know, for listening to everybody tonight, staff, counselors, Mayor. We appreciate your listening to us.

Come on up. And just submit your paperwork to Claudia. Thank you. Just state your name and address, please.

Yeah, hi, I'm Mike Kippenhahn. I live at 930 Northeast Sampson. So our property would be Caddy Corner to the development. The reason, so... When they're talking about traffic, not to get into a big thing here, but when school lets out, a lot of the traffic talk I've heard tonight is about going down to McDonald to like 99. But the traffic pattern, because of the kids crossing and stuff like that, they'll often go up McDonald and then down Sampson to Hembury. So I just want you to understand that it is a broader area of traffic impact than I think what has been spoken about. But my point here is kind of in this process of what the developers are talking about here and not talking about here. My career has always been a designer, and any time you go in to bid on a project, you know exactly what you're gonna build. You may not know what color it is or what picture you're gonna use, but you know exactly what you're gonna build. And the issue I have here tonight is that, These gentlemen have focused the conversation strictly on the zoning issue, and they're completely evasive and will not talk about what they are going to build. They know exactly what they are going to build, and they know exactly how they are going to work the system to build exactly what they want to build. So let's make no mistake here, when they talk about concept, they're playing with that word. They're playing with it, right? So I think that my fear with this project is it's gonna be like the data centers we see here in the United States. That somebody comes in from out of town, they make all these great promises, they build the data center, and it's for the town to clean up the mess. You're gonna have traffic problems. You're gonna have a lot of problems with this thing. The roads are not built for it. It's gonna be ugly as hell. And I don't know a better way to say this. I don't wanna be rude here. I think y'all are like being played. I really do. You need to do what's right. You don't have to change the zoning. This is way too big. You know it's too big. You gotta do what's right. You work for the people. So that's it. Thank you for the time.

Thank you.

Next, we have Michael Jester.

Thank you very much. My name is Michael Jester. I live at 3155 Northeast McDonald Lane, right across from the school. Why I was hearing the comments related to the zoning and the trip counts and the greater impact at certain times. Well, at peak impact times. And there was no clarification on what peak impact times are. But in our neighborhood at McDonald and Grand Haven, there are four peak impact times. There is morning going to work, there's morning school drop off, there's afternoon school pickup, and then when people are coming home from work. So I don't think the zone is considering these four times. And what else do I have here? Sorry about that. So the school is also zoned R2. With that peak impact of trips, I don't think R2 accounted for what the trips are actually on that street or around that neighborhood. So I just don't know. I just want you to consider that. Also, I know that the R street on my street, my house is zoned R3. Two streets over to the west of us is zoned R2 that leads up into the park. So south of the development, we have major R2, R3, and R2. So the thought by the applicant that the majority of the development is R4, I don't know if it's by acreage, but the school takes up a majority of R2, but produces more trips per that R2. Also the land being north of the school, I heard that it was slated at one point to be developed for a middle school. However, I did find this hearsay from somebody within the school district that that land is being considered as a sports field because enrollment is down. So if a sports complex goes in there, what is that gonna do to trip count? Also, I do know as fact, the owner of Del Smith's 100 acres north of the UGB, he's holding that to develop that land at the end of McDonald Lane. I don't know how that affects trip count, but I would ask you to consider it. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Any questions? That's everyone. Okay. Is that everybody we got? Okay. Oh, we have one more.

Michelle McFarland. Right off McDonald Lane on Maloney. One block south of Grand Haven. I've lived there a couple of decades. Right about the time Grand Haven was So I have seen all the development in this region. And so speaking practically of what he was just speaking about, the change in traffic is significant just with housing, not with apartments, not with complexes, none of those things. I have seen so many children almost get hit. I'm a teacher and the school I work for starts later than Grand Haven. So I have to leave about the time that the children are being dropped off and all these kids are walking to school. I have seen time after time after time, kids almost die. In my corner right there where McDonald and Grand Haven meet in the last six months have been two major accidents. The last one was about a month ago and there were three victims in that and most of them were innocent. This isn't going to be better by adding in more giant complexes. So I beg you to consider the children Consider the people who are living in these communities. I can't get out of my road to be able to turn right because of all the line of cars that are parked. I'm terrified every time I pull out that I'm going to get hit. And I've seen it. I've seen it repeatedly because I'm on the south side and I'm constantly seeing the traffic come and go. It's already seriously dangerous. We add in more, it's going to just be worse. Please deny this. Don't let it go through. Thank you for considering this. Thank you for even listening to us. We appreciate it.

Thank you. Do we have anybody on the phone on zoom? No one has raised their hand. Okay. All right. All right. So it's my understanding that the applicant wants to, has requested to do your response next week on the 22nd. Is that correct? Yes, you can.

Good evening, Mayor, Councilors, and Ezra Hammer, for the record, on behalf of the applicant. Can you hear us, Mayor?

Now I can.

Again, Ezra Hammer on behalf of the applicant. Mayor, we're happy to proceed tonight with our rebuttal testimony. There's been a lot of impassioned testimony and we're prepared to respond to that. We understand tonight that the city's contract land use attorney is not available to attend and that your... senior head of planning is also remote. So we are happy to present our rebuttal evidence at a date certain when they're able to attend and advise the city as to the proper procedures and legal structures, or we're happy to proceed tonight, whatever the will of the council is.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, David. Our city attorney, David Lightenberg, could you please share some information with us?

Thank you, Mayor. ORS 197-797-4B allows an applicant to request and for the city to grant the continuance of the hearing. The city has an obligation to provide due process to the applicant and the opportunity to... marshal all the testimony and present it is something that we can offer. In addition, having all city staff on hand and outside land use council is ideal. And therefore my recommendation is that the city council close the public record and continue the hearing until the 22nd.

Thank you. Councilor Peralta.

Mayor.

Who's speaking?

Sorry, this is Tom Schauer. I just want to be sure that if the counselors had any questions for staff before the record is closed, it might be new information that that's addressed before the hearing or record is closed.

Point of clarification. Okay. Point of clarification for David Leitenberg. If we choose option one and continue the public hearing and allow the applicant to respond to testimony, would that require us to close the public record?

It does not require you to, but you may close the public record to allow and still continue the hearing, allowing the applicant to respond on the 22nd.

Okay, then my question for the body is, do we want to close the public record? My belief is that we, on the advice of staff, should continue the public hearing at a future date and allow the applicant to respond to the testimony. But my main question for the board is, do we want to close the record now or do we want to wait until the next meeting?

Well, I think we need to give the opportunity because we need to ask questions to have it be part of the record of staff. And then later we would, so we could ask those and close the record after that, close the hearing after that. And then deliberations would happen at the next meeting.

So just for clarity. Yes. Closing the record means no new information is provided to city council for your decision-making. For the applicant to do their rebuttal, which is what Mr. Hammer was just at the testimony table talking about, you keep the public hearing open. So you can close the public record, which means you're not accepting more testimony. You've heard all the testimony and there's not gonna be new testimony coming in. and you, but you're keeping the public hearing open to continue the process within the public hearing, which is the rebuttal from the applicant. If you have questions of staff, much like Tom just suggested, it could, you know, per your question, it could introduce more information. So for instance, the question about the height limitations in the PD, and we introduced the two additional ordinances into the record to answer that question. You would want to keep the record open to have those questions of staff, then close the record and continue the public hearing.

And likewise, any questions you might have for the applicant's traffic engineer, if that introduces new information that's not already in the record.

Okay. Councilor Chenoweth.

I would ask that we do not close the public record. I am going to be asking questions of the land use attorney that I guarantee is gonna be adding more information to the record. And based on that alone, I do not want the public record closed. I want it open so that I can ask those questions to add it to the record.

Can I ask Counselor David a quick question? David, are questions of the land use attorney serving the council considered new record?

I mean, from what I understand, and again, we don't have a land use attorney here to answer these questions, is that the questions are unlikely to present new evidence, but the responses could.

Yeah, so if you keep the record open, we will conduct the same process we conducted tonight. I think we need to keep it open too.

So, and just note that everybody that testified, Mr. Hammer, do you have a question?

Everyone who has testified has the opportunity to testify again if you keep the record open and continue the public hearing.

I want to clarify your position.

Yes, Mayor. Just to be clear, we would not request a continuance if the record remains open. That would repeat the process that we had here tonight. And again, kind of preventing us from being able to respond to the questions that have been presented. So again, we're prepared to respond to the questions that have been answered. If the city feels like it's more appropriate to have other staff present for the deliberation, we are happy to do that. We are not prepared to let the record remain open for additional new testimony to come in that we would then need to respond to. I would ask that the public...

I would like to call order. Please be respectful. David, can you kind of clarify all the wording on these? So I want to make sure that we get everything.

Sorry, Mayor, on what?

Were you wanting additional public testimony or are you just ability for us to ask questions?

Yeah, I mean, we've been put in a position where our land use attorney is not here. Where questions that I would like to ask of a land use attorney that I'm relatively certain is gonna bring new information into the record. I should have had that opportunity to ask those questions because we've chosen the process we've chosen without a land use attorney. I wanna make sure that my ability to ask those questions is maintained and get those answers.

Right. And I understand that. So we want to be able to.

Yeah. New information is not new evidence. So again, all I'm hearing from you is a hypothetical, but. Many answers to questions are not going to introduce new evidence. I think questions specifically to our land use attorney are likely to be process questions or law questions that don't introduce new evidence. Questions to staff might, right? The questions that Heather and Tom talked about that require additional documentation that they've got on hand. It's hard to answer the hypothetical, but new evidence, no. New information, possibly.

Okay, so my specific question is gonna revolve around the exclusion of B that was provided by the attorney in our packet today.

then that sounds as though the documentation is already at hand, the evidence necessary is already at hand and clarification to the attorney would not be new evidence.

The legal memo you have is from the same firm that our land use attorney works for.

I'm sorry. Yeah, I know. That's why I'm waiting for her to ask the questions that I have.

Right, but I'm saying if you're asking for clarifying questions on the memorandum that her firm provided, that's not new evidence.

Correct.

Councilor Gary, I think my main question was going to result in potentially things we haven't seen yet. But you guys you early on alluded to you have a slide maybe from your traffic engineer. I think if I could hear some information from them, if I don't know if we've missed the appropriate spots, but that answer to my question may be new evidence. or if it's already applied.

Mayor, again, Ezra Hammer for the record. Councilor Geary, all of the information that our traffic consultant will be providing is contained in the traffic analysis, which is in front of the city. We will not be presenting new evidence as it relates to traffic.

Very good.

So let me just read this, and David, I would just like some confirmation. It would be to continue the public hearing to a future date and allow the applicant to respond to the testimony presented tonight. So just the public hearing.

hearing. That's right. Continuing the hearing, closing the record, closing the record.

That makes sense. Everyone. Do I have them? And before you, before you take a motion on that, David, do we have something in writing from the applicant tolling the clock?

Mr. Hammer. Again, Ezra hammer for the record. Um, To respond to Ms. Richards comments, we are prepared to toll the 120 day clock, which has been shown to you by your staff to ensure that the city can maintain the same timeline it currently has in the decision making process. We have not provided this in writing before the hearing tonight because we didn't know what the wish of the council was. If the council wishes to proceed with this closing of the public record and continuing of the date certain to the 22nd to allow for our rebuttal evidence to be presented at that time. We would be prepared to continue to toll the 120-day clock until October 23rd, which would provide at least a week following a potential second reading of the ordinance for staff to prepare the necessary reports consistent with the timeline that exists today. And I will follow up with that in writing for staff once I'm in front of a computer.

Thank you. Director Richards, does that meet your timeline? I want verification from you.

So it would be preferred to toll the clock to October 30th, if we could. The city council meets in October on the 13th and the 27th. If we need to write new findings or anything of that nature that you need to vote on, we will need the time to do that. And if you don't have a unanimous first reading, we will need time for a meeting for a second reading.

Are you able to extend the clock? I wanted to stay up here, but.

Again, Ezra Hammer for the record. Mayor, if it pleases the council to proceed as staff has explained, we will agree in writing to hold 120 day clock until October 30th.

Thank you. Okay, so I believe we're going to continue the public hearing. This would be something that we could have a motion to continue the public hearing to a future date and allow the applicant to respond to testimony presented tonight, but close the public record. And your motion needs to have a date specific for the continuance of the hearing. The continuance would be September 22, 22nd. Yeah. 22nd, 2026.

So mayor, I'd move that we close the public record and keep the public hearing open until September 22nd to give the applicant time to respond.

So I have a motion from Councillor Peralta. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second from Councillor Chenoweth. Any further discussion? Claudia.

Councillor Tucholsky.

Aye.

Councillor Chenoweth. Aye. Councillor Bunner. Aye. Councillor Geary.

Aye.

Councillor Cunningham.

Aye.

Councillor President Peralta.

Yes.

And the motion has passed unanimously by a vote of six to zero.

Okay, seeing no additional business, I will now adjourn the special called city council meeting at 8.28 p.m. Thank you everyone for coming.