Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Douglas County Planning Commission. It is 6 p.m. on September 17th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Let's go ahead and start with Black Saloon. Good evening, everyone that's here. My name is Dan Burke. I'm the current chair of the Douglas County Planning Commission. I'll allow the commissioners to introduce themselves, starting on my left. Jacob Gibbs. Doreena Guido. Andy Owens. And if staff can introduce themselves.

Katie Meehan, administrative assistant.

Tanya Kistalis, administrative assistant. Josh Gibson, senior planner. And I'm Jeff Lerbach, planning manager.

And I would introduce everyone, but I completely butcher your names, so it's the easiest way to go. All right, so there is a sign-in sheet in the back. If you'd like to speak tonight, please sign that. There's also agendas in the back. And then the first item up is the approval of the meeting minutes for our August 2026 20th meeting. So I hope everyone had a chance to read those. And if so, I'd be looking for a motion for approval. So moved, Mr. Chair. Second. And we moved and seconded. Any other discussion? None being heard, all in favor? Aye. Okay, that's a score of zero. Next item up is our finding of facts for Bruce and Nicole Leatherwood, planning department file number 26-016. I hope everyone has the finding of facts. I have the copy here. Jeff, is there anything particular that was modified on this? Okay, this is just the official copy. Yes. Hopefully everyone's had a chance to take a look at that. I'd be looking for a motion.

Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we accept the findings of the fact to find the department file number 26-016. Okay, looking for a second. Second.

Any other discussion? None being heard, all in favor? Aye. Okay, pass 3-4-0. The next item up is our first public hearing and our only public hearing tonight, our quasi-judicial hearing for Had Properties LLC, request for a comprehensive plan amendment on 1.54-acre unit of land from low-density residential to medium-density residential, together with a zone change from suburban residential to R1 single-family residential with proposed seven-lot subdivision with variance of lot width standards. Planning Department file number 26-039. Okay, so at this point, do we have any commissioners that have any conflict of interest, ex parte contacts, or site visits? No? Okay. Qualified party list... So in favor, we've had Properties LLC, Dustin Jinks, you are here. Okay. Neutral, none. And opposed, we have a John and Cynthia. It's Damian. It's Damian. Okay. Perfect. And you are present. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak tonight? Okay. What was your name?

Jackie Baker. I'm not 100% positive. Okay. And opposed? Or neutral?

Or opposed? Well, I'm not. I'm neutral right now. And your name again was Jackie? Jackie Baker. I'll put you underneath the neutral portion. You'll be given the opportunity if you choose to speak, you can. Do we have anyone else that is neutral that would like to speak? Anyone else? Neutral? Sorry, say that again.

Okay, you do it. Bye.

Okay, anyone else on the neutral portion? Okay, opposed again. John, you're here. Anyone else be opposed that would like to speak? Okay, what was your name?

Gail Ward.

Okay, thank you, Gail. And is there anyone else? Okay, at this point in time, we'll have the staff give us a staff report.

Good evening, Chair Burke and fellow commissioners. I'm submitting into evidence step exhibit one through 18. I also printed out copies of the larger plat for the subdivision. We got a kind of convoluted one, so I apologize up front if I'm long-winded. Okay. The applicant had properties LLC is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment of a 1.54 acre unit of land from low density residential RLD to medium density residential RMD and a zone change from RS, suburban residential, to R1, single family residential, together with a proposed seven lot subdivision with a variance to lot width standards. The property is located at the intersection of North Bull Pacific Highway and Woodcrest Drive within the city. OF LITTLE CREE URBAN GROWTH TOWNS. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT. THE PURPOSE OF THE QUASITE ADDITIONAL APPLICATION IS TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN A RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY. PERMITTED USES GENERALLY IN THE R1 ZONE INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, DUPLEX, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND OTHER VARIOUS USES PER SECTION 3.12.050 OF THE DOUGLAS COUNTY LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. ALSO... Properties surrounding the subject property predominantly residential and are zoned RS, suburban residential. The property to the north is a subject property, zoned FG, exclusive farm use grazing. However, as this property is located within the Merle Creek Urban Growth Foundry, this property is allowed to be urbanized in the future with the intent for further residential development since it has an urban plan destination of RLD. The applicable criteria for the comprehensive plan as established in LUTO section 6.50 and establishes the procedure for processing quasi-judicial comprehensive plan amendments and sets forth the applicable criteria as follows. The application shall address the following requirements which shall be standard for amendment. That the amendment complies with the statewide planning goals and applicable administrative rules which include OAR 660-12, the transportation planning rule adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission pursuant to ORS 197.240 or as revised pursuant to ORS 197.245. B, that the amendment provides a reasonable opportunity to satisfy a local need for a different land use. A demonstration of need for the change may be based upon special studies or other factual information. C, that the particular property in question is suited to the proposed land use, and if an exception is involved, that the property in question is best suited for the use as compared to other available properties. Ludo Article 38 establishes criteria for the approval of a zone change as follows. It is established that A, the rezoning will conform with the applicable sections of the comprehensive plan, B, the site is suitable to the proposed zone, and C, there has been a conscious consideration of the public health, safety, and welfare in applying the specific zoning regulations. Procedural finding the facts. Notice of the proposed amendment was provided to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, DLCD, on August 11, 2026, which is at least 35 days prior to the initial evidentiary hearing on September 17, 2026 today. Property owners with 100 feet affected public districts and agencies and the South County Planning Advisory Committee notified of this request by mail. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation. As of this writing of this staff report, one comment has been received. The concerns listed in the comment are as follows. Underground utility requirements, safety risk on Woodcrest Drive, and fire concerns. This letter can be found at the end of the staff report and also in Staff Exhibit 6. Subdivisions. The approval criteria. Section 4 establishes the general requirements and standards of design and development for preliminary plans of proposed subdivisions. There's a lot to this chapter, so what we usually have to look at is access, water, sewer, storm drainage, overlays like floodplain, which is present on this property, and improvements like underground utilities. The variance criteria, the variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to lot area and dimensions, setbacks, yard area, lot coverage, height of structures, vision clearance, fences and walls, and other dimensional requirements only if, on the basis of the application, investigation, and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist. The variance in question is for lot with standards. Number one, unique circumstances such as lot size, shape, or topography apply to the property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity. Number two, the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant. Number three, the variance would conform with the purposes of this ordinance and would not be material detrimental to property in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the comprehensive plan. Number four, the variance request is the minimal variance necessary to make reasonable use of the property. Number five, the variance is not the result of a self-created hardship. Planning's recommendation. Planning staff recommends approval of the requested comprehensive plan of a 1.54 acre unit of land from low-density residential RLD to medium-density residential RMD, together with a zone change from RS, suburban residential, to R1, single-family residential, which meets the criteria of Article 38 of the Douglas County Land Use and Development Ordinance, along with a tentative approval of the seven lot subdivision and variance to lot standards for lot two and lot three of the subdivision. That concludes my staff report.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. This time, does the applicant or applicant's representative come up and give testament?

Dustin Jinks, Hatch Properties, 440 Clark Street, Oak Creek. I am the owner of Hatch Properties. Thank you for bringing up this file. There's a lot to unwrap in it. This property, a long time ago, actually, was a Christmas tree farm owned by Lone Rock. That's been sitting vacant since. That's gone through a couple different ownership changes. Originally, a church next door owned it. We bought it, we had to clear up some lot boundary line adjustments, and redo boundary line adjustments, considering the illegal lot split with the church and the former owner. So there's a couple things that you guys see in it. They're actually fairly large lots. They're on average 9,582 lots per square foot, most lots, and R1 are 6,500 square foot. The variance that we're asking for, the code actually did not state where the measurement for the lot width was taken from. At the back of the lot, we had the width for our lot we did. And talking with Jeff, keep the uniformity of the lots shrunk those two to make sure the front to back mat you know matched up versus having we're yeah we're we're trapezoidal lots we have a couple different things we're actually going to ask you guys to set aside the planning conditions condition number 11 That generally applies for bigger subdivisions, where the lot sizes are for 6,500 square foot, not for a basic seven-lot subdivision. The underground utility requirement for subdivisions comes into play with lots less than 10,000 square feet. This is 9,582. over 400, that's off, but roughly 442 square feet, so I don't know, square feet different. So we do recognize that it's in their staff report. It's not in an area that has underground utilities power-wise. To the north is overhead, to the west, to the south. on the flat part are all underground or sorry they are all overhead. In talking with Pacific Power they have actually mentioned that they would prefer overhead because it is easier to maintain in floodplains versus underground. Underground in this area because of the floodplain we would have to put all the transformers and I'm going blank on the other blocks you have to have when you split from the transformer. But they all have to be in this floodplain 10 feet out. So it's roughly 7 foot 10 inches in the floodplain. And they have to be another 2 feet above that. And you also have to have a platform which comes out to be roughly 6 by 6 to an 8 by 8 structure for every one of the pedestals. transformers, so they would prefer to drop a pole and then spread to the houses, which is also what is currently in the neighborhood. We do recognize that it's in the floodplain. There's ways to build the houses in the floodplain. We've done it. We're a normal foundation, and you need building code. You have to have the flood fence. It still has to be electrical code, plumbing code, fire code. Floodplain fluid, all that type of stuff. So we're not asking for any waivers on the actual building codes. It's all going to be standard stuff. And so for those reasons, we ask that you guys set aside conditional level.

I was just, could you, I have not, when you're describing the above ground electrical, I couldn't, I mean, give examples. Are there places in the county I may have seen what you're talking about if it was below ground?

There's actually very few because Pacific Power likes it above ground. Oh. And the reason is it's easier to maintain. I know one of the neighbors has a worry about overhead power versus underground. Sure. You have overhead all through that neighborhood. You have an acre and a half vacant lot versus seven lots. Seven lots is going to have less fire danger than a vacant lot. And if he was worried about fire danger, he would have maintained his hillside in the last four years. Yeah, I mean, I just know that it's in there. I do too. Yeah. When we've done houses in the floodplain before, Pacific Power and Douglas Electric have all gone overhead.

And that is the power running along?

Power is running along the woodcrest. Correct. Water is running along the woodcrest. All the sewer actually will go to towards... 99 at the easement along the southern portions of the lines. So it should be on the engineer map that we sent. One of the other concerns that were brought up earlier, and you might as well address it now, not A PROBLEM, WE DO IT. WE'VE DONE IT IN COOES COUNTY IN BANDEN WHERE THERE WAS NO STORM DRAINAGE. THEY'RE CALLED SOAKER TRENCHES. THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR TO SEPTIC LINES. ARE 65 FEET FOR THIS HOUSE PLAN THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT PUTTING ON THERE. AN ENGINEER HAS TO DO THE CALCULATION. JUST COMES DOWN, GOES INTO PRETTY MUCH A CORROGATED PIPE WITH PACKING PEANUTS AROUND IT. YOU BUY IT TWO FEET DOWN AND IT WILL CARRY THE 100-YEAR STORM.

Any other questions?

Yes. So if after you get through this process, there are other guidelines you have to follow clearly? I'm sorry. There are other guidelines you have to follow, like public works or, like you said, engineering?

Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, if it's approved, we go back to planning and we submit. It's a plot plan. A lot layout shows driveway, shows building size, shows utilities. Then it goes to the building department. The building department then looks at, obviously, the structure, structural stuff, electrical stuff, plumbing stuff, make sure it meets the floodplain, make sure it meets runoff or drainage. Tri-city water and sewers already stated that we meet their requirements. If that answers your question or not, but it is.

And if it's in a flood plain, is it not on Oregon state lands? Does it need a wetland delineation?

It is not on Oregon state lands. There are no wetlands on that property.

Questions?

Thank you.

Okay, at this point then, if those that are neutral would like to speak, this would be your opportunity. So, Jake, would you like to come up and speak? Michael. Okay, yeah, Michael Heigard. He said he was bad with names.

He wasn't kidding.

I have nothing to ask.

Okay, okay.

Because I'm on the fence, can I just ask questions? Because my mom lives in that house.

Yeah, why don't you come up and state your name? It's a gift. Just embrace it. Just your name and address.

My name is Jackie Baker, and my mom owns the house, and I'm her trustee. It's 182 Woodcrest. When he was talking about going underground for the utilities, she's underground. She's all underground. And where's the sewer line going to go? Because she's septic. I mean, is... Yeah, we're not really, really, really happy. But, I mean, you know, hey, if they've got to do it, they've got to do it. I mean, if you get approval, and how high are they going to have to go for the floodplain? Because she had to go seven feet. She went 12 or something like that. You know, so that's why it's really weird, her house. But we just have, you know, a few questions. Like, we had to, you know, she had to jump through all these hoops. Are these guys going to have to do the same thing? Or are you guys, you know?

And Jeff could speak to that. The process, Jeff, will be...

Because she just tried to get a reverse mortgage, and she was told no because she's in a flood zone.

Yeah. Nothing that is being proposed would change what the 100-year floodplain requirements are, which for a dwelling, the finished floor height has to be elevated one foot above the base flood elevation. So if that's in that ballpark of seven feet and you have to go one foot above, that's why sometimes people decide if I have to go that high, I might as well go a little higher to have something underneath as usable. And that's my garage and my access to, and I have storage and then I can get up to the other finished floor height. So that's, yes, that is still the same requirement today in FEMA's rules.

There's not going to be an HLA? No?

Okay.

And then could, like, if they do get permission to do it, what are the hours? Because she's 87 years old. You know, what are the hours that they could do this legally, make noise and stuff? Because she's been there. The only noise is like the animals or the idiot that drives up and down the road on the motorcycle.

You know, that's it. I'm telling you.

She lived there since 2004. She built the house and everything.

I usually can't speak of hours, but generally when something occurs, it's generally like between 8 and 5, 7, and it's like residential. OK.

I know it's reasonable. OK. Well, yeah, that's fine. And then can we request like a fence or something? I mean, are you guys going to put up a fence to keep Because she's lived there for so long, all she has is animals. She doesn't have kids. She doesn't have the dogs. And she's 80-some-odd years old, and I worry about her. I mean, a fence all around the, you know. Okay. Yeah, but no, we were just wondering because it's like, okay, do we need to do that or what? Because this was like, wait a minute, your kids are going to do what? Jerky.

And I was also told that I could not live downstairs.

Hold on. We'll give you an opportunity in just a minute, Gail. Do you have anything else?

No, it's just that, you know, we were just, and they do have to do that. Are they going to be sticker manufactured?

And just to clarify, our job is to actually look at what is here, and then they still have to go through the building department.

Well, I never did anything like this before.

No, I totally get it. Totally get it.

I'm at my house on Crest, so, you know.

Totally get it. So, yeah, I must have missed someone in the neutral. Was there anyone else that would like to speak that's neutral? You said you did not want to speak.

John, are you neutral or opposed? Opposed. Oh, he's opposed. Opposed.

You're on the opposing list. In fact, John, why don't you come on up, state your name and address.

I'm all new at this too, so forgive me. You'll do great. John Stamey, 263 Ridgewood Place. My biggest concern is the underground utilities. I hadn't heard until tonight that the power company prefers the above ground. The reason I am opposed to the above ground is all of the power poles that we have down in that flat area, the electric company has come out and cleared 10 feet around every spring to lower the fire risk. So I don't quite understand why he can say an open field is a higher fire risk than putting more power poles where you get drop lines, whatever. I mean, if the power company comes and clears those circles to prevent buyer, to me that overrides the ease of maintenance to have them underground. I don't care about their maintenance. I care about safety. We have in that neighborhood, not on the flat, but right next to my place, we have had a fire. And that was very concerning. So I would be very much opposed to is requesting the waiver to that requirement. The other thing, and probably a lot of this has to do with the building plans and all that, but Gail's place, the next door, a lot of her land is actually a little bit lower than particularly the two lots are back in that triangle. And I'm very much concerned about, I'm assuming, again, this is probably got the building department, but to build a house or something, you have to go in there and dig stuff out, do fill in. If they raise that at all, it's gonna drain over there. And throughout the years that I've lived there, we do end up with water, maybe a foot deep running over our access road without any rivers flooding or that's just drainage from all over. But I don't want anything done to that land that is going to cause any amount of water to run and potentially cause problems with our road, which is a private road that has public access. So I think there needs to be looked at anyway. And speaking of the private road, And I don't know if this is the right place or not, but I understand that there are requirements for a certain amount of space between driveways. I have no idea. There was no indication, at least on the map that I saw, because I couldn't really read it, where the driveways are going to be planned. That goes along with... kids walking to school down that road. There's gonna be more traffic there. I understand there's no indication of putting any sort of sidewalks or anything like that. So that's another reason that I really oppose the additional people there, a safety hazard.

Let's see.

And because it is a private road, people in that neighborhood are responsible for maintaining that road. So unless, I have no idea how this could be done, but that needs to be taken into consideration too. It's going to affect, I really don't know how many residents are out there. The more traffic you have on that road, the more maintenance there's going to be. Particularly if there's more water And I do object to Dustin stating that I hadn't maintained my hillside for over 20 years. I maintained, my property just barely touches. So my hillside is not the one that is the biggest fire hazard. So I just object to that. I think that should be noted. But speaking of the fire hazard, because of our neighbor's property, it is such a steep embankment, it's not really accessible from above. So that's why it's very difficult to maintain. I know that he has hired people to go in there and take down dead trees and stuff like that. But they have to come in, they use, I'm assuming they use ropes to help tie them off because it is extremely steep. So the two lots that are gonna be back in that triangle, you know, I hate to say it, but if you get a bunch of young kids that like to play with fire, that's just a tinderbox waiting to happen. And if that fire got on that bank, it would just go up like crazy. And you're putting my house, Gail's house, Mike's house in immediate danger, plus the whole neighborhood up there. So I think the fire danger should be addressed in the decision also. I think that's about it. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Gail, would you like to come forward and speak? Or you can speak from there if you can be loud.

It would probably be easier if I just speak from here. Okay.

Well, just state your name and your address real quick.

Gail Ward, 182 Woodpress Drive.

Okay.

And I know that when I had my property, my husband and I spotted that property. We bought it. He died within a month. I moved. I moved. I would buy that property and I would put my house on it. I did. And I had a whole mess of things to jump through. I didn't realize I was in a 100-year floodplain. I was told I had to go up seven foot two inches. Well, I am kind of stubborn. I am kind of mule-headed. Yeah, ask my girls. I decided if I had to go up that high, I was going to have a workshop downstairs. I've got a complete workshop downstairs. And a garage. I have the capability of putting three cars in there and still have a workshop. I also have a sewing room downstairs. I cannot occupy any of that room down there. I cannot sleep in any of it. I don't know whether he realizes that or not. I don't know whether everything he's planning on will be on one story up. I don't know whether he's going to have to go up. That's not for me to say. That's for somebody else to say. I wish you good luck on everything he tries to do because I do not want anybody to falter on their dreams. It's not... is not nice. I do know that when I was getting the utilities, the electricity and water and stuff brought in, my water meter will blow most water faucets and houses out. I had extra pressure put in there. And the water company said that was a good idea in case I ever had to try and fight a fire around me. The electricity company said that, yes, it was a good idea to have it underground because that way they didn't have to worry about overhead and getting a crane in there to try and get any type of firefighting fire department or anything like that. They don't have to worry about, all I got is a cable line in there. And that's easy. That's easy to take down. I can take that down. Trust me. It was underground. Thank you. It was so underground. Nothing is over time. But I was told that these were for the betterment of my house and that I was safer that way. If I'm safer that way, wouldn't these other houses be safer that way also from the difference? of fire and stuff. And the water, yeah, the water can get kind of nasty. I've got pictures someplace to where you can see it. And I'd rather not have any more water on my property than what's necessary. But what God gives me, I'll take. I want them to have to jump the same hoops that I jumped, but I also want them to be able to get the same benefits that I got. I hope I don't sound too bitchy to anybody. You don't.

I don't mean to be a bitter old woman.

Seven years old.

I decided that my cat needed to be able to go outside. So on my porch that goes around, he screened it all in. I opened my door and let the cat go. She just goes so far and she's screened in.

Well, thank you, Gail. You want to speak now?

It's okay, I'll just stand here as well.

Really just one question, bringing up the underground utilities, is there documentation as far as the electric company said, we want to install above

I'd be interested to see. I apologize for the interruption. I need this gentleman to stand at the podium.

Yeah, I forgot the mic's there. Sorry.

He keeps cutting in and out.

Yeah, sorry. I'm trying to remember that next time, too.

Big Brother is listening. Well, I'll start over again. Michael McEachern, 234 Ridgewood Place. My question is that it's been stated that Pacific Power, the electric company, prefers to have above ground electricity versus underground. I guess that brings to mind two questions. The first one is, is that documented somewhere? Where can we see that that's exactly what they want? The second question would be, well, that's their preference. It's not a requirement. So if it does show that it's technically safer to have underground there, the preference needs to be called into question. But really, that's all I have is that piece of it. And the same thing. I live uphill from it, so that's the direction of fire travel. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Okay. I'll give you an opportunity for the applicant to come up and give a rebuttal.

Dustin Jinks with Head Properties again. I actually do owe John an apology. He is not the one that touches the property. He touches a very small corner. I apologize. I had the lot wrong. The neighbor to the south of you. The main thing is hillside. It's very overgrown. The fire isn't going to start on our site because we back drug it. and got all of our stuff down as soon as we bought it. One thing that was mentioned by Gail, I believe. I'm sorry.

Ward.

Ward, yeah. We are going to have to jump through the same hoops you did. It's state law, building code. It's going to be all the same. The drainage is, like I mentioned earlier, there was something mentioned about kids walking to school. It's approximately 800 feet of flat ground from Woodcrest before it starts hitting the hillside. Our building on this property and subdivision is not going to affect any visual line of sight of any cars going up and down Woodcrest. Except when it's dark. If it's dark, it's not going to matter if there's any houses there or not. It's going to be hard to see anybody walking on there. Regarding the maintenance of the road, there is no maintenance agreement among the neighbors on that property. We're asking, obviously, for fair use of our property. linear feed of street frontage. And we were actually going to have the least amount of traffic on that road compared to any of the other neighbors because we're the first lots on the road comparative to the neighbors that are up in the subdivision behind.

If they'd like to do a street maintenance agreement.

We have no objection to that, but noted in the last meeting, it has to be agreed upon by all members of, yeah, on that street. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. At this point, I'm going to close the public portion and we'll deliberate to a decision. So I'll chime in real quick up front as far as the A question for staff. So is there a requirement in this for underground or not? Because it sounds like currently there is. So there is no choice in the current form. Correct. So that solves some of that argument. Now, if that changes and he goes over the $10,000, then I think it's a little bit of a different conversation. I will say I work for a communications company. I work with a power company a lot. there is a big movement to see more buried facilities, there's no doubt. But that being said, there are certain locations where you're in floodplains, for instance, in the area that I work out towards the Elkton and Scottsburg area next to the Amquot River, locations that are next to the river that are in the floodplain, it is, the power company does not like having some of the buried there because when the flood comes in, it completely soaks the transformers and And it pretty much destroys their plant to some degree. Or if it's overhead, it tends to survive. I don't work for a power company, but just to give you a little knowledge. What he's also saying as far as them allowing, having to lift all the J-boxes, that's very common. You'll sometimes see that. You'll see that with power meters where they'll have ladders running up to the power meter. So you're going to see the same thing with the transformers and the J-boxes will all have to be lifted if it's buried. And it can sometimes be a little bit of an eyesore. But just to give you a little bit of background with the utilities. Again, I don't work for one, but I do work for a communications company, which is similar. So that gives a little bit of background on that. In some cases, power companies do like that due to the flow. there is a utility easement, right? Generally, yeah. And usually if there's already overhead aerial power in the area and it's in a floodplain, I mean, it's just, again, there is a movement. It's just the fire versus the flooding, you know, because there's just as much, I mean, the floods come. We've had some within the last five years, and if it's in the floodplain, it's going to get wet, right? Anyway, just to give you a little knowledge on that piece. But I think as far as for this hearing in its current form, it isn't a choice. you're going to have to do underground.

If you choose to change it, then that's a different conversation. Couldn't we modify that? I mean, that was part of the request, is to reconsider number 11. Is that what 11 was? Number 11, yes. It talks about the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. I mean, personally, I would be in favor of leaving it upon discretion of the utility company to say what's in the best interest of all of it.

Jeff, is that a condition that we can put on there to weigh into there? And again, though, I guess it's who do you – I guess you'd have one of their engineers.

If I could – I have some other questions that may go down a different path or maybe answer this in a different way. So we're looking at – this is a clarifying question. I see three questions before us. I'm not sure if it's two or three. So – I think it's three. Yeah. It's from low density residential to medium density residential. So that's one. And then I want to make an editorial that it's low density residential, but the acronym is RLD. So someone needs to get their alphabet right.

most other jurisdictions do it that way we want to be different just making my life more complicated the second is suburban residential just well it's a single-family and then

third is the proposed seven lot subdivision is that correct so those are the three then four yeah there's a fourth variance on the variance okay to the lot width so i had that lumped with three but okay uh okay so my first question having that clarification what is currently allowed what's a level of development currently permitted as zoned

Yeah, RS, so as far as RS zoning that it's currently under is 15,000 square foot lot size for a single family dwelling and 30,000 square feet for a duplex. and that's lot size. So roughly, if you were looking single family dwellings, it's about 1.03 acres for three units of land, whether it was parcels or lots that are created. Okay.

So how many, so right now it's, so how many potential single family homes would we be putting on there as it currently sits?

Do I have enough to get a fifth one?

Okay, so we're looking at four. As it currently says, four single-family homes, or is it now, if we put duplexes in, is it going to be two duplexes, or is it going to be three duplexes?

I think math. Yeah, two. Two, okay. Because I don't think there's enough then for a third without doing math. Yeah, you're right. Yep, two.

Thank you. So we're looking at, right now, you could have four homes there.

Why do we have seven lots, then?

Well, yeah. I'm just, as it's currently zoned, without even coming to us, he could put four homes. Somebody could walk in and, you know. They could do four homes. I'm trying to figure out what the difference is.

Somebody could walk in tomorrow and get one house. But to get more than that, they'd have to divide. But it'd be a division at the RS 15,000 square foot density. versus what they requested. Yeah, so he's given us what could be versus.

Yeah, what are we starting with to what is being asked? OK, so that answers my second question. And then with the variances, if we didn't accept the variance, without variances, how many lots would we be having in there? Six. OK. that's okay I'm just kind of checking to see what we what we get here at this point it's closed so staff would answer the questions thank you because yeah I we're being asked to go from four to seven to change this configuration from theoretically you know four single-family homes to seven And I was trying to envision what a 65-foot lot looked like. They're long and narrow, so I'm trying to envision what that looks like if I'm thinking about this community and the area around it and wanting to do as much as we can for development while maintaining the integrity of the community around it.

And this is the way I have seen it. with regards to RS to R1. All this right here is RS, whereas all this right here is R1. So this actually doesn't jump out as odd. Like now if we're trying to go that direction, so it seems to me that those rods right there can blend with

And my curiosity as it gets to the overhead under is if the variances weren't included, I don't know if that pushes the minimum lot to over 10,000. And then that caveat goes away. And I appreciate the concerns about over and under, but it seems to me that there's already overhead power running along Woodcrest. So it's not like we're adding new power. lines into the overhead lines into the area, they'd be accessing those homes, but there's already overhead lines along the road. So if it was under if it was a whole new run, then that, I think, changes the conversation. But I also I six is really are seven seems to me like really cramming UNITS IN THERE AND SIX IS MAINTAINED WITHOUT ANY VARIANCES, FEELS CONSISTENT. AND I KNOW A LOT IS A LOT OF MONEY. IF NOTHING, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO THE MATH, BUT IF IT GOES TO SIX MINIMUM LOTS VERSUS SEVEN, DOES THAT theoretically push us over the 10,000 and eliminate that.

Yeah, so if you're... I think I hit all four of the points. Yeah, and so with the variance, looking at it from the standpoint of, say, you know, I'm a developer, I'm going to maximize the land, request a variance on two out of the seven lots. If the variance were to... go away then in your line of questioning, then yes, the lot size would bump up over 10,000 square feet, and then condition 11 would go away because they've exceeded that threshold, that magic number that was somehow determined way back when. I don't even have the history on that one, and I've worked here a long time, but I don't know where that... number, but that was the line drawn in the sand at some point in time.

But the seven lots that you'd be looking at are much larger than any of these currently.

Well, there's lots to the north that are the same size, but it's a different configuration.

Yeah, I mean, for easy math, you know, somebody, if they got a property to divide and it was a different shape or configuration, you know, 65 by 100 for easy math is 6,500 square feet. But you don't always have that perfect property that you can come in and put your nice little internal cul-de-sac and make them all nice. And then maybe at the end, you kind of wedge them. You know, this property is not laid out that way. So... they're laid out to fit within and they're longer rectangles because of it. It allows you to build a bigger square foot house. Perhaps a bigger house, yes.

Those are my questions. I think we answered them. We currently have four. up to four single-family hominins, or duplex, or six. Let's see. Without the variance, we'd be at six.

Andrew, do you have a comment?

Well, do we want to come back? Because Andrew's question was sort of tabled. Yeah, I just walked over him, you could say.

that line, you're looking at about $11,000 per average.

So doing four instead of the five? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, along Woodcrest. You'll put two in the back triangle?

Yeah. Right. That was the scenario addressing his question about without

So back to Andrew's question as far as getting a letter from the power company, is that common, Jeff?

It's not something we've experienced. I would put it that way in response to that. It is a criteria of chapter 4 of the ordinance that has been placed for a long time. 30 plus years in looking at sometimes things that are in a code that was written and approved by the state in the 80s and then has criteria that has either been around that long or modified throughout time. You know, that doesn't address what happened with Archer Creek and the changes that our power companies are going through and what there might be a preference here. But then floodplain changes that.

I tend to agree with Andrew on that. I think if we're going to allow for that variance, if we go that route, we need a certified letter from an engineer stating that it is safer to have it overhead in this situation due to the floodplain and the current potential conditions. Because, I mean, yeah, 20 years ago, fire versus flooding, it wasn't even a question. The floodplain would rule now. Fire and overhead lines are an issue. But I've seen it countless times where it does sometimes make sense to still put it overhead in certain situations. So I think allowing the power company to weigh in and get something from them in writing That's my thought at least. I'm okay. I look at development and I think as far as this six lots versus seven lots, if he can meet the conditions, I don't have a problem with that. I'm kind of in that direction, but that's just my thought.

Just to make sure I have my own ignorance, but the underground would only be from the existing lines to the homes, right? That's the part of it that we'd still have.

But you'd have main, it'd have to be a main trans, I'm not speaking for the power company, but it'd have to be a, they'd have to put in sub-J boxes and transformers and bury it, so.

But there'd still be... I mean, the service, the rest of the lives. Just those homes. Yeah, just those homes.

That's where I think what Andrew's saying is pretty accurate. And I think the power company should have the ability to weigh in on it. They don't take care of the cost, per se, because he will bear the cost of putting the facilities in if it's underground.

He will also bear the cost of the estimate to figure out what is safest. Or, you know, Pacific Power says... Generally, you can attach or this is what you have to do. I mean, no matter what. But cost versus cost. Or always a cost. Today, it's always a cost.

Yeah, I don't know. Yeah.

So if we settled on the total of seven lots? We haven't settled on anything. We have to make a motion, and we can discuss. Well, I mean, we've gone back and forth with six lots total, seven lots total. I guess I'm not.

The recommendation is for the seven lots of the variance. So that's an option. I could make a motion that we can discuss it

So if we go seven lots with item number 11 from staff recommendations to letter of, however, I don't feel comfortable telling the power company how to build a power system. I mean, they're the experts at it. I say let them decide what's best in that scenario. I would...

Point out for the record, a lot of this has been discussing electric service and concerns related to that and above ground, underground. The way the ordinance reads and the condition specifically is also telephone. So modification, if that was considered, would need to be for both entities that provide that service to then be, So I think if you're considering that modification, then we need it to be for both, as the condition reads. Does anybody do telephone lines anymore? I'd be fine.

I mean, a different way. Not copper anymore.

Who still wants a landline? I know. But again, the code is dated. 30-plus years ago, right, Jeff? At least for me.

Well, I know our job is to just meet criteria and goals, and then whether we approve or disapprove or make a motion, then it goes to another set of eyes and entities of public works and all these easements. And so our job... is does it make criteria or not and if it does are there other stipulations you want to put on it uh i think i know how to make a motion here and then we can see if

Take a swing at it. So I would move that we would approve the requested comprehensive plan of a 1.5 acre unit of land from low density residential to medium density residential, together with a zone change from RS suburban residential to R1 single family residential. which meets the criteria of Article 38 of the Douglas County Can Use Land Use and Development Ordinance. Full stop. I would strike the variance for lots two and three. I think that also alleviates item 11 with the debating and discussing. So it would be six lots, seven lots. just for Robert Toodle's award. If it doesn't get a second, it dies on the vine, and then we go on. So would you read that again? Sure. Yeah, I'd happily. I move to approve requested comprehensive plan. of a 1.5-acre unit of land from low-density residential to medium-density residential, together with a zone change from suburban residential to R1 single-family residential, which meets the criteria of Article 38 of the Douglas County Land Use and Development Ordinance. I'll stop. I'll second that.

Okay. Any more discussion? Basically, the six lots then causes the lot size to go over, and then it negates the requirement for... All in favor? Aye. Okay. Passes 4-0. All right. So finding the facts next meeting. Correct? Correct.

Okay.

And then back to our agenda. And just for those in the audience, too, this is one of the processes. There is an appeal process. If you choose to appeal the decision we make and then you can take it, the next step would go to the Board of Commissioners. They'd have a choice whether or not to hear it. If they chose not to hear it, then it would go to LUVA up north. So there is a process. We're just part of that process. If you choose not to appeal it, then the next meeting will have a finding of facts, and then it will be approved immediately. And then basically, as stated in the motion, it'd be the six lots, and it'd be overhead utilities that would be approved at that point. And all the other conditions.

Yeah, and all the other conditions are in play.

Correct, Jeff?

Yes. Yeah. Yeah, because that ruling would then delete condition 11. Then it's obsolete because of lot size. I would add to your statement then for clarification that The findings that we prepare then as staff, which are a summary of this hearing, would be before the Planning Commission next month at the meeting on October 15th. Once that is signed that evening of October 15th, those will be sent out in the mail to everybody that was participating, and that starts the appeal process, which Chairman Burke mentioned would be to the County Board of Commissioners as the next step at the local level. There is then beyond that, if someone were still participating, you know, and needing to go to the next level, that would be, when he mentioned LUBA, that stands for the Land Use Board of Appeals, and that's Salem. Okay. Excuse me. All right. And I don't follow along as quickly as everybody else around here.

What exactly have you guys decided tonight?

So basically tonight, what happened is it got changed. It's now six homes. And there's no, because of that, the lot size goes over the minimum of 10,000 square feet. So the utilities would be, you'd have the option to put them overhead.

And all other conditions remain the same. Yep.

Okay. Do we have any other business from the audience? I think everyone had a chance to speak tonight. All right. Business from the Planning Commission. Anyone got any? Nope. Not that I'm sharing. All right. Business from the Planning Department. Jeff, what do we got in the queue coming up?

We have not received any new applications in time for the October 15th meeting, so it would just be the findings of fact from this meeting.

That could be a short meeting.

Try to beat Dorena's record. Beat her record for the fastest meeting ever.

Dorena still holds that.

Okay. That being said, we'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting.