City Council - Regular Meeting

and justice for all. All right, all council members are present tonight. Um, is there any additions to the agenda? Doesn't look like it. Is there any declaration of party contact, conflict of interest, bias, etc. by council? Doesn't look like it. Mr. Mayor,

go ahead. Council work. I just want to state that I have had several conversations with different community members about annexations in general and educating the public on how they work and our role in them. Um I cannot tell you which ones specifically because there's been quite a few that we've talked about. So I'm just going to blanket say that I've talked to people about them.

Okay. Appreciate that. Anybody else? Okay. Um, we move to public comment and I'm going to read a statement before public comment. Uh, the council will now receive public comment. We value your input and ask that remarks be shared respectfully. The council's role is to listen at this time and may direct staff to follow up as it as needed. Speakers will be called on one at a time and asked to state their name and city of residence before the three minutes for their comment. And I have before me looks like two tonight. And we'll start with Mr. Santani. Damian,

thank you. Mayor, may I approach the bench and give you guys paper? I forgot to give it over there. Sure.

You have extra one for them for staff. here.

All right, sir. Go ahead.

I'll pay I'll try to be brief since you guys have paperwork. Um, this involves the so-called pilot program that deals with different kind of developments that might come into town. Specifically, this has already been uh applied to the uh apartments that are at the top end of town where um third avenue and uh Fernidge kind of behind the Verizon. So pilot is an acronym payment in lie of taxes. So real quick since you guys can study this after the whole meeting's done um they don't have to get charged their regular assessed bas rate like we do for our houses for example. So I understand they just pay some kind of flat rate for the next few years and um it's nowhere near what it could be when the exemption uh sunsets. So if you uh if you look at page three, no sorry um look at page five. And if you add their retail value of their building and their land, that's well over $16 million. and then go back to uh page four and all of us our houses and whatnot are charged by the county. So this money isn't all going to come to state and this would come to Marian County and then we get our part. Um as we know

being property owners we pay on assess value not the real market value. So um assuming that their real market value is over 16 mil, let's divide that by two and say that their assessed value since it's not printed could be about a little over 8 million. So then on page four you would divide units of 1,000 into let's say 8.2 2 million and that gives you an answer that you would multiply by the $1642. It's $135,000 that they're not paying right now and they won't pay that until this pilot program sunset. So, um this was a good education for me. All this came from the property uh tax records at the county. So, anybody can look this up. So, if we ever do make any more apartments, no more pilot programs. Zip. Everybody's got to pay their fair share.

Thank you. Thanks you, Mr. Cony. All right, Larry Chamberlain, please.

Good evening. My name is Larry Chamberlain. I reside at 1624 East Bernett Street, Dayton 97301 for the last Can you hear me?

Okay. Um, just for some background, after the uh last city council meeting, we all had a lot of frustration. I was a little bit more verbal with mine than you guys, but I could see it in your face. and um my wife and I decided that uh we wanted to get a second opinion as to what if anything the city of state and council could do regarding all the multifamily developments coming into our city. So on our own with some guidance from our son Ed who's a civil engineer we hired a professional planner to review our situation. The report he gave us did not have a lot of hope in it. Uh the state of Oregon has tied our your hands as to what happens in our town and how it happens. The Oregon housing needs analysis is the result of lots of laws passed since 2019. The short story is these laws give the state of Oregon the right to decide how many housing units should be built and what types of housing should be built. We must have buildable land available within our urban growth boundary to accommodate the types of housing the state tells us that we need. Whether we agree with this reality or not, it is what you must govern by today. However, there's one thing you can effect and regain a small amount of control. You can use infrastructure deficiency as a reason to change the zoning that is requested. The deficiency must be documented in our comprehensive plan and in what every facility plan in in whatever facility plan that is appropriate. For instance, there's an upcoming annexation uh on Park Lane near our home. Anyone

who lives in that area can tell you that the roads were inadequate for the development that's already taken place. You cannot use general statements to decide decide zoning situations. You need an updated transportation plan that acknowledges the facts and documents these deficiencies in engineering language. Then your decision will be defensible in a luba appeal. The same for our storm water, our sewer plan. All of these plans feed into our comprehensive plan. So all of our planning documents need to be professionally updated. This will be expensive. What will the cost be the city if you grant a zoning that cannot function if you g grant a highdensity zone in an area where the roads fail? Then what? Potentially millions. When updating the comprehensive plan, you could also update the types of zoning available. In the case outlined above, the developer really wants to build out cottages, which would be a great addition to our city, but we don't have a zoning designation that applies that allows the land to be split up in a certain way. The closest thing I can get is high density. There's lots of other classifications available in the cities, such as mixed use, that we could evaluate to see if it's appropriate. Much has happened since our plans were last updated. Updating our plans would be like turning on the lights. To be used in any legal action such as luba appeal, I was told the plan would have to be less than 5 years old to be considered current. I'm not sure of the age of ours, but I think it's more than that.

Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chamberlain. Um, you know, the first thing that comes to mind is where do we get the money? And again, the next question is where do you get the money if you don't fix it and you know you approve something that causes the systems to fail? So, um I guess I I'm appealing to you to consider this, talk about it, uh while you can still do something about it. And uh you know, that's that's about all I have to contribute. Um, we're in a very sorry fix, but we got to deal with reality. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

All right. That's all the public comments we received for tonight. That moves us on to consent agenda. Consent agenda from May 4th. City council regular session minutes. And then the OLCC liquor license, new outlet full-on premises commercial application for Launta Tasteria Aliscoco style. What would council like to do? Okay. Don't all talk at once. Mr. Mayor, councelor Patty, move that we accept the consent agenda as presented. Second.

All right. Motion a second to accept the consent agenda as submitted. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I.

Motion carries five to zero. There's no presentations. Um, which leads us to public hearing and that is on ordinance number 26-003 annexation and zone change for property on Golf Lane. And with that, I have to read a script before we do this. We will open the public hearing. This is the time and place set for the city council's public hearing. Matter of land use file number 5-02/24 an application for annexation of a 21 acre parcel of land fronting Golf Lane proposing a zone designation a zoning designation of medium density residential and including a concept plan. This hearing is now open. Oregon land use law requires a statement be made to those in attendance that covers matters that covers certain matters relative to this case. That statement with all the information required to be presented under OS197.763 subset 5 is printed and available on the table at the back of the room. If you have not received one of these forms, you should go get one and review it prior to presenting your testimony. If anyone has any questions regarding anything on the statement or objects to it not being read out loud, please raise those questions when it comes to your turn speak during the hearing. Also at the back counter is the agenda for this evening's meeting which lays out the order in which people will be called on to speak during the public hearing and the city's rules of procedure for LAN use public hearings to facilitate your participation in the public hearing. You are encouraged to obtain and read a copy of these documents as well. At this time I would ask the audience if there are any objections to the notice that was provided in the case. I hear none to the jurisdiction of this body to hear and consider this case. I hear none. Are there any declarations of conflict of

interest, exarty contacts, or bias by any members of the council? I hear none. We're now ready for the staff introduction. So, Mayor, um it was pointed out to me I'm I'm calling a big audible. Um it was pointed out to me that the notice said seven. Um so, I would ask that you um hold the public hearing. We've got some if we move to staff announcements that should cover it if that would be okay. That way if anybody is coming to be at the meeting by seven in time for the public testimony um you're still able to um do this with them there. Okay. So you're saying that there's a time difference? Yes.

Okay. So you're asking me to hold off the meeting until 7? Yes. Or to to hold off these public hearings and um we got we could move to the general business, the grant authority and communications from staff. We have okay um a little bit to discuss there. We will pause the opening of the hearing for a minute and we're going to move to you said general business. Yeah, if you move to agenda item 8A. Okay. All right. Sorry about that. It's okay. Um All right. We'll move to item uh general business grant authority for a designated signer for DEEQ loan. Is that what we're talking about? Yes. Okay. Yes.

Um, so staff report on that. Mr. Brown. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. This is a resolution to designate a signer for the a DEEQ loan. Um, we don't have loan paperwork in front of us right now. Um but this is necessary step in order to proceed. Um we are requesting to designate Julia Haidu the city manager to be um have the authority to sign a loan. This is related to projects for wastewater. Um the project is still being developed. It was identified a few years ago and it has some forgivable portions. So basically it grants um up to $2 million per fiscal year. So we'd like to take advantage of that. The rest of the funds would be in this loan. We don't know the interest rate or the amount at this time, but um in order to proceed, we would need this grant authority to be given to Julia. And when we do have more information, we bring that before you as well. But um this is just a step of the process.

Okay. Is that it, James? Yes. Okay. Opportunity for public comment on grant authority for designated sign uper for the deeq loan. Doesn't look like there's any uh council discussion. Mr. Mayor, councelor Sims. So, do we know what we're what we're proposing for the loan at all or do we have a

The total project cost is about $5 million in round numbers. Um, the project is still being developed by the engineers at this time. Um, why we don't have more specific information is we're trying to take advantage of the terms that are offered right now. this up to $2 million per fiscal year per project is something that may be available twice to us. So, if we can do one um this next fiscal year and one the following fiscal year, um we could get up to $4 million forgivable. So, that's something that we're interested in doing, but this this money may not be available in the following year um with federal changes. So, we just don't have very good specifics right now, but um it's possible that the first loan, which would be the design loan, would start relatively soon. It would be a small amount, nowhere near the $5 million, but it would be to design the first part of the project. And so, by signing now, you're into the program so that you can get that forgivable portion. So, those are the details that I would have at this point. So, what are we designing?

It's an upgrade to the sewer uh lines. So, there there were four projects that we initially were talking to them about that were in the wastewater master plan. Um there's um Jeder's Way, there's the Gardener lift station, um and then there's two others that aren't coming to my mind. Some of them we've gotten funding for through other um entities. So I think yeah I think if James if you can review what the projects that we're considering asking for.

Um so the the particular projects here are trunk line upsizing. Um basically I think it's a new sewer line from Evergreen and IDA to Hollister and High Streets. So, are these loans shortterm or I mean do we have so we don't have time to talk about them at council and you just sign for the the loans?

We don't have specifics on the loans. They don't know the years or the rate that will be determined at the loan signing. Um but this is just kind of one of one of the requirements. They want to know who's going to sign the loan. They want to make sure the council gives the authority to the right person. So, we're just proposing that Julia be the person that will sign the loan. We'll definitely bring you the details when we have them. We don't have them now. Um, you know, at the signing of the loan is when the details will be known, but we would get the details prior to signing the loan. Is that what we're Okay. All right. That's what I was looking for.

Yeah. We're just designating the person authorized by the city to sign the future loan. We're not signing anything yet except a resolution. Anybody else have questions? All right. What would council like to do then? Mr. Mayor, council like to move that we adopt the resolution as presented. Resolution number 26-011.

Seconded. Okay. There's a motion and a second to adopt resolution to give grant authority for a designated signer for the DEEQ loan. Is there any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. Motion carries five to zero. Um I have So these two requests are to the to the hearing or just general recognition. My guess is they were for public hearing for the annexations.

Okay. Mr. Stratton, do you want to speak to the annexation or do you want to just speak in general terms? Um, okay. Do you want to speak now or do you want to wait till the hearing? I can do it now. Okay. Should that not be part of the hearing or I don't I do you want to speak specifically to the topic of the agenda item tonight for the public hearing for G lane or do you want to do it all the city sure that's fine go ahead sir just announcer came in now we can hear there you go

okay uh we were told at the planning commission this is something that was mandated by the state that it had to be done. We didn't have any options. But when we were looking into it, uh the law states that it's for towns that are 10,000 and above. We're below that. We don't fall under that jurisdiction. So my question is, why are we doing it? Uh we don't have to follow the state mandate here. and we're going to overt tax all of our uh sewer system which you're trying to upgrade and our water system. Our streets are not in good condition throughout the town and they're not brought up. Plus, people's housing prices are being dropped because of the annexations. We have friends who've uh they can't even sell their home now because of what's going on just across the street from them. And uh so my question is why? It's not something that's mandated by the state. We're not under that. We're under 10,000 in our population. So we don't fall under that. We don't have to do it. And it's not looks doesn't look like it's anything that's good for us. It looks like it's going to put a heavier burden upon us all the way around. And so just my question is why?

Okay. Thank you. So, I'll leave it at that for you, but uh this is something you'll have to answer. Why are you doing this to all the citizens of the city of State? You know, we we don't seem to have a choice in it. We're having to live with what you're you're making decisions on. Please consider us. You know, we live here with you. We're part of this city. We we've been here. We've lived here for 26 years and we love this town and we hate to see it get destroyed or brought into a place, you know, in the direction it's going in. So, please, please consider us. I just ask this please.

Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Stratton, would you like to speak about I have letter that I'd like to go on record. So, mayor, just to clarify, um, if if people are speaking to annexations in general, it's appropriate to have as public comments. If it's specific to a annexation, it probably should be um, so I don't know what the testimony is, but if it's specific, just clarifying question, you're speaking in annexations in general, all of them. Okay. Go ahead.

We love Stton. Okay. I moved here from Orange County and I grew up there 30 years and I watched that I watched all the orange groves, all the lemon groves, everything get cut down. There's eight lanes going south, eight lanes going north on the I5. Moved here 26 years ago to escape that. There's no end to it. I can promise you there is no end to it. Okay. And what I'm trusting and I think as a citizen of Stton, we trust you guys to represent us. And somehow I feel that the and I'm going to go ahead and say it, the planning commission already had it. I read body language really good and the planning commission seemed to already have it set that that's what they're going to do. They didn't care how uh anybody objected, came up with really serious questions socially and financially. And uh even McKinley said he goes, "Well, we're going to have to look into some of these issues." And then they took a fast vote, unanimous. Oh, we're going to annex. We're going to annex. We're going to annex. Oh, yeah. We got more to annex. You do not want, trust me, to change. It's not for the better. What makes us unique is we're not another Salem. And if any of you have driven through

Salem lately, we go to church there. My husband's a pastor and you you wouldn't even recognize it. I am just giving you as somebody who's witnessed this. Nothing good will come from this. Thank you.

I'm going to recess for five minutes and we'll come back at 7. Here she comes. Okay, we're going to reconvene the public hearing

and mayor. I think that everybody um I I don't think you need to reread the script. I think that um everybody who there's nobody nobody knew that's come in that I'm aware of since you read your script I believe. So I think you're there's a couple Oh okay okay. So you want me to read the script again? Just to be on the safe side. Sorry.

Okay. All right. Um this is the commencement of the public hearing for ordinance number 26-003 annexation and zone change for property on Golf Lane. And I have to read a script again. This is the time and place set for the city council's public hearing in the matter of land use file number 5-02-24, an application for annexation of a 21 acre parcel of land fronting Golf Lane proposing a zoning designation of medium density residential and including a concept plan. The hearing is now open. Oregon land use law requires a statement be made to those in attendance that covers certain matters relative to this case. That statement with all the information required to be presented under OS197635 is printed and available at the table at the back of the room. If you have not yet received one of these forms, you should go get one and review it prior to presenting your testimony. If anyone has any questions regarding anything on the statement or objects to it not being read out loud, please raise those questions when it comes to your turn to speak during the hearing. Also at the back counter is the agenda for this evening's meeting, which lays out the order in which people will be called upon to speak during the public hearing and the city's rules of procedure for land use public hearings to facilitate your participation in the public hearing. You are encouraged to obtain and read a copy of these documents as well. At this time, I would ask the audience if there are any objections to the notice that was provided in this case. I hear none. to the jurisdiction of this body to hear and consider this case. I hear none. Are there any declarations of ex uh any declarations of conflict of interest, exarty contact or bias by any members of the council? I hear none. We are now ready for the staff introduction. Jennifer.

Uh hello. I'm Jennifer Sisiano, uh the community and economic development director for St. for the record. Um the next item on your agenda is a quasi judicial public hearing um for an application on KSD properties LLC um fronting Golf Lane. It's approximately 21 acres um with an application to assign it a medium density residential zoning. Um, as a city uh attorney mentioned the at our previous meetings, the hearing at city council is acting in the role similar to a judge that the council's role to is evaluate whether the application demonstrates the criteria um contained in the municipal code. So at this time I'll turn it over to the applicant for presentation.

Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Britney Randall. I'm the owner and principal planner of Brand Land Use. For your record, my office is located at 1720 Liberty Street Southeast in Salem. I am the representative for KSD Properties LLC, the land use consultant. Um, and I should have been able to get on this faster because I've done it a few times in here. So, sorry about that wait. Um, I have information to present to you which will be review for a lot of us in this room, but this is my first opportunity to speak directly to all of you. So, I'll go through it for the first time. Um, our team consists of the applicant KSD Properties LLC. Uh, Jenna of DKS provided a traffic analysis. Levi of North Sanm Paving provided some civil engineering support and I provided information related to land use. Um, it's the land use process can be confusing and um, cumbersome for people to learn about. I have been in this industry for more than 10 years and I'm still learning every day about it. So, um, trying to present information in a really specific way. Um, and so I wanted to talk about what is before council and what is not before council today. So, um, there are really three things that we're examining tonight. So, it's the annexation of land that's already inside our urban growth boundary. The second is the application of a zoning designation that is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan. And the third is a determination that the property can be served in the future by urban services. What is not before council tonight is a approval of a subdivision. We have provided a conceptual plan that I'll show you later in my presentation um but which can be confusing but that is not

on the table for um real in-depth discussion. It's mostly to demonstrate how the property is anticipated to be developed in the future. Um the final density or housing type is not determined at this meeting. Um determination of off-site improvement requirements will be determined through later applications to um better exact the pro projects impact on city infrastructure and requirements for off-site improvement related to mitigating those impacts. And then uh this does not allow any uh development to be any development to construct on the site uh without future uh applications and approvals. Um the site is 21 acres of land inside Stton's urban growth boundary and contiguous to uh the corporate city limits. Uh the site has access to Golf Lane Southeast which is a city street. Uh the city of state and comprehensive plan designates this property as residential. You have three designations of zoning underneath residential in your plan. uh low density, medium density, and high density. On this site, the applicant is seeking medium density residential for a detached single family subdivision in the future. Um this is the site's relationship with the city limits. We've highlighted uh corporate city limits in pink. Everything in white is either outside the urban growth boundary or not annexed yet into the city. You can see that collectively the subject property um taken with the properties abuing to the south are an enclave. So it's completely surrounded by property that's already been annexed into the city limits. Um surrounding zoning I think provides better context about why we're seeking

medium density residential here. So to the west, uh the subject property is highlighted with a star here and this little arrow that says subject property. Uh to the west we have public and semi-public zoning. To the north is property owned by this applicant as well and that property is designated commercial general. In the uh development code and the comprehensive plan, medium density residential zoning is often referred to as like a buffer zone. So you would do this sort of stepping of intensity. If you had a medium density zoning uh property, it would buffer property to the south, which may come in as low density, and then buffer that from the property to the north, which is commercial general. Um, so again, this is a little bit repetitive, so I'll just jump to the part down here that says, um, the applicant's goal is a detached single family subdivision with a little bit smaller lot sizes than are permitted in your low density zoning, uh, which I believe is consistent with your, uh, council goals and your comprehensive plan goals. We have to evaluate this site based off of the criteria in your code. And these are those criteria A, B, C, D, E, and F. F doesn't apply. Um F applies to a contract annexation. And a contract annexation is like if someone had a catastrophic event and their septic went out and they prematurely hook up to city infrastructure. Generally, the city would say, "We'll let you hook up prematurely, but when corporate city limits reaches your door, you will annex into the city." This isn't that situation. Um, we have demonstrated pretty comprehensively in our written

materials that are in your packet how we meet these criteria, but I will briefly summarize here. Uh for criterion A, the need existing. Um at your previous council meeting, the um HAPO staff came and talked about the what they call the ONA Oregon housing needs analysis, which has um saddled every city in the state essentially by saying we they all need housing. Um housing is no longer tied to population growth. So um there's a demonstrated need in adopted documents. Uh the property is inside the urban growth boundary and carries a residential designation. So it's always been uh planned to be residential in nature, exactly what we're planning for. And then the the proposed medium density zoning directly implements the city's adopted plans for criterion B. the site is or is capable of being serviced by adequate public services, including services that may pro be provided subject to the terms of a contract annexation agreement between the applicant and the city. Some of this criterion applies. Um, of course, the the portion that is to a contract annexation does not apply. But, um, in this case, the the determination is whether the property is capable of receiving urban service uh, urban services, not if they are available today. Um, we've done some preliminary engineering review and determined that the site is able to be served. It does uh show up in the adopted water, sewer, storm water, and transportation master plans as an area that is planned to be served. Um, future extensions to the site will be um the requirement of the developer at the time of development.

Oops, sorry. Um, under C, the proposed annexation is a property contiguous to existing city limits. I won't waste any time on that. We know it is. D. The proposed annexation is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and complies with the urban growth program and policies of the city of Stton. Um, for this one, uh, the proposed zoning, uh, creates an appropriate transition between nearby commercial property and highway 22 and then lower density residential zoning to the south. Um the zoning we are asking to apply is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan designation which puts into effect um the city of Stton's uh urban growth program and policies uh as stated in this requirement. So, because we're not asking for a comprehensive plan amendment, we're um asking for a zoning that already applies to that comprehensive plan designation that is adopted. Uh criterion D is met. And then finally, uh criterion E, the annexation request complies with or can be be made to comply with all applicable provisions of state and local law. Um and to this we would say the application has undergone a rigorous review by staff, the planning commission, agency reviewers and even the state of Oregon through the sub submitted papa post acknowledgement plan post I'm sorry I forget what all the acronyms with the state but um your uh community development director submitted documentation that's required to the state of Oregon. They've reviewed it as well. Um, all of those reviews have determined that this meets the criteria, the comprehensive plan policies and the state housing requirements.

This is the conceptual plan that we provided. It has 74 lots. One area of discrepancy in our application is um I believe our our first um crack at the conceptual site plan included 94 lots. Um, so that was what our transportation system or I'm sorry, our transportation analysis was based on a higher threshold. So our impacts would actually be less than what the um transportation study says. And I just want to point that out because it's in the record. Um, and I don't want that to cause any confusion, but uh, previously we were seeking higher density. The applicant revised and um, is now seeking medium density residential for 74 single family lots here. None of the lots in the conceptual plan are less than 7,000 square ft. Your low density residential has a minimum uh lot size of 10,000 square feet. So, a bit smaller than what would be required in low density. Um again, I Oh, 92 lots. I'm glad I had that in here. So, uh the TIA was prepared for 92 lots. The current request is for medium density with approximately 74 lots. So 24% reduction from the original modeling that was done. Um the TIA overestimates future traffic impacts. So that will be refined as an actual proposal comes into the city for consideration. And then in earlier comments there was some concern about um how this project in the future would contribute to city infrastructure improvements. And so I had gone back to the um the traffic engineer and asked for some data on that and this is what they provided. So at full buildout the development is expected to contribute an

estimated four to 5% towards uh what the city has designated as an $ 8.2 million project. That's called M7 in the capital improvement projects in your transportation system plan. Um and this contribution is proportional to what the anticipated impacts would be. So um just to wrap it up, the property is located inside the urban growth boundary. It's contiguous to city limits. The proposed zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation. Uh the site can be served through uh planned infrastructure extensions. Future development will be subject to additional city review and engineering approval and the application satisfies the annexation approval criteria and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thanks Britney. Council have any questions? Mr. Mayor, council or I just had a question. I I think I know the answer but the map that we have in here the lot sizes um they vary but some of them are 6,000. Is this the one where I think this one maybe is not the updated? I think you're looking at the one with 92 lots. That's okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. Yes. Okay. Anybody else? All right. Go ahead. During the traffic uh evaluation, what time of day and how long do they stay there to evaluate the traffic flow?

Oh, man. Um I would have to go back. I know that's all documented in the the TIA that's included in the record, but I think it's peak hour trips. So, they're they're generally during what's identified as rush hour taking those kind of measurements. Thank you.

Anybody else before I move on to the staff? Okay, Mr. there. Thank you for your presentation. Um, looking at uh, exhibit 3, page 23, there was just some information about the compatibility of the character uh, of the surrounding area. And I was just wondering, you know, some of the conclusions in here, how they were how they were arrived at in general, if you could speak to that.

I don't have in front of me what you have. Is that the staff report that you're talking about? Yeah. Uh so exhibit 3, page 23 of our packet um says the proposed annexation is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and complies with the urban growth program and the policies of the city of state. Um and then it's got goes into the finding. It talks about the zoned commercial general area to the north to the east. It's got uh the annexed parts of the city. I'm just I'm just curious um when there's a statement like that, how is that arrived at as far as compatibility goes?

Sure. Um that's a really good question. I think what you're reading is Jennifer's statement. So what I'll say is is how I would arrive at that. And if you want to ask Jennifer her opinion that would be separate. I don't want to put words in her mouth. But um generally what you would look at is it's that that sort of stepping of intensity. So the property that abuts this property to the north is commercial general. So you could expect to see really any variety of uses that are allowed in that zone. So um retail, restaurant, that kind of thing. So you would you would sort of expect a higher density um buffer zone to be next to that to sort of stair step down to what you see to the south. Oh, I'm not connected anymore. But what you would see to the south is lowdensity residential. So you wouldn't anticipate seeing lowdensity residential zoning abudding commercial. You would see something a little bit more intense. So that you're sort of like I said stairstepping that intensity down south. Jennifer might have a different opinion. Um she answered the question really well. It's uh you know as a planner that's what you kind of think about. You don't want to have a low density right next to a commercial area or near the highway in particular.

All right, I'm going to go on the staff report unless counts as any other questions for the applicant. All right, thanks Britney. Jennifer,

thank you. Okay. So, this this has been a long process and this is um the second uh annexation application that you've seen uh for city council and uh we've had workshops with a city attorney and um uh DLCD and HAPO also came. So, there's a lot that we've learned. we've all learned. Um so the applicant requested annexation together with um an assignment of medium density residential and as she she went through our criteria uh for approval. So, I'm here to tell you how SAP arrived at um their recommendation and then um the city um excuse me, the planning commission uh also um voted for these findings and um approval of criteria and uh they voted unanimously. So the application materials include a conceptual subdivision plan as we as we sh showed of 74 residential lots. Um as Britney said, no no subdivision approvals being requested. So any further subdivision approval in the future will have to have a separate land use uh review and that will include looking at infrastructure and transportation and you know possible realignment of roads if necessary. Um so the first criteria is demonstrating the community need for the land proposal

to be annexed. And uh we've we've gone over that a lot. Um it seems very subjective but it isn't. Um it in the past uh communities such as Stton um decided on their existing um need for housing in the comprehensive plan and uh they looked at future growth future growth numbers and um in 2003 the state said there's been an underproduction of housing. So, not only do you need to plan for future growth, but you also need to plan for what hasn't been built. And you cannot just look at your city, what your city needs, but what the whole region needs. So, they split up the state into seven regions, and we're part of the Wamtt Valley region. So, we're we're part of that. Um so um somebody did mention about populations of 10,000. It's actually populations of 2500. the 10,000 which um requirement um requires the city to do much more work on housing needs but we are still required to do the HNA as I I um sent you a whole document about the methodology behind that. So um the next criteria is is the site capable being of service of adequate city public services including that may be provided to the subject oh wait a minute was that subject okay um we'll just jump ahead uh okay the site is capable of being

serviced by adjacent city public services including Yeah. So it's it needs to be adequately served. And um I think if you remember we talked about this in our workshop with uh Ross the city attorney that if it's possible doesn't mean it it's probable or it it's possible and it is also in our master plans. So the realignment of Golf Lane is in our master plan. Um there are transportation enhancements, there's storm water, there's wastewater. Um it all that plan um has the assumption that the earth grow anything within the urban growth g boundary including that parcel will be developed. Um, so we we learned about that. Um, let's see. Um, I I wanted to acknowledge that we did have a public hearing for the planning commission back in November 24, 2025 for this application. It came before the city council and on the day of the city council uh DLCD provided said that we needed to have a papa notice which is what Britney had mentioned um which was a post acknowledgement where is it uh

post acknowledgement plan amendment. Thank you. Um, so we they said it needs to be heard again by the the planning commission. So it went back to planning commission on February 23rd, 2026. And then that day, DLCD provided their comments. So it was scheduled to be heard again and uh we tabled it again until April 27th, 2026. Um, so I was able to incorporate the DLCD comments. Um, originally I did, um, recommend low density because I was basing it on what the comprehensive plan said, but now I've learned that we need to, um, include under prodduced housing and housing for the region. That's where that's where that came from. Um so um the staff finds um all those criteria. It meets all criteria and uh the proposed medium density is consistent with the residential comprehensive plan. We don't have a tube map system. We have to say it does align. It says residential. Um, and I believe that it does fit um the character. I think that I I the proposed annexation to me fits the character of the surrounding area. As I said, it abuts um commercial development. So, I'll I'll leave it at that. If anyone has any questions, let me know. I feel like we've we've talked about all of these ideas before.

Okay. Questions from council? Yep. Um just kind of a followup from my initial one. Is compatibility and how you determine that defined in our state and municipal code? You know, compatibility is not defined. it is not defined in our municipal code. And

they I don't know if you remember, but the Hapo people that were here talked about that um they were making the claim, one of their claims is that housing is housing. So medium next to high density, high density next to low density, it's all residential. But I do believe that it matters what's next to the property.

Yeah. The reason I'm asking that is I'm wondering if this needs to be further fleshed out in code. And so maybe that's a conversation for another time, but just I feel like we keep running against that and I think that we should define it a little bit more.

Okay. Council council,

Mr. Mayor. Um, Jennifer, maybe this might be a question for Barry, but I'm ask you. Okay, so we've talked about how the compre the comprehensive plan takes into account infrastructure needs that are within um our UGB. Correct. But if we say that in the comprehensive plan, these are our needs, we've already met our needs, and then we are annexing in land at higher densities, that's not taking into consideration like the plan did not take into consideration that level of like stress on the system. So how do we accommodate for that? And and in in my mind in my mind if there's criteria that isn't met because of infrastructure needs.

I I hear what you're I hear what you're saying. Um comprehensive plans are also attached to master plans. So the master plan of transportation and wastewater etc. And we do update those uh more recently than the comprehensive plan. At least we have. So the transportation plan was done in 2019. So it's a little out of date. They try to do it every 5 years. But in that they did plan for future increases. So it does have uh for instance the golf lane realignment. Um, so I would say that it does plan for growth. Um, yeah. Can I can I ask a follow up to that? So, in that like I I guess I would be a little concerned with that many houses coming off of one street like with only one exit onto an already busy street. How do we It comes off onto a busy street and there's already an apartment complex. We can't do our roundabout. So, that intersection just gets jammed up even more further up the road.

I still argue that the infrastructure there needs to be flushed out. I think um what happens in an emergency like an evacuation with the fires like how I I um it's just a little concerning to me. Mr. Mayor, councelor, I have a question, Jennifer, in regards to the golf lane collector to Whitney. I saw no plan for that. What What was that? I'm sorry. The golf lane collector. Yes.

Okay. Which I believe is the bypass to go into Whitney on Cascade Highway. I saw nothing unless someone wants to point it out through all this of any plan for it for traffic and traffic safety coming off a golf lane. Okay. Yeah. Because right now we're at you go in and you come out. Very sketchy

and I'm just not seeing it in this plan. So it's it's not a application for development, it's an application for annexation. Um and when they did provide the concept plan, um that is why they went from low density to they actually came in with I believe high density. You came in with high density originally and um they they made it medium density. They they made it less dense. Um they provided because they provided that concept plan. I I said that it had to follow zoning codes and um that's why they um submitted um a transportation study um to make sure that it didn't um trigger the realignment of the golf lane or if it did that we knew about it. Um according to their traffic study and our um consultant traffic our consultant traffic engineer they they both uh agreed that it did not trigger that but it doesn't mean that further development wouldn't. Um but those are all things as we mentioned um are more at the development phase. Um so but uh if it needs to be done then it will be that will be part of the conditions for approval for any subdivision or land development. Okay council anybody else? Okay, it's an opportunity for public testimony

again. And Erin, are you going to speak to this? Is it specifically to this hearing? Yes. Yes. Okay, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Aaron Frickl. I live at 12326 Golf Lane Southeast. Um, I don't know exactly where to start. Uh it seems as though we're we're talking about the character of property here and we're talking about something that was farmland. So this entire property was farmland and it was split into a couple pieces. Uh a previous owner of the the northern property decided that they wanted to make a car dealership there. I participated in that process and then suddenly that owner was no longer the owner and it changed to something else which I don't know what the plan is right now. It seems as though there there's like a circular thing of talking about the character of a property. The character of the property is actually my property next door which is 8 acres. It's not it's not small little lots, 6,000 square foot lots. And I know it's a very common technique to come in and ask for high density and then drop down to medium density or even go down to low density after the fatigue of all the hearings and everything else. Uh they just want to kind of clear the clear the docket. But this it's a very common thing to ask for more and then concede. Oh, we'll we'll we'll bring it down and then everybody's happy. I don't I don't like that technique. I'm not I'm not a fan of that. Obviously, I'm a property owner that is going to see a significant impact to my my land uh use, my land property, uh what I can go up and down the road with any type of sense of safety. The the property that we're talking about was farmland. when it was to be sold for any type of development, there was a there was a plan and a and a

an agreement that that Whitney Road was supposed to be it was supposed to be aligned with Whitney Road and there was not supposed to be any question about that. I don't know why it wasn't done right in the first place. I wasn't part of that process. I was going to school and my parents um had to endure, you know, two acres of their property being taken by a frontage road. But the the whole idea is is that there's nothing there right now. I don't know what's going to happen there now, but it it seems that it's just getting worse and worse and worse. And there's no there's no tying this development to any type of uh safety uh that we're talking about where we talk about two safety plan or two traffic plans. I have yet to see where that makes any sense whatsoever. I heard a number of 6% increase in travel or of traffic on that road. There's no way that 14 current owners on that property on that road equate to 74 is it 74 more lots that that's a 6% increase. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And um I challenge you to get out your notepads or or figure it out on your phone, but that doesn't equate to 6%. I don't know where they got those numbers. It doesn't make any sense. I am very concerned. I I have not had a a near uh head-on collision since the planning meeting, but before that, I'd had two. Um this happens on a regular basis with me and my neighbors currently. Um, we're talking about an exponential increase in traffic on that road, whether it's delivery vans, utility vehicles, property owners, any number of of of different traffic. We already have um less Schwab taking their test runs on that road at 55 miles an hour. I don't see how this is getting a like a better

situation. And I know that um in talking with my parents before they both died, there was no talk of this collector road that was supposed to uh connect this property with the golf club road property. And that was figured out and talked about without any of their input. And I don't I'm completely opposed to any type of major arterial road that goes through there. And I know that's not part of this hearing, but it is all connected. every single bit of this is connected and all of these developments are interlin and they're all happening at one time for a reason and and so I'm getting a little hot under the collar thinking about this but just because you ask for something big and then concede to something less doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

Uh it's it's not a good good scenario. Yeah. Thanks Aaron. Thank you. All right. Any questions from council? applicant summary. H I was asking if there's any other questions from council. Go ahead. Sorry, one one second. Go ahead. So after the public testimony, there was another opportunity for questions from councel. So go ahead, council or

I do have a couple questions actually to the a couple points that were just made. The 6% increase in traffic is that just on that road.

Um that was one of the things I wanted to address. So, in my presentation, I had talked about a percentage of cost that would be contributed to a capital improvement project that's been identified in the transportation system plan, but I didn't state any percentage of traffic increase. Um, I did provide a traffic study that's in the in the packet, but I didn't prepare that study. So, I didn't speak to it directly other than um I did request that our traffic engineer help us understand how this pro project in the future would contribute to that capital improvement project. So, that was the only percentage that I had tied to this. It wasn't I wasn't stating that there would be a 6% traffic increase. It was that we would provide this project could provide 6% of the and I think it was actually less actually. I'm going to go

I'm going I'm going to pull it up so that we're not guessing. So four to 5% towards the 8.2 million. That was the statement that I had made previously which might come back up on that capital improvement slide here. So it wasn't it wasn't I wasn't intending to to make this statement that this was the amount of traffic. Okay, I got you. Thank you. Um, and the sorry, the capital improvement project was the realignment of Whitney. That's the the project that she was referring to. But that's not going to happen.

It's in the TSP and at some point it may happen. It's not happening part as part of this annexation. it. Whether or not it happens as part of development is yet to be determined because it hasn't been reviewed at that level yet. Okay. So, not right now. But if did your traffic study did not trip that though that need realignment need? So there was coordination between our traffic engineer Marian County and the city and based on the 74 lots it's not triggered either is the golf golf lane realignment. However again this isn't for development. So at that time there will be a more in-depth study done at as to how this project will impact the um infrastructure.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Council. All right. You want to give a summary?

Yeah. Um, I wanted to talk about us initially coming in with the high density. So, um, counselor, you were referring to the original site plan that we provided, which you can see is we had laid out a single family subdivision with smaller lots. Um, and it was sort of a like a brain fart on our our our point. Um Jennifer had identified that we aren't actually allowed to do single family detached homes in the high density zone. Um as you can see by the initial plan that we submitted, that was the plan was detached homes. Um but we needed to drop down to medium density. My client is not interested in building apartments and or town homes and those would have been the only options in the high density for them and and they're interested in detached single family dwellings. So that was the reason for the shift. It wasn't to um you know pull the bull over anyone's eyes or do a bait and switch by any means. We were always seeking single family detach dwellings which is why you have that secondary 92 lot subdivision in your uh in the record. Um other than that I appreciated Jennifer's summary um and filling in the gaps where I had missed. Um the one thing I would say is there is an OS that talks about um applications being denied based on um infrastructure capacity issues. And if that is a continual thing that happens in a city then the state will come in and put the city on a moratorum and and basically like force these sort certain steps to happen. Um, and I just don't think that we're there in state. And I think that what happens is at the time of development, we exact

what the impact will be. Um, unfortunately, if we're seeing current impacts, you can't you can't retroactively assign existing deficiencies to a new development. It has to be proportional to what that development will do to the system. Um, but the other thing I would say is I think you all are seeing all of this sanexation happen because people were land banking in Stton and we had a sewer issue. So now that that's being resolved, I think you're seeing all of these developments that would have been coming incrementally over time coming at once. Um, so I just wanted to provide that and then offer to answer any other questions that you have.

Go ahead, council. Can you repeat? Can you repeat that what you said about we had a sewer issue? I'm sorry about what? You said that what why did you say that you thought we were seeing them all at one time? Because you're uh fixing your sewer capacity issue. So because you're doing that big upgrade to the sewer before project properties couldn't be served. So now that you you all are fixing a capacity issue, I think you're seeing a whole bunch of properties that were landbanked waiting for that to be resolved. And now that it's planned to be resolved, I think in 27, you're seeing people plan for future development and growth again. Thank you.

Anybody else? All right. Thanks, Britney. Um staff summary, Jennifer.

Um yes. Um so um I guess I I just want to say that it's not that I'm for or against the applications. I feel like sometimes I I I get that from the general public. I'm really trying to guide uh the planning commission and the city council in what the laws are um that we uh abide by um state law and what is in our code. So um to summarize, I believe that it does uh fulfill the approval criteria for annexation. I'll leave it at that. Okay, Jennifer, if I have a generic question,

can annexation be paused because our comp plan is obsolete.

Julia might might know more than I, but I did look into moratorum a little bit and it really is a very limited time for Yeah. And and I believe I don't have it with me, but I believe that there was case law that Ross shared with us that was actually um from the city of Statton years ago where we actually proposed to not approve things because of our um comp plans or master plans and we actually lost on that. So I I don't I don't think that that is um grounds for not annexing. I appreciate that and I remember asking Ross that question, but I'm going to continue to ask that question because of the nature of what we have before us. So, thank you. All right, with that, I'm going to close the hearing and move to council deliberation. Um this is just a Mr. Mayor Councelor Patty.

Yeah, this is just a thought from me. I just I feel like here we are once again. Um all these things need to be addressed. I mean kind of just looking at some of the case law before Luba. Uh, as far as like cases with Woodburn and like Jefferson, I mean, if we look at this as like a compatibility problem and we deny it, we could get overturned for a multitude of reasons. If we look at this as um deficiencies in our infrastructure, we don't have the master plans to substantiate that information. And as we can all probably attest to some experiences with our infrastructure, it it really needs to be in those plans for us to rely upon that for any kind of denial. And so I'm just kind of sort of processing this out loud for everybody in the audience because I'm not sure if everybody's aware of the constraints we're under for this. Um I want to share my frustration though in this is just I don't I feel as a local governing official I feel like my hands are completely tied on these decisions and it is so frustrating. So I just want to voice that out loud.

Record's closed. Sorry. Go ahead. Anybody else?

Mr. Mayor, councelor Sims.

Yeah, I I will add to councelor Patty what he says. It's very frustrating to uh see these annexations and knowing our hands are tied a lot of times once they meet our uh meet the requirements that we have to abide by and and uh I think the state has taken a away a lot of our decision-m process on the annexation process. So it is very frustrating for myself also. Mr. Mayor, councelor Sims,

I move to approve ordinance 26-003 approving the application of KSD Properties LLC for annexation. Land use file number 5-024 is presented by staff. I second. Okay, there's a motion and a second to approve the application for ordinance number 26-003 as presented. Any further discussion? Yes, councelor Patty.

Yes, Julia. Uh, just a point of clarification housekeeping here. Just this is ordinance 26-003, not 004, right? Correct. That's why I pause for a minute. Okay.

Okay. There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Mayor, council, I still contend that we have infrastructure issues that um I mean we have land inside this city that can't be built on because we have water issu waterline issues. So I still contend that we have infrastructure issues that have still not been addressed and I will be voting no. Okay, Mr. Mayor, Councilor Hayes,

I contend with uh her on that that we still have infrastructure and the extreme importance that the traffic and safety needs to be a part of this and I don't believe there's a big good enough plan for it. Okay. Anybody else? Melanie, can you pull the council please? Councelor Sims. Yes. Councelor Kerry, yes. Councelor Patty, yes. Councelor Ort, no. Councelor Hayes, no. Motion carries three to two. Okay.

So, and just as a reminder, because this didn't pass unanimously, this was the first reading and you'll hear it again. Yep.

Um, in two weeks. Um, the council's action may be appealed within 21 days of the mailing of the notice of decision to land use board of appeals under OS197.805-855. That moves on to next item on the agenda which is ordinance number 26-004 annexation and zone change for property on Sha Road. And before we start that, I got to read the statement again. This is the time and place set for the city council's public hearing a matter of land use file 10-8/25, an application for annexation of approximately 17 acre parcel of land fronting shaft road proposing a zoning designation of highdensity residential. This hearing is now open. Oregon land use law requires a statement be made to those in attendance that covers certain matters relative to this case. That statement with all the information required to be presented under OS197635 is is printed and available at the table at the back of the room. If you have not yet received one of those forms, you should go get one and review it prior to presenting your testimony. If anyone has any questions regarding anything on the statement or objects to it not being read out loud, please raise those questions when it comes to your turn to speak during the hearing. Also at the back counter is the agenda for this evening's meeting, which lays out the order in which people will be called on to speak during the public hearing and the city's rules of procedure for land use public hearings to facilitate your participation in the public hearing. You're encouraged to attain and read a copy of these documents as well. At this time, I would ask the audience if there are any objections to the notice that was provided in this case. I hear none.

Just one question on this. Are you objecting? When we reach 10,000, what happens? Okay. Okay. Let me let me finish reading this. Okay. To the jurisdiction of the body to hear and consider this case. I hear none. Are there any declarations? Are there any declarations of conflict of interest, sex party contact, or bias by any members of the council? I hear none. You're now ready for the staff introduction. Jennifer,

thank you. Um, we have a application for annexation for Kevin and Paige Butler um for an annexation approximately 17 acres on Shaffle Road. Um the applicant did not provide a concept plan um but they did um ask for highdensity residential zoning. Uh I'll turn it over for the applicant to talk about it more. Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Britney Randall. I am the owner and principal planner of Brand Land Use. I'm representing the Butler family in the annexation of their property. Um, and I will Oh, for your record, my office is located at 1720 Liberty Street Southeast in Salem. Um again this is review for a lot of us in the room but uh my first time presenting to you. I this one is a shorter presentation than my previous one and I want to leave ample time for questions. Uh the project team is uh Kevin and Paige Butler who live adjacent to this property. Civil engineering was provided by Josh of West Engineering and I provided land use consulting services. The subject site is 17 acres of land inside Stton's urban growth boundary and contiguous toton's corporate city limits. It's actually the very end of the urban growth boundary to the east, I'm sorry, to the west. Thank you. Um the site has access to Shaft Road Southeast. The city of state and comprehensive plan designates this

property as residential. uh the proposed uh highdensity residential zone matches that comprehensive plan designation. This is the site's relationship with the city limits. City limits are identified in pink. Um and then all the way to the west or the left of the screen is the property. Um it's adjacent to other highdensity residential zoning um industrial zoning, commercial zoning, um all all surrounded. Um again, these are the approval criteria. Um the uh approval criteria have have been met in this case. We provided a detailed written narrative that's included in your packet. Um, one of the items I wanted to share with you for why we're seeking highdensity residential zoning for this property is, um, in this area, if uh, we were just to, um, continue the sewer connection, it would actually daylight. So, uh, it's too shallow. And what we'll need to do is either build a pump station or um bring about 6 in of fill across this entire site in order to develop it. Um the um the site being developed entirely with multifamily, but they have expressed that perhaps multifamily would be appropriate abuing the existing multifamily to the east. But generally they are mainly interested in a town home development as they live adjacent to this property as well. Um this is a 17acre site so a town home development probably bu be built out over 8 to 10 years in phase phases.

Um it's consistent with the sorry the applicable zoning is consistent with the area the character of the area the zoning character of the area. Um again we have high density zoning to the east uh along with two different commercial zones and then industrial zoning to the south. Um moving this application ahead with the high high density zoning aligns with the city's housing policies codified in the comprehensive plan. Specifically would provide an alternative housing type um which is something that's outlined in uh comprehensive plan goals many times. Uh the applicable approval criteria have been demonstrated as met um in both the applicants materials and the city's staff report and the planning commission has al also recommended approval in this case and I can answer any questions.

Any questions? Okay, Mr. Mayor, council. So town homes only. The interest is town homes. They're they've expressed that maybe they would put a stripe of multif family adjacent to the other multifamily property, but their interest is town homes and high density is the only zone currently in Dayton that allows town homes.

Uh I agree with you. Um I've seen the property. I know it very well and I understand probably why they're wanting to annex it. Right next to it is already a huge apartment building complex that was built,

right? and not 100% sure what the plan for the corner is yet, but this particular parcel. Um, has there been any questions from the property owner across from this property? And I'm not talking about the one that's plowed. I'm talking about the one with the pond in the house and what I believe is the Agent Farm. Oh, you can't see any longer. Um, do you mean directly across the street across Shaft? Right across. Yes.

Um, no one from that property has contacted me and my applicant, my client hasn't indicated that they've contacted him. Um, I do know that other um, town home developers have approached him about purchasing the property once it's annexed. Was there something specific that I could answer about that? Uh, very different set of property than what we just talked about. So, and uh I understand the owners of that property are the ones that they're they're right next door just across the ditch. So, yes. Okay.

I'm guessing this is a a piece that they're just not wanting or wanting to sell. So, it's like, okay. So, my curiosity was just right across the room. But, like I said, we have some old property that been commercial and been trying to sell, but it hasn't happened yet that's plowed. I'm just curious if anything was heard by the other family in protest or for it or okay with it or if specifically they had any questions as to what precisely was going to be built there. When you say

their interest is town homes, then my trust issues aren't that good because what could happen after? Councelor Hayes, I think that's an appropriate question for staff. Not sure the applicant would have that information. Mr. Mayor Cer Kerry, the house directly across the street from Butlers is the Christensen and he does own the CrossFit gym which is on a property of the Butlers. So, I'm sure they've had that conversation as well. Okay.

If if I may, Mayor, um the the butlers are not developers. The butlers are in agriculture. And I feel like I'm saying that to their friends because I know they've lived in this community a long time. Um, and I know they uh very much want to control what happens here. They are raising their family right next door to this property and um they're they've expressed to me that they would like this to be developed with h town homes. I don't envision them doing it that themselves. I think that they'll partner with some other uh housing producer that does build town homes. Um, the reason that I'm sitting before you saying that that's their interest is because anything is liable to change and and I would never want to sit here and and guarantee something um that may change in the future, but I can tell you that the butlers currently have control over this property and they want to see it develop to town homes in a phased manner where maybe 20 would come on at a time um and then those would sell and then 20 more would come on. Um, this is this is a legacy project that would be developed over many many years for them.

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that insight, Whitney. Anybody else? All right. Thank you, Britney. Thank you. Uh, staff report, Jennifer.

Yes. Um, let's see. So, um, just some answer to some of the questions um that were mentioned. Um the property to the south is light industrial. Um I didn't get any feedback from uh we notified all the abutters. The only person that provided um negative feedback was the water control um because they're concern they're concerned about development on um the Salem ditch behind that ab butts it. Um but there there is a uh natural resource protection overlay that will come that will be included as part of um what if it comes into the city as an annexation and comes in um with um a zone like high density. It will also come in with um 100 ft of u of natural resource protection. That's um an a kind of automatic overlay. Um the way our um zoning um zoning code is written is that anything from the 50 uh from 50 ft of the high water mark um of Salem ditch is in that pro is in that area. Um so going back to the process, uh the planning commission um heard it on February 23rd and as I mentioned um DLCD also provided their comment again um on that day. So we tabled it to April 27th. um they had um similar comments to say as the KSD that high density that we need to our

needs of the community our housing needs are determined by the Oregon housing needs analysis which is as I mentioned 2003 we need to look at the region the housing needs of the region and the underprouction and not just future growth as we had previously done. Um and uh that the designation of highdensity residential is consistent with the comprehensive plan that has residential um signified for this area. I do want to um say that what Britney was saying about the town homes is is true. Um, town homes that are attached, single family homes are only allowed in the high density. So, it's kind of like a a little bit of a quirk in our zoning code. Um, you have to go with the high density area. Um, uh, they have a similar similar um criteria obviously the same as KSD. Um there is also all master plans the transportation plan the wastewater plan all have this parcel as being um developed. So this is um the infrastructure it's capable of having that type of instructure. I also did say that it compatible with the character of the neighborhood. It's just adjacent to other highdensity multif family um residents. It's next to commercial. Across the street is industrial. It it makes sense that it would be high density in terms of the need of the neighborhood.

Um so I'll leave it at that because I've said a lot I think in the previous application. Okay. Thank you, Jennifer. I have one question and I want to get clarification on what I think you just said and what I thought I heard at the DLC uh D presentation. Um I think you just said housing needs are determined by the state. Is that what you said? Yes, they are determined by um DAS, Department of Administrative Services. Y

they come out every year with um a determination of need for each city. Not the cities that are under 2500, which there are very few. I'm like Scio is one of them. 840 people, but if you're 25, 500 and more, you're in that list.

All right. That's what I heard at their presentation. Um and that just again to reiterate I think our comp plan was determined on the previous methodology which was identified as population numbers from PSU which we've never hit that target not once. Okay. Questions from councel mayor. Council car again I'm going to ask about the traffic analysis. Has there been one on that road? Not yet because the speed limit there is 55 miles an hour and if we're going to build there we got to make sure we're talking to the county or the state and we're lowering that speed limit or doing something.

Councelor Sims,

Mr. Mayor, Jennifer, I had a question about um storm water concerns me with this development being right on Salem Ditch which feeds into Mil Creek which we have salmon and steelhead runs in there. So, and we have a memorandum of understanding with Sanm Water Control District. So, that that's a concern as far as services for this. Is there a are they discharging directly into Salem ditch or their storm water or how how is I don't know how their storm water is is is happening now but at development that is when you're going to be looking at the storm water and we definitely want to um align with ourou um but uh transportation all those things will be looked at at development.

Is that with the site plan? Is that when we see that when Yes. Yes. at the site plan. And I want to say they didn't submit a concept plan where they did for the last application and that's why they provided the transportation at this one. They did not. Okay. Anything else from council?

Okay. opportunity for public testimony. Okay. Questions from the council one more time. Okay. Applicant summary. Um I just want to start by thanking you guys for your time and attention to these cases. Um, I know that it can be frustrating when um, you know, you're you're protecting the vision for your city and I I just want to say that both of these applicants that I'm representing um, live and work in your community and they care. I think they care very much about this community, too. Um, as far as what Jennifer was saying, there is a 100 foot setback along the ditch and there's a huge grove of trees that we would like to preserve as well. So, there will be a setback there. Um, on-site storm water infrastructure is going to be a requirement of DEEQ at the time of development. I don't think you're going to see a site plan review on this application in the future, especially if it's town homes. I think what you'll see is a phased subdivision where we would provide um all of the infrastructure and civil engineering plans for review by AKS if they continue to be your civil engineer for the city. Um you'd see a site plan review for something like a multif family development.

So this would be a phased subdivision. Like I said it would happen over many years. Um so uh with that I can answer any other questions that may have come up. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to staff summary.

Um as I provided um we staff found that it meets the approval criteria for annexation. Uh and the planning commission uh voted as well unanimously. Okay, thank you. Close the hearing and we'll move on to council deliberation. 351 is where the ordinances if that's what you're looking for.

What was that, Julia? You said 350. 351. Uh, Mr. Mayor,

council work. While I um appreciate the vision of the people who own it currently, once it gets annexed, we've seen this happen before with the property on Fern Ridge, it gets sold, then someone else might have a deep a different vision for it. Um, so council, is there any thoughts on changing the zoning designation?

I think that's your answer. Council work, Mr. Mayor.

Councelor Patty. Yeah, I just uh to engage with that directly. I feel like we've had this conversation before about previous applications where we wanted to do this, but ultimately the guidance from staff was that we can't apply a zoning that the applicant doesn't wish for. But I'm open to clarification from staff if I have that wrong. I I can let Julia um say, but uh you want to be able to come up with some findings that say why you believe that it should be a different zone. And then we'd have to probably come back, meaning staff, to rewrite to write up what your findings are. So, you have to come up with a reason. Mhm.

And just to to add on to that, I guess um I I don't think that we've specifically said I hope we haven't specifically said that you you have to take whatever zoning the the applicant proposes. The reality is is that until we have a comp plan that um better aligns with the current state law, it makes it very challenging to do to do things different than what the applicant is proposing. Um, so

I I have I could argue that the density for this property that the justification for that, one of the reasons is right in here is that we're going to have a roundabout at that intersection and we know that's not going to go through. So what's going to happen with the traffic? It's already bad there. there. There's no there's no getting around that. It's going to be awful to add on. So, what are we It's going to trip it. What are we going to do? There's no way. There's no way you're going to put 74 homes on Golf Lane. That other property, you have the You have this property with high higher density. We'll say maybe not uh multif family. And then you have the the apartment complexes plus the other traffic going. That's like one of the main ways to get in and out of state. And I just don't I feel like that's a justification right there to change the zoning in my mind. In fact, I will make a motion. I would like to make a motion to approve ordinance 26-26-004 approving the application of Kevin and Paige Butler for annexation with the following amendments um to change the density to medium density. Second. Okay, there's a motion, a second to approve

the application as amended to change the density from high density to did you say medium density? Medium density. Open for discussion. Counc. Yeah. Uh so I feel like uh you know if you it I would like to hear what the findings would be that we would be able to defend in Luba to make that decision before going to a vote and if you have any idea on that um I'd love to hear about it right now.

I think we have a motion in a second. We can still discussion. address that question. Oh, well, so I guess we can't. So then I I understand your no vote on this. So am I voting on the motion or we're not? Okay, you take a vote on the motion, please. Sure. Councelor Gary, yes. Councelor Sims, no. Councelor Patty, no. Councelor Ort, yes. Councelor Hayes, yes.

Motion carries three to two. So, if I may, um, if the council is very interested in ch in that the motion has passed to change the ordinance from high density to medium density, I think we would have to try to find some findings um, and propose that. I would strongly recommend in that instance that you you not vote on this tonight and you direct staff to um come back with some findings based on direction that that you're giving. And then we'll also want to consult with Ross, our city attorney, um and we would advise on what um how he feels about those findings.

I agree, Julia. I remember Ross counseling us on that very question when it came up. So, um, what would council my recommendation is what Julia just recommended? Is council in agreement with that or I have to remind you if we do that the record remains open. So, do we just need to continue deliberations to next meeting? No, they voted on the amendment to the ordinance. Oh, they only voted on the amendment.

Oh, okay. You so you have approved the ordinance with the amendment to medium density residential, but you haven't provided additional findings. How do I provide additional findings? That comes before

I guess at this point I would say you have adopted the the ordinance as amended. We will have it did not pass unanimously. So we will have to come back at the next meeting and we will advise you at that point on um findings or not and then you may need to modify the the adopted ordinance a little bit further. Is that Jennifer? Am I tracking

that? That that sounds good. Um I Yeah. Um, if I could clarify what the findings are, is the infrastructure issues for the roundabout and increased traffic. Is that the roundabout is non-existent? We're not doing the roundabout. Traffic. Okay. I can I can look into it. So,

I don't know how we're going to handle the traffic on that road. That's what I want. And I would say that that is something that we would address at the time of actual land use review. But that that's a a I think at this point you've you've adopted what you've adopted. It's going to come back at the next meeting and we will advise you with um our city attorney's input at that point as well as potential um draft findings.

Right. There's going to be a second hearing again because it wasn't unanimous. So then it'll be addressed in totality what we just talked about. All right. So does that one question. Does that that leaves the record open still or no? So unless right now the record the record is closed. So um honestly I think you're going to have to reopen the record in order to reconsider findings. Okay. Um All right. Okay. All right. That leads us to the end of those agenda items. That leaves us to communication from city staff. Julia, so I actually have a couple of things. I'm going to ask Barry to come up and

Oh, hold on a second. Sorry. The council's action may be appealed within 21 days of the mailing of the notice of decision to the land use board of appeals under RS197. 805 to 855. Thank you.

Thank you. Um we actually want council's input on something. Um we've mentioned for a while you as you may recall we applied for the safe streets for all um planning grant and we completed a safety action plan as a result of that. We are um that was sort of the precursor to us applying for a safe streets for all construction grant. And as I've mentioned oh I'm good. Um, as I've mentioned, um, we were planning on a package of 15 to20 million worth of, um, improvements. So, what we are proposing to put forward, but we would like your input on, um, on our proposal, as well as we need some feedback on specific um, blocks, we're proposing to put in for uh, basically all of Washington Street from Wilco to First Avenue. This would be a um a a complete street improvement with sidewalks, curbs, gutters, um and rebuild of the street. Uh that estimate is about 12.5 million to do that full street improvement. Um, and then what we are wanting to do is is leverage the Safe Streets for all construction grant and try to do some um very important and meaningful street reconstruction projects within the downtown um area. And that's what this the second part of your map is. Um it basically um Barry and the public works team estimates that we could do a about a block for about8 millions and that would that would be a full reconstruction. Um and really the the focus is because it's removing um sidewalk gaps and uh providing bicycle lanes by having that full full um road reconstructed. That's kind of the angle

that we're going at. Um, so we're looking at um about eight blocks total uh and we would like your input on which eight of these um of these that we've selected um you think we should include in the application and that is actually due next week. So I'm really hoping to get your input um tonight. Barry, do you want to talk a little bit about kind of the different um the different components and why some things are on there in the ways that they're on there?

Right. Barry Buchanan, interim public works director for the record. Uh what we've got in front of you is a massive colors which probably are somewhat confusing for a start off. So let let me explain and reiterate a little bit about what uh Julia has just said. We need to choose eight blocks for the uh project work that will cost about $6 to $6.4 million. Um or build up a project total project cost of about $6.4 million. As it shows, as I've shown here, we've got a number of different options. This is not a proposal in front of you. This is the options that show streets of worst condition downtown that we'd like you guys to help us choose which eight of those blocks we're going to do. So, if we look at the look at the uh left hand side of page with orange and green associated with it, that is a uh school bus route or is that's in actual fact the route that the school buses follow to get to and from the adjacent school. They don't use uh third street at all. They're in actual fact banned from driving on third street outside the school. So they use four street which is in really bad condition. Single lane traffic. Buses have to give way to other buses. There is no sidewalks. There is no bike lanes. So that's why I put it on this map. Uh the other the other colors are to help you understand um what our infrastructure looks like underneath those roads. So if we look at uh Swood Road uh right on the north left hand side um it's green which implies that we are pretty confident that the underground facilities and those roads

are actually in relatively good condition. doesn't mean we have to do nothing. It just means that they're in relatively good condition. Going to the extreme on the south west of the page, we've got red lines and those red lines indicate that uh the infrastructure under the roads is in really poor condition both in the water sense, wastewater sense, and storm water capacity of the of the area. We would have to do a lot of a lot of infrastructure work before we did the road work. We're not excluding these roads from the choice that you make, but what we are saying is that we would have to do a lot of work underneath them before we actually do the work. So given that I think we have uh 13 blocks actually indicated here, we want to pick out um eight blocks from this. We'd like them to be a minimum of three blocks contigu to contiguous and potentially um probably two projects out of this. Um, we have indicated that one's a B route and the other ones we'd like to use the influence of the access and connect to a park.

I made it as clear as mud of what we're looking for. Mr. Mayor, council art Barry is one block is like like just one of these little sections. Yes. Okay. Yes. And we can do potentially eight of them.

Yeah, we can do eight little blocks. So, if we look at the north uh the northwest side, we've got basically four blocks in that orange and green. Um, if we look down at the red stuff, we've got 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. We've got roughly eight. So, it's too big all of the red together. Okay. So, we we did not we purposely didn't choose for you, but we have indicated what we believe are the worst streets in this downtown area. And as Julia said, we're intending to leverage the ability to fix the sidewalks and the bike paths so that we can in actual fact fix the total road under one construction activity. Mr. Mayor,

council, if I may, um, I love the idea of that whole stretch of fourth, those three blocks, like you said, for the bus, that's the bus route, right? Yeah.

I love that. And then six has always been those three blocks on six have always been that's that's the area that floods. And then um between sixth and seventh on Virginia, East Virginia and East Bernett, those streets are basically gravel. They're riddled with potholes and gravel. I pass by them often to see if they need to be filled, honestly. Um so those would be my choices. council.

I'll also add that this um we hope that this is not a one one shot. Um this is currently um funded the um and I'm going to get the words wrong, but um essentially if this is renewed, the funding is renewed. Um and it sounds like this is a very popular funding source, so the hope is that it will continue to get renewed. We will apply every year. Um, so that's the hope. Um, there's always a chance that the funding won't be renewed, but that's our hope.

And I'll stress that this is a dare I use the word guesstimate on on how much we can in act do. So it's indicative amount as opposed to we'll exactly do this. But the streets would be the streets you choose. Any other thoughts, council? Mr. Mayor, go ahead. So, Jordan, you said Fourth Street and those three blocks there. Those three blocks and El

Go around. Yeah, I like what you have, Jordan. That's the or yeah, that looks great. That's six right there. So, I'll re I'll reiterate and say Jordan is suggesting Well, Jordan and Council Sims are suggesting the school the school blocks here, these four, sixth street and Virginia Street. Um, and Bernett and Bernett between and Bernett. Well, that's nine six and seven. Did I count wrong? Three, four, five, six. At least I count. That's eight. That's eight. That's eight. Okay. I counted twice.

Okay. So, what she's not proposing, Barry, and uh is the green part that you had for fourth. I did. So, that would be nine if we included. I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I just If we could do those. Can I come and look? Yeah. Yeah, I circle them. So that one we were talking about. Yeah. Oh, you thought this one as well because that would give this a full connection. Okay. So then this one and then either one of those. Okay, fair enough.

So for people at home and for the record, so go. No, I'm going to have you repeat that. So for people at home and for the record, can we please have a clear um understanding of what's being proposed? So he wants to do Lwood Street and then fourth. So that L upside down L and then the three blocks of Sixth Street and then I mean I think it'd be just a toss up. Oh, maybe we I think Virginia is probably the worst, Jordan. So, I'll go for

Yeah. I mean, I would like to do the the worst one. So, that's the East Bernet one, I believe. Or that's the worst uh wet utility.

I mean, we have so many needs. I don't care where we start. So, this is great for me. I'm not going to sit here. Well, like that Sixth Street that that's the one that floods. So, I would love for that to be addressed. I concur with Council Art's suggestion. I concur as well, and I'm sure the bus barn does, too. Absolutely. I concur. Okay, there you go.

Awesome. Thank you. Um, one last thing, um, that I wanted to share with you. If you recall, um, several weeks ago, actually, April 6th, um, Mr. Larry Lammer came and to council and was speaking about um ATV and noise and a noise violation and we were going to follow up with him. Um the police did issue a citation to the ATV operator, but it was actually recently um overruled um if you will by our judge um who found that that was not a violation of the noise ordinance. So, I wanted to just bring that to your attention that I thought it was addressed, but it it sounds like it might come up again as the person who is operating um the I think it's an ATB or a motorcycle on their private property um starts using it again on nice days that um Mr. Larimemer and his neighbors um may be coming back to council asking for you to consider code amendments to basically prohibit ATVs on private property during certain hours or something like that. Um so I wanted to let you know about that and if you wanted us to look into that before he comes and talks to us um I would appreciate that direction. Otherwise we

I had a I actually wrote myself a little note on that. I question. Are they louder than lawnmowers and leaf blowers? I don't believe so. I think that that's the issue is that they they don't exceed um sort of Yeah. general general noise that's allowed. Um but that doesn't mean that you can't have a a specific carve out if that is something that you desire. That's all I had. Okay. Opportunity for C communication from council. Yes, Mr. Mayor. Council Patty.

Yeah. Um council, I'll be going to the school board on Thursday for leaison stuff. If anybody has anything they'd like presented or information forwarded on to the board. Uh please get it to me over email or text or shoot me a call. Anybody else? Mr. Mayor, councelor Hort. Um, there was a accident recently on Fern Ridge and Third, which made me think about our There was supposed to be like a crosswalk with a a pedestrian crosswalk with a blinky light. Sorry, you're talking about Third Infernidge.

Yes. Yes, that does um that is in in progress. Barry, do you want to give them an update on where that's at? that uh that pro project is current currently in design at about I would say about 90% so it's really close to being finalized design and we'll go out for bid very soon are is it are we going to start it like this year the it's construction will be this year as intended yeah

thank you and then a followup to that um so on Fern Ridge when you're coming into town the speed limit is 45 right up until you get to almost the stoplight. And I actually um I tried to talk to Commissioner Willis about this a little bit to see what we could do to lower the speed limit on that street um because even where Councelor Kerry lives off of his road, it's still 45. It's 45 in front of the church. uh that it's 45 basically in a residential in in quite a bit of the residential area. So, I would like to see what we can possibly do to lower the speed limit

farther down. We will have to talk to the county about that, but yeah, I will follow up for you. Okay. I just know that you guys are you guys talk to the people a little bit more. So, sorry. I said I just know that you like you guys talk to the people a little bit more. So, if we could if you could tell me who I need to talk to, I would I really like that.

Who do I talk to? I would generally talk to either the public works director or the city engine or the county engineer um and follow through with either one of those asking them. But Michael Smith has a direct contact in the transportation department. I would get their name. Cool. Quite honestly, off the top of my head, who Michael talks to is G.

Anybody else? I just want to uh acknowledge council and the ongoings of this whole annexation issue. This happened, this started in 2016 when the legislature took away our ability to refer annexations to the community. And it's incrementally changed over the years to be more and more pressure and more and more inability for us to look at the direction of the future of our city. It's very frustrating to sit here and have to continuously ask these questions to try to get the right answers when we know it's very ambiguous. When we know that there's no there's zero to little things that we can do up here to say no, you're not going to do that without consequences. There was no collaboration with cities by the state legislature when they did this over the years. we were left out of the process. It's frustrating for me to go to a neighborhood community meeting and sit there for two hours when I feel absolutely helpless that I can't do anything to assuage their valid concerns. So, I just want to acknowledge council and appreciate what you're doing and the continuous questioning um the methodologies changed as you heard me asked the question of staff who determines the building who determines the housing needs of our community and it's set by DS and it's set by the state. I'm frustrated just as much as you all are and I don't know what the right answer is. So my appreciation