Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey, baby. Hey everybody, everybody.

Oh, hey. Hey. Hey. Hey.

Are we gonna wait for Tabby? No, we can get started. Okay. soon. Okay. Well, great. I call the March 30th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p. p.m. Can I get a roll call? Chair Jana Sanova here. Jeff Sundelle here. Rob Candrian here. Matt Constantine here. Nicole Hendricks here. Andrew Carr

here. Tabby Trevor. We'll announce when she arrives, if she gets here. Thanks. Thank you. Let's uh please join me in the pledge of

allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation, indivisibley andice for all. Okay, this is the time that citizens have the opportunity to address the planning commission regarding any item that is not scheduled for a formal public hearing or a public work session tonight. Therefore, any member of the audience here in the city hall or via Zoom would like to speak about any matter of concern, please raise your hand or send a message to the recorder using the Zoom chat function so that we may hear from you. Now, if you have not already, please fill out a testimony card and give it to the clerk. Also, please state your name and address for the record or state that your address is provided on the testimony card. I don't see anybody in the audience. Do we have anybody on Zoom?

I don't have any attendees on Zoom.

Great. Okay. All right. So, the first is an administrative matter to cons um the consideration of uh the February 11th, 2026 planning commission meetings um minutes. Um they were previously distributed. Are there any corrections to the minutes that are needed? No, I didn't find any either. Okay. All right. Well, let's move into our work session. Next on agenda is a work session for the housing statutory compliance part one. This work session is a chance for the planning commission to gain additional understanding of and provide guidance on ongoing legislative projects or prior to a public hearing. And at this time, I would like to call for city staff to present information they have prepared for the work session. Will city staff please present. Good evening. Just a moment while I pull up the presentation here. All right. Uh, good evening. My name is Kim Ryold, senior planner with the city. I'm also joined tonight by Heather Austin with 3J Consulting. Uh, to provide you with an update and review of draft code amendments related to the first part of the housing statutory compliance project. Uh, as a reminder, uh, the project the overall project is broken into two parts. uh primarily centered around making updates to the city's development code in response to recent legislation passed by the state.

Uh so this first part of the project addresses residential process amendments related to the development code uh and requirements that we have to have in effect uh by July 1st, 2027. Um, so with that, I'm going to turn it over to Heather to provide uh an overview of what we hope to accomplish tonight and uh more information about that uh the statutory framework in which we're working.

Thanks, Kim. It's pleasure to be with you all this evening. Um I just wanted to go through a few um of the background pieces. I know that we did get a chance to meet um late last fall and present the project and some of the statutory requirements that were in place at that time and talk about the project. Um so this is a good chance for us to give an update and get some feedback from you as a body and we'll be going to city council next week as well. So bringing all of that feedback into the project. Um so the work session objectives for this evening are to provide you with that updated context. There's been a little bit of movement on the state side um with requirements for residential developments. We're going to um bring you uh information on that which was in your packet for this evening, present the code amendments that we're proposing um to comply with those state statutes and to make it um a better code to implement for city staff and to understand for community members. um and then to gather your input to inform those development code updates, see if there's anything we should be um revising or um taking a finer tooth comb to from your perspective. So, where we are in the project schedule and as Kim said, this is phase one. Um so, phase one takes us to July 1st and then we'll basically kick off phase two right on the tail of that to try to end that by um the end of December of this year. But right now, we're working on some project outreach materials to put together for your Let's Talk Wilsonville website. Uh make sure that we're getting information about this project out to the community as we approach the public hearing process timeline. Um and also with the packet you have this evening, you've received the draft development code amendments. Uh the work session tonight and next Monday will be our work sessions with planning commission and city council heading towards some final um hearings in May. So, in the packet this evening, there was some new information, and that's regarding House Bill 4037, which was in

this most recent 2025 short session or 2026 short session, excuse me. Um, and like the SB974 requirements, it is also required to be implemented by July 1st of this calendar year. So, a much tighter time frame on those residential co um residential development standard requirements. So, we did go ahead and update the proposed language to include provisions for HB 4037. There's three main components that we were um wanting to address. One is that um all residential review that doesn't include like waiverss and adjustments, but anything that's a straightforward residential development application will now be a staff level type 2 administrative review. Um notice is limited to 100 ft in distance. um that is for all projects that are under 500 units by statute. The city is looking at having the 100 be applicable citywide and projectwide for consistency and making sure the liability risk is lower for um not making a procedural error with noticing. And the third is on your appeal rights. Um currently, you know, anyone withstanding can appeal an application um that has has gone through a decision process at the city after the updated code amendments. Those type two straight residential projects will only be appealable by the applicant and that is the 4037 um portion there. In the lighter gray is just the reminder of what we've already discussed, which is this project does implement your housing production strategy action C to evaluate your administrative review procedures for residential development. See if there's some efficiencies there as well as the consistency with that Senate Bill 974 that we talked about and that we have one more reminder slide on. Um so just as a reminder for the Senate

Bill 974, we are looking um at updating the types of reviews to class 2 administrative review for zoning map amendments that are um going to increase residential density for the stage one and stage two plan development review and for your variances and waiverss to your residential development standards. And then um the the piece that changes administratively is increasing from 10 to 14 days for your public comment period. So that one actually um does increase your review uh your public review time a little bit. Um 10 is on the lower end of what a lot of jurisdictions have been at. So if jurisdictions were at 21 previously, they're coming down to 14. We here in Wilson are going up to 14. And I believe with that I will hand it back over to Kim to take it from there.

Great. Thank you. Uh so I want to get a a little more into the weeds of some of the process changes that we've looked at with 4037. Uh again uh in some ways it simplified things for us as we uh as we talked with you last time it was kind of well this certain subset of residential classifications is affected by 974 and is subject to administrative review but then this other subset of applications isn't. And really uh what this bill did does is it now kind of makes all of the residential development applications that involve clear and objective standards something that we're reviewing as a class 2. Um but we did have to uh mail update that mailed public notice radius and um you know we we had an option to ex to to create a couple different categories based on this bill and we uh are not recommending that based on the feedback we got from you all at the last meeting. Um and so we're going to just move to 100 feet on everything. Uh the other key piece is the appeals appeals rates as Heather noted. And so because of that, you'll notice in the code updates package, there are updates to many sections in the code. However, a couple of more substantial ones that we worked on. Uh we're creating a new code section for waiverss. Right. Right now that kind of fits under this catch-all category that deals with plan development regulations in general. Um but uh one of the things that we thought was important was to um make it more clear that the waiverss process is the city's process for discretionary review of residential development applications. And just at a basic level so that we're all on the same page, clear and objective standards is where the state has been moving with a lot of our regulations in the code. So when you see numerical setbacks or you know very specific discrete standards

that is what we consider our clear and objective standards. So um for those of you who were involved in the frog pond east and south development code process a lot of that was structured and written uh in light of wanting to have a clear and objective process. Um but historically we have also offered a discretionary review process which is let's say an applicant has an idea a site plan but there are some standards that they want to elect not to meet and apply for a waiver. Well that is allowed under state law. Um but what we kind of ran into now is it's not been entirely clear that the waiverss process for the plan development zones is that process. So we wanted to add additional specificity to um to make it clear that this is the discretionary path and not the clear and objective path. So that is the intent and moving that to a separate section. Um and that is in large in large part due to that appeals requirement. Um because we we had to find a good way to try to make it clear as to which applications do have appeals rights to the public and which ones don't. Uh and so we pretty we pretty much rewrote the entire appeal section in the code as well uh to try to break that all down. Um but this way it's clear that if you're applied for a waiver, if you've applied for a variance or in blah um there's a it's not an adjustment. I am forgetting the word. Let me double check. There's a process in VB blah that is the equivalent of a waiver. And um th those would be discretionary and those would maintain the appeals rights that all applications currently have. Uh and so that's ration a key rationale behind uh these updates is making sure that there um to the degree we can that we are

being clear when we make decisions what can be appealed and what can't. Um, and it might be that you have applications where some elements can be appealed and others can't, but we want our development code to reflect that. Uh, one of the other items we spoke with you about uh, at the December work session was thinking about in in light of these required changes to the residential process, are there any other updates we should make to the uh, threshold for what qualifies for an administrative review? And this would be for all development types. Um currently the limitation is either uh 1,250 square ft. So this is again for already new already established development modifications to buildings. Anything over that amount has to go back to DRB. Uh which is pretty small. Um but there is a limitation that that can be no more than 25% of that building area. And there's a provision in that part of the code that also extends that uh class two ability to apply to site improvements, things like parking or landscaping. Um and so we we looked at a couple of different options and what we propose in this draft development code package is moving that threshold up to 10,000 square feet. Uh we we considered a couple of other numbers. uh we we thought this was a pretty round number, but keeping that 25% cap in place. And so these kind of blocks you see on this slide illustrate um where that eligibility uh how that eligibility would play out depending on the size of the building andor site area. Um, so if you have a smaller building, so let's say a standalone retail space and it is only

20,000 square feet, um, 10,000 square feet would be, you know, an increase of 50% of what's there, which is, you know, might be, given the size of the site, something more substantial. And so in this case, you would actually trigger that DRB review at a building addition of 5,000 square feet, not 10,000. And so you can see how this then kind of works. When you go to 40,000 square feet, that's right at that 25%. So you would max out at 10,000 square feet. But likewise for 80,000 square feet, you would still max out at 10,000 square ft. Um, and that's really just, you know, we we don't have many large large buildings. That that typically is going to be more the case of an industrial complex that might be that big. Um, but it it does, I think, retain the ability you once you start increasing building size to that degree, you're going to have more site improvements. And so you're going to naturally affect more of the site anyway. Um, and so that is what we are proposing right now. We are curious if you have any feedback on that number um to give that to us during the discussion time. I do want to be clear again that this is only something that applies to existing development or where we have approved architectural and site development plans. Um maybe you know if they haven't been fully constructed yet and there's an adjustment. Um this is not something that would be uh in place to enable new development to happen uh that is under 10,000 square ft. That would still go to DRB. Uh next to touch on briefly, we did talk about the annexation process at the last work session. This is not part of the development process for residential that is impacted by these state statutes. However, uh the feedback we got was that um to to help expedite the process knowing that you're going to have

everything else being reviewed as a class two, uh it made sense to uh utilize the model that we've adopted in Coffee Creek, which calls for one public hearing at the city council without a prior recommendation from the DRB. Uh this in the case of residential where you're going to see this most uh in the coming years would be in annexations within the uh frog pond area. Uh where you already have an underlying comprehensive plan designation and underlying zoning code and master plan that would apply. Uh so based on the feedback we got at the work sessions, we are looking to replicate that process here. Uh lastly, a few other updates in the code, some of which we talked about. Uh some of which I just want to point out in more detail. Um a important point is that we've created new definitions to capture what exactly residential development is. uh and so really defining the types of uses that constitute residential development because then we are using that at several points throughout the code to create distinctions between a residential development process and then development processes for other development types. Uh likewise, we've created a definition for review authority. Uh, this is a term that we've used to switch out references in the development code where it was just referencing DRB, but now it might be planning director or DRB. Uh, we we do have some instances that we've had that language in the code, but it just is a lot cleaner to just use the word review authority. So, those definitions are included. Um, we've also in the site design review section of the code, um, made an update to reflect how we've been interpreting and applying that to residential development. Uh, if you've looked at the site design review section, there's a lot of not clear and

objective language in there. And how we've been applying this with development applications is essentially saying if you're meeting the clear and objective standards that are elsewhere in the code, therefore stands to reason that you are meeting these site design review standards. Um, however, one could argue that by applying those site design review standards in a development application that we are not being clear and objective and so we've clean that section up for residential development to refer back to development code sections that have those clear and objective standards. Um, the the more subjective language, we've still kept that for non-residential development. Um that's important because there are some parts of the city uh and some parts of the code where we don't have that same level of specificity you know thinking our industrial code standard PDI doesn't have design standards and so it is still important to have some of that subjective language be able to be applied in those circumstances but you you'll now see that there's two different menus depending on the application type and the last major set of changes um really get to how we process applications and making sure that what is in our development code is actually consistent with state statute and consistent with our current practice. Uh so the first of these is um while we're cleaning up some of the language around the pre-application meeting process, uh we decided to add an expiration date to pre-application meetings. Um, many jurisdictions use expirations uh because pre-lication meetings are required by an applicant before they submit an application to go through the land use process. Um, and what we have found in a couple of instances is where you have a pre-application meeting happening and then you maybe don't get the development application in for a

year and a half or two years. And sometimes the farther you get from when you had that meeting, standards change. And we've seen it with a lot of our residential development standards. And the information you gave out at that meeting might not be what the standards are that currently need to be met. And so we've proposed one year. uh you know we we worked with our consulting team and you know they said some jurisdictions use six months and you know maybe offer the opportunity for expirations. Uh I think based on what we've seen out of our pre-application meetings um we felt like a year was maybe a little more generous and reflective of what we tend to see in terms of the turnaround time between a preapp and a development application. Uh so what this means is if somebody's interested in moving forward with a project and they come in and then it's been a year and a half, we're just going to ask them to have that meeting again just to make sure that we're all working off of current information. Um another big change and I think one of the reasons why so many code sections ended up being touched in this update is just the removal of some conflicting timelines that we found throughout the code. um particularly when it came to uh timelines for decisions that were maybe more aggressive than what is currently required by state statute. Um this kind of goes this goes back to the discussion we had about noticing at the last work session and when you start introducing opportunities where an applicant could site procedural grounds as a reason why something was not processed in the correct way. having conflicting timelines and not sticking to them uh does open us up for risk. And so by removing these requirements, we still have to meet this uh 120day timelines or in some cases the timelines are shorter for certain application types, but we still have to meet what is outlined in

state statute. And should that change, as might happen at, you know, from time to time in the future, then we don't need to keep updating our code to make sure we're using the correct timelines. Um and so along with that the just reflection of current procedures and processes we did have there's some references to things being submitted in paper form and that's no longer how we take in uh applications and so we just wanted to make sure that things were clear and consistent and not um reflecting how things might have been operating 30 years ago. So um that is the majority of the development code updates in a nutshell. Uh we did quickly want to report back to you on the conversation around the future of the development review board. Um there is a separate attachment in your packet that includes proposed updates to chapter 2 which is the part of the city code that gets to boards and commissions and defines their responsibilities. I will note that technically that will not be part of your recommendation uh next month since it is outside of the development code. But um you know we thought we wanted to report back to you on our conversations with the DRB and just uh give you an opportunity to provide any feedback you have. Uh so during February during our typically scheduled meetings we had uh information sessions with the DRB uh both to just give them an overview of this project and then get their input on how they felt about their service on the board. Um and particularly, you know, do they feel like they have capacity to occasionally have two meetings a month if they needed to, you know, understand the impact of meeting cancellations. Uh and what we heard pretty resoundingly is that everybody that was there was there because they were interested in serving the community. Um and they wanted to have that as a venue to do so. Um and because of that if um you know for those board

members who had experienced many canceled meetings they felt like they were not necessarily being able to do that um as they wanted to and in particular you know felt like it affected their readiness and sharpness when it came to hearing a complex application and kind of going through all the procedural things we need to go through. Um and so uh you know I pretty much felt uh we got a sense from them that you know having more consistent meetings you know having trainings maybe if there wasn't a hearing would be helpful and that if we needed to for flexibility to occasionally schedule another meeting that they would be open to that. So the proposed amendments we have um based on the feedback we got from planning commission and city council in December is to consolidate two panels into one but to increase the size of that panel from five to seven. Uh doing so a provides more opportunities than just a five member panel but it also increases the number um of the quorum number to four from three. And so that just provides a little more flexibility in terms of if you have a couple members that can't make it, you're still probably making quorum. And so um these changes to the board would be in effective at the beginning of 2027. We didn't want to, you know, do anything that was going to affect the current appointed volunteers this year. Um so with that, I'll move to the discussion questions. Um, you know, essentially we're seeking if if there's anything you had a question about in the amendments, if there's any feedback you want to give us. Um, but then in particular, uh, we did run into a question about waivers as we we spent a lot of time thinking about the waivers and the process and kind of wrapping our heads around taking what is a very discretionary process and making that decision at a staff level. Um the what we've drafted now essentially takes our

standards and puts them into their own section. But we've still you know we have a second part of this project. And you know one of the things we've thought thought about is if we're going to review these administratively do we want to explore additional criteria potentially that would maybe make it a little more clear as to how that decision is being made. Um, alternatively, there are some waiverss that are called out for having a higher standard. You know, these items shall not be waved unless there is substantial evidence in the record that the intent of the standards being met in alternative ways. And so, um, you know, is that something that you all feel comfortable with that type of decision being processed as an administrative decision? um should some of the standards maybe not remain eligible for waiverss. I think any thoughts or feedback you have there will be helpful for us particularly as we start scoping what we're looking at in phase two. Uh so with that, thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh Commission, do we have any questions for staff? I have a couple since I wasn't here for the earlier parts, but um just what you were just talking about um some of the standards that would not remain eligible for waivers because when I was on the DRB like most of the things we had were when people wanted waivers and sometimes they had good reasons and sometimes the reasons seemed less

compelling. Um but did you guys have some standards that you would suggest that would not remain eligible for waiverss? So, I don't know that um we have a specific list. However, um if you have your packet available to you, I would direct you to draft section 4.119. Um let me pull it up myself. Thank you for getting that page. Um so there's the list of eligible standards in 02 and those are the typical um numeric standards that we have. Um those have just been based on findings submitted in the record. Um, and that's that's, you know, a good number of uh the the waiver requests we get. However, when you start getting to subsection B, um, essentially it's saying these shall not be waved unless there's substantial evidence in the whole record. So, it's essentially a higher um higher level of scrutiny being applied to the waiver. And so, this is open space standards for residential minimum density and housing variety standards. um except with some of the uh items as noted uh and minimum landscaping, screening and buffering standards. Um so these were I think historically have been seen as you know we really don't want to have a lot of flexibility in this area unless there's something that comes to us and it's very clear in the record that you know the standard is being met this is being met in an alternative way um but there's

some s substantial evidence behind it to um to support that request uh and so you know it's it's this has always I think been the benefit benefit we have felt that the DRB has been able to play is to be able to listen to that evidence and provide feedback where a um a clear and objective standard either doesn't exist or it does but you know um there might be varying degrees of requests for deviation from that standard. Um and so some of that I think historically has benefited from that public debate and that public hearing and um you know that's the the one thing again to go back to some of the requirements is that these waiverss are still appeals eligible and can still be called up because essentially the DRB has the ability to appeal the decision of the planning director. Uh but you know it just adds more to the process and so um you know I think we're just curious as we wrestled with this as a project team um what you all might think about um you know do we just try to make it more clear as to what what the standards are or you know is this just really something that we shouldn't be considering and we don't want to you know make those decisions outside of adopted code standards uh on an administrative bas. basis. So, I don't know if that was clear, but

um not to hop around too much, but my second question was completely unrelated um to the first. Uh you noted that get back up to where I highlighted the portion. Um, can you just share any background from the December work sessions where it was agreed that updates to the review threshold for non-residential uses would be considered during this since this is supposed to be just for residential? like what was the background on why we're combining some of that into the housing plan if it's specifically like commercial or

we posed that question because uh I think in our minds there was an equity question when it came to lane uses uh because essentially now there we are required to have a process by which a multiund unit subdivision can be applied appied for and would have to be reviewed without a public hearing before the DRB. Um, we've had a lot of instances where sometimes we get an applicant on a non-residential project that wants to do like a small storage room expansion or um, you know, an accessory building and it's maybe in that 1 to 3,000 square foot range. And I think in our minds we we kind of said to ourselves, well, this doesn't necessarily feel super equitable. So, is there maybe, you know, something we should look at with the standard to, you know, not make the process more ownorous for a smaller business that maybe wants to have a limited expansion versus um, you know, a residential development. in theory that could be like 200 units and go through an administrative process. That's why we posed the question and I think the feedback we got was that we should look at it. Um so so I think the question we have is you know is 10,000 square feet the right number? Does the planning commission think that's too low, too high? Um because we can make adjustments based on your input there. The only comment I would add to that, commissioners, was that we did hear from some of you who have served on the development review board that you've been in those situations reviewing those types of applications where it's a very small what feels like a very small amendment to a commercial site. Um, and that the feeling was, yeah, a lot of

those probably didn't need to go through a development review board hearing. So, we did hear some feedback from the experiences of commission members who had been board members. Is there Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Andrew. Uh, okay. So, kind of piggybacking on that a little bit. Um, one of the questions I had was just like why do we why do we specify like a 10,000 square foot like, you know, hard number at all? Why not just use a 25%? What's the implication there?

I think so. Let me go back to that slide actually. I mean, it's a good question. Um, I think where what we had in mind was probably this bottom example here where you have the larger building and kind of wanting to cut it off somewhere. Um, that you know because in theory if 25% of 80,000 Yeah. So that's 20,000 square feet. Um, so that that was really kind of the main rationale. I mean, you would still be doing impact analyses regardless. Uh, but you know, that I think would be the primary driver as to why you would have a number, but I think that's a fair question

and I correct me if I'm wrong, Kim, but I do think there already is a number of 1250 in the code. So 1250 or 25%. Um so it was to um uh the point of sometimes that felt too small especially on the 80,000 1250 feels so small. So making sure that those businesses are able to um make these additions that are reasonable and have um likely a minimal impact on neighboring properties because of the scale. Um but again that 25% threshold helps keep those smaller projects not going the full 10,000. So, it's a good way to balance it to have the percentage and the square footage threshold.

And for those who don't live in square footage of buildings all the time, um I would just note that like the standard TV and appliance building is just over 30,000 square feet. Um I'm trying to think of another example that would be just to kind of give you a sense of scale, right? How many 80 80,000 square foot buildings do we have in town? Maybe Fry, right? Maybe Fry is probably around that. Well, Fry is likeund 30,000 square feet.

Um it's so like shopping centers because we would be looking at the build the structure itself because usually it's the site plan, right? So shopping centers, uh Argal Square would have some buildings. There was probably some industrial buildings uh that would be of that size. I think the way we were looking at it is we didn't want to we wanted to simplify the process. So the idea behind the class 2 review administrative review is you can do that with just city staff. You you don't have to rely on going through a more ownorous process of a DRB and and meetings and you know public hearings and etc. um somebody trying to do a 1,250 foot addition to an 80,000 foot building that seems like it's too much, right? They're just putting a shed right out back. Um and you kind of look at it and you go, do we really need this much of a process um for somebody that's just adding a a small add-on? So that's why it's a combination of square footage and the the percentage is to make sure that we're um honoring the fact that if it's a major development to a specific site that it gets a proper review, but if it's more of a minor um that it can go through an administrative. So that's what we were thinking in December.

That makes sense. Thank you. If I can just add one more note that um because it's non-residential as well or I mean in theory these could be residential too but speaking of the non-residential it would still have the public notice and then it would be appealable by anyone who received the notice and put a comment into the record. So there would be that opportunity if if this is built like right on the neighbor's property line or something. It wouldn't be the same as the residential where we couldn't do an appeal um based on a neighbor. um it would be appealable.

All right. Any other comments?

Sorry. Um I guess to to Jess's point, like why is there a maximum then like if the development is still meeting all the other requirements? I mean, you know, say you have an 80,000 foot building, but there is room to expand another 20,000 square feet and still be in compliance. I mean, it does it almost seems like why would we tell them they have to go through all the hoops, too, if they're still meeting all the setbacks and all the other requirements that they're they're going to have. So, I mean, I I yeah, I don't know if it necessarily would need to be capped as long as you stated with that 25% because that just seems like if you have the land and you're still meeting all the requirements, like why wouldn't you be able to make it larger? At least when it comes to commercial, I guess you could have the question if it's like a mixeduse development, that could be different because then you could be increasing, you know, residential sizes and and more um, you know, population density. But if it was something that was strictly commercial, that would seem like it would make sense if it's still following all the other standards.

Yeah. And I and maybe building on like I like to ask the question of like what could go wrong? Um, so if we didn't have a maximum, what could go wrong? What what's what what what could happen? How could a developer maybe use that as a a abuse vector basically to do something that maybe isn't in the best interest of the city? I would there's a part of me that wants to sort of I guess consider the question that it wouldn't necessarily be the worst case from the perspective of somebody trying to apply for something that they shouldn't or that would be bad as much as the level of desired involvement by the community in the review of these types of things. So I think both are considerations. I think when we look at the history of the code, it was clear that from the beginning there was always a lot of involvement by the community, the boards, the commissions in making the development decisions of this community. Now, people can probably have lots of different opinions about whether they like that or not, but that's just kind of the history of this city in terms of development review, which is why we have the long history of two development review boards and um having most of our applications go through a hearings process, which um we're obviously uh modifying. And so I think from that perspective, we're going from this very like I mean the 25% is actually maybe generous, but then it's this 1,250 foot cap that's very conservative. Um and so it's I think there's maybe weigh both is what could go wrong. I think that's a great question and we should think about that a little bit and that's where we were trying to think of what is the square footage you might feel comfortable with and maybe it is just a flat percentage and we don't have a cap.

I think that the commission should discuss that. Um I think that the other side of that is to also think about like how are we changing it? What will that mean in terms of what's still going to the development review board and whether the community will feel comfortable with that or not. I would say that that would I'd be interested in hearing your feedback on that too. Um, we don't have a ton of huge buildings in the city, but I would think about like the industrial buildings. Um, what was the new one that was built on garden acres? That's over 100,000 square feet, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah.

I think those are 100 anywhere from 100 to 120. Um, but I think that those would there the point is correct that there are other standards that then limit the amount that you could expand. Although I think an important consideration that is different now because we don't have parking minimums anymore is that that used to be one of the more substantial limiters to development potential in a site. Uh and so in theory you can not that a developer would you could get rid of all your parking and make that all a building as long as you're meeting all the other standards. And so um industrial sites and commercial sites I think do function a little differently in that regard and that the commercial particularly retail commercial historically has had more parking. Um but

but I think you are correct in that you know these things would still be reviewed by staff. It's not like, oh, you just get a free 25%. We're still going to review it against all the standards. Make sure you still meet all of the codes, clear and objective code standards. You could put in there that um if it were to go through a waiver, then it couldn't get the same expansion or maybe there would be a square footage limitation if we're considering a waiver. or if you feel com like if we're reviewing waivers for residential and you feel comfortable with us reviewing waivers for commercial as well like I mean those are all I think part that's up for discussion. I think what we're trying to do is make sure that as we we have to make these revisions for residential that we're also being conscious of the impact to our development review for commercial and industrial and wanting to you know continue to support business which we have for a long time in the city and make sure that we're not overpenalizing them. I just made the conversation more complicated. Sorry.

I love it. Well, I mean, it just seems like like that's something, right, that that seems businessfriendly. If you're like, well, you can expand as long as you're, you know, if you buy this lot and you know, whatever. You have space to expand. As long as you're still operating in the same way that was the original like approval was, right? You don't like change your your form of business or something because you want to expand. That seems like that would be something that's pretty businessfriendly. And then on the flip side, you're going to make the land more valuable, which could drive increased property tax revenue. So that's without like having to jump through too many hoops. seems kind of like a win for the city as you know unless again you were going to like totally change what your business was because now all of a sudden you went from having you know 80,000 to 100,000 or 105,000 and I don't I don't know what you would change inside the place but you know I'm sure that's happened before.

Okay. So, it sounds like, you know, I I agree that it this doing removing the caps or or having higher caps, higher thresholds could um increase the the appeal to developers or to or to making the land more valuable by by making it easier for it to improve. But it seems like the counterbalance then is that the that the the thresholds serve as a as a as a way to make sure that there's the appropriate amount of public involvement and the people feel like they're they have a say in what gets developed. So the that leads to another piece of what we what we're recommending to change which is the the like mailing notice. And my understanding from listening to the city council uh recently is that the mailing notice is the seems to be a big factor in perceived public input opportunity. Um so if we're reducing our public input, you know, threshold or our radius from 250 down to 100, are we going to run into problems at city council when we go to recommend this and they say, "Wait a second, we just said we want to have bigger radius." Um what do we how do we reconcile that? If our goal here is to make the city more business friendly, but we also don't want to weaken public trust or weak weaken the the avenues for public to have input on development. How do we balance how do we find the right right threshold for those mailing notice radi uh 100 ft is no longer optional for most residential development. Um, and that's different than the understanding we operated around when we went to council in December, only a few short months ago. Uh, so, um, there's that piece. Uh but the let's talk outreach uh that Heather mentioned, that's actually something we've wrestled with for a while and kind of thought, you know, that's a question we want to open up to the community because um it's difficult

to think about how to do meaningful community input when the answers to the questions you're asking are prescribed by state statute. However, we want to have a sense of how people access information. Um, and just because we're limited to mailing a notice to property owners within 100 ft of a development application, um, you know, that might get the notice of some people. I I would say in industrial applications, I mean, we typically don't get public comment in those. Um, so and it's because a lot of the people receiving receiving that notice are institutional property owners that might not even be based here. Uh, so it's a different dynamic depending on your application type. Um, but I think there's other other things we're still allowed to do that we don't necessarily need to prescribe within our development code. Uh, so we do site postings right now for DRB applications. Um, but you know, if there's a large residential subdivision, does it make sense to still post notice on that site even if there isn't a hearing? Possibly. people, you know, might be curious about what's going on and want to know where they can go to get information. Uh, and so I think that's something we're considering, but we want to get public input on how people prefer to access that information because, you know, if the site notice isn't really where people want to go to keep up with stuff, but maybe they'd actually like to see a more interactive list of things, including the administrative reviews online. Um, then maybe that's a change we can make, you know? So, I think the key thing we would be hoping to get out of that outreach is thinking of better ways that aren't necessarily things we need to put in the development code, but thinking about how to best reach the community and let them know what's happening. Uh, so, you know, that's probably my best answer to that at this point. I go,

okay, so let me see if I can just uh answer your questions because I think that's what you were anxious for. Um, and if I can distill this down, the changes that are being proposed because of SB974 and now HB 4037 set the standards on what the city has to do. And then you're also asking for some small changes that seem to be in line or supportive of those same directions. Um, your question specifically is on waiverss and I like those on subsection B that higher criteria level, you know, needed for review. I I would not change that. I like that there are those are strong statements and it would take a higher level of waiver to get through. Um, I know we've been talking about square footage, but it sounds like we're going from 1250 to 10,000, if I understand that correctly. That's that's a significant change. Uh, I think that public comment on projects that don't meet that is good. I like that there's a chance for us to review. Um, and as you've said, these are a lot of these are prescribed changes that we have to do. So, I I don't have any other changes or comments. I think what you've done is in line and is needed and I like that you've taken that approach to other areas to help clean up and address some of the inconsistencies. So, uh I'm I'm good with what you've done and it's it's a lot of work. I I appreciate the work.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Uh yeah, I'll just kind of go through it. Yeah. So, I'm good with the 10k square foot and 25%. I think that's um it's accomplishing what we were striving for. Um the class 2 uh review process adjustments, I don't think those are appropriate. Um the 4.119, the only question I had there is on the um subc sub one, do we even need that now that the state's kind of saying you don't nobody has to have parking anymore? Um, do we even need to put in something about a maximum number of parking?

Uh, yes. Uh, and that's because the maximum standards were not affected by the SEAC parking rule changes. And so there are metro uh requirements for many different uses about parking maximums. And essentially this is inclusion of that in item C is saying you if if it doesn't meet a different rule you can't wave it and so um we should leave that there.

Okay. Perfect. Um the annexation I'm I'm good with that. I like the new definitions. Um I like the site design review giving getting it more clear and objective. Uh, and then the kind I call it the cleanup, all that other stuff

um that we did. I thought that was a a lot of little like dot and eyes and crossing tees and yeah, it's it's something that probably should have been done a long time ago, but we're being forced to do it by um the the two bills before. So, I'm I'm good with that. And I was glad to hear that the DRB is kind of uh seeing where it's going for the future and and uh yeah, happy about that. So, I'm good with what you've done. Thank you, Commissioner Hendricks.

Yeah, I'm supportive of the proposed U code amendments and I think I'm just more curious about the process of how do we we are in kind of this reactive state with the state, right? Or it feels that way. And I I I want to know like are we submitting testimony during the session that kind of aligns with what our past recommendations have been? what are we anticipating for the long session next year to like get ahead of maybe some of these things and I know I know there's probably a lot of work going on that I don't see and so I'm just curious what the process is like for that and is there any opportunity to kind of come back to some of the things like that the notification radius and things like that to kind of fight for that in another session

it's a very good question uh so I will say I I was tracking 4037 as it moved through the process because when you know something's impacting a project you're working on. Um but but so to that point, one of the things Wilsonville I think has historically done well is track legislation and the legislative process and provide feedback and provide comment where we are able uh in coordination with our uh legislative team uh and in working through um you know other partners. we have like LOC to provide input there uh which is the League of Oregon Cities. Uh so we were tracking 974 when it happened. Um testimony was submitted last year. Uh the city was tracking 4037 when it happened. Uh the mayor did submit testimony in opposition. Um and so uh we have it's it's delicate because sometimes you try to provide recommendations that maybe minimize uh damage that poorly written legislation can cause. Um and so uh those steps have been taken. Uh I know particularly uh Miranda Miranda uh being most involved. Um but you know we keep an eye on these things. We provide feedback where we can and um you know hope that maybe different experiences and kind of how a lot of this has gotten cobbled together might um provide opportunities for future updates. But but in the meantime, we have to make sure that we are compliant with statute.

Right. Well, yeah, I appreciate the context and um yeah, it just yeah, thinking about all the other projects you have going on, I appreciate the nimleness of, you know, being able to implement something by like July one after the legislation pass. It's pretty fast. Yeah. Impressive.

Knowing the process we had in our own code and how many things we took to hearing, we definitely um were scoping it out before it even was signed. um knowing that we would have to move quickly um and it's moving even more quickly because the funding from the state was a little slow. Um I would note that if anybody's interested in any of like the past submitt letters, feel free to reach out to me um or what you see coming. We have a great government affairs um employee who has been doing a great job tracking things for us in the short session and helping shepherd a lot of that uh public comment um and does will be reporting out to the city council I believe uh the results of the short session. we tend to put together um the council puts together with um staff what our priorities for the upcoming legislative session will be um before the legislative session actually begins in January. So I think it's somewhere in like November um typically that's an agenda item at city council and it goes through kind of like what are our top priorities. Housing has been on that list for several years in part because of the number of um legislative bills. There have been a lot of letters um submitted by both uh this mayor, the prior mayor, I think even the prior mayor before that um and me. I'm a fairly well-known quantity in Salem. So um if you have any questions um about that and or you'd like to see any of those letters, feel free to email me and I'm happy to share them. So when in their infinite wisdom they pass something, is it then that they begin to give recommendations on how it's applied?

And is that where the back and forth comes? Yeah. So um when these different bills are passed, there's a number of ways that they go into action. One is just through the bill itself. So, a lot of times the bill is very clear about this is what you need to change and this is how you change it, which is some of what we're facing in Senate Bill 974 and now in the new bill, which I've already forgotten the number 40 4037, that one.

Um, and but then you also will have bills that say um you know, this agency shall adopt Oregon administrative rules in order to implement this bill. And so a lot of the bills that we've had like House Bill 2001, House Bill 2003, the second House Bill 2001, those have all had rulemaking processes. They then have a rulemaking committee. Um and those committees then come up with rules that later get adopted by uh the land conservation and development commission. Once those rules are adopted, then that provides more of the framework for what we need to implement. But as we all know because I think everyone around this DAS has been involved in reviewing code at one point or another um it can be um clear to the writer and not clear to the later interpreter and in this case to the cities involved um and sometimes it's not even clear to like the writer. It's just that it was directed through the bill and they need to put it in place. So we've seen this with climate friendly and equitable communities. We've definitely seen this through with the middle housing. And this is why we've seen this iterative um amendment process at the state where they realize, oh yeah, those are there are problems with that or this didn't actually get implemented the way we wanted or intended and so they continue to tweak it and tweak it and then we're doing more cycles of amendments. Um, we're even seeing this. I just saw a proposal that's going to the land conservation development commission for a component of the climate friendly and equitable communities uh, OARS that I actually testified against because I didn't know how on earth a city would be able to implement them. And, uh, apparently I just got noticed that it will be heard by the commission to potentially delete that section of ORS. Uh, that never became effective because they heard cities and they equally were like, "Yeah, we don't know how we would implement that, so let's give ourselves

like three years." And so they set a date of implementation for 2027 and during that interim time period we have realized that it doesn't make sense. So we're that part is looking at being repealed. So that's that's kind of some of the behind the scenes I guess to answer your question of how these things get shaped and it kind of depends on the bill and what agency they put in charge of implementing it. So are are these two more straightforward because the time frame to implement them seems really short compared to other state state rulings that we've dealt with. This see I mean this is three months four months right

yeah so 4037 I think was in part I suspect the site the the deadline was set with the recognition that 974 existed. So because it's doing got it doing something similar

similar but not the same things. Um and I think you know if you recall when we came here with 974 and it you know there were questions we were asking about where does this apply and how does this apply and what does this mean and because it was just the legislation with no rule making that that is not any further defined and it is up to the cities and consultation with their legal teams to figure out how to best apply it. Um, so I don't know if clear is the right word, but

I would say that um it's it's direct in the sense that you read what was passed and we make a call of how to implement it. So 4037 I think in some ways smoothed some of the wrinkles while it added a couple of other things. Um but again uh we were prepared because we have been tracking it. Uh and what is also helpful in working with our consultant team. Uh the state does provide housing planning grants as a resource to cities to navigate some of these issues. And so, you know, we are grateful to Heather and her team at 3J for also being a second set of ears and eyes as we work through this uh to inform what we put in front of you. And I I think another short answer to that question is there was no direction in these two pieces of legislation that a a body would take it on and do rulemaking. So the intent then probably was that it was clear and ready to be implemented.

Go ahead. Um I just wanted to say that I agree with your guys' proposed amendments and appreciate all the work that you've been doing. Um my question is actually in regards to the let's talk Wilsonville. So is that more focused on surveys? Is there a lot of people's input that go online with that? Like I just looked at the website because I I'm familiar with the stuff on the socials, but I wasn't familiar with that. Oh, just the page as a whole.

Oh, well that's a great question. Uh, so we are still in the process of working through the content that we will be using uh on our page, but it really is project specific and project dependent in terms of the types of tools that are used. Um, but there are many different tools. Uh, it's it's intended to be a counterpart to the city's website. So the city's website is very much information out, project information, links, you know, that that whole type of thing. It's not created as a space for dialogue and a space to receive input other than maybe finding a form you could fill out and click submit or an email address. Uh when Let's Talk Wilsonville was created, gosh, it's probably been about five years now at least. It was created with the intention of having a consolidated place for city projects to be able to gather public input. Um before that, sometimes projects would have these one-off websites that just kind of existed out there and they weren't tied to the city's website. And um you know that's great maybe if you're following one project, but if you live here and you want to keep up to date on different things going on, you you're not going to go search for all these different websites. You want to have a place you can come to. And so uh you know it in past projects I've worked on, we've used tools like surveys or quick polls. Um we've also used um publish story posts. We've had um one project we did a share your story and in uh working with our communications team we actually did a gift card raffle um for people to share their experiences on a given topic. Uh there's map-based capabilities that can be used for some projects. I know u some of our engineering projects have used that uh to be able to give get gather feedback on a specific place. Uh, and so there's a lot of more interactive tools uh that people can come and contribute

their ideas. So that's historically how we've been used it. Uh, Heather, I don't know if you want to speak to anything specifically that you have in mind for this project.

I think it um more toward a quick poll than a full survey on this one because we are really interested in how people like to receive information from the city. So, um, the way we've drafted the materials that we've submitted to staff is that, um, we'd be asking people to tell us how they best receive information from, if it's socials, if it's the web straight up, if it's um, like the notice posting on site if that's really helpful. Um, some communities post notice like on the wall at the library kind of thing, and a lot of people use that information. So, um, really just trying to see what, you know, knowing that 100 feet is a limited, um, circle for being able to get something mailed to you, how might you then receive information about things going on in the city?

Thank you. I my questions I think were um an answered in the conversation, but it was more about the you know the square footages and and and I wasn't certain if that was lot size, building footprint on the lot or the entire building, you know, and it sounds like it is the entire building square footage, right? So, um that was clarified. And then there's a section in here that lists out different residential units like apartments, condos, single family, and so on. But it doesn't list out ADUs. And I was curious um if those would be would fall under that as well. Is this the definition?

I think I think so. There's um like a paragraph in here that talks about and lists out specific specifically those things. It could have been left out mistakenly. could also be that ADUs are processed usually as straight building permits and so there's not a review process for those. Um that could be also Yeah, we'll double check those listings and just make sure that they have everything they should. Sounds good. But um and just yes, we've done ADU fun

all all the help we can get, right? Um, and I was, you know, I get it why the the 100 foot role like that that's happening. Like I already said in my comments before that I don't like it, but I get it why you guys are doing proposing that. Um, and I think the criteria is for me it's on point. So I I wouldn't add or remove anything that they think it's good for the administrative review. Um, then that that would be it. Does anybody else have anything else? Oh,

I have one really small one. Um, and I, as you were describing the uh the change to the pre-application, like adding an expiration to that, I think that sounds like a great idea. Um, are there from an operation standpoint? Is there are there existing pre-applications that would need to be like grandfathered into that or would they be notified that like, hey, by the way, we just added expirations? How

a good question. Um I I do think that uh we would we can take stock of what we have out there. Um we've had some more current uh ones. Um and see, you know, I kind of feel like we have some we we had one where we got an inquiry about something and it had been over two years and we were like your whole process has changed now so you're going to have to come back. And we have in fairness we have told people sometimes when the development team changes we ask them to come back for a new pre-application meeting. Um, and so, you know, it's I I think we might kind of treat this like a goalpost rule thing like we would with a development application where whereby if you've done it and you've done it under the old code, you you're kind of under that old code. But, um, you know, I I think we'll in the materials we prepare and provide after a pre-application meeting, this is something that we will probably add um potentially even giving them a date. So, just to be abundantly clear. Thank you.

You're welcome. All right. Do we have anybody on Zoom for public comment? If you are on Zoom and would like to speak, please raise your hand. I have no hands raised. Thank you. All right. Hearing no further discussion. Thank you so much. That concludes our work session. Thank you.

All right. Next on our agenda is anformational item for city council action minutes. There's no staff presentation for this, but this is a chance for the planning commission to learn more about a specific topic. No public comment will be taken on this agenda item. If public has questions or comments on the topic, you're encouraged to reach out to the directly to the city staff. Um, do members of the commission have any comments or questions about it? I just wanted to say I'm very happy about our choice for new city manager here. Here here

um I had a quick question about could you just talk a little bit about the is it a task force for the town center the building height discussion because is are we expecting things to come this way at some point? Um currently that is my understanding. So it has been added to the work program.

Um I can't remember if it's on in the packet you just received or if it'll be in the packet you're going to receive in like two days. Um but uh the yeah we're not used to having a commission meeting and a commission packet in the same week. It's a little exciting for us. Um

um there currently there are some work sessions uh pencled in uh because it if if this is something that would be considered it is a part of chapter 4. Therefore, it would go through the planning commission and be a recommendation from the planning commission to the city council. Um, I don't know yet exactly what that looks like in terms of the task force. Um, the timeline, there are some tenative dates pencled in for that to come forward to you and I believe it's May and June. Um, but um, some of that is TBD. It takes a while to put together a task force and there's a lot of other things, yeah, to consider. So, thanks.

Nobody else. All right. Great. We've concluded all the scheduled agenda items. Do I have a motion to adjurnn or does anybody else want to? I move to adjurnn. Second. The meeting is adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Thank you. Nice. So nice.