Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All the North Plains planning finished meeting for November 11. The order at 06:00. Please write all the people that pledge allegiance

to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, through the liturgy and justice for all.

Thank you. Here. Commissioner House? Here. Commissioner Miller? Here. Commissioner Parra? Here. Commissioner Nunnenkamp? Here. And commissioner, is excused this evening. Your ex officio is city councilor Katie Reddy. Here. Thank you.

Thank you. Item number four is public comment. This time is available for anyone in the audience or Zoom for any comments of the planning commission business that occurred not on the agenda. Is there anyone? No one in the audience? Anyone on Zoom?

No one on Zoom.

Alright. You. Alright. Item number five is approval of the minutes for 01/14/2026.

Any changes, directions? I had one question. K. In the in the midst, I know that council already read a statement, and I missed the part of the statement that at the beginning, I think you clarified whether it was a statement, from you personally or whether it was a statement representing the the the entire

city council? I I it was my time Okay. My personal.

Would it be okay

if we reflected that in a minute?

Absolutely. Okay. I usually ask when someone reads something for a copy of it.

I just missed it.

But Yeah. That's why I just quickly turned the page

because then I have it.

So yeah. That's my update. K.

I will make that adjustment.

If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion.

I'd move to approve the minutes for the February for for the January 14, final commission with, Jacob Stone.

Second. Second.

I've got a first by or motion by commissioner Miller for the second by, actually, commissioner Parra for approval of the January 14 amendment with modification All of this in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. So opposed? Thank you. We will move on to item number six, the unfinished business. Do you have any sense?

None at this time, Cher. We'll be covering, the majority of it in a work session following this meeting.

Any of the planning commissioners unfinished business? And we'll move on to item seven as new business. Do we have any new business?

No significant new business at this time, chair.

K. Commissioners, any new business? Hearing none. Move on to the land use applications and the city project monthly report. I've noticed a couple new signs in town, but I've not seen any sign permits that did I miss them, or we're not getting reports on sign permits anymore?

Could you specify the location of the signs?

One is the Columbia Bank sign. The other is the Splinter alley that's now in front of Hops Fitness for two.

So the Columbia sign was previously approved. They took some time. It was approved quite a while ago, and they took some time

to install. Approved to go to or back to Columbia Bank?

Sorry?

Was that approved for the or back to Columbia Bank?

They did they got an approval for, and then they got an approval back to Columbia. Okay. And then for you said there was a new sign for Splinter Alley at the old Hobson's location. I was not aware of that. I will follow-up with them.

K. Are there any other signs that that school going in for next to or

Did they

for the learning school? Do know do they have done a sign permit for the learning school?

For the oh, this school on Glencoe Road? Yeah. Yes. That was a change out with an existing sign up.

Yeah. The fitness center? The gym or

The fitness center? Yes. That was an approved signed permit in December, I believe. It

probably just takes a while for them to get the signs up. Alright. Any other questions or comments on the permits and the three j report? K. Hearing none.

We we have There I thought I saw in place that was there. Update on oh, excuse me. There it is. I'm looking right up. Okay.

So we move on to item nine as the planning commission comments. We have item a of the UGB pack meeting one update. I went to that meeting. There was, like, a lot of first meetings, lot of information just catching up to bring everybody else up to speed. There was introductions of the members, some ideas of what they liked about North Plains, And then they did a kind of a project overview and then then went through the process that they were gonna do, the meeting plans, went over the vision and guiding principles, discussed existing conditions and what the next steps of the process were gonna be pretty general.

There was 14 at least a list of 14 pack members and then some ex officials that represented either, you know, DLCD or Washington County and then some of the landowners in expansion areas. I did bring a concern that there were two city council members on the the list and only one planning commission. And I mentioned this to the the city manager and to the mayor that since I've been on planning commission and any of these type of meetings, back meetings is that let's use the one and one or two and two. So the mayor suggested it would be in discussion with city council, but I never did hear any results from that.

Thank you, chair. We mayor

and

I consulted with the city attorney on the matter, and council, as a result of their last meeting, chose to name councilor DeForge as the representative to the PAC to be at the meeting, and then councilor Weber to be the, the alternate when councilor DeForge can't be there. So there should just be one city councilor participating in the in the meeting moving forward, but that'd be councilor DeForge.

K. Thank you. Was concerned that it was only fourteen and was first beating, and some did not show up. Some showed up late. There was, I think, two business members, and, like, one they thought was online, but never heard anything, so I don't know if there were.

So and I know there were some others, a resident missing, and I'm not sure about the real one of the relook people. And so it's just kinda sad that we're having this group going, and we can't give that participation. I'm sure there's people out there that wanna be involved in it. And we I would hope that we would reach out to them, make sure that they wanna engage, if not find a replacement form. The other thing is that most of the people that were there, I thought, were fairly open minded about what the process was and wanted to learn about it.

There was a few that were a little opinionated, and they came from city council, which I was not happy about. So but I would hope that that discussion happened too. They should be a little more open minded because they are defining decision people on that. So, any questions of back maybe?

Yeah. Sorry, Cherry. Go ahead. Do they have

a follow-up meeting plan? Yeah. And power.

So the next PAC meeting is tentatively scheduled for late March. We don't have a date certain yet. The project team is working on putting together concepts. And as that progresses, we'll narrow down the date range for that next meeting, but it'll be most likely late March.

Go ahead. Commissioner Dunham again.

Do you guys move forward if you don't have a form, or is

there a form set for that? I I don't believe that there is a form. It's just taken through, so it's not a has to be an official number.

I was just curious if they're the decision makers that

The this is an advisory body.

A certain amount of participation.

Yeah. Because it is an advisory body, there is not forum. So it's not a decision making body. They're purely advisory to the project.

I have a question there. Is it possible to have alternates for some

other people that can't make it?

Yes.

For the ex officios, everyone has an alternate. As is standard practice for these advisory bodies, there's not alternates for, members that represent a resident or another named seat.

Yeah. I know that they I think the boards all have a fault. I'm not mistaken.

Yes. Yeah. All all boards have alternates.

K. There's nothing else on that. Is there any other planning commission comment? Hearing none. Is there welcome, councilor Redding? And, any comment from city council?

Councilor Redding here. Just the biggest one is there are still there is still an opening for, counselor Phage's position. It ends December 31 year. The applications are open through noon on Friday. Anyone interested in applying?

And anything from the planning commission for city council? None? Alright. You. Item 11. Staff comments?

Thank you, chair. To start off, we already discussed the next PAC meeting will be in late March. We are also convening a technical advisory committee to meet a few times throughout the process as well as some community focus groups as scoped for that project as well. So there will be more public engagement coming up soon, and we'll keep this body up to date as those opportunities become available. We are also keeping our eye, of course, on a legislative session.

We're in a short session right now, but we know that land use legislation happens long session, short session. So staff is keeping an eye on that as, things develop. Ongoing planning, we do have some open code enforcement cases that are being worked on, as well as, one application for variance is currently in incomplete status. I'm hoping, that's going to be an administrative decision, but, hopefully, that will come through in the next couple months, and we will be able to see that project move forward. Something I wanted to bring to this body, it may become a discussion for business in future, is some comp comprehensive plan compliance.

It's been a topic at the county level with other, city planning staff, the topic of citizen or committees for citizen involvement, which is a branch of the state planning goals. In our comprehensive plan, we do have a requirement for this body of planning commission to serve as our committee for citizen involvement. And in our plan, it calls for some annual reporting and some advanced measures to ensure involvement. So staff would be looking into that. We may be coming back to you for discussion or further action on that as we dig more into how we can do better community involvement both in North Plains and in the county broadly speaking.

I have some news about our downtown improvement plan. I know this body was really heavily involved in pushing that forward a couple years ago. We were able to convene a group in January and talk about the potential formation of a downtown association, and that will help those downtown businesses to advocate for themselves, access potentially more funding, stronger networks of like minded folks in downtowns in Oregon. The city staff will be providing technical assistance as that group looks at the possibility of moving forward with forming an independent nonprofit. So we're excited to see what happens with that group.

And something I know Bill is maybe going to talk a little bit about on March 2, the city council will be having a work session to talk about potential changes to city charter as it relates to land use decisions. Bill, do you wanna share any more information about that?

Thank you, Rowan. Yeah. So, yeah, March 2 work session, 6PM. I'm I'm I'm working with the city attorney on a work session, for city council that addresses the basically, that in part takes a look at, the charter change that the city of Sherwood recently did in January regarding some subtle language changes in the charter, but, it it does kind of touch on and and sort of involve voter approved the issue of voter approved annexations. I sat I went to the WEA land use and and housing, committee meeting last week, heard from the mayor of the city attorney about what what they did, what the charter vote was, and why.

And they showed the new language and the old language. And it it's odd to me is the bottom line. So but that's why I'm having the city attorney read this because, it's kind of a it's it's an interesting thing. But there's been interest expressed in particular by the mayor about looking into this and whether or not the city of North Plains may wanna look deeper into that. So that's the topic. But it does ultimately involve, annexations and growth. So I bring that to you that that work session might be a topic of interest for you to, be aware of.

Anything else?

That's all from staff. Thank you.

Any questions, staff from the planning commission? Hearing none, if there is no other planning commission business, our next regular meeting will be on March 11, 06:00 here. And with that, we'll return at sixty seven.

We wanna move it in by

right into our work session then. We're gonna need any roll call or anything like that, are we? K. No.

I did note in the in the minutes that we have Heather. Yeah.

Was gonna try to be on soon, but she didn't think she left them. Oh,

Heather. Yeah.

Excuse me.

She's yes. And as

far as the the workshop, it's the the discretion of the doctor Reading if we wanna stay or look. You don't need to go to the workshop if you don't want to. You're welcome to stay.

I would love to stay. This is my fourth meeting. Well, I think this is my fourth meeting this month. I've been covering quite a bit for my daughter's possible surgery, so it's okay. I don't

have to go. Okay. Alright. Good.

Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Thank you, mom.

I'll just give you a pass. I think you wanted to. Thank you, everybody. Alright.

Okay. Thank you, chair. So we are covering once again a topic this body is now very familiar with zoning and development code updates. And at this time, we are getting a little more involved in the process. We've been through a needs identification process.

We've gone through several requests for assistance from the transportation growth management program and DLCD, and now we are coming back to local visioning and, strategizing to fund updates, at a local level. We, started in January with, evaluating a mix of priorities and resources that would be needed to do updates. Staff then went, and worked with Heather Austin and BJ Consulting to develop three different scopes of work that encompass levels of investment and resources put into projects in code updates. And today, you guys will consider those scopes of work, consider what feels appropriate if amendments are needed or adjustments. And then, eventually, we will move forward a recommendation to city council or another joint work session to further discuss the matter.

Ultimately, the hope being to nail down a pathway to conducting updates that this body deems necessary. So beginning off with scenario A as prepared is a update that focuses on legislative fixes for compliance with recent bills that have been passed and updates to one or two key issue areas. We identified nonconforming uses in structures and mixed use as being the highest priorities for this body and for staff and suggest that those be the updates that are focused on first. This would be a smaller project, potentially using the TGM small cities model code that's coming out later this year. It's just a great resource to allow us to take language that has already been vetted by the state and plug that into our code.

There's limited public involvement involved with a process that is mostly focused at technical fixes, so we would be following the procedures as laid out in our type four application process. The cost and time frame for scenario a is around 5 to $10,000, mostly using, city staff with some assistance from consultants and would take less than one year to accomplish. Scenario b, builds on considerably to scenario a. So that's going to address those technical legislative fixes as well as three to four key issues. So those nonconforming mixed use and then adding on, we heard a lot of concern about the neighborhood community zone and the IPU zone.

Those are both things that we could address. If there were other areas that rose to the top of the the concern level, you could also swap out one or two of those and address those areas of concern. This is going to require a bit more investment in terms of time to develop code language, making sure that we are compliant with ourselves and with state law, and then making sure that everything is consistent throughout the code. So there's a little bit more investment there in terms of time to make sure that the code is well written and effective for the purposes that we're trying to achieve. This also requires a little bit more public engagement because we're going to be touching more areas of the code that directly impact residents and businesses, changes to zoning uses, dimensional standards, and whatnot are very impactful to landowners, and it's important that we include people who might be affected in determining what those changes are.

We would likely have this body serve as an advisory committee throughout the process of developing these updates to make sure that we are compliant with that goal one citizen involvement at the state level. This would be primarily executed by consultant staff with a lot of input from city staff guiding them. The approximate cost is somewhere around 50 to $70,000, and this would take a year to a year and a half to accomplish. And then scenario c. This is the most ambitious scenario that involve those technical legislative fixes and then some more involved, upgrades to the code larger areas.

So use specific standards, like a new mixed use zone, like looking at certain industrial uses or multifamily development standards, looking at zoning districts as a whole, deciding if the neighborhood community zone needs a large upgrade or needs to be reclassified into a different zone or that land rezoned into different zones. Potentially developing new zones for mixed use could be accomplished with this level of an update. With all that said, that requires significant resources to look into code development because we are going to be pulling from pre developed code. That's going to require new code to be written. It's going to require new code to be integrated into the code, the existing code.

And then if we're looking at things like map updates for rezoning or new zones, that's going to require GIS support and additional applications. High public engagement for this process. This is a process where we're likely going to have an external advisory committee, public community surveys, opportunities for people to really get involved because this is going to touch residents, a lot of our landowners, and businesses, and we want to make sure that if we are changing in in big ways what people can do with their property that they're involved. This would be almost entirely consultant executed because of the scale. It would cost somewhere in the realm of a $120,000 or more and could be a two up to three year process to do really wholesale updates to the code.

So with that said and I can revisit any of these slides for more information to go back through in more depth, but I wanna give this body time to discuss. We'd really interested in figuring out which scenario or level you're interested in, if there's anything we've missed in terms of your concerns with the code, and if there's anything you would like to see change with our approach. And then Heather is also available for questions, especially, if you have any questions about legislative fixes and technical fixes, as well as anything to do with cost, consultant involvement, public engagement. We're here to help you with those questions.

Well, I guess the first thing that I would say is that, obviously, the legislative, compliance is priority one and need and is obvious in the number one thing in all of the scenarios. And so I guess that's just something that's gotta happen. So budgeting, that's just part of the deal. So I guess I would like to give a little more information on what those are and how that affects the rest of the project that we're looking at.

That's a great question.

No. You have to turn it. Yes. Light it on. The green light will pop on. Yeah. Okay. And it's

pretty loud too. I'm gonna just move it a little bit. So I did try to relay in the bottom of the memo the most recent legislation. A lot of it pertains to housing and what types of review processes you can use and how the city operates. It's pretty broad stroke that the state is changing from a more planning commission or review design review board kind of process to staff level for almost all residential type reviews.

So I know that that was one of the pieces in the concern of code updates was residential projects, like multiunit and where they can be located and how they mix with commercial. So, like, focusing on a mixed use. But I wanted to be clear that there are some changes that the legislature has put into place that will limit our ability to make those changes. At least in the near term, you probably saw that there's a few sunset clauses in there. So the legislature said, let's try this for seven years and see how it goes and see if we wanna re up it.

All that said, the reason they pulled that model code for small cities off the state website and they're doing an update to it is because it doesn't comply with a lot of that current legislation. So the city of North Plains would be well in its right to wait a little bit until that code is available and then wholesale use large portions of that because they'll be completely in compliance with the state legislation. So if the focus was to make sure you're in legislative compliance, there's some deadlines like 07/01/2026 that some things change. You can apply state law directly on that date if you don't have your code updated. There's So no penalty to not having your code updated by that date.

There's one provision for child care that has to be updated by 2027, so you do have the time to wait for the model code for that one. So if, you know, the top priority is is legislative compliance, I would highly recommend waiting for that model code to come through because a lot of that work will be done.

And I know that, I'll let our subcommittee speak on, more is that, you know, in any of these scenarios, our big concern, I believe, would be getting things done. And, you know, doesn't matter if we're in scenario a, b, or c. There's some things that we would like to see done before a year because they're you know, we've been heard from city council. We've heard from planning commission, from staff. These, you know, should be updated.

And so is there steps along the way that we can get some COVID changes without going through the whole duration. I mean, I know that if you do everything, it's gonna take this long. But is there ways to get certain things done in steps so that we're not waiting till the very end?

Yes. Thank you, chair. I believe that fits most with scenario a, which is, you know, if we're looking at doing a Band Aid for one or two key areas, key subsections, I think the top of the pile for this body and city council is nonconforming uses and structures from what I've heard. That is something that we could address as a, you know, spot fix or something that these bodies view as urgent. I would caution you against coming up with a list of spot fixes, especially when we have a resource such as the small cities model code coming in late summer.

While some things may feel very urgent, it's going to be more resource efficient to address those in one swoop when we have a large body of work already done for us by the state.

If I can just tack on to that, if if nonconforming uses is the top thing or definition for mixed use or, you know, whatever the top issue is based on, you know, city council and planning commission's review of the code items. Those pieces may not necessarily be direct plug and play model code language like the legislative changes. So that does make sense to start start chipping away at those. You have your monthly meetings. You have your staff person.

You know, depending on the workload of what's coming in private development that's being reviewed, there's probably time to do work sessions on a topic or to and and hold, like, a public work session like this advertised that we're talking about nonconforming uses. Maybe reach out to some of your applicants who've gone through it recently and try to build some engagement into your meetings that you're already having, I think you could definitely start with, like, a topic at this point.

Yeah. So we kinda came up with a scenario one scenario to do a certain scenario three based off of the and I thought we needed to be done. So

this is this is from our code committee that the three of us, and we talked about all the different scenarios that were laid out in the three scenarios. And we felt that in talking about the code that we felt like we needed to update and touch on, almost touch on every piece of code. I mean, because one touches another, touches another, touches another. So we didn't feel that the scenario one or two or a or b was really the right fit, and then maybe we needed to ask for scenario three or or c. Because we will be touching almost every piece of it.

And and I think that's definitely true based on what I've heard speaking with your staff. And you can always phase it also. It doesn't have to all happen at one time.

And and we still want

to be able to keep our our our small code group that we bring to the planning commission. Mhmm. And then planning commission gathers with with three j. And we're hoping that maybe some of that upfront work that we bring to the table will will help make that process go quicker and address some of those issues that we have or concerns that we have. And then you can help bring that in alignment. Yeah.

And help prioritize maybe a little bit too. Like, okay. Here's the laundry list. If we do these things, they sort of interact really largely in the code, and then the others could follow that sort of thing.

Yeah. So we were just concerned about I'm asking for really what we felt our need was to begin with, that we need to approach counsel and stuff with with that.

And and it's a it's a long term thing.

It's not something that I hammer out six months or something.

I would also encourage you to, remember that as we go through this process, we might address, you know, a large chunk, 30% or 50% of the code, and be able to go back to TGM or DLCD with a smaller request for funding, and they might be willing to fund that. And then Sure. We can do things in parallel and get things done quicker. So, you know, phasing and and smartly going after additional funding might be able to, you know, make that more attractive for our agencies to fund.

And so we were kind

of updating

scenario c, I guess. There's a scenario we call it scenario three, is to ask for, like, a $200,000 for a three year kind of thing, commitment from the city council to kinda a long term plan to give us so we don't have to keep doing this every time we get so far with something and then not be able to do it to kinda figure out that and then be able to kinda start with our bill and go where it goes. But that's what we sat down with the code like Doug's talking about. But all of sudden, we were overhear that again. So then it's like, okay. But now we gotta go pair changing this because this kinda changes it. So it gets all over the place. So

Well, I think one of the things too is, you know, I can understand the concept of bringing it down to an ABC scenario because of the commitments and the involvement with citizen involvements and stuff. But I know that every time we talk about a specific code, we look at it as a priority one and would like to get something done about it, and we don't wanna wait six, you know, six months to a year to get one thing done. You know? As we look at, like, the discussion with the downtown association, business association, and the possible brands and improvements, you know, how do we want the downtown to look? And, you know, as we get closer to that kind of thing, you know, right now, we went through a green light deal, and we got screwed by the state of Oregon that that was supposed to be a commercial aspect, and now there's technically no commercial.

It's their some kind of physical use for themselves. And so we're gonna run into the same thing and see one in the downtown core. And so, it's all based on this conditional use thing. And so I think we need to have, that's one of our priorities in seat one because there is no residential on the main floor and only residential on additional floors above the Main Floor and determine what our downtown floor is. It it benefits through a rezoning or something.

But we're going if we don't do something, we're gonna be left behind, and we're gonna have things that we don't want. And there's other little fixes. One of the other things is there's the question about marijuana facilities and is it walking distance? Is it straight line distance? And, you know, that's kinda as far as I'm concerned, that's more of a policy kinda thing.

Is it if the city, you know, and the council want marijuana facility Mhmm. Then walking distance is gonna allow us more opportunities than non walking distance. If we but if our code is left kind of vague as is it a balloon, or is it straight line distance or walking distance? It doesn't really say it. It was you know, all the issues about what was done, but really wasn't done.

And so some of these little fixes need to get taken care of. And so I would like I mean, I'd like to see everything taken care of, of course, and that's you know, that might be scenario d. You know, let's do it all. But, you know, as we move as I'll bring it up again. You know, the neighborhood community zone was just a holding zone.

Wasn't supposed to be a stand alone zone and never got developed, and that's shame on us. And now we've got you know, we have it, and I don't wanna see us coming into any potential urban growth expansion and not being ready for it. So I wanna see something done about that, and that may be the, you know, like I say, the longer term fix for it, but I would like to see at least some progress made on that.

Well, we were just thinking about just freeze the NC zone. So maybe we don't work on it at all. Just freeze it wherever it's dark. Yeah. Right? We don't Let

me do that. There is

no more NC zone. It is where it is. They have it. But and then we don't have to spend money on doing it. So

Nice. That's a clarifying question. You're mean b and c? Mhmm. Because there's a lot of words on this, but the only ones I can see different is rezone, new zone. Is that really the only difference between b and c? Is rezone and new zone?

No. It would be a more comprehensive whole development code. The language throughout the entire development code. I'm sorry. I didn't make that clear. The other piece is a lot more public involvement and then a lot more technical resources once you're looking the resource. I'm just looking at

the Yeah.

What are we doing with it all? Is it just like, if we choose to do everything in b Mhmm. Is the only thing we're not doing sort of working on rezoning and new zones?

No. And it's my lack of understanding exactly what all the issues are. I've, you know, only had a brief conversation with staff about it, so I'm sure there are a lot more key issue items that you'd like to look at that aren't reflected in here.

Okay. Because it says three to four key issues. Both of them say three to four key issues. So if there's a lot more key issues, then something's missing from this description of scenario c. Yes. It's the same number of key issues. Three to four more.

Right. Three to four more.

I would say yes. And and that would be that would be your group discussing and putting forward those key issues. And I'm sorry that I wasn't aware of those or didn't ask further questions.

But is this what it means? Six to eight? Is that a three to four?

So it it would look a lot more like instead of addressing a single subsection, we're addressing multiple connected subsections. So things like all of the residential districts or industrial standards. Those would or the entire design review chapter instead of just multifamily standards. The entire design review chapter. Mhmm. So you're you're gonna be encompassing a lot more content and a lot more of the city area, which is why the public involvement is so key.

Honestly very hard for me to, like, to opine on anything because it's

so big. It's like If we saw the three to four,

I'm don't know if she sent a copy.

We have a copy. I mean, that was given by the committee. We passed out. It was kinda. Okay. Great. And they have you know, they're basically their priorities one, two, three, which is scenario a, b, c. But, you know, it's like, where do their priorities fit in? Everything everything in priority one doesn't fit in a, and everything in priority two doesn't fit in b, and everything in priority three, you know, there's kind of Yeah. Some go here and some go there. And Okay.

And this so this I don't understand.

Is this this is we talked about. This is And we're looking at Oh, that's what got.

We got

short one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. To be our priority one. Mhmm. After we get it scenario b to be our priority two or anything.

Yeah. And we can for her. Rightsize it to this. I haven't seen this Right. List. Staff apparently haven't seen it either,

and and that's what they're saying is that I would like to, you know, take this list and say, oh, wait a minute. This is more involvement. You know? This is gonna take some more time. So this needs to be down in priority three and not up at one. Because we're not the ones that know what all it takes. We're the ones that wanna get it changed. You know? So that's what we're concerned about doing. So the staff is going to have to educate us and say, well, that's a great one, but that needs to be over here.

You know? That shouldn't be up here. But we you know? And then this I'm sure this is not a comprehensive on everything that we've discussed over the time, but this these are some key points in here. But, you know, as we try to get issues resolved, I'd like to see them be done sooner than later.

So it it might help to say that when I start a code project, you know, we'll we'll know what the scope is before we start it. Right? We'll have an agreement on that. It always starts with an audit, a code audit. So I would be going through the sections that we've agreed upon or if it's the entire code and we're starting there with some keys.

But we'd be just opening the entire code and making a table in, like, this section, you know. So we would take whatever these priorities are that planning commission subcommittee has made and stick that into this whatever scenario the city decides to fund and whatever time frame, and we'd make it fit that. So that I'm not concerned about that, the legislative priorities you spoke to, and then specific key items here. I do wanna just point out from the memo page four. Right now until 01/02/2032, there is a prohibition against not allowing 1st Floor residential for you can prohibit residential uses.

You have you you can't prohibit residential uses on the 1st Floor except for one face of a building that faces the street and is within 20 feet of the street. And you can't prohibit a a use that is nonresidential active uses that support the residential uses of the building, including lobbies, day care, passenger loading, community rooms, exercise facilities, offices, and activity spaces, which sounds like what you're describing from a green light. So right now, another development like that could come in, and they would be able to get an adjustment to do exactly what Greenlight did, and the city wouldn't be able to say no until 2032.

Luckily, we don't have much land. Otherwise, that could be

They can do all c one, all residential. Yeah. But yeah. There's not a lot of assets. There

is. But there is a lot

of everything, but that's. Yeah.

It sounds like there is a lot of city activity and investment on creating that commercial node along C 1. So that that has good effects too on bringing in commercial uses and employment uses. So those pieces can be part of the puzzle too, only land use, but we aren't able to preclude it right now.

So is there a sort of something that says at the beginning of the percentage of the main part?

Not for that specific, but the nonresidential uses of the building itself, but the

I haven't seen one.

In anywhere. Anywhere. Anywhere there's mixed use. Anywhere there's matter if you sell it at

commercial or industrial or whatever If mixed use is come in?

If mixed use is permitted.

If it's Mhmm. Just cure mixed use.

Yeah. Right.

So, Heather

Yes. When I look

at this, you can go on like, it it does seem to align with the priorities that we talked about. So but this resonates with me. Nowhere on here is rezone and new zone.

So is there a way that

we could take this, meld it with your scenario b or c Mhmm. But not have this rezone and new zone?

Because I don't where we think that

There's one not fair that. So, like, changing zone, like, things within a zone, but I don't think we have anything on here that's in the.

Or the new zone or We're not rezoning the the I know you. Stuff that's on the board. We're just gonna leave it as is. Right. We just talked about it.

I I had heard that one of the priorities was to look at the IPU zone and perhaps think of that as an overlay again. And so then everything that's in IPU would need a rezone. So I I No. So that's one of the places where

You want me to rezone or just go back to the original zone? That's not really a rezone. You just take you put the IPU on top of it to take the IPU off and make it an overlay and then lay it back. It's still the underlying zones.

Well, those zones are gone because we made a new zone, so we'd have to we would be rezoning it to but you could use your prior zones. It would be a technically a rezone. That's how it yeah. It would be a zoning map amendment. Yeah. And then the same thing with n c, if you wanted to do anything different. I know it sounds like that's probably not the priority. And then if you wanted any kind of mixed use zone, which I heard possibly as well.

Well, there's as far as mixed use, I mean, there's you know, as we look forward in expansion, we're talking about completely revamping the ideas of the old city. I mean, you know, now we have industrials that have restaurants. We have, you know, commercials that that have, you know, different things that yeah. Residential. And so all of a sudden, all those are really. Yeah. Because that's the way things have changed over the years. You know? It's not cookie cutter like it was in the

It's very that's very much the way that Euclidean zoning is kind of disappearing in most places. Yeah. Yeah. So would none of this addresses future expansion areas. Right? Or or would we be using this to set ourselves

we're using it to set set it up. Okay. And the other thing is so one thing is they're multifamily. You know? Our multifamily is fairly weak as far as apartment houses, you know, or anything like that because we've never really dealt with apartment house.

And now they're the department house, but it doesn't have anything to do with our mixed use or with a multifamily. It's you know, they kinda own their own scenario for the state of Oregon. So there's a few pieces of land that could be apartment houses. Some might need to be rezoned, but, you know, in any expansion, we're we're definitely gonna have to consider that because those are gonna be what's gonna be in there.

So updating design standards Yeah. For Particularly in expansion areas, but also in some areas of existing Yeah. And so

In fact, all does have to do return expansion.

Mhmm. Right? So well, that's what yeah. Everything we do today is planned for tomorrow.

Mhmm. There's only a couple items that doesn't have the nonconforming side stuff in a couple of re zones is really the changes in the existing. The rest of it has to do with the

future. I

see street standards are in here. So TSP overlap and, know, engineering standards, transportation implications, that sort of thing. So really bringing in additional groups on that would be important.

Yep. The unfortunate thing is the street standards. All you have to do is drive around.

Mhmm.

And where you have parking on both sides, and you can't get two cars down the middle. That's not a very good standard. That would be car up in the intersection. Yeah. Yeah. Through an intersection. Yeah. So they're in hodgepodge on sidewalks and some running into telephone poles and some having stop guards and some not having them. Yeah, I know that engineering and that's the public works, and that's the transportation plan stuff. But it should be nice to well, we've already discussed the whole idea of those plans coming to us before they, you know, city projects and stuff.

But we need to make sure that people are looking out for the future and what it's gonna look like after it's done instead of what it looks like on paper.

When it says increased rooftop requirements for park space, is that the park's master plan and how much parks per household? Okay. Okay. So really, it's parks board. It's public works. It's in it's it's every piece of the city that works together. It's it's not a development code change. It's it's a whole city update. It's comprehensive. It is comprehensive. Okay.

We should plan.

Steph, what do you need for would you need more information for what you you're tasked with? Yeah. So

I think we will need to go back and do some reconciliation with the materials that we prepared in this list that we received from you all tonight, And then we will likely come back to you in March and hope that we've hit the nail on the head with a

You might consider trying to, you know, pass a meeting with Heather Levante Mhmm. Before those things too just so that as she's the chair of the subcommittee that these aren't a surprise.

Yeah.

Because we don't wanna waste your time either. You know? We wanna get to the goal altogether and not go, oh, we did this, and, oh, we did this. And now we got the release. How do they fit? We

can absolutely speak with Heather in in the meantime between meetings. Yeah. But, ultimately, we will want to come back to you with a proposal that will be suitable for you to then go a lot of time. To city council with with a request Right. To move this project forward.

Yeah. We don't have we don't have a problem. We're still doing the committee and kinda coming up with some of the stuff and chain doing some of it and then coming before everybody to save some dollars to, you know, to do a little bit of time that way too. So whatever. So

Can we speed this faster if we have a motion or or speak about what we would recommend in terms of saying, yeah, we would recommend one or one plus two or one plus two plus three here and then have, staff work to size those and put those in front of city, not so, like, in March.

I think that's what she's got right now of doing is how do we blend the Yeah. One two three into a b c and make sure that we're all on the same page because we need to be educated about this item in one needs to be down in 30. Yeah. And I I think involvement that's the process.

The one just small concern is, you know, with the memo I put together, it had, like, maybe two things in priority one in addition to legislative changes, and we've got, like, seven or eight here. So I don't if or is it in order of priority to the PC? Kinda how it is. Yeah. Okay. So top top top priority design review and mixed use and then nonconforming. Okay. I'll read it that way. I think that works. Yeah.

Yes. So we we can work on that and then bring this to you in March.

Or That means meeting this decision.

Was already scheduled for the second meeting. Right?

Yes. So if we then wanted to do another work session or we could bring this as a discussion item for city council, they'll let you chime in on when we have availability for this project to come to them.

Just a moment. But first of all, I think what we'd like to put forth is, we're we're looking for a scenario c or three, and that's what we need to address city council with, not the prioritizing with city council right now.

Because we're looking at doing the whole thing.

Right.

I don't think that's is that what the time and

completion at all? I mean Well, I think that's ultimately what we want, but

do we need to prioritize to get to a, b, or c?

I think what I'm hearing is everything on here moves into scenario c, and then we update the scope a little bit, probably closer to this 200 k budget. That that's more Steve Foust's department, so I'll run it by him. But we probably can update and be ready if that's the

Get some money from the state.

They they like to give money for housing projects if we could pull out the housing first. Yeah. We could focus it based on what the project

Just throw the rest in.

What I'm hearing from this body is that you would like us to look at a comprehensive update and come back with what that would look like. And then as a sort of contingency, also have in our pocket, you know, a phased, we can break this up like this so that if city council is not ready to fund a full code update, we can present them with something like phase one, which would look maybe more like a or b on Heather's memo, and that being a way to figure out what our next steps are. Is our next step going out and initiating a fully fledged code update, or is our next step taking a bite at our top three priorities and legislative changes and and determining what level of resources we have available, what those next steps are going to be?

So my concern is we can see how long this whole blown thing could take. Right? And if we don't get on it now, are we gonna make it by the time UGV gets here? Are we gonna be stuck with what we've got? And then what was the point?

What if we approach it slightly differently by city councilor and say, hey. Here's our top priorities. And then here's all the other things that didn't make our line from your original list that we had, like, you know, old trees or whatever. Right? There was a bunch of stuff on there. There there was floodplain. There was a bunch of stuff on there that didn't make this list. Well, what if we take this list and say, this is our priority? And then here are all the things that are priority number two and sort of presented in that way where we're sort of there is a list of things we're not planning to do.

Because you had a very long list.

Many of those things are not on I think that was stats list.

Yes. That's something. Yeah.

So I've I've provided you both with a list of staff concerns, and I've also provided you with the full code breakdown for visualization purposes. I'm not entirely sure which lists you're referring to. But, yes, there are a number of things which cannot reasonably be addressed in a WIC update. They will need to be addressed in a full comprehensive update.

Put below below the line. We could just say, hey. This is priority number two so that when city council looks at it, they at least know there's some things we're not doing, and and we're not telling them we want to do everything.

That information could be. I I think that's

We wanna do everything, but here's the things. No.

We're not gonna do a floodplain. We're not gonna do trees. We're not gonna do I know. It'll it'll make it in there.

It's just we're asking for a budget of $200,000. Yeah. It gets us stretched over three years. Us through all the things. They're great. Yeah. And It's thirty six months. I mean, if this scenario c is thirty six months, basically, to do all

those things Apply for grants and

for grants along the way. Maybe we can keep going even. And And it's forty eight months that we get the whole visit there. You know? So And when

do you expect the small city code?

Small cities code, I believe they're expecting July or August.

And can I get a little bit of clarification on that code? That's just recommendation for small cities. So we can meld it at how

we want it.

It can be rightsized to North Plains.

Have to do.

You don't have to.

Unless you just adopt.

Exactly. You don't have to. But in in parts where you don't really care, like, okay. We just wanna comply with, you know, something that's something we don't care about, then you wanna just, like, put that language in because you know that language is embedded and meets all state requirements, and you can just move forward.

Oh, we also talked about robbing other people's code too.

We we don't call it robbing. We call it borrowing. Honoring their hard work by for two years, they're using their information. No. That always we always look to we call them peer cities. Yeah. We always look to peer cities. You know, Hillsborough has the best lighting standards out there. I use them all

the

time. Other cities have better tree codes and things. So you you just they they know that that's happening, and that is part of the game. I hope North Plains code is someday an inspiration for other cities as well. Okay.

Do you send anything else from us?

I I think Heather and I will get together. We will put together the proposal for something that looks like scenario three highlighting what a long term full spectrum ask will be, And then we will come back for, if did this body want to hear from that final information gathering before going to city council, or would you want to move directly to city council?

When is the I thought somebody mentioned that there was already something scheduled for city council. Is there not?

There is not anything scheduled for city council. We would need to put that on

the schedule. So there is so there's no deadline for what we're doing?

One will get Correct. I apologize. I don't know why I read what I thought I heard second meeting. And Yeah. I thought My That's my mistake.

I think we were aiming, but it's not scheduled. So if this body would like to hear I think it'd be such a short month, February, we could easily bring this back to you guys at your next regular session and then aim for the second meeting in March or the first meeting in April to have this before city council. I think that's a reasonable timeline.

Especially the meeting next time.

If if the chair is so pleased. I mean, that's

I thought because our understanding is that we're gonna do another work session in March after you do the revision is

Yep. K.

K.

We'll put that on the agenda. K.

Get together with Heather about it. And

we will work with Heather in the meantime to make sure we're on the right track.

Heather Levante.

Heather Levante. Yeah. Heather. Not confusing at all.

Heather a. Heather is

him. Yes.

K. Is there anything else for the workshop then? K. With that, we're adjourned. Thank you, Heather.

Yeah. Thank you.

Good to see you again.

Good to see you all too.