Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Okay, this is the Oregon City Planning Commission uh special meeting of April 20th and uh 2026 and I will convene the meeting uh at this moment and uh we'll have a roll call. Yes, sir. Commissioner here. Commissioner Long here. here. Present my name here. Here.

Okay. So we have uh on the agenda this evening uh GLUA250025 and um CU25001 MAS25001 uh park 254001 1367 Malala Avenue master plan general uh I'm sorry okay general development plan approval conditional use approval for the drive-through uses and maximum parking adjustment. And then we also have uh under that same is the uh MES250002 uh GEO25007 NROD 250012 1367 Malala Avenue detailed development review for the uh construction of the new public road um uh on parcel C. So those are the two um applications that are tied together under this review this evening and um with the record is now closed and it is for deliberation only this evening. There will be no public testimony, no testimony from the applicant and at this point it will go to the commission or I I guess maybe we have a state a restatement from the staff.

Uh thank you chair. Uh, one thing I was uh going to encourage is to uh ask the commissioners for any exparte uh disclosures of exparte communications between the last meeting and this meeting. So that's right. We are to be unbiased and as a result I'll call on each commissioner to disclose any potential conflicts such as family financial or business relationships. We also had an article that was published by I believe by the Oregonian on this particular project. you might want to mention whether or not you have read that uh you know maybe briefly what you might have learned and whether or not it would affect your ability to make a unbiased decision this evening. Okay. So we'll start with uh Commissioner Lel.

I have no bias expporte contact. I've driven by the location several times. I did not see the article in the Oregonian Uh yeah, no um no bias, no conflict, uh no exparte outside the article. I did see the article and I did read the article. Um and I did also make one more um visit to the site. Commissioner Laws

um no bias, no um um exparte contact. I did see the article and the article just seemed to be a jaded and just a view um which didn't impact my view of anything that I've experienced in these meetings. Okay. No bias. Uh also saw the article, read it, don't even remember what it said at this point.

No exparte um contacts, no conflicts, no bias. uh was communicated to that that article existed. Specifically did not read it. Um and I have reviewed the applicant's final written argument since our last meeting. I did not visit the site again. Okay. Um right. And I have not been by the site. I don't have any conflicts or bias. I did read the article, but it really was a reiteration of of just what's been going on in the hearing and what the project, you know, the nature of the project. So, um, without any further, I'll go ahead and turn it over to staff for any clarification. Uh, chair, if you could just let's just go ahead and ask if anybody present wants to rebut the substance of those export discussions.

I don't see anybody in the audience, but if there is anybody that would like to rebut any of the um, uh, declarations that the commissioners have, um, go ahead and, uh, provide that information or, uh, you can come up and discuss that. Hearing none, um, we do have two people on the have people online. I apologize. So, is there anybody online that is interested in um adding to this discussion regarding bias hearing? None. Now, we can muted. Is everybody okay?

Okay, good. Yeah, I didn't see I don't see it on my screen. I got to look over there. And yeah, it's a little bit um Okay, good. All right, so now we can go ahead and turn it over to staff for Could we have the slides up? Any comments? Thank you. I know it's a lot

Okay, commissioners. Uh uh Christina, the staff's going to uh has just two slides that recap sort of what your your job and your role is tonight. And um that is to deliberate and make a fi a decision. Um when you deliberate uh I don't know if um all of you or or any of you have deliberated to a decision before. I don't think you all have together maybe once. But uh your job is to determine whether the applicant has met its burden of proof to show that all of the applicable criteria are met and that is the job. Uh that's going to require you to probably interpret applicable approval criteria. It's going to probably require you to identify evidence in the record that leads to to your conclusion that a criterion is or is not satisfied. Uh just as a as a direction there, personal knowledge is not evidence in the record. So, please refrain from discussing personal knowledge uh uh of of the site or of you know uh your your background in general if you're an expert in something,

right? Um uh those are basically my my directives and we're available here to guide you to uh places in the staff report that would be able to answer your questions but we staff is also not allowed to present any new evidence and so we'll be real careful not to do that and and I I want to ask if the commissioners have any questions about you know your role before Christina starts. So just to reiterate um yeah just based you know based our our deliberation should be based on all the evidence that are that is in the written materials period.

Correct. Yeah. Okay.

Kelly can you do slide two? So as you uh answer the questions and we'll go back to slide one. Um uh when you are ready and you feel like there is a motion available, there'll be two motions tonight. One will be a motion for the master plan and a vote and one will be the motion for the detailed excuse me development plan and a vote and really you kind of have three options tonight. Um you can approve the proposal with the conditions and staff which is staff's recommendation and as well as adopt their findings. Um, one thing the condition me number 14 as I mentioned in the last present last month, excuse me, last week um wasn't added to the revised staff report. So, you can put that in your motion. Um, if you are moving to approve that the condition number 14 as amended in staff's presentation can be which is uh relating to the enhanced landscaping under the power lines to allow smaller trees. um on the parcel A and D

along the Lala Avenue. So, there was a red line version in staff's presentation. Um that motion will just bring that in um and we'll add it to the notice of decision conditions. So, you can do that as part of your motion because it wasn't um added to the st uh the revised staff report. You can approve the proposal with modified conditions and provide revised findings. And so because time is of an essence, we need to make a decision tonight as a planning commission. So if you have modified conditions or modified findings, please talk them through and let staff know. We'll need to write them up and we probably might have them on the screen and that's something you will uh adopt as well in your motion. And then you can deny the proposal and provide revised findings. Same thing. um those revised findings will be um written up and approved by you as part of your motion tonight. We don't have time to come back to the planning commission and uh have a a write up of your conversation this evening.

Right. And so that part of that discussion would include, you know, the CIRC plan and and the um, you know, safness of the uh, drive-through lanes and parking. If you have any um, number two would be any the proposal, approve the proposal, but with modified conditions. You need to identify the condition, how you would modify it, and then the findings that got you to that modified condition. that can be part of an approval, but we'll need to write it up and we might have a fivem minute recess while we write it up. All right, fair enough. So, that's it. That's it. So, I'm going to go back to slide one and once again,

um the record's closed. We're not really here to provide clarifying answers. Yeah. So, uh, for the most part, you can have your deliberations and if you have questions about where in the staff report or exhibits you can find, uh, findings, um, to support what you're discussing, we can help guide that.

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, so I will go ahead and open it up to the commissioners and um, we will go ahead and take a look and at uh, what what staff has provided us as far as our options go. Um maybe we can start by saying you know by you know determining whether or not um you know we can actually answer these questions and agree with um um where staff is going on this. Bob, you want me to start? Do you want me to start with you?

That's fine. Um, of course, I've I've read Cyprus's uh interpretation and uh final arguments, and it it seems to me that they they put a pretty good argument forth in their receiving notification of the planned use uh trail back in the back of the park. uh they were brought forth to them on March 23rd and 24th. Uh a complete surprise to them. It's no fault of the developer that it was brought up at such a late date. Uh and to me, the proposed path is truly a path to nowhere. I have real doubts that it would be used very much. The applicant's geo technical or geothermal report demonstrates that they've adequately addressed the landslide issue back there uh using engineered stabilization measures and that was in fact confirmed by the city's geotechnical engineer on April 1st, 2026 and is in compliance with OCMC 1744. for 060L and considering all that and I would when appropriate like to make a motion. Okay,

go.

Yeah, thank you. I I agree with Commissioner S. I think the applicant did a pretty good job um addressing the concerns of the uh geological hazard. You know, I I feel that with the recommendations of the 35 foot setback for any habitable structures, there isn't a life safety major implication here. Uh when you look at the proposed development, it's parking, it's landscape, it's pedestrian path, which I feel based on the the geoteex report, I feel I'm comfortable with that. So I I don't feel like there's any adverse effect in allowing the applicant to move forward as is. Um I have mixed feelings on the pedestrian path. I do feel that you know in the time being it is a path to nowhere. Um but I do believe it falls in line with our um TSP plan, Metro's plan. Um and we hope that you know someday the rest of the path would be continued and built. So I think with that in my mind most of the conditions as written I'm fine with with with the exception of number 11. I would uh be interested in a motion that maybe you know revises that condition of approval. Can we jump in if we have specific questions of

I mean I think I think what I want to do is kind of just go down the go around the horn and get everybody's general statement and then um you know once we start discussing we can we can chime in but I was hoping just for a clarification on the position which is uh staff is saying that specifically 1744060 L Yeah. And uh the condition of approval, I think it's 11. Are you proposing that um we are abiding by specifically staff's interpretation or are you suggesting that we adjust that condition of approval?

I am saying that I would be open to an adjustment of that condition of approval, not requiring the applicant to revise their master plan when they move forward with the rest of the development. Got it. Thank Thank you. Yeah. And it might be helpful too. Um, Kelly, could we pull up the map with the overlays on top of it? And we'll give you a moment to find that cuz it is a it's in there somewhere.

That would be in staff's presentation from 413. It'd probably be one of the mid slides of that and that's in the record. So you can open that from the um commission agenda. The reason why I'm asking is I think it might be helpful to the commission just to kind of see to understand what I was saying in terms of the buffer the actual hazard and where that overlays on the development because I do believe from the original application the location of the apartment building the east of the apartment building has changed and has moved further west and therefore most of the development site improvements in the buffer are again just just flat Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. I You want me to speak?

No, it's fine. Okay. I mean, I've I've saw some modifications and I did not Let me put my mic on. Um, excuse me. And I did not see I I I like the improvements from what I saw. Um I do see the path to nowhere. I you know I don't see I do can see a concern about the path. Um I didn't see any information about did I see any information? I was going through, you know, I had limited time over the weekend about the barricade, any barricade or anything about, you know, because the neighbors were concerned. Did we address that at all in the notes? I didn't see anything about that in the notes at all. Not that it was a requirement or anything either. Um,

I didn't think there's something in the staff report for that level of detail. Yeah. Yeah. Was there any information about I didn't see any of that in in the notes whatsoever or any staff report. Um we cuz the neighbors came and addressed any issues about you know it didn't seem that that was addressed at all cuz the neighbors were addressing the issue about possibly you know poss needing a barricade of some sort with foot traffic but because they're concerned about their road being parked on or

I don't believe there's anything in the record or the staff report at all that issue

there was something that was going to be possible possibly entertained that we were mentioning as maybe possibly to be addressed, but it wasn't a requirement either. It was something that we were mentioning because the neighbors were concerned about their road being parked on and the foot traffic because I you know what we've seen with Chick-fil-A the you know if a Chick-fil-A is coming there right is the the traffic actually goes out to the road right and we've seen this with Dutch Brothers too um where we've seen it go Malala is limited on what it can do right and then if people are actually parking and if the apartment complex already is there and people are parking, the neighbors were concerned about their parking issue on their small street um and they came to testify. So, is there any type of solution with that? Uh well, Commissioner, if uh the commission can always commissioners can always propose additional conditions of approval uh you know, such as some sort of barricade, but the level of detail right now for that particular lot is very high level because remember there's no

site plan or de development plan for parcel B, the residential parcel that is getting approved. what is in the record is conceptual only for parcel B. I would like to discuss that a bit because if this is going to get approved that side road those neighbors already have a huge burden. Um so that's something I would like to look at before we do approve this because that neighborhood and that side street is a small side street that's going to take on a huge burden. So if we can look at that too before we close this today. So

good. So while I agree that the geotechnical report says it would be safe to do it, I think our staff's interpretation of the code is pretty clear and and even just a plain reading of the code, uh, I think it's pretty clear. So, I don't even know if it should even be up to an interpretation since it seems at least to me pretty unambiguous on on what the code allows, which is unfortunate because the science says it's safe and I think overall the plan looks good. But I don't I don't see how we can go with the applicant's interpretation of uh 1744 065

06 060 L um because the the code by itself is pretty straightforward, recently revised and our own staff um disagrees with it pretty strongly. Um. Mhm.

And it the the the layout of the argument in the staff report is pretty clear to me and and in general I'm in agreement with that. Um I additionally think there would need to be a an additional condition of approval on the drive-throughs because I don't think they're necessarily safe as designed, which is one of the things we want to discuss tonight. um especially the Chick-fil-A one, but also the uh mixed retail um because they're depositing cars that have just picked up their food or whatever right into the path of pedestrian traffic trying to access the store. It seems like a very um unsafe and poor design. I think that covers it.

Okay. All right. So um with regards to the pathway I think I mean I always try to look at the code and what the code allows and what what we've done precedentwise what our what our master plans have said what our what our transportation system plan has said and I think we recently approved or I think the last time I was I was doing this we did a multimodal modal transportation system plan right and so what that means is that we are uh doing pathways and walkways and all kinds of other things that that are pedestrian friendly and that help pedestrians and help us get from A to B uh in a way other than the automobile. And so um I and since it is on our master plan to do, I think that that is really what we should do. Um and I think that we we miss an opportunity if we take an inlue fee and you know historically um inloo fees really don't um uh come out to projects you know further down the road there's there's lots of prop u other developments and then it gets forgotten about and it never gets built. So I would say that um the path requirement um has uh some relationship or rough proportionality as would a sidewalk or any other type of infrastructure that is required proportional to that development and it's going just along that property as they say in Dolan. So I would say that we are justified for asking for not only the rideway and everything else but the actual construction of that walkway and it should be up out of the um you know the um geological hazard area as suggested by staff. Um it would also uh promote connectivity with further developments and additional developments in that area. So I I I am in support of the pathway. I think um the uh the

applicant's final findings brought up an economic impact and I don't think that's really part of the discussion because we do not look at economic impact as a part of our code review. So um and then as far as uh OCMC 174460 goes that was a tossup for me. I I saw where staff was going on that and then I also saw where the applicant you know fell on that as well. But I think um if you want to argue that it is discretionary, which I don't really think it is, um then staff has the discretion to add a condition of approval to move the development up and out of the uh out of the boundary. And I believe that's what staff is proposing. Correct? Do I have a Yeah. Okay. So, I just want to make sure I'm if I'm out of alignment with that, but I I did read, you know, what you guys did and and I and I agree with it. I think that that's what we really should do. Um, so, right. So, when so that provision does say the review authority may allow development in a known potential hazard area as provided in this chapter if specific findings are made that the specific provisions of the design of the proposed development will prevent landslides and damage. Okay. So they provided a geotechnical analysis that said it would prevent damage but we say that we that they should move it out so that the damage would the potential for damage would be further ameliated or mitigated. Correct. And so I would say so then I would agree with the final line in this is that the review authority may impose any conditions including limits on the type of or intensity of land use in those areas which determines that are necessary to ensure that landslides or property and damage will not occur. So, we have the the city has had a history of building things uh building developments on the rim of Mule Creek

Canyon and inside the canyon and everywhere around the canyon and um the results have not been good. They we have I I have been in this city for a pretty long time and I have been to many of these hearings related to that and I don't want to add any more to that but I think the as far as the history goes the geological history I think it's probably much better the safer money is really to make sure that um the development or the majority of the development uh stays out of the geological hazard area. Um, and I hope I didn't go too far that way, but um, I just wanted to say that I think really precedent dictates that we make sure that um, they are within um the boundaries set by the city for the geological hazard areas as as staff suggests. Is that correct?

Uh, it is what the city suggests as proper interpretation of subsection L. That is correct. Yes. Okay. And then I've got, you know, actually Commissioner Henderson, I think, has has not weighed in and I don't know if he wants to. Oh, I thought I thought you I I thought you had to. I apologize. I'm so sorry. I've got a couple more points, but go ahead. Yeah. Do you want to finish?

No, no. Well, I mean, as far as the parking, as far as the request for additional parking, again, you know, I think that the I think that the more impervious surface you have on a site that is adjacent to a geotechnical uh or um geological hazard area is is not a good mix. So, I think that um uh so in order to enable the city to reduce the amount of storm water requirements and that sort of thing, um I think that the amount of impervious service should also be reduced. So, I I really don't support the um the additional parking. And then um I also agree with the uh change in uh circulation pattern for Chick-fil-A as far as the um the the uh drive-thru lanes go. Go ahead. Yeah.

Uh so, a few thoughts. I've never been involved with a deliber deliberation before with all of you. So you'll realize that I'm pretty type A. So we're going to dive into code a bit here. Um so so first of all I believe there's four items we're discussing and correct me if I'm wrong chair but we have a variance, we have a conditional use, we have the path and we have geotech. Is that correct? Yeah.

Okay. Um so first of all in regards to the variance and conditional use I went and looked at the comp plan where it defines mixeduse corridor. It's actually slightly different than the narrative that's in the zoning code. Uh it talks about the metro's corridor design type. So 7th and Malala is really supposed to be a commercial corridor, right? Mixed use commercial corridor density along the road. You don't want to drive and take a look at huge parking lots and parks. However, I then noticed that parks is actually an approved use in MU. So, um, first of all, as it relates to the parking and and similar thoughts to what you had, but, um, why do we have a parking maximum? So, highest and best use within the urban growth boundary, promote other forms of transportation, reduce heat island effect, whatever the reasons are for having it, there's a reason why we have a maximum. And so one way to deal with this is we go in with code allowed parking. If in the future there is a change which requires potentially increasing that parking, they do have the ability in the DDP to do a type three means they're coming back to us. Staff has more work. We have more work. But that that is one path we could take. I actually have less issue with parcel D than partial than parcel A. So, uh, for me, parcel A when you don't know what that use is going to be, what the parking requirements going to be, we've added a drive-thru. That one I'm less excited about.

Two drive-throughs. Um, two drive-throughs. You mean two lanes on that? Um, for a drive-thru and then also the uh speculation building will also have a drive-thru as well,

right? So, so parcel A, but part parcel D, which has a drive-thru, I think that's better designed. I think the building's closer to Malala. Um, so I I'm actually okay with the increased parking and drive-thru on parcel D, on parcel A. I don't think we increased the parking. Uh, I do think as far as the drive-throughs are concerned, we have general commercial right across the street. General commercial, you're allowed to have drive-throughs. I looked to see this this parcel there's something unique about it adjacency to certain residential where it shouldn't be general commercial but needed to be MUC all that commercial is adjacent to the exact same residential

you're looking at Beaver Creek and Malala if there is a place to approve a drive-thru this seems appropriate so um anyway that's that's my position on those two ones Um, as it relates to the path, anytime you are doing a path in segments, it is always a path to nowhere. That's the way it's going to be because you're putting those pieces together.

So, um, I do think it's important to have that path. I'm okay actually with what was proposed, which is a dedication and in lie of fee. However, it sounds like we've had different experiences on how that works. Um, but I I'm okay with that. The geotech is a complete different issue. So, I I appreciate your patience as we kind of dive into this. Um, right. And and you know, I mean, it's good to read the geotech, but I rely um pretty heavily on the city's geotechnical engineering opinion and staff for that since I am not a geotechnical engineer and I don't know very much about it. So, um that's where I'm at with that. Uh I'm not a professional engineer. I have a BS in civil engineering. I've seen hundreds of the geotech reports. So it was important to me to dive into the details to understand what is being proposed and why. Um 1744060 if you look at the plain language in it, the review authority is us. This is a type three. So the review authority is us, right? And um prevent is used twice. That word is used twice to keep from happening or existing. So we are not talking about a design that decreases the probability of a landslide. It is outright preventing it. So if we are approving something, we have to be 100% sure that that design will prevent outright all landslides in the future. and and in fact the last line assures that landslides or property damage will not occur. I don't know about you guys that that is quite a statement for us to make.

Um, one other thing that I found interesting in here, the review authority, she'll consult with the city's geotechnical engineer in making this determination. So, the city uses a third-party geotechnical engineer. Did you guys see in the record a memo, an email, a report of any type commenting on the geotech report from the applicant? Only the memo from the city engineer that said something about a geotechnical engineer saying that it was okay.

And his presentation last week, he said that the city reviewed it and found agreed with it. And the one thing that we requested specifically for this hearing was a written statement from the geotechnical the city's geotechnical engineer on that. Right.

So, commissioners, there isn't uh anything written in the record from the city's third party geotechnical engineer. I can confirm that. I believe the testimony which I reviewed the hearing video today in full and the testimony from the assistant city engineer uh given last week was that there is not a city third party geotechnical engineer uh commentary in the record because the the city's position is that subsection L isn't available for this development because and I quote the city engineer. The code is intentionally more conservative than the science.

So that's what I can tell you is in the record. Okay. Well, I I thought that I read in the applicant's final statement that they referred to a uh city's geotechnical engineer on April 1st of 2026 that is in they're in compliance with OCMC17 blah blah blah. That's what was in their final argument. Well, yeah. And that's based on their argument that that that part of a code is discretionary. Okay. Yeah. And it is discretionary, if I may, and if they can design their way out of it, but it's discretionary

that it allows the city to say, okay, the code says you can only do up to 4,000, but in fact, we can actually make that more restrictive. I don't see anywhere in that discretion where it lets us make it less restrictive. Right. So it is discretionary just on the conservative side. Yeah. But I do feel that that statement includes I'm going to borrow this real quick while you

that those methods of rendering a known or potential hazard site safer construction including proposed geotechnical remediation methods are feasible and adequate to prevent landslides or damages to property and safety. I feel that is clearly stated in the applicant's geotech report. And quite frankly, when you look at the recommendations from the geotech, they're requiring the developer to spend an absurd amount of money to ensure the safety of that site. The recommendation is that they go down deep with foundations um can't find the right words, but with retaining walls um going down to bedrock, they're embedding piles 5T into bedrock to ensure the safety. And when you look at the safety factors they applied in the calculations, not being an engineer, it far exceeds the code requirements. So I feel like they're within they were within line with that statement in subsection L.

I would further like to say that I I feel that we should totally eliminate that trail. Um I don't see any purpose to it. Granted, we have a trail system designed in throughout the city, but what would that trail serve besides one isolated um small group of homes and the homeless coming in and out of New Canyon, New Creek Canyon. I don't see any purpose for that trail and it would be very expensive for the developer to build because it's required a certain type of fill and base and it's required to have it lighted. Um question on that though Bob and maybe a clarification for city staff when the application comes back down for the detailed development plan. I felt like in the last meeting one the applicant offered to look at alternate locations or routing for that trail which would bring it outside majority of that outside the geological hazard area. Um I'm assuming that's correct, right? They would have the ability to route that the way they see fit when they come in for the detailed development plan. Yeah, I would um direct everybody to condition of approval number 11 on the GDP. It says parcel B's future GDP application shall be required to make significant changes to its site plan in order to meet the city's geologic hazard code within the map plaid area within the geological hazard zone for allowable earth disturbances and dwelling unit density. And then so it's saying that parcel B hasn't been needing to be

revised. And then I think what you're um it's tandem with condition of approval number 21 that says um the TSP project S28, which is the shared use path, shall be constructed as a public off- streetet pedestrian bicycle access way for the portion um of the tax slot that's not on the street. Um, the applicant shall construct their portion of the TSB project with impartial C shared use path and a 7 to 10 foot paved off street ADA compliant pedestrian bicycle way, bicycle access way with widening landscaping as regulated by the code for the portion on parcel B per the city standards. Um, S28 shall be designed to minimize grade changes within the geological hazard overly zone to reduce areas graded or stripped of vegetation or covered with structures or imperial impermeable surfaces to a maximum of 4,000 square ft. The applicant may choose to delay the construction of the parcel view portion of the path to the DDP whereby the path may be able to be constructed at grade adjacent to the proposed parking lot potentially making it exempt from the geological hazards code.

Okay. Okay. The other question that I was going to piggyback on your statement, Commissioner S, was the north end of the trail when say the trail goes in, it terminates at the same point that they're showing right now. Who's responsible for the final connectivity of that trail either to the neighborhood or to Metro's u the park that's north? Is that metro property?

This is based on the testimony by assistant city engineer Josh Wheeler. Um there is one tax slot between this parcel and Hilltop Avenue. Um that connection would either go through as a city project through that tax slot at the very edge by the pump station or working with Metro to go onto their property. But detailed there is a gap. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that.

Um a couple quick comments on the geotech report since I think it's relevant to the discussion we're going to have. So there's two geotech reports. They're both included twice in the package. So the first one's October 8th, 2012. So that looks like it was done for Walmart. Um 29 drilled borings, 68 test pits 3 to 50 ft. So that that is hundreds of thousands of dollars of investigation in terms of understanding the subsurface conditions on this site. that is as substantial as I've seen it on any development project. Um my concern is the second report which is September 12th, 2022 which I assume is what the applicant is basing their proposal upon. First of all, it's to a different entity. Um if you read the project description, it's 15 multi-story 2 to threele apartment buildings. And if you look at the test pit locations in the background, you can see these 15 buildings. It's actually a geotech report for a different project. Now the subgrade conditions that does that's consistent, right? But the question is how much load at what locations. So just something to consider as you go through this information. Um, I am not comfortable a and I actually appreciated the letter from the applicant reading 1744060. I actually think we do have the ability to review what is being proposed to geotechnically improve the site and make a recommendation based on that. Um, being that that report seems to refer to a different development layout, I have

concerns when it comes to prevent and assure in that paragraph. Yeah, I think that that for me I think that really given that I am not a geotechnical engineer um and given that there is a little bit of a discrepancy in the data the geotechnical data for this site and that it isn't really in parody with what they're actually proposing. That would bring me even more to re rely on staff's opinion about where we're at on as far as interpreting the geotechnical data for this site and where the project should actually end up.

Though I would say when the applicant how this decision is played out in the end, the the applicant wants to build the facility. when they go in to request a building permit, that application material would have to be updated and current to whatever they propose to build, regardless of what they propose to build and how they site it, it doesn't change the subsoil condition. So, those are all going to be the same, right? That could be something that we condition that all of the documentation is brought up to speed and current. Um, so I appreciate your thoroughess, Commissioner Anderson. It's a little bit far and beyond, but I do think that uh there's checks and balances for that. As the applicant want to move forward,

there is a safe way to do this. The question is what is that path from a land use perspective? Yeah. Yeah. I just I I just don't feel like there's enough information before us to make that determination as a as a as a review as a review authority tonight. And I think that it's probably good that we I think you just apply a condition

perhaps in the city engineers position on on where we land on this. I I think the condition then if you want to move forward with approving would be something along the lines of we approve with the condition that a new geotechnical report be issued and approved by the city engineer before any construction or you have to bring the stuff back to the planning commissioner or some sort of condition like that. Yeah, we would not be able to just condition something based on the favorable outcome of of a study. We would have to determine whether or not that study was valid and and and get

Well, one thing we're facing we'll soon know is 120day provision. Yeah. What date would that be, Christie?

Because the applicant has not chosen to extend the 120. This planning commission needs to make a decision tonight to allow the uh notice and appeal time. Um, so whatever kind of whatever conditions you add um would be added tonight. Um, and then once again the staff would write up those additional findings and you'd adopt them. Uh, I just want to remind everybody this is more of just a process note. If if you for the fourth question, if you agree with staff's interpretation that uh there that 1744060 L uh does not allow to have additional development past 4,000 square ft, then you would basically be adopting the city's finding and conditions. If you do think they do, you do have the ability, then you need to provide staff, you know, your your thoughts and we would, you know, write them down and we would come up with what conditions we would revise and then we would work on revised conditions and revise uh findings and we can do that. But I just want to remind everybody the con the

recommended conditions are of approval are based on the interpretation that 174060 has a limit of 4,000 square ft disturbance area that's baked into the existing staff reports. You don't have to make additional findings. But if you feel as planning commission that you disagree and that you do have the ability to interpret that to allow more than 4,000 square ft, you can would need to work with uh Missy and myself to come up with those additional findings and we'd have to decide which conditions would need to be revised.

Can I just add to Thank you, Christina. If I can just add that the the uh 174406L 06 this applies to all properties located within the geologic hazards overlay zone. And so, um, when we're looking at this application, I think it's important to keep in mind that if the planning commission decides that the it prefers the applicant's interpretation, um, it's very likely that other properties in the geologic hazard overlay zone would also like to be subject to that interpretation.

Right. Correct. I'm not saying necessarily that it's going to be binding, but that but an interpretation that um geological engineering and essentially uh a lot of money. Yeah. Uh and the science can allow more development than is allowed in the code. uh is is uh allowed out right in the code is going to apply in the g geologic hazard overlay zone to other residential development, commercial development, you know, whatever it's zoned,

right? So, I think we need to look at the text and the context at which why why we uh made the improvements to the geotechnical um section of the code to begin with. And I think this was one of the reasons why was to try to um uh prevent these kinds of developments from occurring so close to the rim of the canyon. Is that does that make sense to I I was not here then, but that's my understanding.

I mean that's that's really and I agree. I think that that would set a a a precedent. I I I'm I'm for the development. I think that I think it's a good development. It's a good project, but it might need to be a little, you know, contracted a little bit to meet all of the physical aspects of the site out there. I mean, I I think I think I don't think you can just ignore all that stuff.

Here, here's another situation as well. I'm, you know, this is a there's a lot of the neighborhood of the canyon in my neighborhood and there's a lot of the canyon for sale right now and there's parts of the canyon where by foot I would not walk down just by foot that is for sale. So, you know, I would not feel comfortable even walking down that canyon. So, if this is an example of what we're going to be doing in the future, I'm pretty skeptical. I mean, there's parts of the canyon for sale right now that would scare me getting developed and not because just because it's in my neighborhood. Um, so that's something that, you know, if we're looking this as an example, I would be, you know, there's parts of it that are just so unstable. And you know, we have had apartment complex collapse in Oregon City before in the canyon. So, it's something to think about.

Yeah, I would I would just say that I think what the applicant is proposing is a little different. Um, it's not at the top of the slope. It's set back and even further set back. So, when you when you actually look at the existing topography of the site, that area is relatively flat. It's benched in. Um, so I would just say it's not like we're building or allowing or setting a precedent to build right at the top of the slope and encouraging landslide. I mean, I do think the applicant has done a good job, but trying to mitigate the hazard and at least put the money into provincial terms.

We just need to be looking at each situation individually and um, not looking at, you know, that's what we just need to be looking at each situation carefully. Yeah, would agree with that.

And I I agree with you. The apartment building is outside the buffer zone. It's just parking lot we're talking about. But unfortunately, I I don't agree with the applicant's interpretation, which means they can't put the parking lot there. They can put the apartment building since it's not cited inside of it. They just have to get rid of the the parking lot. And I do agree with you, Brandon, on the situation that you're talking about compared to other parts of the canyon. So, yeah,

Christina, in the code, is there a does it distinguish between the buffer and the actual landslide hazard area? Um, let me find a map. Okay. Excuse me, Commissioner Dole. Sorry. Um, Commissioner Do, do you mean on the map like in the zone is there a buffer zone? Does the code distinguish between like is that whole area including the buffer the hazard area or do they distinguish the difference between the buffer because I know in some jurisdictions I believe the coat the entire area is in the geologic hazard overlay zone including the buffer.

Okay. Is that right? I'm trying to find there is see if it we should have a map in the record that shows the um landslide deposit and the buffer. I just need to figure out where it is. So yeah, I will pop back in as you're doing your deliberation, let you know when I find it. And I it's my understanding uh from again testimony in the record from last week that in 2021 the city uh was seeking to provide clarity by drawing the geologic hazard overlay zone line to include the buffer. Okay. And it was expanded from uh where it had been. Yeah. Okay.

And uh the city assistant city engineer testified to that last week. Um, it is in page 59 of the master plan staff report. Okay. It's figure 11. Thanks, Christina. And you'll see the GIS. Yeah. Uh, layers to your left. I'm going to ask commissioners that we take a short break. Okay.

And um I think the city attorney had some had uh some comments to make.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. So, um uh the the last thing that we were discussing was the um the way that the planning commission ends up uh interpreting how 1744060L applies is um because it's a provision of the city code, you know, this will be uh somewhat binding on future applications. And so I think uh somebody made a comment like we have to look really carefully at this on a case by case basis. I can't remember what the language was but but in fact because it's a provision of the code and because it implements the city's drawn geologic hazards overlay it's sort of the opposite and that it's not on a case-byase basis. The idea of a casebyase basis is what a variance is for. And um we heard uh testimony last week from uh planning staff and from the assistant city engineer that the city does not uh allow its normal variance process to vary the standards of the geologic hazards overlay zone. You know, the city has a variance process like many codes do and

with typical variance criteria, but that is has never been available to vary from uh the geologic hazard overlay zone standards which are uh their own set of standards and they're they're again health and safety standards. Do you want to add anything to that?

Do you have any questions? I think in my mind that that the only right approach to being able to encroach into the into the um into that zone would be to make an actual code amendment or a text amendment, a map amendment to move that line so that it would accommodate the development rather than the other way around where you have the development just a just just encroaching into the line. So I I think I think making a you know doing a a code amendment and a map amendment would be a much better argument to have you know to achieve what they want to achieve as opposed to them assuming that you know that this line that's been drawn demarcating the buffer and the geological hazard zone as discretionary which I have trouble with. Uh, commissioners, uh, one thing that might be helpful if you want to try to do it is to, uh, take a sort of go through each of the four questions that are up on the slide and take a sort of

informal poll uh, just to see where everyone is sort of say, you know, for the first question, I mean, you know, Christina, if you have thoughts about this too,

you know, I think, um, just process-wise trying to understand, you know, separate what and what issues arising the top I would kind of frame it in the four questions are um in your answer do you uh feel that there's adequate conditions to address this question in the staff report or do or do conditions of approval need to be revised to to answer this question. So kind of feel like you can get understanding if if there you know how many votes are adequate conditions and then in that sense you are just adopting staff's

findings and conditions or no I think I think there should be um revised conditions and you don't have to go through what the right conditions are but maybe that can help you narrow down what you want to have further deliberations on.

Right. Commissioner Dole was suggesting that very thing and he wanted to just go through each each one and pull the commissioners for where we're where we're standing on each one of those. So yeah, if you could flash those up on our screens too, that would or yeah, we can see that too, I guess. Um, so let's start with the Yeah, the first one. Has the applicant adequately demonstrated a need to for the adjustment to the u to the maximum parking standard on parts A and B or A and D? I'm sorry, my eyes are not very good. Commissioner Lel, how about we start with you? I I'm still not sure where the Thank you. I'm still not sure exactly where the park the maximum parking standard has has been needed to be mitigated. I guess I'd have to look at the map. Um, Commissioner Gold,

I'd say I'd say yeah, I would say that the applicant has adequately demonstrated it. I think staff has good done a good job with recommending conditions of approval that address mitigation. So I would say yes. Okay. So I think that um well I'll go ahead and go to the other end. I'm going to make this complicated. Yeah. Yes on D, no on A. Okay.

I kind of think I agree with that. But I also think one of the mitigations that is important and ties into all this. Sorry, I'm going to do this. Is the path because while we recognize there's, you know, need for parking, we we want to mitigate that additional parking by trying to get more people to not use that additional parking.

I agree with Commissioner Dole. Yes. So I'm going to say no because in light of the climate friendly and equitable communities we are have we do enjoy the goal of reducing the amount of parking wherever we can and um in the spirit of doing any meaningful mitigation to the impervious surface which can have a adverse effect on slides and I understand that they are doing uh detention but I would think that if they are serious about doing you know uh slide mitigation and and wanting to design their project to be compatible with that area that they should reduce the amount of impervious impervious surface and therefore the parking spaces.

Should we go to question two and take a poll? Yeah. be um has the applicant designed the drive-thru facilities a parcels A and D that are safe and contain adequate Q storage and um adverse effects. Should we pull up the map just so all commissioners can see that?

Yeah. figure. Thanks, Kelly. and you go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Starting from the other end. Okay. Um I actually support both of these. Uh when I look at specifically a conditional use and drive-throughs and the appropriate place to have them, I believe Malala and Beaver Creek is that location. Um, as I was absent when a lot of the deliberations occurred regarding safety and design, um, I am going to listen to my fellow commissioners, uh, to get a better idea of that. But right now, I would support, um, both drive-throughs currently designed.

Okay,

uh, so I support the drive-throughs in principle, just not their design. I don't think they're safe as drawn on the master plan as I've previously stated, especially the one on parcel D. Um, cutting off basically all pedestrian inflow from the potentially increased parking maximum parking lot to the store. Um, uh, just seems like a really bad design. It would be seemingly a lot better to have it go around the back of the store and exit to the road or, you know, circle back around just so all those people that are getting from their car trying to get into the store aren't going to get run over by people trying to pull their chicken sandwich out of the bag and eat it. Um, and the parcel A is maybe less bad, but who knows what the drive-thru will be. Um, and that one seems like it'd be pretty easy to, you know, reverse the flow and just put the the window kind of close to the road there so that the Q storage goes up and around the building. Um, and I think those two improvements would make it, you know, significantly safer than as implemented. But I agree that this is an appropriate location. They appear to have adequate Q storage um, and all the rest. I'm just concerned about the safety I say yes on A and concerns about D. And I uh will piggyback on Seth Henderson, Commissioner Henderson's um uh comments on the on the access or the um I'm sorry, the um drive-thru.

I'm sorry. I'm I Commission. I didn't quite get what you Oh, Commissioner Laws, go ahead. Sorry, I was typing too fast. Yeah, sorry about that. Sorry. I said I'm I'm not concerned as much about A. A little bit concerned about D. Okay. Thanks. Yeah, I think D is the bigger problem, but if they if we could improve A, that would be great. I'd like to revise my my opinion. Yeah, Commissioner South. Um I agree with with the other commissioners that parcel A is close. parcel D is far too dangerous to support and Commissioner Dole.

Yeah, I would agree with what uh Commissioner Henderson um said. I I'm fine with both drive-throughs on A and D. Um I understand the concerns on D, but I I feel this is a common situation. I feel this there's precedent for this and um I'm willing to accept that one. Okay. Okay, if you can bring the next question up. Okay. So, do you do you agree or disagree with the U staff recommendations to relocate the north end of the shared use path and integrate it into parcel B and improve uh visibility, move it away from the um due hazard buffer area and allow its construction either concurrently with the DDP or as a future DDP on uh parcel B. And let's go ahead and start with uh Commissioner Henderson. I'm putting significant thought into this. Um, as I previously stated, I believe this path fundamentally is important as part of the TSP. Um, however, I believe there is a way to

dedicate the current property uh area as shown in the application. um for use of that path. And as far as whether building out the path or fee and loo um this path becomes most beneficial when various portions of it is are assembled together. And so does it create more of an issue today by just having a smaller single piece completed with the understanding that we may also be creating a precedent similar to uh the geohhazard interpretation. So, I'm not sure if I completely answered that, but uh commissioners, this question really goes to condition 21 of the DDP, and that it might help to look at condition 21 as you're as we're doing this poll, which is on page.

It's on page five of the DDP application. Let me just uh condition 21 also just to to reiterate from the last meeting. Condition 21 is a response to Metro's concern about the proposed location of the path being in the gully and not visible from anywhere.

Yeah. And I I think that it it you know there's going to be a fairly complicated bit of engineering that is going to go into the design of this along al along that area and I think that that really the the pathway should be part of that equation at the outset. I don't think it should be an afterthought because who knows you know there the certain aspects of the design could have designed their way right out of putting the pathway in a feasible location there and okay so I think that I think it all I think at the very least it should all be looked at at once. So if we do go to a um uh an inloo fee, I would I would want to make sure that along with the as builts for the development there should that should also include the pathway so that it's all integrated into the design at the time.

So can I clarify Commissioner Henderson if if do you agree with the staff recommendation to relocate where the path is on parcel B or do you disagree with the staff recommendation? Can you can you can staff clarify one thing in that statement? Because the way that it reads right now, it's it it implies that the path the north end of the path would end on parcel B. So ultimately, it would it would connect Beaver Creek to parcel B. Is that No. U what it's saying is it's moving from where it's shown by the applicant further into parcel B

and be integrated with the development of parcel B but it's still going to the same connection point is just further into the parcel B site. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. So the the final design and how it gets from point A where the road turns to the north end of the property line close but not all the way to Hilltop would be designed at with the parcel B development.

Okay. So we'll start with Commissioner Henderson on whether or not they agree with the lo the staff's suggestion for the location of the pathway. I uh I I believe that I sorry um I believe that there's a design that makes the current location acceptable as suggested by staff or by the applicant by the applicant.

Okay. Okay. Commissioner Garmmont, which design? The proposed one from last week, which they had it relocated and snaking around the west and north edge or the one in the original application that Metro had comments that were a concern. I I am specifically reading what is in um condition of approval 17. So I'd have to look at a graphic in regards to the two changes that you were proposing. Is this of the DDP?

Okay. I think uh we're looking at condition of approval. I'm in the DP. Got it. 21 of the DDP for the path which is on page five of the DDP. Yeah, I was specifically reviewing the master plan, the general development plan rather. Okay. Okay. Uh chair, go ahead. Um got it. Got it. I will review it in additional detail. Sorry. Okay. So, we'll move on. I think the path is important. Um,

my experience living in other cities, uh, Eugene especially, having paths and bike bike trails and and walking paths are are incredible for livability of the city. Um, and I think you've got to start somewhere. Um, and we should start requiring this to implement the TSP of all applicants um, where we can. So, I think the path should be built by the the applicant because we want to make sure it actually gets built and doesn't get put onto a back burner or lost into the general fund. And I re recognize that while it may be currently a path to nowhere, um getting that path to Metro's borders would allow Metro to then continue the path themselves to make it connect potentially. Obviously, that's not something we can do here, but if we don't put the path in, then that option doesn't exist,

right? Commissioner Laws, I I agree that we should do the suggested path that the applicant agreed with with Metro. Um, and that's what I would recommend um in the improvements with Metro. Um, and that's what I would recommend. From what I've seen and heard of the area, there has any type of movement and improvement would greatly improve what a current state is. So, we need to do something. Commissioner Lel, I agree with the staff recommendation.

Thank you. And Commissioner Do. Thanks, Commissioner. Um, I too would emphasize the importance of the path. Um, I think it does fall along with our comprehensive plan, TSP. Um, I think we have plenty of developments throughout the city where we've asked for rightway improvements, um, connectivity improvements where we have sidewalks that lead to an adjacent property that don't allow for full connectivity. So, I do think we should ask the applicant to build the path. Um, I guess where I'm a little stuck is obviously we want to minimize um development in the geological hazard area and I think we should allow the applicant the option to route the path that best suits the application, but I have no I have no quarrels with uh the proposed uh alignment.

Yep. Okay, good. I also agree um with staff's uh recommendation on the location of the pathway for all the reasons said tonight and um reasons I've said before and we will go back to Commissioner Henderson for his opinion. Yeah. The the the problem I have specifically with condition of approval 21 is it talks about the 4,000 square feet,

right? And um I respect staff tremendously and the efforts they put in. I fundamentally disagree with the plain language reading of 1744060 when it talks about proposed geotechnical remediation. So um I can agree to the location of it. Um I have a challenge with that specific verbiage and the condition of approval. Okay. Very good. Okay. Okay. And then we've got the final question. Do you agree or disagree with staff's interpretation of OCMC 174460L and um uh development standards? The staff does not have the authority to approve the development in the buffer area and beyond 4,000 square ft of surface area graded or stripped of vegetation or um covered with structures or impermeable surfaces. and purious services. So, we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Lel.

I agree with the staff recommendation. Yeah, I do not. I don't agree. And again, full respect for city staff and their uh their abilities and the work they put into this application. But I do think that that statement does give flexibility um for potential sites like this. And again, I feel the applicant's proposal that reduces potential for landslides, that is locating buildings that are habited by people outside of the buffer zone, um along with their consultant, their geoteex recommendations for uh different remediation.

Okay, very good. Um and uh Commissioner Henderson

to reiterate um again uh the staff has a very difficult job and um when I read the plain language here and I think about how this applies obviously we are all interested in every development being as safe as possible. um to state that there is no way to physically engineer a safe solution and that is not part of what is referenced in this code section. Um I have a hard time with that interpretation.

Fair enough. Okay. Commissioner Hendry, I mean I'm Commissioner Carmott.

Uh yes. So, I tend to agree with the staff's reading of OCMC 1744 or 060. Um, while I completely agree that technology probably would make this safe and and perhaps there should be a way for us to do it, I don't think that this section of the chapter provides us the ability to do that. I think this section of the chapter provides the review authority, the city, the ability to determine if the construction inside of that hazard zone is safe as proposed and if not require additional stuff. But it literally says the review authority may allow development in a known or potential hazard area as provided in this chapter. And the development as provided in this chapter is the development that's restricted to 4,000 square feet of disturbance and the rest. And if it said the review authority may allow any development in this known or potential hazard area that you know with mitigations then then I would agree that we have the ability to do that. But since it's restricted to this chapter, which has very specific requirements for construction within that hazard overlay zone, we can make it more rest or the city rather can make it more restrictive to ensure safety, but it doesn't say that we can just allow any construction.

Okay. Commissioner Laws, I agree with city staff

and I also agree with city staff to just to make it quick and brief for the reasons I've mentioned before feverishly writing. Um, okay. So, uh, the fourth question, I feel like there's been a prepoundonderance of answers for that one. For I'm I'm going down and up. Um, for the, um, path, let's see. Oh, hold on. Okay. want to make sure there's a couple of nuanced answers. So, I just want to make sure um just real quickly, sorry, I wrote too um I wrote too much nuance in your comments, so I just want to make sure. Can you raise your hand if you agree with the path location and implementation as written in the staff report?

To clarify, we are talking specifically location. Yes.

Okay. Um I think the uh fee and loo or easement issue that's something that the if there's after we get through these four questions if that's something that you want to discuss as a fifth question that's something you can add on. So put that in your um deliberation parking lot for a second. Okay. So for the um the drive-thru facilities, I'm getting some feeling that there is some concern about parcel D and its design. And this is one thing um that would be helpful for me as staff. Um this is a conditional use to allow the drive-thru. They haven't had their DDP yet. So, if there is a condition of approval you would like to modify to provide additional direction, it says when you do your DDP for this site, the driveway shall like blink link. That's a good way to implement your concern. And and the reason I say that because I'm not a transportation engineer. The applicant's not here. They don't have their transportation engineer. These were initially reviewed by both transportation engineers um for kind of baseline safety, but if you have specific concerns, identify them and maybe we can identify maybe not the design solution, but when you do your design, please ensure the drive-thru and then what you're concerned about. We can do that through this process. So, I think the I think the bottom line on the drive-thru was that uh that the drive-thru cars didn't conflict with the um pedestrians walking in and out of the out of the building.

So, if you have any kind any kind of a design that that achieves that, I think would probably be okay. Commissioner Lawson, real quick here. We've seen design issues. Um, for example, you know, we've seen Dutch Brothers here in Oregon City have issues with like on Malala Avenue backing up. We've seen issues with it down on Seventh Street backing up. They've problem solved those with hiring more staff. Ideally, you know, you'd want the problem solved the first time in the design, right?

But they've had to work with what they've got. And then you look at the Chick-fil-A and Clacamus, it's backing up, you know, on the street and they've hired staff and created a different lane. I think if you know they're limited in their construction on what they can do, if they can propose a way that they can be safe in terms of let's say that they're constructurally limited on what they're able to do, right, in terms of their plans.

Sure. and I'm going to give you some um things that are in the record to help you think about how you may want to revise that condition. So we can pop up I actually this afternoon we looked at the transmission impact analysis and they identified the number of car cart is in the queue for each of those ones that might be helping we can bring that up. Um we do have that opening day plan that we've added to the condition the opening day safety plan that kind of goes I think a little bit what you were talking about with Dr. like what's the plan to make sure but that's more of an operational piece. I think what Commissioner Gamont was saying was is there something fundamentally about the design location of like the the path for the pedestrians, the parking lot location if there is a is a direction that you feel is needed that the applicant needs to implement through the DDP. But I think in this situation, identify what the problem is and then what the solution can be through the DDP um development.

Okay. like something of you know like obviously what uh was mentioned is safely pedest pedestrians being able to walk right like you know some type of safety in terms of walking across and feeling you were mentioning that like you know is there a way that pedestrians could walk across there safely and somehow making cars stop. Yeah. I mean, I think the condition could be something along the lines of the exit of the drive-thru shall not cut off access to from the parking lot to the store.

Okay. Okay. No problem. We're interested in modifying the conditional use drive-through condition for parcel D, the um fast food restaurant um or quicks serve restaurant, sorry, quick serve restaurant. Uh for um additional clarity, let's move on. I'm going to recap the question related to the parking maximum. So we kind of right

have that. Um okay. So for parking uh maximums what I was seeing is some uh let's see um this is where I'm trying to I have can you raise your hand real quickly if you are supportive of the parking maximums on both A and D just so we can see that. Okay. Um for a I heard some comments related to the design or related to don't quite know what's going to be built there. Is um is that was um Commissioner Gant's comment was depending on additional or is it depending on a revised condition of approval? There's something I want I want to make sure there's

I think that was Commissioner Henderson that pointed out that depending on what goes in there, it may or may not be appropriate to have additional parking. Okay. If a bike store goes in, for instance, you probably don't need more parking through bike store. That is accurate. No, I'm just kidding.

Okay. Who's a yes on giving a parking maximum adjustment to parcel D, the quick service restaurant? Okay. Who is supportive of giving a parking maximum to a the uh um multi-tenant commercial space? Okay. I can't even picture. Okay. So I Okay, that's different than what I wrote down. So

yeah, can you can you do that again? Say that again. Can you clarify that because supportive of pro providing a parking maximum at uh for sorry parking maximum adjustment for parcel D, the quick service restaurant? Okay. Who is supportive of a parking maximum adjustment for A, the multi-tenant commercial space? Okay, for the people that did not raise their hand for the multi-tenant commercial space, raise your hand if you feel like there are conditions of approval you could add that would get you to supporting a parking maximum for a

for a okay so what I'm hearing is there is support for the quick service restaurant I'm seeing four votes um but for parcel A the multi-tenant commercial. There needs to be additional deliberation discussions of how you would amend that condition for additional direction. Is that okay?

So, I just want to see more landscape islands and uh and a richer, more robust landscaping plan. I know that we haven't had a chance to look at that, but and I'm going to rely on staff to, you know, provide that as a part of the DR. Uh my two cents they they have the ability to come back for that if if that um variance is critical to a tenant identified in the future and a use they have that ability during the DDP though I understand it becomes a type three. So um I I believe just maxing out parking for the intent of maxing out parking above what's currently in the code. Um I I have a tough time with that. You're here. Yeah.

Yeah. I think that doesn't meet the demonstrated a need, but if they came and said, you know, we're putting in a Trader Joe's or something like that, which is always the full parking lot. Mhm. You could probably get away with that. Yeah. So, it's an unknown on the actual end user.

Yeah. And that's why I'm saying it's a rejection because there has they haven't proved that that variance is required today. It is possible they could prove that in the future when they have additional information which is different which is the use and who the tenant is and I am all for if it provides a benefit to the community then let's consider it but today that information isn't available.

Did that help at all? Um, okay. So, for the folks that Well, actually, I mean, um, is there anybody that this is more just I'm trying to separate out what what is there anybody that has a different take on parcel A's parking maximum adjustment than Commissioner Henderson? Okay. So what I'm hearing is it really is for that condition. It is that the parking maximum is denied at this time of the master plan because there is uh the applicant is not shown adequate information related to a specific proposed use and the need based on the use itself. Is that what I'm hearing?

Just for parcel A. Just for parcel A. Yes. Okay. I and and uh as we move forward on we will recess and we will work on revised conditions but that that can be attached and the findings can be attached to the decision. Okay. Christina is there a way in a condition to state that right to address that concern?

Yeah. Um sometimes people disagree with me but I like to provide clarity and um master plan conditions sometimes just to re um because there are different people and we all change and there's new commissions and there's new staff and it's nice to iterate that sometimes in the condition of approval that well um it really was not ripe for this review but it you know the planning commission supports the applicant resubmitt when at the time of DDP with the when you can say that kind of declaratory context statement to help future uh planning commissions and future staff understand that it wasn't a wholesale rejection.

Okay, thank you. What's next? Um I think we've gotten through all the questions. Yeah, actually I do have one. Um y

and this is where because um of the parcel D's drive-thru and the concern I'd like if um Kelly could turn put on the maybe a zoom in on just kind of the map of where parcel D is. Maybe you can take that slide, but maybe kind of zoom in and really just look at that. Okay. what I where my brain is is um the condition needs to provide enough specificity that the applicant understands when they've met it or not because we're at a type two staff level decision. And so you need to design to ensure that and then be very specific. So you can say we've checked that box, we've ensured that XYZ happens. So we can't use the word is safe or safer or doesn't conflict cuz

you know if you want to make sure that maybe we can have a further discussion about what you are wanting to see in a revised DP and we can put that in. So, I I guess the only concern that I see is if they were to redesign that that drive-thru so that the so it it it follows along the westerly boundary of that parcel, you're going to lose all your landscaping and it's really going to be terrible to have both the roadway and then the drive-thru um you know right there and without any landscape buffer for that building between the the building and the street. So I think we really need to be sensitive to what that whole thing should be.

Yeah, I I would agree with you commissioners. So I was curious to the other commissioners that had the concern. Would a potential solution be provide more, you know, more striping, more signage where the cars would actually be, you know, exiting the drive-thru? Because there's only going to be so many ways in which a pedestrian can get to the front door of the building. So, is that something that is amunable? Commissioner Henderson.

Uh, I was just going to throw out something for my fellow commissioners to consider. This is a standard layout for a specific tenant that has how many? Hundreds of these locations. If it is unsafe and there's consistent accidents and they get sued, they don't stay in business very long. So, um I I completely value concerns and comments about it being safer. Uh I just um I ask that you consider whether we are designing somebody else's use to the most safest use. Yeah, if that makes sense.

It could just be a matter of where the doors are located, where the pedestrians enter, too.

Well, just remind everybody that the um the front door is actually at um the corner, right? So there is a an entry door at um the new road as well as Malala Avenue. So pedestrians from the street are coming in through that way. If you are parking and I think this is the the comment. If you're parking and walking to the door, how are you safely getting um from the parking lot to the door as they're crossing? I think that's what Commissioner Gam was saying. Um and I'd like to look at um condition of approval. Sorry, it's going to take me a second. I want to make sure I have the right one. Um, about the opening day plan just real quickly.

Well, I'll just point out so the I mean, we all know it's Chick-fil-A, so I'm just going to go with that. The Chick-fil-A in Beaverton off of 10, I think it's 10 has this design effectively and I go there not infrequently and have almost been run over a number of times. The location in Clackamus does not have this design where you can walk from the parking lot into the store without crossing the the, you know, people exiting the drive-thru. And that's how most quicks serve restaurant drive-thru designs are as well. If you think about the McDonald's that's across the street, the parking lot

is bounded by the drive-thru. Um, if you think about the Taco Bell at in Barry Hill shopping center, you that's the more general design for a drive-thru. And so, having experienced Chick-fil-As that have this design and and different designs, I strongly feel that this design is less safe and and not adequately safe. I I have no problem with the drive-thru itself. I ag I I agree with everything you just said, but we're restricting ourselves to the building having to be in that location. Who says the building has to be in that exact location? They could redesign the the location of the building

to make the drive-thru exit, not go across the parking lot, which I strongly recommend. Mhm. I mean, cuz that is that's a highly dangerous situation. people coming in and out of there with their children. I personally had a child hit by a car in that kind of a situation because my little girl ran away. It's Yeah, it's easy to happen. So, don't restrict ourselves to the building being on that exact spot.

Um, real quickly, just to provide guidance, um, city code actually does require the building to be in that location, right? So, they're designing the drive-thru based on the building in a specific and driveways need to be on the side and rear. So, that's where like the starting point. Um, what I'm hearing, and maybe you can let me know, is you are wanting to see at the DDP level, um, a design that has a p a raised pedestrian path either through the parking lot or at the edge of the parking lot that allows for pedestrians to get to the um, street. Now, they're either going to be going raised right in front right where the where you're crossing the as you're leaving the drive-thru. And I've seen stop signs where they've done that. Um or you're bringing it towards the out where they're at the um driveway apron onto the street. So, like those are the two ways you can get from the parking lot to the but just you know like the the building is building needs to be at the corner lot because of of the code. I mean, why couldn't you design it so that the bottom entry to parcel D is the entry to the drive-thru and it runs along the road up to the side of the building and then exits to the road. And you could have the parking lot more where the waste or the storm water and and uh drive-thru is right now or something like that. Yeah, I'm

You could have the drive-thru follow the the yellow road there, the new proposed road to get around to the building and then have the parking lot on the other side of it and then the exit could just be out to the road. Well, I'd like to know what why they are restricted to have the building at that exact Sure. Um, it's a corner lot of a transit street and a street and you and buildings must be um built for them. see one zone at the corner of a of two of two intersecting streets. So, they're building at the corner of the street. So, that building is they would have to get a variance or a to have it not in that location. Hey, good news. I know somebody that can do that for them.

Uh Christina, quick question. When you when you say a raised access, are you talking about a just a slightly elevated crosswalk or are you talking about actually being able to to get into it without going across? It's more it's more than striping our code when we do pedestrian connections. It's either a different material or a raised pedestrian solution.

So I don't have the answer. the you you're still you are still intersecting with either right at the drive-thru, you know, at where the drive-thru and the building meet. And I have seen where there's kind of like, you know, stop and you can let pedestrians path and there's people there. That's like an operations plan. Um or you're sending people to connect up in a sense like to take the sidewalk from the um onto the new street back crossing the drive I mean the drive aisle. Um and that's that you can do that. I mean we can we can require that that they have to get there or they can get there. The way this is laid out, um, you are using a combination of operations plan, signage, and potentially raised pedestrian. How about if we had a condition of approval that required the developer to install a rapid flashing beacon at that site where the pedestrians cross that exit from the drive-thru? Well, a rapid flash flashing beacon is more like a something you would put in the rightway, but I understand what you're saying. It's like a it's a way finding operations safeties plan and I've seen it with more of a like you have a stop, you have

once again I am not an engineer and I and that's why I'm trying to provide enough direction without designing this because we none of us here are transportation engineers. There is a toolbox of options that transportation engineers have to address safety concerns. So, I'm trying to find a way to put your concerns into a condition that will allow an expert to implement it. Well, I think some something along the lines of a raised crosswalk in that location would probably be the best solution at this point. It's not great, but it's it's better than what it is now, I think.

Yeah. I mean, that's certainly better than what it is, but I'd rather, I think, see the building move south by 20 ft and have the drive-throughs wrap around and just exit to the street. Yeah. And you actually can't have a driveway in front between the building and the street. It's that would be another variance. And so, I'm saying the way this is laid out requires no variances. Yeah. By the city besides parking, I'm saying for the conditional. Yeah. So, let's pull the commission and see if a raised uh crosswalk is going to fly. Good point. Um All right. Uh Commissioner Lel, I say yes because it's better than nothing.

Right. Commissioner Dole. Yeah, I would agree. Commissioner Henderson. Uh I'm comfortable with the current design. So, anything that improves safety to the level that my commissioners are satisfied, I am fine with. Fabulous. Commissioner Garmat. Oh, Commissioner Karma. Yeah, Gmont. Yeah, I'm sorry. No, you're good. I mean, I think there's better ways to go about it, but it's certainly better than it is. And Commissioner Laws,

I would say yes because I think they fit a lot on that lot and I can't imagine reconstructing that plan. So,

okay. And I also agree that the raised sidewalk would be better than nothing at this point. Okay. what I have um really is are two conditions of approval that are amended and I want to make sure when we do our recess that there's not like a string to another condition but these two topics which is findings and revised condition for the parking maximum adjustment on parcel A that it's not ripe yet but that the planning commission encouraged the applicant to return at the time of DDP when there's a fully fleshed out design so they can fully anal you know analyze or um impact and D as it relates to the approval of the conditional use for the drive-thru that uh a raised pedestrian crossing and I can take a look at our code a little bit should be implemented to ensure that um pedestrian traffic from the parking lot um there's a there is a raised pedestrian connection from the parking lot to the front door um that crosses the um drive-thru exit lane.

Okay. And I will write that in a much more coherent. All right. All right. All right. And then the the what I'm because you've provided the direction related to the geological hazards and the um uh shared use path that is as uh recommended. But one thing we haven't done and it'd be nice to have a poll about the applicant's request for uh just an easement and fee and Lou and I wanted to see if we can pull the planning commission on that question as well. Okay, we can start on that now if you want. Um okay. Um Commissioner Garmott,

I think it should be built. I don't think there should be a fee in L. Okay. Okay, Commissioner Henderson. Uh, I'm comfortable with either. Comfortable with what? I'm sorry. Uh, with a fee in L or having it built. So, oh, either it's either or L or build it now. Uh, I am fine with a fee and L. Okay. Commissioner Laws, I'm for build it now. I do not like fee in L. Commissioner Lel, I'm I'm in favor of the fee in lie of Okay. and Commissioner Dole. Yeah, I would I would accept the family and I would be a fan of building it now. So I think that brings us to four to four. Is that correct?

Three to three. Three to three, I mean. So keep talk amongst yourself. Keep So I can go ahead and accept the fee and Lou if that's what No, no. Commissioner Dole should accept the build it now. No fee. Well, that's not where I was going. All right, I'll I'll I'll withhold I'll withhold my opinion and keep with the build it now until we hear from everybody again. Christina, can you talk a little bit about establishing the fee? The applicant was throwing numbers around in the last hearing.

Yeah. And and I am not the staff person for this. This would be, you know, our assistant city engineer, but we we we do have a feeling process. Uh I think we'd probably make them actually design it. So we'd have a a usually you get a some type of design. So work still has to be done. Yeah. We wouldn't take the applicant's number. We would have something that we'd have to agree on. Um and then we have a fee and process. Just to remind everybody, our fee and loo it doesn't go to the general fund. It is held in a special account until such time it's built. Yeah. And if that's 25 years, it's held in that account for 25 years.

That was my only reservation with the fe the number that was, you know, kind of being thrown out. um in my mind wouldn't match the cost to actually construct the path. So I think if if we follow if we require the applicant to follow the process and work with the city to establish an adequate fee based on an an accurate act actual design then I I'm fine with the ve go ahead you

uh there I I would just suggest that at times uh it can be more detrimental to build out a small portion of a path for instance commissioner laws you brought up the one testimony that was given about using that path essentially to park in the neighborhood and then use that path to walk into the multifamily. So there there are times when the full path is not dedicated and ready to go where building just a small portion can can be as much a negative as a positive.

That is true. The thing that I have a hard time with with a fee and loo as you know um at times is when there's a fee in loo then things don't get done either. So that's what I have a hard time with with the fee and loo and if they do a fee in loo based upon the price to build it today and we're not going to build it for 5 years until everything's dedicated all of a sudden that fee and loo doesn't actually cover the construction. Whereas if they had just built it, it would it would be built and we wouldn't be having to come up with additional funds. Quick question. Um this path and this space are dedicated to the city, correct?

Is a seizement. Um okay. So ultimately the city is required to maintain this going forward. Absolutely. I realize sorry I realize your answers to the two kind of geological hazard questions already answered this. So I'm going to give this well maybe I'll do it because you said you want to have the path integrated into parcel B when it's at its DDP. Mhm. A fee in L is not necessarily a needed condition of approval because it's just going to be integrated into parcel B at the time of DP.

So, you don't know if you need a fee in L for that. In other words, it's going to be close enough to the building that it it won't be um uh just a a path that's sitting sitting there available for somebody to park and walk into the apartment buildings. I think was the example. Did I mishar that? Did I mishar that? No. Um, so I think by answering the question that you agree with staff that pulling it back is the correct interpretation of 1744, right? Then they'll just do it at the time of their DDP development. Okay.

Um, so a fee and loo, it really is a fee and inside a existing development. So it it would make sense if it was off if you had a different interpretation that it could be built further down but because you agreed with staff's interpretation of L that requires it to bring it back up. So based on that we don't have to have the V and L discussion. Yeah. And so I apologize that like it was a one to two. Yeah. I mean that was remember because of the Metro's concerns satisfying Metro's concerns. Got it. Okay. All right. Are we good on that? So now I think we've got everything resolved, right?

I think what we need now is a recess and staff is going to work on the additional findings and the revisions to the condition, the conditional use condition and the parking maximum condition. Okay. And I'm we're going to quickly look through all the other conditions to make sure that there's not a like a tie in there. And then we're going to come back and we're going to write it on the screen and you're going to see it in your All right. Do you need about 20 minutes for that? 15.

Can I make one more proposal as part of this? Can we also include either reversing the drive-thru or a raised pedestrian as part of the parcel a drive-thru? Because it suffers from a similar problem where people are entering from the street, going around the back of the building, and then exiting right off into the parking lot. Whereas they could go around the back of the building and then exit onto the street. if you if they reverse the direction or you know and if they don't want to reverse the direction then a

raised the solution that we decide for the parcel D would be you know somewhat acceptable for parcel A. So perhaps we can propose a condition that would just simply say any pedestrian access that crosses a drive-thru exit as part of the general the GDP will institute raised pathways to the to the front door. That would work. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Raised or se or se segregated

mutual loss. One last thing too. We had public testimony about concerns on a side street. Um uh you know there's a barricade at um like a wall um where the Wendy's is and you know the neighbors were concerned there. There's all, you know, anyways, not because of any special reasons, but there could be concerns there of a, you know, of traffic and other things on that side street that could not handle the, you know, for safety concerns. So, and then in another way, you know, I've seen land use decisions in my personal background in the past where it could be also safety concern because of access for fire and other things. So, it may not be an option, right? um to have some type of wall there, but it's something to maybe look at or entertain um because there is a side street there that may not be able to handle just all the what's going to be happening there. Um and it's like a you know, so that's something to entertain, but then also they're what we're not entertaining is fire safety and also to look at that, examine that too as well. Do you know what I'm talking about right there? We had some public testimony. Well, I think that they were discussing was this Hilltop Avenue,

right? Exactly. And so, was there discussion about people um accessing the site from Hilltop? Right. Correct. Yeah. Like if the apartment parking lot was full. Got it. Right. You might have people park on Hilltop and take the shared use path over. This is my planner answer, which is going to be Okay. Your professional which is um Yes. The TIA did not bring it up. Okay.

I generally as staff don't like to preemp preemptive something. If you have a situation where apartment residents are overutilizing on street parking on somebody else's street um then that is something where those um neighbors could have a parking program. And we've done that in Mclofflin where we've had um uh high use businesses that um sent out uh day um employees parked all through the neighborhood and Mclofflin come together and said we want to have a parking program which means you if you you know if you don't you get a parking permit if you live on the street and if you don't then you have a 2-hour parking minimum. So that's a kind of postland use like once it's happening is this an issue then there are there is a parking program in citywide that if neighbors wanted to get together they could do a parking management program and Mlofflin is a is a neighborhood that has chosen to do that in certain areas.

I have one of those in my neighborhood and that's actually being removed in the city plan in the future. So they were talking about that as well for like you know there is talk about that being removed eventually too. So it's interesting. So it's something to think about. Anyways, we can talk about that. I'm generally more like you can't like you need to have opening day sit like what's happening and then there are non-land use solutions to problems. But anyways all right thank you. Yeah, I think as well just to provide some clarification too, the the area of concern was for parcel B which hasn't gone through the DP process yet and so having

sightsp specific mitigation like that would be appropriate to have a conversation during that actual DP. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. All right. We'll go ahead and um and recess so that staff can write up conditions. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm ready when you guys are. Okay, we are reconvening the planning commission meeting and uh we are at the point now where we can review the conditions of approval that staff have been so arduously working on. Um and um without any further I thank you for received the supplementary. One second. You did predict about 10 minutes. Yeah.

No, I am. But I'm just one second. I'm just putting the supplementary findings in. Okay. Give me one second. I'm going to share my screen. Okay. So, these are the um conditions that we think are affected by your direction and I'm going to go through them. Okay. So, condition number 13. They can.

Okay. Condition of approval number 13 relates to the conditional use permit. And this um amendment uh in um underline uh shows it says all drive-through queuing lanes and exits authorized by the conditional use permit and that's for both A and D shall be designed in a manner to provide an unobstructive pedestrian path of travel or raised pedestrian path of travel when crossing vehicular queuing lanes. So that's for both of the drive-throughs. Right. Unobstructed pedestrian path. Now, did you guys want us to You want to just go through all the

Yeah, I'm going to go through all of them. Okay. Number 14. Um, so number 14 and 15 go together. So, I basically removed uh parcel A from the parking maximum. Um, and then I also added the parking maximum adjustment parcel A is denied. This is 14. With this master plan application, as the applicant has not provided sufficient detail to demonstrate a need for the proposed use on parcel A, the applicant is encouraged to provide additional detail and apply for a future parking adjustment with a with or prior to the DDP when appropriate detail can be presented. Letting them know. And then um the uh 14 talks about the enhanced landscaping. So uh I I added the um underlying issue related to uh trees under the power line and then as you scroll down removed uh parcel A areas and then par condition of approval 16 uh was if parcel A received their parking maximum that would be that enhanced landscaping area to identify that it was not a corner lot because it was big landscaped area and so uh that's just being removed because that that's not relevant now and um we provided supplemental findings um to support these revised conditions and I'll read them out but they're available on the screen. These findings are intended to supplement the findings in the staff report for the general development plan. To the extent that the findings are inconsistent, these findings control these supplemental findings replace the findings on the bottom in GDP staff report page 34 and top of page 35 beginning with when parcel A was initially proposed and ended with building A. It says, "The planning commission concludes that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy criterion 17.52.015 C section 3, which requires the applicant to demonstrate that modifying the amount of parking spaces will not

significantly impact the use or function of the site and adjacent sites. No evidence regarding the identity and mix of tenants of parcel A is included in the record. And therefore it is not possible to know whether the required 68 maximum parking spaces is sufficient or should be increased to allow 102 spaces on parcel A. For example, if tenant is a bike rental store, fewer car trips and parking requirements can be assumed. Moreover, the purpose of allowing a planning commission adjustment to increase parking maximum is to quote provide flexibility for those uses which may be extraordinary, unique, or provide greater flexibility in areas that can accommodate a denser development pattern or based on existing infrastructure and ability to access a site by means of walking, biking, or transit. Um, if this is added because the applicant has not demonstrated any uses that are extraordinary or unique that require additional parking beyond the maximum of 68 spaces, an adjustment is not warranted in the GDP at this time. The applicant may seek an adjustment to the parking maximum either concurrently with or prior to submitting a DDP for parcel A when additional details can be presented.

Fantastic. Yeah. So um based on your direction with the geological hazards and charities path no changes to the DDP um we're uh directed by planning commission. So um we are keeping all the condition the DDP is as recommended um by staff. So with that you can in your motion you can make that and um we can go over if you have any questions about these specific conditions but your motion will be as amended this evening or do you want to have a specific I think it should be amended because Oh no what would their motion be? What would your motion be? Yeah for for the DDP

oh for the DDP I think the motion can stay the same as as it was present as as presented. So, okay. So, uh before that moves forward, do you want to go over any of these conditions and provide any recommended revisions with what staff has come up with? I'm fine. I'm fine with what you guys came up with. I think you did a great job. Um but I want to make sure that everybody else agrees. I concur. I'm seeing a nodding of heads. Is there anybody that would like to Just one really quick question. Unobstructed. What is your definition of that? Where are we? We are

uh the the first one you read talking about the drive-thru in parcel D, you said uh unobstructed path, I believe. Oh, an unobstruct. So, an unobstructed would be there's a way to get to the through the parking lot that doesn't cross the drive the drive-thru aisle or a raised pedestrian path of when of travel when crossing. Got it. So, you get one or the other. Yep. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. Yeah,

Christina, on that one, just sorry not to belver on it, but the unobstructed across the drive aisle, does that include like would they be able to then find a path through the parking lot that is still, you know, driving route? Does that make sense? So, this is related to the point where the pedestrians are crossing the uh drive-thru aisle. Okay. In both in both um applications A and D, both parcels. Okay. So, they could show a route through the parking lot outside of the actual drive aisle

if they wanted to or they could provide a uh a a raised crossing as it crosses the drive aisle. Not not to complicate things, it's late. Um you said parcel A. So, you're walking from

Oh, yeah. Go ahead. you you're walking from the parking lot to the front of the retail, which is normally a lane that anybody parking in a parking lot for retail would cross to get to the stores. It also happens to be the drive aisle, the egress drive aisle. So, are they going to have to do raised sidewalks for that portion from the parking area in a to the front of the stores? This is just the perpendicular area that crosses the drive. The drive. Yeah. Yeah. I feel like I mean I would almost feel comfortable with taking out the unobstructed

and just limiting the language to a raised walkway across the drive aisle. The the unobstructed seems to complicate that.

There's the if I could help clarify like Christina said, there are the the two options, right? Um the unobstructed path concept would be that they are redesigning their um plan to uh get to what what uh Commissioner Gant was talking about, right? Um where there's not a a position in where a pedestrian would need to go from their parking area, cross the driveth through queuing area to then get to a front door. Right? So that is an option where you can redesign and create that unobstructed path. The alternative would be when you have the intersection of a pedestrian pathway with the driveth through queue, then you have the the raised pathway.

Um this is just for the driveway queue portion of it, not the entirety of the parking lot itself. Whereas Commissioner Henderson talks about, you have the regular concept of of people walking and having that interaction. I'm tracking you. I just feel like the unobstructed the only way for them to accomplish that is through a variance on the building location for parcel D. Yeah, correct. Yeah. Well,

that that would be accurate for parcel D, but this is a a universal comment for parcels A and D. Just want to make sure. Yeah. Yeah. any anything else. Okay. And I So I think we're ready for a motion. Yeah. I believe we need we had um Could we maybe put the motions back up on the screen just from where we were three three or four hours ago? Let's go back there.

It was only two hours. And just so you know, I already incorporated um uh actually if you Oh, you can't uh the uh you can just approve this is for the GDP. Approve the proposals with the modified conditions as presented this evening. Is that what you say? Number two. Yes, number two. Well, it's a hybrid. I would say commissioners a hybrid of one and two because we want a motion that includes uh enhanced landscaping condition. Oh, we've already and that's already included. Yeah,

that's right. So, number two, but if we could please have two separate motions of votes because they are two separate applications. So, it sounds like you would be a motion to approve and uh lay out the full master plan uh file number uh with modified conditions as presented this evening and as and probably modified conditions and findings as presented this evening. And then it sounds like for the DDP for the streets, it is going to be your option one which is approved with staff recommended conditions.

Okay. So master plan is number two approved with uh modified conditions and findings as presented this evening and the DDP will be the uh approve with staff's recommendations for the street. Yeah. Okay. Anybody want to try?

I'm going to give it a try. All right. This be my first one. Uh, I'm going to make a motion that the planning commission approve GLUA250025, CU25001, MAS25001, park 25001, 1367 Mala A, master G plan, general development plan with the modified conditions and findings as presented by staff in tonight's It's hearing. I think that covers it. Yeah. Okay. Roll call.

Do I think you need a second? I would second it. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Lel, I. Commissioner Laws, I. Commissioner Gamont, I. Commissioner Henderson, nay. Vice Chair Dole, nay. And Chair Esby, I. Okay. All right. Do we have a second motion? I'm sorry. We need a second motion now for the details. So, let's Yeah, let's have the second motion for the uh PDP street construction.

All right. I move that we approve GLUA250025, MAS25002, GEO25007 and ROD 250012 1367 wall of detailed development review uh with the proposed staff recommendation uh as provided for in the staff findings and recommendations document. Perfect. You need a second. You want a second? I'll second. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Lasal. I. Commissioner Laws. I. Commissioner Gallet.

I. Commissioner Henderson. Nay. Vice Chair Dole. Nay. Chair Espie. Hi. Okay. And the motion passes. And okay, so now we have um communications. Are there is there anything for the good of the order?

Uh for the good of the order, we have just issued the planning commission agenda for next Monday. So we are getting a whole lot of y'all this month. Um I believe that there are two plus items on that agenda. Um and then uh for any of those that are interested, uh the governor did veto um the public meeting laws bill um that would have provided some clarification regarding um serial meetings and a couple of other things. Uh they did approve the nomenclature of the hot dog bill. Um, so we are able to uh get clarification on being able to provide food. So those of you that have been demanding a pizza from me, I may make that happen sooner or later. Um, and they also approved the the requirement for a local government representative to be on the um, Oregon Government and Ethics Commission. So um, two out of the three in terms of public meeting law ain't bad. Uh I have a inkling that the uh bill that was vetoed will likely come back in the long session with some uh clarifications and uh softer language. So um we will be having some further conversations about the the short session with uh Missy providing an update on House Bill 4037 probably next month. Um but if anybody has any questions about any other bills that came up, let us know. Uh in the meantime, I would also like to identify that uh our commissioner um uh Mike Mitchell will be doing a presentation uh at the Oregon City Business Alliance Association Alliance. I'll get it right sooner or later um on the 28th of April um to talk about housing development and growth in our community

as well. So if anybody's interested in that, buy your ticket. Very good. And with that, I've got nothing else. Yes. We just want to say we really appreciate you coming three Mondays in a row because next Monday we'll see you back here. Well, thanks for all of your great work on this. This was not an easy one to get through and um you know, it was really nice to be able to have all of the options clearly laid out for us to be able to mle over and uh make decisions on. So, yeah, that thanks so much. I really appreciate that. And with that, I'll adjourn the meeting.