Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Wow. Yeah. Yeah. He was 25 minutes. Okay. We're going to go ahead and start. So, we're going to bang the gel. All right. Pete, can you do the roll call? I can. So, Vice Chair Dole here. Commissioners Henderson present. Commissioner Giman here. Commissioner Laws here. Commissioner Lasowl here. We have two excused. So, we have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you. And no one online, right? It doesn't look like anyone's.

We have our city attorney online this evening. Oh, yeah. There you go. Okay. Do we want to start with any public comment? Do we have any public comment? Anyone in the room looking to make public comment on items not on the agenda? Yes, sir. No.

Okay, great. Well, I think we just roll right into it. So, I'm going to read the script to open the hearings and I'm going to do this off of my phone. Uh, so public hearings on land use applications are scheduled for tonight. Our role is to conduct the public hearing and to make decisions about the matter before us. In making those decisions, we must apply the applicable codes and laws and cannot vary from or change those laws or codes. A staff report has been prepared for each application and has been made available to the public 7 days before the first public hearing. The staff report identifies the approval criteria that apply to each applicant's proposal. Staff has analyzed the criteria which are contained in the staff report. The hearing procedure that the planning commission will follow is set out in state law and the Oregon City Municipal Code. The hearing procedures steps are shown on the planning commission website. Public testimony will be called in the order it was requested. If you wish to testify in person, please fill out a speaker card available at the back of the room. If you wish to testify virtually, you will you will be called either from a request to speak email to city staff at the planning email address in advance of this meeting or by raising your virtual or physical hand when I ask if there are others in the audience who would like to participate. For the public record, please begin all testimony stating your name and city of residence. If you would like to receive a copy of the notice of decision, please state your mailing address or email address. Testimony and evidence should be directed toward the applicable approval approval criteria. If you believe other criteria apply in addition to those addressed in the staff report, identify and discuss those criteria and explain how and why you believe they apply to the application under consideration. Any person may submit written material while the public record is open on each application. Any written materials received by the city staff during the time period in which the record is open will be placed in the record. When materials submitted during

the public hearing must be presented to the city staff in order to become part of the record. If a person intends for PowerPoint presentations, reports, pictures, or other exhibits used in their oral testimony to be placed in the record, copies must be submitted to the city staff while the record is open. If they are not given to staff, they will not be included in the record. Any person wishing a continuence to present additional evidence and testimony or to keep the record open to respond to new evidence must make that request before the public testimony portion of the initial hearing is closed. If the planning commission makes a decision with which you disagree, any issue that you may wish to appeal must have been raised before the planning commission in order to be considered by the city commission and in the event of further appeal to the land use board of appeals. Without raising the issue on the record with sufficient detail and accompanied by statements or evidence allowing the city and all parties to respond, the issue will be considered on appeal. In addition to participating orally or in writing and raising all issues during the planning commission proceeding, the filing of an appeals must include the required fee. A city recognized neighborhood association may request a waiver of an appeal fee subject to the requirement set forth in Oregon City Municipal Code 17.50 190 section C5 and 175029C. In addition, the failure of an applicant to raise constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient detail to allow the local government or its design to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. So now we will open the record. Uh, opening the record for Oregon City file number GLUA2557, CU2502, SP250145,

PI2508, park 2550 O2, excuse me, PGE line center expansion. Members of the planning commission are to be unbiased. As a result, I will call on each commissioner to disclose any potential conflicts such as family, financial, business relationships with or business relationships with any of the applicants or with regard to the land in question. I will also ask I will also ask whether any of the planning commissioners have discussed the application in question with any of the parties or have independent knowledge of relevant facts such as form of vis visit to the site in question. Any member of the audience may question any planning commissioner about their disclosures. At this point, does any commissioner have any conflicts of interest, exparte contact, bias, or any other statement to declare or have visited the site? If there was a site visit, the planning commission must declare what he he or she perceive. Commissioner Osal,

I've driven by the site many times, but I've never been on the site. No bias or exparte. Commissioner Lawis,

my I was uh neighborhood chair of the area when we did a land use appeal on the previous application for Cam Street Apartments and I did an appeal as a neighborhood chair. Um I've walked the site. I'm associated with the neighbors there and also uh the cemetery. I'm close to the cemetery there. We had our neighborhood meetings there. Um I also have walked the property very well and very familiar with it since I was part of writing the appeal. So um that's what I've got. Thank you, Commissioner Laws. Commissioner Gam,

uh I've driven by the site many times. Haven't talked with anybody about it, but Portland General is my electric company. So just putting that on the record. No biases there. No biases. Commissioner Henderson. Yeah. No um conflict, bias or exparte contact. I have driven by the site. Thank you. I too have no conflict, no bias of no interest. I'm very familiar with the site. I drive by it daily. Okay. I think we can roll. Does any member of the audience wish to challenge any of the commissioners on their exparte disclosures or biased disclosures? Thank you, Mr. Walter. I'm seeing none. Okay.

Okay. Guess I got the floor. Uh good evening everybody. Um my name is Pete Walter. I'm the planning manager. Um with me this evening is uh is the planner Jude Tedus who will be uh uh presenting on the next item. I will be uh providing the staff recommendation. um and analysis for the PG line center expansion. Um PGE operates the existing operation center at 209 Warner Milney Road in Oregon City. Um it's approximately 12.2 acres, the entirety of the land on which uh P the PG wishes to expand to. The current facility incorporates the uh operation center, conference rooms, an accessory garage, parking, and outdoor storage. Uh the total building square footage right now is approximately 27,000 square ft. And this is one of PG's major regional operations centers. Primary structure was built in the 1950s. Um and uh outside of the existing security fence, the adjacent land to the east is open and vacant. Um there were three old residential structures on those property that were removed. Um and uh PG purchased the land for expansion um in 2024. You may recall if you were on the commission at the time that PG submitted a legislative uh zoning text amendment to recognize utility uh facilities as um having allowing associated outdoor storage area and the text amendment at

the time was to facilitate the outdoor storage which is an obvious needed part of the site for PGE. So that that happened a couple of years ago with the expectation that at some point PG would be moving forward with their expansion and a conditional use application which is what we're reviewing tonight. Um it's generally a flat site. It does slope slightly to the east. Um there is an existing drainage that crosses roughly aligned with Cam Street that was uh partially within the natural resources o overlay district. Um none of that area is proposed to be disturbed. Uh the site is bordered to the west by land owned by First Evangelical Presbyterian Church. To the north of the site is Gardener Middle School um and St. John the Apostle Cemetery. Uh and to the east uh are detached single family residential developments. Uh immediately across Warner Milan Road, you have the uh Clackamus County Red Soils campus which is a variety of government buildings. Um, and the site is within the Eleville Neighborhood Association boundary, approximately a mile and a half south of Oregon City downtown with or Highway 213 approximately a mile to the east. Um so this is a area of town which is uh very uh associated with the Clackamus County uh government operations as well as PGE's own operations and the city planning and building division is just to the west of this site as well. Um there is a try stop on Warner Milney Road just west of the development area and another located

on the south side of the street near the intersection with Beaver Creek Roads. So Warner Milney Road is considered a transit road. Um and that's served by Trimetat bus line 32 and 33. Zoning wise the site is mixeduse corridor-1. Um and to the west and the Presbyterian church is zoned R2 which is highdensity residential. Um to the north where the cemetery is is R six single family residential low density and to the south you have the county uh mixeduse employment zoning. Um so the entirety of the site onto which uh PG is hoping to expand is zoned MU-1. Um the proposal to reconstruct the operations center will modernize the building, increase the storage and staging areas, and increase resiliency for regional response to major events. Uh this facility serves as a center for staging and dispatch for line crews that repair electricity uh infrastructure around the area. Um the main building and storm on the south side of the site will be demolished and replaced with a new building. The existing garage at the north side of the property will be modified but retained. Parking for employee and fleet vehicles will be relocated to the east side of the site and because of the nature of the power infrastructure the site will be fenced and gated at its entrances to maintain security. Um buildings proposed will be include office and store room building at 36,000 square ft. Existing covered uh garage existing garage will be is 8,230

ft and there will be covered storage on the site of approximately 8,000. So the total new buildings constitute 44,246 plus retaining the existing 8,000 ft garage. All other site buildings would be demolished. The I've divided it into two slides because it's such a big frontage. It's approximately 1500 square feet long from one side of the property to the other. The western area of the site would contain a paved area for layown and storage of equipment, the existing garage and new covered storage area. New communication tower is proposed in the corner of the site between the garage and the cemetery. That proposed new communications tower is 90 ft 95 ft tall with an additional 7ft antenna and replaces two existing towers that are now adjacent to the main building. Um and to the east of the site, the eastern side of the site, um there's the parking lot. Um the main pedestrian entrance to the property, although this building will not be generally accessed by the public, there is an entrance off of uh Warner Milnery Road which is visible and it's a vestibule. There will be three vehicle entrances replacing approximately u six curb cuts now. So they're consolidating their entrances into along the frontage. Um you have to the east the entrance into the parking lot um driveway. Then directly adjacent to the Beaver Creek Road is the main site entrance for operations. And uh so you have a significant

reduction in curb cuts and an improved traffic flow on site. Uh site is secured by a perimeter fence. The as I mentioned there is a natural resource area on the site. It's a small intermittent stream that will be preserved and landscaped with native plants. Um and that's so that will be essentially protected by leaving it alone. Um and the proposal includes new perimeter landscaping and pedestrian circulation around the site. The I've just shown here the street facing facades of the main buildings, the office in the store room buildings and the covered storage building. So uh with the exception of the storage buildings, all of the office building will comply with our site plan and design review criteria for institutional buildings, which includes requiring uh 60% windows along the front of the building. Also requires that the building be placed as close to the street as possible. There is a design standard that states that um if you have a you have to locate buildings within uh 60% of your street frontage should be occupied by buildings, but it's a difficult standard to meet when you have a lot of frontage and a lot of buildings um that and an operations center. So the applicant is requesting a modification to that and uh I'll talk briefly about that standard. The main criteria for this use is the conditional use criteria in chapter 1756 and A and these are listed here. The use must be listed as a conditional use in

MUC district. The characteristics of the site must be suitable for the use in including its size, shape, location, topography, its existence of improvements and natural features. Development shall demonstrate compliance with OCMC1612, which is the public improvements requirements. The proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs, or precludes the use of surrounding properties for the primary uses listed in the district. And five, the proposal satisfies whatever goals and policies of the comprehensive plan that apply to the use. We have determined that all of the conditional use criteria have been met. There is an additional standard in the conditional use chapter for public utilities to be uh located, designed and installed with suitable regard for aesthetic values which is a discretionary criteria. And the base of the facilities shall not be located closer to the property line than a distance equal to the height of the structure. And when we're talking about a public utility with a communications power tower that is proposed to serve that public utility um in this case it is not practicable for the applicant to do that meet that setback with the existing tower. Um based on the site and where it is, the the existing tower is located as far from Warner Melanie Road as it can be. Uh adjacent to the property line with the um cemetery. Um it is a designed to be a self-clapsing tower which I believe is a requirement for those types of facilities and subsequently does not have to you know be 100 ft from the

property line based on the adjustment that they've requested. Um the height adjustment for the tower is actually the criteria for that are in the communications facilities chapter which is cell towers and wireless facilities. based off of the adjustment criteria in that section of code with a zone height limit for towers in the MUC1 of 75 ft. This would exceed that by 20 ft to the top of the tower plus seven additional feet for for the antenna as shown on the on the drawings. This is the conceptual diagram from the application showing what the tower would look like from Beaver Creek Road intersection and is uh approximately 400 ft into the site. Um from there, uh the second item that the applicants request an adjustment on is the maximum number of parking spaces in the code. Um, based off of an office use, it would be 120 spaces, but due to the needs of this facility, they also need long fleet vehicle parking um to park within the parking lot on the west side. And that has a need for reduced interior landscaping and u uh larger spaces without without uh landscape landscape islands in that location. Um the additional parking is intended to accommodate PG's needs based on a range of activities um that they have for similar facilities. Here's an a facility where the employees park their personal cars and either work at the office or take PG vehicles out into the

surrounding area to work. So there's a there's a need for parking space there. This also accommodates all of the parking on site without any spillover onto adjacent streets. There is no on street parking on Warner Milney Road. Um but there are adjacent nearby streets, Cam Street and others that potentially could be impacted by if there was a lack of parking on site and the um adjustment assures that you know that won't occur. So we feel it is a reasonable request uh for the parking adjustment and also the uh minor changes to the landscaping standards that are necessary to accommodate these uh fleet vehicles is pretty insignificant. Um the parking lot still going to meet our canopy coverage requirements on based on the new climate friendly equitable communities requirements. So within uh by the time the landscaping's mature, it has to have cover 40% of the parking lot and uh PG's landscape architect has looked at this plan and feels they can accommodate that. So um and there are also electric vehicle charging requirements for new parking lots um which are going into effect at 20% of the new spaces. Um and the applicant has met all the criteria for the parking adjustment. Uh there's a couple of public improvement modifications requested. The again public improvements are in chapter 1612. One of those standards is maximum blocks length of 530 ft. Uh given the parcel ownership and the use of the site here, we have a about a 1500 foot long frontage area in which

you either have to put a new public street to break up that block and provide access with vehicles and and pedestrians and bicycles or you um are required to put in a uh shared use path pedestrian access way. And that's what looking at this site, looking at our parks master plan standards and looking at the transportation system plan which requires a shared use path in this area. Um it makes sense to allow the uh larger block length with the breakup uh accommodated by the shared use path which is shown on the site plan. Oh, I don't have a very good picture of that. I'll go back. there on the east side here uh east of the driveway and it will link up to Cam Street by circling along the northern edge of the parking lot and joining Cam Street and one moment. The second uh public improvement modification requested is the recognizing the existing narrow width of Warner Milney Road and the right of way there. The applicant is going to meet the uh design standards for an arterial road with a reduced street section that the public works department has approved and that the traffic engineer for the applicant has recommended. Um there are variety conditions of approval associated with all of the improvements going in on public mil on Warner Milney Road. It has to meet a variety of things including sight distance, driveway spacing. Um they have to repair any pavement that they tear up, but it's going to be approximately 50% 50

feet of right away on the applicant's side of center line by the time it's done. So, uh, it'll look significantly different than it looks today, but it won't be the full 110 ft required on a minor arterial because there isn't enough space for that given existing improvements. I may have that 110 number wrong, but it's something or 110 or 116 for a full minor arterial, which just isn't going to work in this situation. Um applicants also requested as I mentioned that modification of 1762055D which requires that 60% of the site frontage uh be occupied by buildings and due to the extensive frontage and nature of the use. Um that standard requires modification the applicant has met all those criteria. I do have a couple of corrections to the staff report and conditions of approval that are not in your packet and were brought to my attention. The applicant did raise these points earlier but I I missed them so I just apologize for that and I want to bring them up now. Uh condition of approval was intended to be amended to assure that um the noise generation associated with the facility not exceed 40 dB um measured at the property line of the nearest residential parcel uh assesses parcel number 32E05CB. Oops, tax lot 400. Uh we had written um you know a standard that would say that there would be no significant noise associated with the communications tower at all but that is not what the standard

requires. So this is being more specific. Um so that would be condition of approval 26 corrected. Um and then a minor revision to condition of approval 40. it was listed as 40 41 42 43 44 45 but they're all part of the same standard. So regarding the improvements to the Beaver Creek Road Warner Melony Road intersection uh specific requirements A through E rather than 41 through 45. So those are the two corrections that were pointed out by the applicant. Um, I have no further uh things to add. I I can answer any more detailed questions you have. We did review all of the criteria including all the site plan and design review criteria, all the various adjustments and modifications that are permitted under the code. And based on our review and what the applicant has submitted, um we believe that the expansion uh can meet all the uh applicable criteria for approval um given conditions of approval that we've recommended. So we're recommending approval of this application.

Thanks be appreciate that summary. Yeah. Any questions for staff from the commission? Commissioner, so I was looking at the map and you mentioned 20% of parking spaces had to have EV chargers, but I only saw like three labeled 151 parking spaces. Yeah. Um, reason why was we were operating with an older template of code from the CFAC requirements. So, the applicant was not aware of that requirement until after they submitted. So, it didn't show up on the on the uh actual site plans, but Got it. But they will have 20%. So, they'll have like 30ish.

It has to be you have to provide the capacity for it. So, you have to provide conduit, not the actual chargers or and that sort of thing. So, we'll have to work through some building code issues as well um in terms of where those are located and and also still accommodate ADA compliance and prioritization of where the ADA spaces are in relation to the entrance to the building. So, um but that can be done in Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Thanks,

Commissioner Herson. Couple of questions for you. Um, neighborhood engagement neighbors express support for the proposal. So, just a general question. Is that based on notes from the neighborhood association? Is that based on somebody from planning attending? What what determines that the neighborhood expressed support for the proposal? I would defer to the applicant on that because staff does not attend the neighborhood association meetings. Okay. So, so that statement is based on feedback from the applicant and the fact that there's only been one comment received which has been addressed.

Yeah. Um it's a fairly um we didn't have full minutes from the neighborhood association meeting so I don't know all the details of that but um Okay.

Um parking adjustment. The applicant has met the criteria for adjustment. Can you reinforce what that criteria is? Right. Um, I sure can. Basically, you have to show compliance with the comprehensive plan. You have to show that any parking spaces that you un the the way our parking adjustment works, our code works, it was originally written to accommodate requests for reduction in parking spaces. Right now, it's written fairly uh broadly e so that you can go either way. Um but you essentially not are you can't um your parking adjustment shouldn't displace any allowed uses uh on an adjacent property in the same zone. So it's similar to a variance criteria in that regard and it has to allow for safe and safe movement of pedestrians, vehicles and uh and uh bicycles within the parking lot area. Um so as long as it's designed well according to our parking lot code and all the other standards in the parking lot code are met. Um the remaining criterion is that the applicant has justified the adjustment based on their proposed use. And this is um a fairly unique public utility use where they are uh they have a huge layown area and a lot of operations going on. Um and that's a necessary part of the utility. Um uh they also need to be able to kind of bifurcate the site by keeping their administrative side on the east side, if you will, and the operation site on the west side. and uh have safe uh flow in

both sides. And so um I think the parking adjustments is is good based on that. Um last question was the tower you were measuring um the decibb at the nearest residential parcel. Can you can you pull up a map and just show which parcel that actually is? Yeah. So, it would be this. Let's see. I believe it's this parcel here.

It It's the That's the Cam Street one. So, it would be Okay. I believe it's this one. Yeah. The southwestern most residential parcel. Was it? Yeah, that would make sense. Okay, I believe. Thanks for confirming. Double check that right here. Yeah, I think so. Yep, that's what it looks like. Thanks, Pete. Any other questions from the commission? I have

Commissioner S. Has provisions been made for lighting encroaching on the neighbors? Uh, you know, light pollution in the parking area. I can foresee a 24-hour operation there. Would there be any provisions for that? And I I guess that would

the not be a question for staff, but more for the applicant. The outdoor lighting code requires a maximum foot candle level of 0.5 foot candles at the property line and they cannot exceed that. Um any fixtures, lighting fixtures have to be dark sky kind of full cut off uh downcast and full cutff design. Um, if there's any pedestrian lighting associated with the pathway, it would also need to meet those same requirements. Um, so and I would defer to the applicant on any other further details on the lighting.

Thank you,

Commissioner Loss. So, I guess from my experience with the Enrod area, just out of experience, there was a lot of birds around the area and frogs. Is there any plans for that? And I guess this will be for the applicant when they come up. Um, are there any plans for the natural area when you um are obviously it's really cool that you're going to keep that area? Um, any plans for it for the employees or anything? Um just because there were a lot of like frogs there, birds. It does dry out a lot in the summer just out of curiosity anyways just because it for the community they did I mean it was a vacant field for a long time so they used to walk there and other things. Obviously they're not going to have access to it now but it does kind of it basically it was a runoff from the Beaver Creek area that goes and feeds into Singer Creek. It'd be interesting what your plans are for it in some way. Just out of curiosity.

Feels like the applicant may be able to answer that question. Okay. Uh I do have a couple questions. Um just this is a perfect map. So the 31 spaces there for fleet parking that's in addition to the 120. Correct. Correct. And that le area is designated for the oversized vehicle parkings that may park, you know, perpendicular to the spaces. Yeah, that's what they've sedated. Y are they proposing to plant the trees that would be there for the landscaping parking elsewhere in the development? Well, I know that there are a significant number of mitigation trees required. So, um we can maybe talk through Okay,

that great. And then final question for me, the perimeter fence, is it sight obscuring? I know it's anti- climb, no barb wire, but we're not proposing any sight obscuring measures. I don't believe it's a sight obscuring fence. No, it's it's semiopaque. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah. So, actually, I have another question. Um, looking at the map that you have up here, the 151 parking spaces, does that include the parking that's covered by the uh covered vehicle parking or are we just talking No, we're just So, there's actually more than 151 parking spots. Yeah, we consider the parking inside as part of the operations center. Okay.

Yeah. So, that's separate. Yeah. Um, we're looking at the eastern parking lot as the as the section which is required to comply with 1752 and everything else there is um is functioning exclusively to serve the utility rather. So well I mean isn't the parking lot serving to functioning to serve the utility as well? It's not like it's open to the public. Yeah, that's true. Um um

it's it's it's outdoor storage and loading areas and and that sort of thing, but maybe the applicant can address that. Okay. Thanks. Okay. I don't think we have any more questions for staff. Like to welcome the applicant to come up and speak. If you don't mind, just state your name for the record. And you have a big group. So if we need to use both sides here, too. No, I understand.

I think I think I'm going to be the ring leader here if that's all right. Okay.

Okay. Uh so I'll introduce you. Um Ben Schberger from Winterbrook Planning. Um I'm just going to facilitate people speaking here. I'mma uh the land use planner prepared the application for the project. Um the main folks that we're going to have present are myself and Josh who is the owner uh from PGE and Theresa Ais from Henetti our architects. Um, and I just did want to introduce our team. Uh, these are primary members of our team, but the crowd you see behind us includes um, uh, Chris Bremer from KDson to discuss transportation issues. And these are folks that won't present, but are available to as experts in the field to answer questions should they come up. Um, our traffic engineer, um, Misha Vanburn from KPFF on, uh, civil engineering. Drew is here from Purllo on um construction issues and uh other folks from PGE as well if uh things come up. So that's who we are and um so our group will lead off with Josh from from PG.

Hey, good evening chair and member real quick Josh if you don't mind. If you don't mind, hit your mic. Yeah, just so it picks up. Thank you.

Um thank you for the opportunity for us to be here tonight. Um thank you for your service to the community. I used to be a planning commissioner. Portland General Electric is proud to have been part of the Oregon city community for over 75 years at this line center. Uh we're committed to continuing our long-standing presence here. We're excited to share our vision for the future and how this project reflects that commitment. We have our project team with us this evening who will present and show our proposed design and discuss what this project means moving forward. Uh we appreciate your time and look forward to questions and feedback. Thank you.

So uh Theresa from Henberry is next to talk about the design of the site. All right. Excuse me. We'll kind of go through this quickly because I think Pete gave a great introduction to the project. Um but um yeah, if you could go to the next

Oh, no. That's okay. I can go to the next slide. All right. So, just um quickly to kind of give an overview of the mission statement for the project um is to efficiently execute an a standardized resilient operation center enabling PGE teams to serve customers um with excellence reflecting PG's values and commitment to innovation. And these goals that are listed, safety, customer support, resiliency, operational efficiency and emergency response and readiness um are really what we have kept in mind with the design of the project. Um go to the next. So I think Pete gave a great introduction to the context. Um these are just a few images of the surroundings, the surrounding area, the middle school um to the northwest, the cemetery to the north, um some residential to the east, and then the the Red Soils campus to the south and the and the church to the west. So just for context, a lot of surrounding uses. Um this is the existing site um kind of overlaid on an aerial. So that big dashed red line is the division between PG's existing campus and the expansion um of the site. Um so we really are basically doubling uh the campus in size.

Next slide please. And then I'll just I know we've seen the site plan already but a couple things I want to um emphasize are that we're really flipping the existing plan. So right now the operations are on the east side of the site with employee parking on the west and we are flipping that to have the employee parking on the east side of the site um with the operations and heavier um equipment moving around and the the larger items being stored on the west side of the site away from the residential. So, um I know there was a question about lighting. Um and I think just in general by putting kind of the smaller vehicles, the the office, the people doing, you know, parking in the on the east side of the site, um it won't be as disruptive to the neighbors. The light poles that are in the parking lot are much smaller scale than the ones that will be in the yard. We've definitely um thought about that, you know, from the big picture. um how best to organize the site to not um to best respect the uses around it. Um the as Pete mentioned the buildings, you know, we have we only had so much um area of building to to work with, so much need for program. Um but we really did try to to align those along the frontage of Warner Milney um and to respect that streetscape and kind of strengthen that edge. um locating the intersection, the a new signalized intersection. I mean, changing that from a three-way signal to a four-way for safety, going back to those main goals of the project, um and just easier access for the trucks that will be coming in and out of the site frequently um from Beaver Creek Road. Um and yeah, I guess that those are kind of the the the big picture um moves with the site plan. Um the west

side of the site as Pete mentioned is is a lot of storage. Um if you could go to the next slide. This kind of shows the major circulation patterns. So we really had to study um truck turning. We have a line near the large storm water um retention pond where there's an internal fence just for safety between the smaller vehicles, the administrative staff and the line crews and the the larger trucks that will be on the west side of the site. Um circulating with equipment and large m large items like poles um power poles. Um, so we we've studied that circulation really carefully um and the layout of the yard in order to provide um a good turning radi for those large trucks um and just to provide a really safe campus. So um next slide please. I think Peter already shared these perspectives I believe but the one on the right side is kind of the main entrance to the the administration the office building. So really addressing um Warner Milney, providing a an entrance that faces the street um and also provide there's a staff entrance on that faces north um so staff can come in directly from the secure parking lot. Um trying to really just provide a nice nice facade on the street meeting that 60% glazing requirement. Um next slide please. breaking up that mass super long building with courtyards um to provide some visual interest. And um I again I believe Peter already showed this image on the right as well, but you can see that that tower kind of at that end of the Beaver Creek

intersection, but it is pretty far away from the property line. And I think that's it. Yeah. Okay, I'll uh wrap it up and then open for questions and answers. So, um PG is really pleased with the outcome of the staff report and of the land use process in general. Um and we've been collaborating with Pete and with Josh Wheeler and the folks at the planning department on the final language of the conditions and we appreciate the collaborative spirit with that as well. Um, as you noted, really just one public com written public comment on the issue of the fence along the east side of the site and, uh, Josh met with those neighbors and worked out an agreement to patch the fence where it needs to be and rebuild it where it doesn't exist yet. Um, so I think that's a pretty good resolution with those folks who sent an email today that they're happy with how that turned out. Um, just want to highlight some of the public benefits of this development. Uh and quickly it redevelops a long vacant site that has um been sort of on the books uh of the land uh pieces that uh Oregon City has had for a number of years and that will be put to productive use which is a good thing for the city. Um there will be upgrades to Warner Mill Road itself, the completion of the sidewalk along the entire frontage of the site, which is a plus. Um with new street trees and because of the location of the building and now better defined and more active street edge. So that'll be a plus. Um perpendicular to that will be a shared use path that will go through the site um so that people in the neighborhoods the north can now get through to Warner Milney either by on foot or by bike. And also the driveway along the east side um I don't think it was mentioned will now also serve as an emergency access point for emergency vehicles to get through. They can just go through the driveway

and the um access to Hughes Street which I guess is the north south street on the to the east parallel to and east of Cam. Um that connection will be um blocked off with Ballards so that it won't be a cut through for ordinary traffic, but emergency vehicles will have access to move them or um relocate those so that they could get through if need be. Um so that's the shared use path element of the site that increases connectivity through a place where there previously was none. And then overall just the existence of a improved and more effective line center will increase the regional resiliency of the electricity infrastructure in the region. But um obviously the folks who are closest to it will probably derive greater benefits than folks further away. So all these things are a benefit to this project if it's approved and completed. Um and we would like to wrap by uh first just expressing again our appreciation to staff for their work. Um it's a large complex project that we are trying to accomplish has lots of moving parts. Um there are a lot of regulations that needed to be applied and that we had to figure out a way to thread the needle and I think we've really successfully done that with this design. So, um, with that, we're open for questions from the commissioners, but I would like to address questions we've already heard from you. Um, so I can address a couple of them and then if folks can do them. I think the the NROD question, let me just start there. Primarily, our approach to that is just to stay away from it. So the NROD, the city's mapped NROD sort of covers that whole drainage all the way from CAM, which is sort of a storm drainage that as you pointed out dries out in the summertime. As part of that CAM process, there was a verification of where the NROD boundary actually is. And um based on the biologists that did that

work, we just kind of adopted what they determined. I forget how many years ago, four years ago, when whenever that process went through and so that boundary is now reflected on our site plans and it's more or less just the um sort of circle or nub closest to Warner Milney where it then is culverted under and what this does by sort of staying away from it is it maintains the um drainage capacity the kind of hydra hydraologic capacity of that. So all those features will be preserved from the storm drainage and then when it becomes an NROD right there at the south end of the site um that'll be just basically a leave it alone approach. So that's what we're doing there. Um with the parking adjustment uh I think those as staff recommendation that those criteria were met is the kind of equally or better meets the purpose of those regulations for the parking. Um, and it's a unique use in that, um, and Josh could probably speak to this as well, is there's a lot of overlapping fleet vehicles that people go out. So, they'll drive their personal vehicles there and then they'll pick up a fleet vehicle and go somewhere else. And so, that's sort of a lot more vehicle demand than you would have in a typical situation where it was you drive your personal car there, you leave your personal car there, you'd have to have all those extra vehicles there. Um, and then lastly, the question about the parking area that's inside the sort of uh we've got it marked on the site plan as covered parking, but those are very large vehicles and there's got to be a lot of flexibility to that space for them both to circulate around it and the different size vehicles that are needed to serve um utility poles and that sort of thing. So, um to have to comply with ordinary parking lot standards for landscape islands and um minimum striping and ADA spaces and those kinds of things doesn't really work in the sense of a active work area for giant bucket trucks and things like that. So,

that's that's I guess the distinction there. I hope I answered all those. And Josh Teresa, did anything else you wanted to say about those issues before we open it up? Um I think yeah that that was great summary. Um the fleet on the fleet uh employee parking the eastern parking lot um there's kind of two modes of operation of this campus normal operations where there will be fleet vehicles parked there. Those are those might be like large pickup trucks or even cars for the the meter people who go out you know on site every day. Um whereas the other ones as Ben said are the larger line trucks that we want to keep away in a normal operational um situation away from the smaller vehicles on the east side of the site. Um we're also thinking about emergency response though. So there is a connection between those two parking lots and that's when there may be mutual aid crews coming in if there's a very big storm. There is some flexibility designed into the eastern parking lot to allow for those larger trucks there as well, but that's not typical. Um, and then I think there was also a question about the perimeter fence. It won't be sight obscuring. Um, except for on the east property line, which we've worked out with the neighbors recently, that will be a sight obscuring wooden fence to continue what's there now. Um, to help kind of provide some privacy between those residential properties and the new shared pathway or shared use path. But the the rest of the fence will be an eight foot tall secure perimeter fence, but it it's not fully sight obscuring. I think that was all the questions.

So that Oh, I got something on the on the fleet. So, uh that center island for the trucks that is Yeah. for our large bucket trucks, our CDL vehicles. Um they're heavyweight trucks and they're going to have a solar canopy over them. That solar canopy is capable of pretty much putting this whole site at carbon neutral. We want that solar can. We want canopy over our trucks. It was a special request by our linemen. Uh 2018 storm of 2018 and storm of 2020. Uh this part of the reason we're doing this site to make sure that we can do better on these storms. The linemen came in to frozen over pickups. um semi-truckss. They spent most of the day just defrosting them. So, we want to be covered and shield at this time like some of our other line centers. This is our our last line center that doesn't cover their bucket trucks. So, also company safety policy is to keep our our other employees kind of away from the mobile the active yard. So, like Theresa said, we're kind of dividing those.

Thank you for that. Any questions for the applicant from the commission or uh from Winterbrook? Was there anything else? No, that concludes our presentation. We're open for questions. Thanks. Yeah, thank you for that, Commissioner Loss.

I just remember um attending some of the neighborhood meetings and the only thing I can say is Gary's really good about at the cemetery being able to communicate with a lot of the neighbors there. So if you stay good terms with Gary, you'll be able to communicate with those neighbors pretty well. Um the other thing is is he talks to all the neighbors there. Uh the other thing is is um everyone I remember at the meetings that we did initially when you first started I was still the neighborhood chair. They were all asking about discounts that how the infrastructure was getting all they were like is are we going to save in Oregon City at all that the infrastructure is improving? I mean, I don't think so, but you know,

that's not currently on my plan. Darn it. Anyways, thought I'd lighten the mood a little bit. Thank you,

Commissioner Lel. I have a little concern about the four-way signal intersection there and the coming and going of your large vehicles turning radius. I I think I've seen some of those vehicles that are carrying a big power pole. U I don't know if they'd come in and out of there or not, but some of those vehicles are pretty pretty long. Is is there enough of a turning radius at your entrances and exits to accommodate those safely?

I'm glad we brought our traffic engineer, Chris. And if you don't mind, just state your name so we remember.

Sure. Good, good evening. My name is Chris Bramer from KDson Associates. I'm the engineer of record for the traffic study. Excellent question. Um, we did look at that very carefully. Um, we understand and having watched some of the trucks go in and out today, there is some friction out there. So, there's there's two things that are happening. One is the driveways and the new signalized intersection will be rebuilt with radiuses to accommodate the larger trucks. And then two, for the very largest trucks with the long poles where today they come down Warner Milney and have to make a turn in, now they'll be able to come straight up Beaver Creek and come straight across the intersection. So PG will be able to program things that way as well. So bottom line, excellent question and yes, that has been addressed.

We're also, excuse me, moving the gate further away from the property line than it is now. So it's a much deeper throat to allow those trucks to to get into the completely off of the road and queue up to get into the site more easily. That's excellent solution. Thank you. Any other questions? Commission Anderson? Yeah, a couple. So, tell who uh presented to the Eleville Neighborhood Association? Oh, yeah. Sorry, I'll let folks who were there. Go ahead, Josh. You How'd that go?

It it was different. They There was a mail scandal for for like postal mail and there wasn't any votes and there was a lady, it was her first day and people were very dressed down. There was a graveyard man there. Um and we were there at night in a graveyard. Uh it it it went very well though. We were wellreceived and I think um actually on this drawing we we addressed two of the biggest concerns which was we had a woman that was uh very interested in what type of solar we would do and if if she could see it and then uh we had another nice lady that wanted to save the trees. And so if you look at some of these uh strange parking lot islands that don't quite make sense, that's because giant trees are being saved. So when you see like some of the bigger radiuses, there's some older growth um hemlocks and pines. Um

other than that, it went good. We took minutes. Teresa, do you have anything else from it? No, there were there weren't very very many comments at all, though. I mean there the one of the neighbors that lives to the east of the site did attend the meeting and and they were supportive of the project. They were happy to see that the the more industrial uses were going to be on the west side far away from their property. So um but yeah, the trees were the biggest comment I would say. Yeah, thank you for entertaining the trees. We love the trees, too. Thank you. Um employees FTE working on site. How many do you anticipate? not not including the crews that are coming and going.

The ones working

I think in the office we're around 60 and then we're going to go from about four crews to eight. Each crew has five uh of folks on it and and so uh probably about a hundred depending on on the day. The biggest part again for the the parking change is um PG&E wants to keep its carbon footprint as low as they can as a good neighbor. And so um we we retain all those vehicles, those EV vehicles for our employees to come and pick up. So in essence, it's like there's two cars for everybody because you leave, you know, your giant Dodge diesel and then you take out your Leaf for the day to go, you know, read meters. So, it's an interesting site that way.

Uh, it looked like there's an eastment that cuts across the parking. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah, there is a utility easement that goes through the parking lot from north to south that will be maintained. Who is that? Is that the city?

Yeah, it's a water. It's an 8 in water man. I believe Misha can speak to that. Thank you. Hello, Mishan Bernan with KPFF civil engineer. So, we have three ements. We have there's a public water man that crosses a public sewer main and then the existing storm ditch has an ement as well. So, all three of those will be maintained.

That easement agreement, does the city have access at all times? Is that how the easement's written for any access? Uh I haven't reviewed that language but I mean that is typically any easement provides the you know the owner of that utility you know access to do necessary maintenance. Yeah that that will be maintained.

Um should the development the land use application entitlements be approved this evening? What is the overall development schedule? Um, so January 1st, uh, of this coming year, 2027, we're going to start the remodel of the mechanics garage. Uh, that building was deemed suitable to stay. And we're also really enjoying our grandfathered in zero setback. If we were to build a new one, we have to like bring it way in and then like the site's ruined. So, we're going to do a really uh nice remodel to make it match our new building. And then about six months after that, we're going to start the real earth work. Um we're going to finish in I think the second quarter of 2029 all all in. So our biggest plan is is this flip-flop, right? We want to build a new campus mainly get everybody moved in, do the demo, and then build out that yard.

That's great. That's to keep the campus operational during construction to continue to maint. Thank you for the information. Commissioner Gman, feels like you have a question. Yeah. Uh, I appreciate the info on the parking. So, you guys are an electric company. It sounds like you have electric cars. Um, it was mentioned that you guys weren't aware of the 20% EV requirement and that's why there's only like three spaces marked EV, but you're talking about having a fleet of EVs. Uh, how many EV chargers are we expecting to have on the parking along with your solar cover for your big trucks?

The trucks um the the covered parking area will have um essentially wire reels. The that the chargers for those trucks um they're called gemacks. They're a little bit different than like a typical car charger. So, there's two wire reels at each bay. um in the main parking lot. We we were aware of the 20% requirement. That's like a state law now. Um so that um is about 30 spaces. We're planning on that. I think we're still kind of determining the exact number of chargers on day one versus the future. So I'm not sure if we have a final answer on that, but for sure 20% at least ready. didn't know if it made sense to have like all of the fleet the extra fleet spaces that you guys are asking for equipped as well to be available. Um the signal the four-way signal for the exit from the campus will that be like a demand driven signal so that it doesn't go green for you guys unless there's actually somebody sitting there.

Good evening again. Chris Grammer from KDson. Uh yes, the signal will be operated by Clakamus County. It'll be set up with detection so that it only serves when there's a vehicle that needs um entry and access eress. So yeah, it's all all driven by demand. The other thing just in case it comes up is the PGE fleet vehicles that use that go in. They're all equipped with what's called a radio frequency ID tag or RFID tag. So the gates will open as they're coming up in. So you won't get the trucks stopping and waiting as the light goes green. So, um, yes, it's intended to be very smooth and not a situation where you have to sit and look at one of those annoying green lights and there's nobody moving. Excellent. Um, one last question uh about the communications tower. So, part of this campus is for like emergency response and and that sort of thing. Um, is there a possibility if a like a ham radio operator club wanted to come put a repeater on it, would that be something you guys would be open to? because that would be a really nice 90 foot tower to put a repeater on. Um, which would go handinhand with like the emergency response. Um, I'm not a part of a club or anything. I'm just thinking about it. We actually have a ham radio club too for if like the really big one happens. We have some guys that can do that. But we would be open to that. Uh, it is a high security facility, but we have we have visitor badges all the time for that type of thing. And we actually did mention about the possibility of sharing.

Okay, that would be great. Uh if you guys could Well, thank you for filling all our questions. Um and and kudos for such a nice application. There was there was a lot of applicant material, so we appreciate that. Um I do have two questions, but maybe towards staff and I feel like we missed an opportunity for OTAAC and PLO. We almost got the whole team to come up and speak, but they have I question. Yeah. Um Pete, no requirement for sight obscuring fencing for chain link. Am I thinking of the industrial design standards? Yeah, I see a head nod from staff. In the industrial zone district, there is a Thank you.

site obscuring fence requirement. Um here um there's a lot of tree protection or sorry tree trees proposed around the perimeter and just judging by the spacing of those I anticipate that they will do a pretty good job of screening when um along with the fence which is semiopaque but yeah and I don't mean to get stuck on fencing I just know the existing site has a nice brick wall that obscures everything so I won't labor on it. Will they will the applicant be required at the time of permitting building permit to submit a lighting plan?

Um the lighting plan is a requirement for land use. There will be a electrical plan requirement associated with that and we do have um it's a phototric plan requirement for zoning. So um was there one in the application material or I just missed. Yeah, there is some. Thank you for that. Yeah. Well, that's everything that I had. Mhm. Okay. So, let's close the record. Correct. And we will open it for a motion or debate. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioners, any uh delegation, deliberation, entertain a motion? I'd like to make a motion to approve GLUA25057, CU2502, SP250145, PI2508, park 25502, PGE line center expansion. Do we hear a second? Sounds like uh Commissioner Guang, you'd like to discuss it?

I just thought maybe we'd have a quick discussion about any additional requirements that we thought I don't know if they'd be reasonable to put a higher EV charger request in for the parking adjustment. As a condition of approval, I'm also okay to stick to the 20%. I just wanted to raise it. You want to just go down the line with thoughts? Yeah, sure. Let's do that. We can share thoughts. Commissioner Lasal like you're in support of. Do you want to make any further comment or I'd just add to my motion uh with appropriate conditions.

Okay. Well, let's go through the discussion and then you can read through the motion. I don't have one. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Laws, any comment or questions? I don't have any comment or questions.

I think my only comment was would be that this is um pretty consistent with what the city did with their operations facility a few years back. I say the only thing that they would be um maybe rubbed on was the size of parcel and that PGE has. But this is, you know, designed with p good practices in mind, industry standard, separation of vehicles and pedestrians. So I think it's a great application and um speak on support of it. Yeah, I'm also It looks great. I just would like to see lots of EV chargers there since it's an electric company and they're going to have fleet vehicles coming back. So, I'd like to see enough chargers for the fleet vehicles for the likely future electrification, especially given oil prices right now.

Commissioner Anderson.

Yeah, anytime public utility wants to invest in your community to provide better service, that's a good thing, right? Um, one thing I will say, uh, the conditional use in general, I'm going to be really rigid around what the comp plan says, right? So, this is mixeduse corridor. Um, because this is a legal non-conforming use that is essentially expanding and the fact that it's directly across from the Red Soils campus. If you're going to make a conditional approval uh for a variance from what the uh what the zoning actually states for MUC, this is probably the right location and the right use, but but in general, I'm going to be really rigid around this is what the comp plan says. Here's the narrative of that zoning. Um and obviously this does not comply, but for all the reasons I stated, I'll be in support of this application. Thank you for that, Commissioner. Okay, so do we feel like ready to take another crack at a motion? Okay, Commissioner Las, would you like to restate your uh your motion?

I'd like to make a motion to approve what I previously put forth as a motion. Second. Okay, sounds like we got a second. Let's call the vote. Commissioner Lasowl I. Commissioner Laws I. Commissioner Dole I. Commissioner Kamad I. Commissioner Anderson I. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you PG. We we appreciate your presence in our community and look forward to the new development.

Okay. On to the next hearing. I am not going to read the spiel again, but I believe I should at least go back through um and request any bias exparte. I see a head nod from our city. Oh, okay. Misty, say that again. I think the in room computer's muted, so we can't hear you on our side, not yours. I think comm uh city attorney is attempting to speak. Hang on. Yeah, you need to turn up the volume on your computer. Almost certainly.

Can you hear me now? Yes. Beautiful. Okay, great. Yes. I just wanted to jump in and say please go ahead and request uh conflict of interest and any exparte communications as well as uh any declarations of bias. Great. Okay. Well, let's go down the roles. So, at this point, does any commissioner have any conflicts of interest, exparte contact bias, or any other statement to declare or have visited the site? Let's start with Commissioner Lasowl. I have none. Commissioner Laws, I have none.

Your mic. I have none other than I was on the school budget committee years ago and it has nothing to do with this site really. Thank you for that. Commissioner Gamont. None. I'm not even sure I've driven by the site. I was looking at it. Probably have. I've been on South End Road, but not in relation to this. Thank you, Commissioner Henderson. Uh, no conflict, bias or exparte contact and I have not visited the site since we received this land use application.

Thank you. Uh, myself, no conflict, no exparte. Um, I am very familiar with the school. I drive by consistently going down south road. So, uh, would anybody in the room like to question a planning commissioner on their disclosures? I see two heads shaking now. Okay. Uh, Mr. Walters, you want to start staff presentation when you're ready? Yes. Uh Jude Tedis, our planner will be presenting. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Dole and commissioners. My name is Jude Tedis. I'm planner for the community development department here at the city of Oregon City. and I'm here to present the uh staff report and recommended conditions of approval for general land use application 2602, site plan 2603 and variances 26012 and 03 for the John Mclofflin Elementary School modular building variances. So, uh the first thing that I like to ask in meetings like this is why are we here? Uh what are we doing here? Um uh the Oregon City School District wishes to add four modular classroom buildings, one modular library building, and a modular restroom building to the John Mclofflin Elementary School site at 19230 South End Road. The structures are to be in place from June 2026 to August 2028 at the latest. Um however, these structures are proposed to be located in such a way that requires your review of three variances. One, they are proposing to locate these structures a minimum of 7 feet from the front property line where the R10 lowdensity residential district requires a minimum of 20 ft of setback. Uh second, uh they wish to order uh structures that are cited with T111 sighting, which is a prohibited material if it's visible from the ride ofway according to our site plan and design review code. And three, they wish to seek a determination that the structures qualify. Excuse me. I got to go back there. Let's see here. That the structures qualify for um the temporary structure code in 1762050i, which presently only permits temporary structures over 800 square f feet on a site for seven consecutive days twice a year. This limitation complicates reviews for things like modular school structures, construction staging structures, things that are fundamentally temporary in nature, but uh that aren't encapsulated by the specific code, even though there is a

section in the code that uh provides for uh government-owned temporary structures. So um qualifying these structures as eligible for review under the temporary structures code will permit the project to be reviewed under item three of the section which greatly reduces the review criteria for temp for temporary government owned buildings. So I just wanted to flag that as well. Um, under the city's variance code, uh, all three variances, um, require review and decision from the planning commission that they meet the grounds for approval in 1760. So, these are the recommended conditions of approval. Um, I don't know how well you can see that, but uh, there are two that are very similar, one and four, but the applicant shall apply for all required building and public works permits related to site modifications. It's a pretty standard um uh condition that all front yard fencing modifications comply with the conditions of approval for their previous variants which was for a 6-ft ornamental metal fence um not chain link. Um they are proposing some temporary construction fencing around these modulars. Um and um that uh that fencing would need to be removed uh in order to continue with compliance with this section uh once the uh construction aspect is is complete. Uh temporary structure shall be removed from the site no later than August 31st, 2028 or if uh the project takes uh takes less time to complete to remove it at the uh nearest practicable time. you know, moving modulars out of a school structure while school is in session might not be uh particularly desirable. And so, uh they're asking for some flexibility on how long they are there uh temporarily. But, um uh this condition of approval basically says don't dole if you don't have to. Um and

then uh the last thing is for grading and erosion control measures uh you should apply for relevant permits and observe the tree protection measures in 174130 and I go into that as one of the support uh aspects for one of the variances uh later in the staff report. So here the image on the left is an aerial view of uh the project vicinity located on Southoun Road in the Hazel Grove Westlink Farm Neighborhood Association. The image on the right is a June 2025 aerial of the site itself and the project area is ringed in purple there um sort of in the upper left hand side of that image just to give you kind of a sense of of scale. Uh renovations just as an overview here the resident renovations of the school building itself uh don't add any net uh increase in um floor area. uh it's all completely internal to the existing uh footprint of the building and those renovations have already been approved on a type one basis. Uh the code allowed them to get these the renovations to the building itself in on a type one basis but the modulars have to go through a type three variance. So I wanted to point that aspect out uh given the way that our code is structured. Uh modulars are needed to accommodate classroom, library, and restroom facilities that are being displaced during the construction phase. Uh so there's no net increase in usable space. Um they're to be located on site from June 2026 to August 2028 at the latest. Uh like I said, the renovations are likely to take a year. The location allows for easier utility connections and more ADA compliant pedestrian circulation. When if located at the front, if they're located at the back, you've got to carve paths. you've got to extend lines into existing play fields, that kind of thing. And so adding them toward the

front is uh where um utility access and all of that is a little bit uh easier to manage um and where there's existing hardscaping um uh there. Uh that's one of the arguments for that aspect. The location preserves existing trees during the construction phase. And um I also wanted to note that the site uh received a conditional use review and approval back in 2013. Uh and as noted in the staff report, the um request doesn't isn't significant enough under our conditional use code to trip a new conditional use review here. So we're just looking at the uh three variances. Um so this is a site plan showing uh the location of the modulars that bring up the uh front setback uh variance question. Uh so they're located between 7 and 10 ft from the front lot line there uh abuing south end road. Uh so yeah the um the minimum setback in the R10 zone is 20 ft. Uh and a temporary construction fence will surround the modulars and retain a 24 ft drive aisle through the parking lot there to the south as well. Uh to note, if these were permanent structures, no variance on this aspect would be required because it's a non-residential use. Uh if uh if this were if these were permanent structures, the maximum 5-ft setback would apply here. So there wouldn't even be a need for a variance in this case. But because they are temporary and because of the way the the code is written, this is uh this is the question that we're having to answer on this particular aspect. Uh these are the building elevations. Uh these are drawings for the modular buildings uh the applicant provided. Uh

and the applicant states that T111 sighting is common for structures like these. Uh and the applicant is requesting uh structures uh cited this way to assist with meeting the project's time constraints. Um uh the applicant has stated that structures with T111 sighting are more immediately available, less expensive to order, and due to lower weight, less expensive to transport. Um the applicant states that they will work to configure the site to minimize the amount that's visible from the right of way. Um given that the structures are to be temporary, staff would support this variance if it will assist with expediting the project and thus their removal once they're no longer needed. Um the uh other items to consider here. Uh so these are the things that you're looking at directly and kind of weighing against one another. the purposes of the lowdensity residential district code, the site plan and design review for general standards for building materials and temporary structures, the grounds of approval for variances, which I will get into in a moment, the applicant's narrative and submitted materials, the comp plan and policies and goals, and the findings for approval in the staff report and recommendations. So these are the grounds for variance that the applicant submitt needs to demonstrate they meet all six of these requirements. Um for each of these three requested variance uh variances they each have to meet all six. In the staff report we found that uh all three variances meet all of these requirements if the project proceeds according to the recommended conditions of approval. And at this time it depends on what you prefer but uh we can proceed one of two ways. I can either reiterate the findings that are in the staff report uh discussing how each of these how staff views each of these things meeting the variance criteria or I can ask you the planning commission having read the staff report and findings and conditions

of approval if you have any questions or concerns for staff about the variance findings and related conditions of approval so we can kind of pick out the ones that maybe h we have concerns with and leave the ones that we don't uh however ever you prefer to uh to work uh toward resolution on that. Once these matters are discussed, we can then proceed to the applicant's presentation um on the record before you determine next steps.

But before before I get to that, um this is just a quick look at the conditions of approval again. Um and then of course the next steps are either to approve as uh with staff's recommended conditions and findings, approve with revised findings and conditions, deny and provide direction to staff and the applicant or continue until a date certain. Thank you for the thorough presentation. I think let's go with questions for staff if unless there's objections. Is is there more than one entry exit from each of the structures?

Uh let's see here. Let's go back to the elevations. Uh I based on what they've shown here, the it looks like the rooms the individual rooms each have one entry exit point. Um but I don't I don't see that they have more than that. I would like to see a condition of approval for safety reasons that an additional entry extra be put in each building. If they had a fire near the existing entrance, whoever is in that structure would not be able to get out.

The uh we we can certainly do that. The uh structures will need to go through a building permit review process for fire life and safety separate from this application. Um this application enables them to apply for those uh um those building permits and the structures at that time will have to be seen as complying with fire life and safety standards. But if you like we can add a condition of approval.

Yeah. Yeah. And I would just I would just advise that the building code requires any structure that has an occupant load over 50 would require a second a second exit. So I don't know if these would meet that criteria. I see a Okay. We'll maybe let the applicant speak to that when they come up. Any other questions? Commissioner South or staff? No. Thank you. Commissioner Law's questions, comments. Um, these are the very similar to what our school has at Candy Lane and I I I don't see any issues with it. Thank you, Commissioner Law. Commissioner, come on. Commissioner Anderson, come on.

Will you be putting in EV chargers? No, I'm just kidding. I got nothing. It looks good to me. Commissioner Anderson, any questions from you? Uh, no questions for staff. I I would just say that uh if it's supposed to be one year for construction and we are giving them a full year for contingency that I will be fairly rigid about any expansion to that 2-year period.

Thank you for that. Okay. Well, staff, I think we can move to uh applicant any presentations from them. And if you don't mind, turn the mic on and state your name for the record. Good evening, chair, commissioners. My name is Mercedes Sarah. I'm a lane use planner with 3J Consulting here representing the Oregon City School District. Uh we I'll give David a chance to introduce himself. And good evening. My name is David Hobbs. I'm the capital bond director for Oregon City School District. Thank you.

We have a short presentation we'll give. Um, first we want to thank Jude uh for working this out with us with staff. This was quite the puzzle to work through in the Oregon City Code and we uh really found staff to be a great resource on this. Um so as we stated uh the design for the school and the improvements are already approved. Um these modular structures are proposed to help facilitate the continuation of school on site. Uh the school district has a number of projects going at the same time. So there isn't really an option to move students off the site to continue elsewhere. So in light of that, we have proposed uh six modular buildings including a library and a restroom uh within an enclosed secure space adjacent to the existing school along the frontage. Um next slide we can get into kind of more specifics. Uh the school uh is existing built in 1975 in that residential R10 zone. It's a just under 12 acres uh 66,000 square ft and it is accessed only from South End Road. Next slide. We have these three variances uh we worked out through the code. Uh one is for the time constraint of that temporary building which these would be temporary. Um the second variance is for the setback along the frontage in order to uh meet the residential setback standards but not the public building in a residential zone setback standards as stated by Jude. And then the T11 building material. So great. Um regarding the time constraint variance, we do anticipate that the project will take a year to construct the building. um interior renovations

and exterior site renovations. We are ex uh requesting additional time not only for if the project runs over but also for facilitating safe removal while students aren't on campus of those buildings. Uh along with that um as I stated it'll allow class to continue on the site without disruption to the students and the families within the neighborhood. um the district uh will seek to remove them at the earliest possible while maintaining safety for the students. Next slide. The minimum setback uh the reason we proposing the modulars in the front yard area, Jude stated a number of reasons. Um it's in the existing parking area. there is a surplus of parking on the site above what is needed for the school district or the the school and the zone and the use. Um there is no grading needed to be done. There's no storm water additional needs because it is already impervious. There is ADA uh compliant areas that students can easily access from the existing building to these modular classrooms without any huge uh grading needs. it is able to be fenced in and secured and um we have placed them specifically to avoid the existing trees in that front yard area. Next slide. And finally, the T11 building material. Um the district has been working to uh lease these buildings with a leasing company. Um and we are really subject to what is available. We've worked that out that we can um reduce the number of T11 buildings that are required T111

buildings that we are required to have. However, uh we still are only we only have four of the buildings available and not T11. So two of the buildings will be T111 and we will locate those so that they are not as visible from the street um to best of our abilities. And next slide. We'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about the project. Thank you. I was say no pictures of the proposed renovations or anything of the school. I mean, I'm kidding. I'm teasing. We're super excited to share that. However, that's not part of this uh this approval this evening.

Well, and I can imagine with a newly renovated school, you'll be more than happy to get those temporary buildings out of there. So, uh, any questions for the applicants? Looking down late, Commissioner L. I'll I'll go back to my original question was is there an entry and an exit separate, two of them per building? Um, there there is um only a single entrance to each classroom. Each building contains two classrooms uh as a part of it. And per building code, there is only a requirement for a single um entrance based on the square footage of the of the building. I think that following building code,

I think that the building code is not doing the children or the parents any justice and not providing for another exit in case of a fire. You know, that would really concern me. If I was a parent, I would not let my child take part in any classes in one of those classrooms. Is there any thing you can do to follow up on that?

I am very close to 100% confident that we have those actually sprinkled, but I do not have that uh in my back pocket right at the moment. Um, but I believe that is the case. And so that will alleviate certainly the concerns for um fire in those spaces. Um that is my recollection. I would not approve this unless there's another entry exit from those buildings. Very very dangerous situation.

I'll just if I could add you know most school classrooms in the building don't have more than one door in and out. So these buildings while they only have one door in and out um are similar to the interior classrooms within a regular school building.

I would add too that I I believe per building code each each classroom would be required to have a fire extinguisher in place. So that that will help maybe we can make a condition that you know no open flames or any curriculum you know no science or physics curriculum. We have no no intention for that at elementary school. We don't use those type of experiments uh in our schools. So that is that is not something we will see.

Commissioner Lel, do you I I just I get real nervous thinking about that. I I think there need there needs to be some kind of solution. Um, sprinklers are fine, but that doesn't prevent smoke inhalation and and that sort of thing for those children in those classrooms. I'm I'm real nervous about that. Commissioner Walls,

are there windows and other things too like um and then so that they could be open to get out if there is needed or There are windows. I'm not entirely sure whether they would be operable. It really depends on the the leasing. Every window is operable if you have a chair.

Sure. I was just kind of curious because I know the um you have similar operations at Candy Lane that the classrooms that we go to and um they went through second and third grade. Um and then they did have two doors, but there were two classrooms attached to each one modular. Um and they had on-ramps and they did have windows. Um yeah, so that's what I was recalling. Um but you know if you can escape out the window as well.

Yeah. And those modulars at Candy Lane are are very similar. Obviously that's a different jurisdiction uh than here in Oregon City, but uh they're essentially the same setup uh with ADA accessible ramps, uh windows in there, a single classroom, a single door into the classrooms and two classrooms per building along with the restroom facility that you may have seen out at that facility as well. Any other questions? Uh yeah, quick one. Uh similar to question asked the PG. So January 8th, you guys had a neighborhood association meeting. Yes. How did that go? Were there any comments? And if so, how did you address them?

Well, similarly to PGE, we had a lesson in fraud um at that neighborhood meeting uh which was great. Um it went well. Chair Nulti I believe uh introduced us. There were a few questions about the timing of the general project at John McGlofflin as well as the timing of the modulars. Um we did submit minutes again I think the chair compiles those minutes so I'm not entirely sure if they're as detailed as the meeting was. Um I recall people were generally fairly excited actually about the project not necessarily the modular but the project for the school. There were there were no asks from the community. No.

Great. Um Jude, quick question for you. There are all of four conditions of approval. Is that correct? I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. That's correct. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. If no more questions, we'll close the record and we'll uh deliberate amongst ourselves. Thank you for being here tonight. Really appreciate it. We look forward to seeing the new school. I'm hoping there's an open house or something when that happens. Uh yes, there will be a whole variety. We should have a kickoff actually to for some groundbreaking happening uh here in June and then uh there will certainly be a grand opening as we reopen in the fall of 27. Great. Well, we'll look forward to that. Thank you again for spending your evening with us. Thank you all. Thank you.

Okay, fellow commissioners, deliberation, discussion, motion. I just have to reiterate my concern for fire issues and children being being trapped in those facilities. I I until I could see a solution to that, my vote is going to be no.

Is that one of the applicable criteria though? I not sure that applies to what we're discussing tonight in terms of the variances. And I mean I speaking from experience I my schools growing up all I had many classes in portables that only had a single door. Um and even the permanently fixed buildings only had a single door and window. Um non-operable usually uh even growing up. So I I well I hear what you're saying and and we require it for bedrooms to have a door and then a window. Um, I can't say it's necessarily ever been a problem in my many years of schooling.

Uh, I I appreciate the comments from uh, Commissioner Lel. I I would just u point out that there is a specific building code. There's going to be a review by the city to make sure that it complies with the building code. um certain occupancy, you only need one entrance. Um I just get nervous when uh we start um giving direction around the building code. Like for instance, active shooter situation. Now you have two access points. Shooter accesses that from that second access point. Somebody asks who wanted a second access point. Um there's there's building code in place for a reason. it's the requirement of the city to make sure that that building code complies. Um, so I would I would just say something to consider when we decide what we're going to do. Um, in general, it's a a very straightforward land use application. Um, as previously stated, uh, I think a year construction and then a year to get them out of there, uh, should be plenty of time. So, I I'd be pretty rigid about that two-year time period, but uh excited to see the bond dollars going to use and uh appreciate everything the school district does to educate the next generation.

Commissioner Laws, quick question. You know, Candy Lane had these like cool little like modular bathrooms outside that were like Is that going to be kind of the case, too? Like they were pretty neat. Like there was like a little outside bathroom. Um it was pretty clean and I was like, "Wow, this is pretty impressive, you know, like but yeah, it was like better than the ones inside." I was like, "Wow, this is pretty cool. This is better than the teacher's bathroom." So this is temporarily. Yeah.

Okay. Commissioners, any question Pete or Jude for you? Do we have any precedent where planning has made a decision that would go above and beyond building code criteria? Is there precedent for that? Is that within our verbia? Sorry. Um uh and this is with respect to the specific building issue. Um sir

I'm not aware that we have um I mean most of the time the zoning code is concerned about the uh exterior of the building the site vehicle pedestrian access and those kinds of things and the interior operations and occupancies of the buildings are definitely governed by the building code. In some cases, if the commission felt that we need more information, we would ask this building official to chime in and tell us what the official occupancy requirements are for these classrooms and what the egress and requirements are. Yeah.

Um but I do strongly suspect that um you know with a stock ordered classroom modular building it is going to meet whatever very prescriptive set of standards there are for that. Yeah. I I also wanted to say that condition of approval one, the uh requirement to apply for all required building and public works permit related to site modifications presupposes in order for with that application, they wouldn't be able to install and occupy these classrooms until they met those standards. Thank you.

So, condition one uh covers it as the building code requires uh but obviously no more than that. Thank you for that. Okay. Well, I would uh welcome and entertain a motion. I move that we approve GLUA26-002 SP26003 V26001002 and 003 with the identified uh findings and conditions of approval. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Okay, let's call the vote.

Who is the second? Sorry. Commissioner Henderson. All right. All right. Uh, Commissioner Henderson. I, Commissioner Gamont. I, Commissioner Laws. I, Commissioner Dole. I, Commissioner Lasal. No. Okay. Well, thank you. Motion stands. Appreciate you all being here tonight. Yes. We'll see you at the open house. Okay. Let's continue through the meeting. Um, let's see here. Let me go back. Oh, I just messed up you. I think we're just on the communications.

Yeah, thank you for that. Yeah. Any communications? Um, I do not. Uh the city of M attorney may have a something to say about an upcoming meeting. Missy, do you you'll need to turn up your volume again to let her talk. There you go. Uh thank you. Uh no, I don't have any upcoming communications. my understanding but I guess Pete I'll ask you to confirm this is that on May 11th uh right as of right now there are no agenda items that's correct as of May. Okay. Yeah.

And there was some talk of having a training but I believe the planning uh is going to uh postpone that perhaps until June and give you all apparently the month of May off. Okay. Well, but that's not final. So, we'll we'll hear direct we'll hear officially from city planning staff on that by email. Well, thank you for that. I know it's been a busy um it has. Thank you all. Yeah. So, uh maybe a month off of May will be welcome. So, same compensation. Same compensation, Commissioner Henderson. So, no worries there. No threatening. Well, okay. Well, with that, I'm going to close the meeting and thank you very much.

Thank you all. Thank you.