Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And that was what just a hop across the street. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's about I've been I've been playing Monopoly. The first time I got a real estate license in California.

It just keeps going and going. Oh, no. No. I finally let go. We're tired and whatever. My my youngest son, Nathan will be coming. All right. All right, everybody. Welcome to the November 4th, 2025 Salem Planning Commission. I'm going to call it to order and ask that Jennifer call the role. Commissioner F here. Commissioner Fryback here. Commissioner Heler here. Commissioner Leven here. Commissioner Rhodess here. President Slater here. Commissioner Tev here. Commissioner Vier Brendell here. We have quorum.

All right. Great. Uh before I move any further, is there anyone here who has remarks to make to the planning commission that is not part of the public hearing? Not part of the public hearing. I'm looking around. Commissioner Frybeck, did you No, I'm joking. Okay. Uh with that then I will turn to Commissioner Tev for a motion. I move that we approve the uh minutes of our October 14th, 2025 meeting as they are written. Thank you very much. Do we have a second? Second. Second. We have a first and a second. Do we have any discussion? All right. With no discussion, then Jennifer, if you again could please call the role for us. Commissioner F. Hi. Commissioner Fryback. Hi. Commissioner Heler.

Hi. Commissioner Levin. here. I Commissioner Rhodess abstain. Commissioner Slater I. Commissioner Tev I. Commissioner Vier Bindell. Abstain.

All right. Motion passes. Uh with no resolutions and no action items, we will go on to the first public hearing in annexation. And I believe Jennifer, you get to read the criteria for us. This is a public hearing to consider case number ANXC CPC ZC2501 for property located at 2170 Walker Road Northeast and 4893 Sunny View Road Northeast. The criteria applicable to this hearing are listed in the Salem Revised Code under chapters 260.010 G2 annexation 64.025E2 025E2 minor comprehensive plan map amendment and 265.005E zone change. Failure to raise an issue prior to the close of the public hearing with statements or evidence sufficient to afford the planning commission and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the land use board of appeals on that issue. A similar failure to raise constitutional issues relating to proposed conditions of approval precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence or testimony. The planning commission will then either continue the public hearing or leave the record open for at least seven days.

All right. Thank you. Uh we will hear from Mr. Bishop first, then we'll hear from the applicant, and then we will hear from the public. Mr. Bishop, please. road this next slide includes an annexation includation and a minor amendment to change portion of the property 217 Walker Northeast approximately 6 acres of that southern portion of the truck developing resial, multiple family resistance statement. Oh, there we go. Now, can you hear me?

Is that better? Yeah, that's better.

Okay, great. So, in terms of the uh subject property itself, it is uh we have two properties. Uh there is large the larger property is uh 18.49 acres located at 2170 Walker Road Northeast and that is shown here. Uh it is north of Sunny View Road, west of Cordon Road and east of Walker Road. And then there is a side that then there is a smaller uh property uh to the west of Walker Road on the north side of Sunny View uh that is um would be an enclave property had this u had they not volunteered to be included in this application which they did. So whenever an annexation includes an enclave, which is property surrounded entirely by city limits, we give the neighboring property owners the opportunity to be part of annexation. So the neighboring property owner to the west there at 4893 did, you know, want to be part of this process. So that is included with this application. But in terms of the review tonight, it only we're only dealing with the, you know, the comp plan zone change element of the property at 2170 Walker Road and specifically the application that the proposed zone change in comp plan amendment to apply multif family designation to the southern 6 acres of you know this property here at 2170. Uh in terms of the existing comprehensive plan designation of designations of the property, the large property is developing residential uh and then the smaller property west of Walker is single family residential and uh upon annexation the the annexation request. Sorry about this. This jumping forward is really sensitive. Uh so in terms of the proposed zoning, they're looking to change the southern six acres of the property at 2170 Walker Road to uh multi multiple family residential comp plan designation as shown here and then as well as uh for zoning the southern portion of the property would be RM2 to correspond to that multif family zoning. Uh the

other the remaining 12.49 49 acres of the property at 2170 Walker Road would be residential agriculture which would be just the normal zone that would be given to it automatically upon annexation into the city based on its comp plan designation. And the property at 4893 Sunny View which is you know the again the small one here because of its single family comp plan designation it'll automatically be given a single family residential zoning designation. Sorry about this folks. Uh so in terms of the exist the the properties involved total total is 18.91 acres uh 18.49 for the property at 20 uh 2170 Walker and then the remaining square footage uh for the property at uh 4893 Sunny View. Uh the property is you know they're they're flat, the topography is flat. There are no map landslide hazards present on the site. There are existing homes uh on both properties and uh on the property at 2170 Walker there are farm buildings that are associated with it from its pre previous use. And then for the property at 4893 uh Sunny View, there's a house and and uh several accessory structures to the house. And the annexation includes not only the properties but also the portions of the adjacent ride ofway of Walker uh Road, which is down at the southwest corner. There's a portion, a small portion that's not within the city. So, this annexation would bring that in as well. Then also all of the right of way of Sunny View uh from the Walker Road, Sunny View intersection over to the east uh to Cordon Road, which is the urban growth boundary.

About the Corbin road is that all Cordon Road is outside the urban growth boundary. So, yeah, we could not annex that. So, and that will still remain in the county jurisdiction. Uh there are uh there is a small area of map landslide hazards present on the site. Uh not sorry landslide hazards but gosh now the arrows aren't they're not working. So depends on his laptop. So

there we go. Actually here we go. Yes. Yeah. I'll be better the next one. I swear. So now they now the arrows are working. Okay. So in terms of the uh you know the the wetlands, there are no map wetlands or waterways on the property. However, there are mapped hydric soils which are wetland type soils located near the northwest portion of the site. Uh as you can see it's the the green band or hydric soils. And so there is the potential for wetland areas to be present in that area. So upon future development of the property they will need to uh conduct a you know you know do delineation or yeah enlist a wetlands specialist to identify whether there are any wetlands there and if there are they'd have to do a delineation and then uh mitigate those if necessary uh based on the future development of the property but that that's not really subject to the annexation tonight. That's down the road as the property uh develops in the future. So in terms of the comp plan zone change proposal uh the staff report identifies the applicable bar criteria and is identified in the findings in the report. Uh both the comp plan and zone change uh meet the criteria for approval. The proposed uh residential or multif family residential comp plan designation and corresponding multif family zone for the southern 6 acres uh is equally or better suited than the developing residential uh comp plan and uh RA zone. So it would otherwise apply to the property. It provides for efficient uh use of uh you know land within the UGB by allowing higher densities than than would otherwise be realized. The property is near transit. Uh there's a transit route route five uh center street located just to the southwest of the property. Uh so you know easy access to 15minute transit service. It is near to the north Caesar Caesar Chavez Elementary School and near Brown Road Park. And the property is also um you know will be served by a future neighborhood park 34 in the park's master plan. Uh when the property comes forward for f further development in the future they'll need to do an urban growth area preliminary declaration and through that process uh

it'll be determined you know uh how much parkland would be necessary on the property to meet that park need. So the the property is near parks uh near transit and even though it is not you know near commercial services their closest ones would be on Lancaster to the west it does meet the the policies of the comp plan for sliding of multif family residential which is intended to be distributed throughout the the community providing a diversity of housing types throughout the throughout the city and it is near a major trans major you know transit route it's near uh services for parks and schools and it is on an arterial street which is Sunny View and near in abunding cordon road which is a parkway so it meets all those policies. Uh the property is within the NOLA North Lancaster neighborhood association. Uh we did receive comments from the neighborhood association expressing opposition to the proposed uh comp plan amendment and zone change for the southern 6 acres of the property uh primarily due to the impact of having multif family land in this predominantly single family uh designated area. Uh there's a lot of there were several uh concerns raised about increased traffic congestion on Watson Lakewood. Uh and there was a desire to see an additional uh connection from the development to Sunny Road in the future to help alleviate impact on of traffic on Walker Road and there was a concern about a lack of reliable transit and essential services in the area and then concerns about impact on school capacity. In terms of school capacity, the uh school district was notified of the proposal. They indicated that there is capacity to uh accommodate the proposed development uh based on their projected you know future student enrollment at the site uh based on the number of the density that could be realized based on the the zoning that would apply. Um and the applicants did conduct a traffic impact anal analysis as part of this proposal and and it identified that there won't be any significant adverse impacts uh to the traffic system in the area and it won't degrade the level of service and therefore no conditions of approval were

specifically uh recommended for this. And uh in the comp plan, even though this is an area that is predominantly single family residential at this time, uh the comp plan does envision that multif family land be, you know, distributed throughout the city and not concentrated in particular areas. And because this site is on a on a on an arterial street, it's near transit, near schools, near parks. It does meet the the the the policies for citing multif family residential land, you know, in this area. And with that, staff would recommend that the planning commission adopt the facts and find findings of this report and recommend to the city council that the appropriate comp plan designation and zoning for the property would be multiple family residential in a corresponding RM2 zone. Thank you.

Other questions from Mich.

Thank you. Uh, am I correct in thinking that if we um with the annexation of that portion of Sunny View into the city that access from that road and it's an appropriate uh street improvement would be included in future development. Correct. It would be subject to the city's jurisdiction and the city standards for what type of access would be allowed onto it.

Okay. And we would wait until that development comes forward to talk about those conditions. So you know the southern portion that would be multif family residential zoned they would have to go through site plan review as well as design review uh and then also an urban growth area preliminary you know declaration. So there are future land use approvals that will have to go through that will be noticed and and that is the more appropriate place to apply you know boundary street improvements and access requirements.

Hello. Um I'm curious about the widening of Cordon Road. Where are the where are the four lanes going to be? Well, that would be that would be something that would need to be addressed at the time of future development. And if you saw in the comments from Marian County, they you know really you know are recommending and they and they put a comment in there that they're they're going to want the developer to enter into an improvement agreement with uh Marian County for the development of the frontage along uh you know Cordon Road. And so the the right of way would have to uh depending on where the center line is and if it's deficient they would it would have to come from you know both sides you know generally if it's in the city we get the right of way if it's deficient from both sides

you know of the of the of the road and then so the ride ofway is dedicated and then they do their half street improvements what is the what is the uh quality or the the rating of the existing road Walker road. Yeah, Walker. It's a local street in terms of the classification or level of service are you talking about? Uh, I guess what I really want to know is um are there curbs and sidewalks?

Uh, no, not currently along the full frontage, you know. So, this development would be required to put in boundary street improvements would which would include, you know, curb, sidewalk, streetscape landscape on the development side on Walker and Sunny View and Cordon. Yeah. If I were if I were uh renting a home there and I wanted to walk over to Caesar Chavez school, would there be a sidewalk for me to walk on?

Uh across the across Walker Road, a dedicated one, I believe. Uh there is a there is one to the further to the north. U you know, there is a there's speed bumps and then there is a there is a pedestrian connection that goes, you know, from the west to the to the east, you know, but it's near the elementary school. So, if I'm in the new FM1 zone, oh, that was in FM1. Sorry. That's my vision too. The mixture. Yeah. If I'm in the um multi multif family, uh I would cross the street and then walk north to get to the You just You just go north. I can't go north. There's a continuous sidewalk. Yes. They would they would put in a boundary street along their their frontage. But including what would then be the um developing residential or there

there uh there would be a subdivision that would you know there's a subdivision that would be potentially proposed with on that section of the site uh a subdivision that would potentially include single family attached and detached. So the subdivision would do boundary streets and then the and then the multif family would have it bound first and the subdevelopment comes years later. Is there going to be a street? Is there going to be a sidewalk that connects the elementary to the multif family? So, in order to create, it's one big lot today, you know, so in order to create the multif family parcel, that's going to have to be more than likely included in the subdivision. And so, as part of that subdivision, there would be a boundary street improvement. All right, I'm going to ask one more time, although I think you told me the answer. Uh, yes, there would be a connection.

You know, with the subdivision, there'd be a condition there'd be a condition to do a boundary street with a subdivision. If the if the multif family comes first living the multif family and they want to go on the sidewalk to Caesar Chavez school and there's not a subdivision belt will there be a will there be a sidewalk

well the question would be would they be even to be able to come in would they come in for a multif family development just on that southern half on a on a 18.49 49 acre site that would create problems problems for how we apply the development standards in terms of development site landscaping and everything. So it really behooves them to needing to create a lot you know that's specific to the boundaries of that RM2 property in order to further develop it. And so in order to create that lot unless they just did a partition first know and then you know to create two parcels one multif family one residential agriculture which that would be a possibility then then that then if they did that they got the partition plot done and then they did the multif family first then there would be a gap but if they're doing a subdivision just one land division process to establish the subdivision lots plus the the multif family lot there there would be a boundary street requirement for the subdivision altogether and that would there would be then unless there was a a deferral tell of the construction of the boundary street for the multif family until it's developed.

There would be okay. Okay. So then can we as planning commission condition the approval of the annexation on the particular type of division that the applicant is going to use? Well, the role of the commission tonight is to make a recommendation to the council in terms of the appropriate zoning. And so zone changes can have, you know, conditions on them. The comp plan amendment cannot but zone changes can be conditioned but um you know it's something that is would be addressed typically through the development process and not not necessarily does not need to be addressed at the time of this comp plan zone change

a lot of pressure over the past few sidewalk street safety issue fact they keep getting deferred I have a slightly different view on that one when it's appropriate if you defer it Laurel with our developers uh this Christian's going to weigh in. Please do.

Thank you. Laurel Christian, infrastructure planner. Um, so our code um allows actually requires us to essentially um use what we call complex rules. So that um is establishes what the proportionate impact of the development is and allows us to condition that. So typically that generally includes frontage of the portion of the site that's being developed. So, if this came in for a partition to say to create the two properties, it's more than likely that we would condition frontage improvements on each parcel at the time of their development um for a large complex like this. Looking at the um the kind of Google Street View, and I apologize, Bryce has my laptop, so I'm on my phone. Um the there are sidewalks along the western side of Walker that extend all the way up at up to um the elementary school. And then there's another there's a safe crossing. Um so if the multif family development were to go first then they would be able to use that improved crossing at Sunny View and Walker um which would be improved with ADA ramps as part of that development and then walk along the sidewalks along the western side to get to the school. And then once the the single family subdivision were to occur then those boundary street improvements would happen at that time. the boundary street improvements um there have specific triggers. So in our code we have things that do require boundary street improvements and things that don't. Uh zone change is not specifically listed in that kind of things that list of things that triggers boundary street improvements. So you would have to find some other kind of criteria of approval on the comp plan zone change that would um that you would make that finding for though we generally would not recommend that type of condition be placed on a zone change. and that the more appropriate time would be at time of development of the lot.

Yeah, I had a few questions. Um, so I've seen on some developments they do an actual traffic signal warrant analysis. Um, and they use that to then determine if a traffic signal should be installed at a location. I see lots of traffic counts for peak hour and stuff. Um, but I don't actually see a warrant analysis. Um I know on plan zone change we that's not something we're looking at. Correct. Correct.

Yes. So the applicant did submit a full traffic impact analysis um as part of their application package. However, what we are looking at for the comp plan zone change is only the transportation planning rule analysis which is in embedded in that TIA. Yeah. um to look at the current zoning and what their potential traffic impact would be, the proposed zoning, and make sure that there's no significant impact in going up to that higher zoning. So, with the um the subdivision is when the traffic impact analysis would be required or the multif family development, but at this point, we're not looking at traffic signal warrants. just looking at those um transportation planning rule analysis requirements which um have been met.

Okay. And and so at the point where say development does happen on that you know say the whole lot they would have to look at traffic signal warrants when they do that as far as the as part of the TIA. Yes. As part of the traffic impact analysis that was done with the each individual development, we would scope to see what um signals, what intersections they would be looking at to see if they meet that warrant for traffic signals.

Okay, cool. Um and then I had a second question. Um so I think it's transportation planning rule 830 requires enhanced review for transportation projects to add general purpose lanes onto arterials. I think in this case, Cordon Road, um would we be subject to in I guess would Marian County be subject to that enhanced review? Um if this development goes through and adds in another lane onto Cordon Road, I'm not sure.

Okay. Um, so say if a development happens and they dedicate roadway space and then they build the project with an extra lane without that review, Marian County would be the one liable and not the city for approving the development with the extra lane. I'm not familiar with that specific TPR O um analysis that you're citing.

I can read you the os. Yeah, I think that would probably be a question for um the city traffic engineer who will review the development at, you know, when they come in for an application and the TIA and look at um what improvements would be required to Cordon Road. Okay, cool. Thanks.

Other questions? If not, let's move the applicant items. Good evening. My name is Brandy Dalton. I'm with Multitech Engineering and I'm here tonight representing the applicants for the large piece. We do not represent the enclave um parcel that's presented tonight. Uh Bryce did a great job summarizing and with all the questions answered, he answered a bunch of my stuff that I was going to mention anyways, but um what you have before you you have a property that um is looking to be annexed into the city with a comp plan zone change. We at this time we don't know how that's going to look. We did provide a concept plan, but obviously that can change. So, the northern portion they are looking at doing a subdivision and the southern portion um they're looking at doing a multifamily development. We don't know what that looks like at this time, but it could be 90 units to 186. We we just don't know how that'll all work out. Um the comp plan did trigger a trans transportation report and um it is in the packet and if you read it there are no mitigations being required at this time with the comp plan zone change but as you know and you're familiar with land use that this is just the first step and all the work for us actually comes afterwards. So we're looking to get it annexed and a comp plan zone change. After this, we come in for a subdivision site plan review um along with a UG and all of that's going to determine, especially the UG, our boundary street improvements as Bryce went over um our infrastructure, our utility connections, how this whole process and project is going to work.

So, right now tonight, we're we're looking to get it annexed. Um this is a location that needs this type of housing and that's why the needed housing was established to find areas that need a mixed use of housing. So this area does have majority of single family zone property. That's why it's perfect for a new type and a needed type of housing in this area. So right now that's what we're looking at is annexation with a comp plan zone change. However, we did look at um adjacent property owners concerns and it was traffic and access and um we we don't disagree with the access um issues that they brought up. I did contact Bryce today to see um how public works feels about us having access on the Sunny View Road. Uh so that'll be determined by public works and that'll be something for them to answer. If they allow us access onto Sunny View then when we go to design the multifamily site that'll be something that uh we'll be able to do provide access there and additional access to maybe alleviate some of the traffic concerns on Walker Road. Um, so our next steps will require us to work with Marian County, City of Salem Public Works staff, our engineers, and our clients to make sure that all that works. And we're going to have lots of requirements um, and things that we're going to have to do before we can even move on to the next stage. So, with that, I'm here tonight to answer any questions. I have our lead engineer here as well, Mark Grin, to answer any questions you might have. So that concludes anything I have to say.

Questions. Okay. Thank you very much. I think Are there any public comments on this application?

Anyone any public comments while we get the sheet? Yeah. Okay. I don't have your names yet. Would one of you come up? Everyone wants to go first and please identify yourself and where you live or your ward. Hello, my name is Robin Marshburn and I'm uh um thanks for the opportunity to speak. Um I live at 2585 Walker Road. My wife and I have been there for 29 years right across from the school. So I'm actually familiar with the review and approval of planning projects. I was a city planner for excuse me my voice is going um in California. and then I'm the transportation planner for ODOT for 21 years. So, but regarding tonight's agenda item, um I I know you guys are talking about approving the annexation comp plan amendment and zone change, but uh we're concerned about the traffic impacts to um from the subsequent project. And um [clears throat] we the residents on Walker Road and nearby streets will be directly impacted by the proposed residential development and we're very concerned that all the traffic generated by the development will looks like it's going to be on Walker Road because that's what I looked at the transportation I mean a traffic impact analysis and it shows two access roads onto Walker Road. So that's what you know we're based our concerns on. Um, and I'm glad to hear the uh applicant, you know, mention that they uh will work with uh public works to see if there's possible to get a access through it off Sunny View. [clears throat and cough] But uh so in the TIA they mentioned that it would um the development would add 1,560 vehicles per day to walk a road and that's about double the amount of the traffic that would double the traffic on

our street. Um, so that's quite a significant um increase. Just uh so you guys understand what's going on in the neighborhood there. Uh I just saw it again tonight. Cordon Road uh is starting to get backed up

and at that Sunny View um Cordon Road intersection and like so many times it backs up the northbound I mean the southbound traffic backs up and then uh so cars turn on Carolina. It's backed up sometimes all the way to Carolina to the north. So cars cut off on Carolina and then they they [clears throat] turn right on Carolina and then left on Walker Road and use our street as a cut through. And so we're seeing that traffic now besides the school traffic. So and then this on top all that it's just a lot. Um [clears throat] and uh so I was I I had mentioned uh in my comments that uh it looks like the project will not warrant a traffic signal at Sunny View. So I uh I think I misspoke. I now I understand that that has not been evaluated yet. But if there's not a traffic signal built at Sunny View and Walker, then that stop sign is going to get backed up uh quite a bit for cars trying to get on to Sunny View or cars on Sunny View trying to turn onto Walker Road. Um so we're asking the commission to um require during site plan or subdivision approval uh that the development include an access road on Sonic View in addition to the other access the two access roads on Walker Road. could also, you know, be helpful, beneficial for um for safety. I think when in case there's something uh you know, say like uh a fire or something, but if you have more access around such a huge parcel like that, it's uh better. It's easier for um the residents to get in out of the area. Okay. Yeah. That's just that we think the traffic impacts of this project would be overwhelming to Walker Road and our neighborhood livability would be severely degraded. Um, so I I went

around and I I got a petition. I have uh residents from 45 houses on the the uh the streets that would be primarily affected by this project, Walker Road, Capstone Court, and Sarah Court. And uh everyone is feels the same about the traffic that uh would it would be just too much um on our street. Uh so in closing, I just want to ask you guys to consider that additional access. Oh, one second. Are there any questions for Marsh?

Just one me. two two I have one the first um in terms of uh is it Walker Street? Walker Road. Walker Road. U what are you perceiving in terms of of traffic speed? Well, with this two a couple years ago the city put in some speed bumps. So, it's better than it used, you know, it's a half a mile straight road with no stop signs. So, it was cars were flying. That's what I would like for years and years. But now it's uh the speed bumps I think could have been a little bit taller, but it's it's it's significantly uh slowed down the traffic. So it's tolerable now.

And the queuing in terms of being able to turn onto um on Cordon Road from Sunny View that backing up turning uh tell me again if you're on Sunny View and you want to right or left on on a cordon. Yeah. Oh, I don't think the queuing is bad at all right now. I I haven't seen it more than just a few cards actually. That's very helpful. I appreciate it. Thank you. I believe we're now on to is it Mark Green? Oh, I'm sorry. No, hold on. Um I'm looking at the map and I'm trying to figure out where Carolina is that the street that they cut through.

It's the north. It's to the north of the school. There's a vacant property to the north of the school and then the next intersection with Cordon Road is is Carolina. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We'll ask Bryce to put this on the screen if he comes back. Please take another look at it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? Sorry about that, Commissioner. All right, Mr. Green said, I'm part of the design team. Part of the design team and you don't want to second go. No, I'm kidding. Okay, I might speak as [laughter] that true for you, Randy. This is your test. That's Randy. You're test. Okay. Gosh, I'm so sorry. So, we're not at Tiffany. Thank you, Miss Otis. Apologies.

Evening. Tiffany Otis, 2285 Walker Road, and I live directly across from this property. Historically speaking, this property was owned by the Roth family for Roth's IGA from uh Fresh Farm to Market and is now being sold, as you know, uh for the development. I've lived at the address for 22 years and we have lost three vehicles due to traffic flying down the street. You asked about speed. They go more than 25. 25 residential, 25 for the school zone, and they go more than that. The traffic backup that Mr. Marshburn has already um brought to your attention comes all the way down past my street at times. We have had to have the US uh postal service put into Washington DC about a route change for timing because it was gridlocked and he could not deliver our mail. Our mail had to go to a multi-unit mailbox location. Both mailbox locations have been taken out of the sidewalk by accidents of cars flying down the street and not staying on the street and jumping the sidewalk and taking out the mailbox units. I submitted my letter to you along with pictures. Did the pictures come through?

This is S.

Okay. Okay. I wish I would have known that. I would have brought them tonight. Nobody told me. However, um the pictures show for my daughter's car being totaled that the vehicle that totaled her car that took out the mailbox landed in my neighbor's yard. So, traffic is a significant concern. You have families walking their children to the elementary school, not just for the Monday through Friday, but for other things that happen like the basketball games that they rent out, the kinsettas that go and practice on campus, the park that is used 24/7 for the families in our neighborhood. We do have a very active neighborhood because we live in a school zone. So, that's one of the biggest concerns. I don't want to lose another car. Um, we have cars already that park on our side of the street, which I'm the western side. I am the sidewalk side um of the street. The sidewalk had to be improved and extended from the western side to Sunny View to accommodate the school. There is no safe crossing from Sunny View to Walker Road. I was on the parent teacher um group from Chavez and it was proposed and we talked about safety crossing and there was no safety crossing. So now you've just impacted that yet again for the families that live on the other side of Sunny View. So I just implore you to recognize the amount of units whether it be an apartment building or houses combined how this traffic is going to impact. And if you go put an outlet at Hoffman which Mr. Marshburn suggested and I hear is being talked about, you know, without a signal yet that you're going to have that many more cars backed up to try to leave to go to work, you know, and then coming and going of the school day along with delivery trucks,

etc. that I initiated in my letter for concern. So, I know this is inevitable. I am your past federal funded worker for your CDBG and home dollar and I currently work for the state of Oregon for the LITEC for affordable housing. So I get it. [laughter] I know the governor's executive orders and I'm not here to say that I'm anti, but I'd much rather see middle housing go up, if you could hear me tonight about that, and see duplexes, triplexes go up instead of more apartment buildings because you need to have middle housing for people to come up and out of the apartment system and then eventually move into homes and use, you know, their funding that way to be able to own a home someday. Thank you. Um, sorry. So, the difference of traffic volumes between the single family proposed development, say if it was all single family and the multif family, um, was there a issue that you had with the change in volume? Yeah, I think it would because I think families today, you know, if they don't have good access to um the Chariots bus system and it can take an hour, you know, riding the bus. I know you take a bike. Um, you know, so I think a hundred unit apartment complex versus breaking that into maybe 30 more homes or using duplexes and triplexes would take some of that volume count down instead of doing, you know, potentially two cars per, you know, and I know that we have changed the parking space rules, you know, but then where are they going to park? They're going to park on their streets. They're going to park on my street just because they have a car and then they're going to walk into their neighborhood. You see it all over uh Colonial Libertad out by uh Kubler and Cordon. You go onto um their main street and it is up and down an

unsidewalked road access and they are parked up and down that road. So I fear that that would be a concern if we have an apartment complex on top of the multif family home, single family homes. Thank you. Any other questions? I just have one quick one. Is your sidewalk directly up against the the street? Is there a buffer? Is there a planting strip? Is Yeah, there's a Yes, there's a planting strip. Okay, so you've got like the street and then five to seven feet of the planting strip and then five to seven feet. That's stretching it, [laughter] but Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much.

I don't believe request hold the record.

Yes, absolutely. Yep. Did you want Did you want to do that now? Yeah, I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the protocol. I appreciate that. A little bit more exercise for you today. I know you walk down here. Uh, could you put up the um the location of the uh Miss Otis, would you be willing to point out where your house is? Would you be comfortable with doing that in a public record? Sure. I apologize. This does not extend all the way to uh to the north as was discussed earlier, but it, you know, it does, you know, the street commissioner Heler was asking about is that above?

It's above. Yes. beyond the so we're seeing lines cue up from above that all the way down to Sunny View. Thanks for willing to do that. Yeah. So, this is a pass through from Walker Road to Green Tree in the back. That's my property right there. Okay. And so you parked there and you've had you've had drivers coming by and sideswiping their Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that information.

Yeah. We've lost um three for travel alongside of our driveway along that pass through. So park one of our cars there replacing cars. Other questions? I was wondering what the width is of the street surface of uh Walker Road is and if that would be widened if uh development came in.

Question. Would you like to answer that question? Yes. I just need to do a quick uh look at the sorry I didn't have it off the top of my head. Um so Walker Road currently has a 30 foot wide um improvement width. So that it kind of varies between 28 and 30. So our standard is 30 for a local street. So um when they do their boundary street improvement, they would widen to the overall 30 width and then they would put curb um landscape strip and sidewalk on the development side of the street. So, it's potential that there would be a little bit of widening, but for the most part, it looks to meet that 30-foot um standard. It just doesn't have the curb and sidewalk and kind of streetscape improvement on the development side.

Okay. Um, if a development came in, would we be able to require some sort of traffic calming on Walker Road itself to mitigate the speed and volume impacts? Um, this was before you guys a couple weeks ago I listened to when uh Kevin Hoffman, the city traffic engineer, was here and you had the presentation from West Salem. So, our current program is very reactive. Um, we don't have necessarily in our code requirements for traffic calming devices. Um, like we've discussed, the street already has speed bumps. Um, so I'm not sure uh what else the proposal could or would be. It would not be typical that we would require that if it was not identified in the traffic impact analysis. Um, it would probably have to be something that was more voluntary from the applicant because our code doesn't necessarily require it. Uh, the program that we have now is more um receiving neighborhood um concerns and then kind of reacting to those. Yeah, I've seen um developments in other cities narrow intersections or narrow the cross-section of the road um or do chicanees or something like that to either divert cut through traffic or slow people down or stuff like that. So maybe that's something for the applicant to consider. Please,

just a question to kind of address a comment that was made as far as public safety and kind of response for uh fire and police in this uh with just the two access from a street that sounds like it's very busy. Um is there and has speed bumps like is that considered as far as the next step when it gets reviewed by public safety or when when does that get reviewed? the fire department, you know, reviewed it and they had no objections to the proposal. They can serve it. It's a public street there, you know, so there was no specific ex objection to the proposal. Okay. Thank you.

If I could just add uh the when we do a site plan review or a subdivision, the fire department does look at um the amount of approved fire department accesses that a development has. So, if a multif family development has a certain number of units, they might require two means of fire department access versus one. Um but that's just more dependent on the development activity at that time. I just um wanted to say that we did have another person come in who's hoping to testify on this hearing. If the planning commission is willing to hear that testimony before we go to rebuttal. I just wanted to

very much welcome that opportunity. If you could please take a seat, give us your name and either your war or your address and you have five minutes. Hello everyone. My name is Gerardo Sosa and I live on Sunny View Road at 4972 Sunny View Road. I am the second house just before Cordon Road. [clears throat] I want to tell you guys about uh an event that happened a couple years ago around this time of Thanksgiving. I was having a Friendsgiving with all my friends at my house and we heard a very loud bang. We all came out of our We all came out of the house and we were witnessing the aftermaths of a crash on Cordon in Sunny View Road. [sighs] And what I witnessed was multiple people um leaving getting out of a migrant van. These were migrant workers that were coming back home to their families and fortunately a lot of them passed away in that accident. And so my concerns with this development are that the traffic on Sunview Cordon, there are quite a few accidents that occur yearly. And I would like to see before this development goes up or at the time of this development getting its CFO that there are improvements to Cordon Road and Sunny View. Another one of my complaints is that I do see vehicles backed up in order for me to leave the house on Sunny View. Me being the second um house from Cordon, there's often times where I cannot turn left to go

west onto Sunny View and sometimes um to go east on Sunny View as well. [clears throat]

My neighbor wasn't uh able to be here with us, but he is the um he is um closest to Cordon and he has a very hard time turning either left or right onto Sunny View to get onto Cordon or to go um west towards Lancaster. And so those are some of the things that I see living uh so close to that intersection is that there definitely needs to be um some attention whether it be longer turn lanes. I know in the traffic impact report that they uh acknowledged that there the turn lanes weren't long enough and that is something that needs to be addressed. Uh also mentioned earlier was there is no uh pedestrian crosswalk from Sunny View um to get across from Sunny View on the south side to the north side. So that is also a consideration that should be put in whether there be an intersection light put in at Walker and Sunny View. Um, another question I had was um the decision to put the multif family zoning up against Sunny View and um if it is an option to put it closer to the school. I think um type of people that rent the apartments will probably more likely to use playground and the uh amenities that the school provides in proximity to those apartments. I know that they were talking about the sidewalks being closer uh being built before uh the apartments get placed apartments closer to Cesar Chavez. That might alleviate

comments to you guys

on Sunny View. Yeah. Aside from longer turn lanes at Cordon Road and Sunny View, did you have any specific intersection improvements? like if you had if you had a dream of what the intersection would look like, what would that look like for you?

Um, I do think there needs to be uh longer turn lanes and uh probably more um signage on when they start. Um just because um someone not paying attention to all the constant intersections at Cordon. Um, for example, there was just an intersection placed at Auburn Road and people that don't use cordon every day aren't used to traffic changes out there. And so I think especially when construction comes, um, there's probably more likely to be rubbernecking, people seeing the construction being built, and so definitely more signage and longer turn lanes. what the traffic impact reports assessment says about uh any upgrades to the intersection there and possibly an intersection at Walker and Sunny View.

Um I just wanted to mention to you Marian County put together a report for the Cordon corridor. Um I don't know if you've looked at that, but they outlined a list of projects all along Cordon Road um that they're planning to do in some period of time. So it might be interesting for you to look at that questions.

Yeah, I would appreciate it. exactly um what this vote is on. I hear it's recommending. Is it What are we What is this vote doing? Yes, the planning commission's not being asked to um weigh in on the annexation of the property. So, the property is outside city limits and they're asking to come in side city limits. Um normally they would come in as single family, I think, based on our maps. Um but they're asking for the zone change. So, the planning commission is is being asked to weigh in on the proposed zoning and give a formal recommendation to the city council to consider the zoning when they decide on the annexation.

Okay. And does that and if we choose not to weigh in on that issue, this nothing precludes the city council from doing the zoning themselves. Is that correct? Your role is to make a formal recommendation. You have to issue a recommendation on this application. Yes. On the zoning. So, you But the but the council's not obligated to follow your recommend? No. No. They can make their own decision based on the evidence that comes before them. Absolutely. Yes. And the applicants will have an ability to present to the city council. Yes. There will be another public hearing at city council to consider the zoning and the annexation together. Yes. That's very helpful. Any questions for Lisa before we go to rebuttal?

Any questions to staff? Whether or not it's Lisa, I won't just say who it's for necessarily, but um I guess what one question I had is um was there consideration of going to the RM1 zone in lie of RM2 um which would be slightly lower and maybe more appropriate to integrate into the single family residential neighborhood. It would still allow up to, you know, one to three stories, but it might be more appropriate.

Yeah, the density in the RM1 is 8 to 7 uh 8 to 17 units per acre and in the RM2 it's uh 15 to 31. So, you know, uh in either you know, circum in either, you know, circumstances in terms of the traffic, it does, you know, it wouldn't have an impact based on the study that was done. Uh that would have been an that that would be something that the applicant could consider. you know, that was not what was brought forward, you know, for under the proposal. And so, and you know, based on the criteria and the in the comp plan, we felt RM2 as the applicant requested was was appropriate and met the criteria. Other other questions.

All right. I'm gonna need a I'm gonna need a primer beforehand, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the plan commission. My name is Mark Gren, and I'm with Multi-Tech Engineering. So, I I would sadly I can tell you I have more history of this Walker Road area than anybody that lives there because I was one of the engineers that designed all the residential subdivisions that are on the west side of Walker Road and to the north of this in the area there. So, I've been around a while. Uh, I think that that the the concerns that have been expressed about Walker Road and the additional traffic, um, I can see where they come from. I I think that one of the things that that should be recognized is that when the property develops, and because it's a local street, it's predominantly likely that we will have driveways that face from the new development onto Walker Road. When that happens, that act that growth and that development will in of itself be a traffic calming mechanism that along Walker Road that will in inevitably deter the cut through traffic that they talk about that occurs now because it won't be a they won't be able to speed down Walker Road to Sunny View because there'll be driveways, there'll be cars, there'll be activity on the Walker Road that's not there today. The the improvements that will be made to Walker Road will also make it feel different. And with the with the development activity there, those those too become traffic calming. We'll work with with public works on all looking at some alternative traffic calming

um measures that can be brought into play in that area. the speed humps that are there now um do serve a purpose in in that and with the school there. I think that when it's all said and done, it it will feel a lot different and and vehicles will will travel a lot differently in there. We we have a ways to go in this process as as Brandy pointed out to you in terms of the land use things. So, we have to go through in dealing with multiple jurisdictions. Now, it's not just city of Salem and public works that we have to deal with. We get to deal with Marian County as well in in the the development conditions that they think that they want to try to to bring to play on the property on the relative to Cordon Road itself and Sunny View. Now that you've if you're familiar with the area, you know that further to the south down in the Auburn to State Street area, there was a development that was just finished out there and there were improvements made to Cordon Road and there there was a a multi-use path that was constructed along that that project there as part of that. So, I would expect that those are the same types of development requirements that Marian County will bring to bear uh on this project as it goes forward. So, there'll be some some types of improvements that will happen um that will help improve put both pedestrian movement as well as as vehicular movement along Corn Road in this frontage here. the the multif family site the way that it's been proposed is the most appropriate location for multif family because it is adjacent to to the the more higher level streets and as to whether or not

there'll be an access on this from that project onto Sunny View is as has been outlined is is a decision that will be entered into in with discussions with public works to talk about that. So part part of that is going to be determining whether or not an access secondary access from the multif family site can be provided or a street can be provided on the sun view and not interfere with the turning maneuvers and movements that have to take place at this at the cordon and sunny view intersection. That was a consideration that played out at the State Street and Cordon Road for that for the East Park apartments that's going in there was whether or not there could be another access or what type of access there could be on State Street from the multifamily. And it was determined that because of the the turning movements that are taking place there and the need to have longer um turning lanes as was mentioned with one of the the testimonies here tonight. You know, you you have to find that place where that where that access can occur and and that when it you try to use it, it's it's functional. Uh most likely anything along there might end up being a ride in, right out than it fits in better with the track movement. So, but I think that that the getting the annexation process completed, getting the zoning set, I don't think there would be a lot of difference between um between the different options here. I think that the amount of units that you're going to see there are going to fit that site uh and they're going to be appropriate. There are as part of the subdivision development code that city has is that with since the subdivision would be more than 5 acres be a requirement for for middle housing to be a part of that development. Um I believe there that there' be a minimum of 15% of the the

units and the lots that are created there have to be established for for middle housing. So you're going to get another blend of of housing type that's going to take that's going to take place in there. So there'll be there'll be full sidewalks will be comp constructed along Sunny View from Cordon to Walker. There'll be sidewalks constructed as part of this development from from Sunny View along Walker all the way to the north end to the school. There'll be pedestrian crossing um ADA type crossing ramps that'll be developed where our new streets are going to would tie into Walker Road that will tie across to the from the east side of Walker Road to the west side of Walker Road. That's going to happen. So that's those aren't there today, but they'll be there as well as some additional likely some additional improvements that'll take place at the Sunny View and Walker intersection in terms of providing pedestrian ramps and access across both in an east west and a north south direction there. So that's that's the types of improvements that take place. Development is the means where streets and and intersection improvements come from. They don't generally come from other activities unless there's this really serious problem. So development comes development provides those improvements. Development is what's going to what's going to complete things out there and make it feel and function more as it should as a residential area to the north and with the multif family there at at the intersection of of Walker and and Sunny View. So, we think it we think it's appropriate. Staff thinks it's appropriate and and we would ask that that you would make a recommendation to council that's supports the staff's recommendation. So, if you have any questions to me, I'd be happy to answer

them. Thanks, Mr. P. So, being the one that did a lot of the design for a lot of these streets out in this part of East Salem, um I guess knowing now just in a lot of parts of the city, we're seeing speeding concerns. Uh traffic fatalities are at record highs. You know, if you went back 20 or 30 years and you changed something about how you would have designed these streets, would you have done anything differently?

Well, walk and Walker Road existed, so it was an existing street. So there wasn't there wasn't the ability uh to make changes to to Walker Road at the time that the subdivision development activity started out there. There there's some significant drainage there's ways to go that meander through. They're part of the East Sim uh service district. And so those had to be traversed and worked around. And so a lot of the configuration of the streets that are out there were mandated just strictly simply by the circumstances that were there. So there are a few streets that don't that have to take their access off of Walker that don't have another way to go. There are there are um there's at least one street you come off of Walker and then you parallel Walker that goes up just like San Francisco and there's there's streets that connect that continue to connect to the west that allow access to get over to um what into the 47th and make its way back down. And then there's a green tree that comes down and meanders through that comes down be parallels Walker ways and then turns and and heads over and ties into Sunny View west of Walker. So there there's there are avenues for people to maneuver out there. Walker Road is is not the only access for the majority of Now, like I said, there are a few streets that they they solely take their access their culde-sac dead end street neighborhood areas that take their access off of walk, but most of them have have some alternatives for how to get out of there. I'm just trying to um say like say if you were able to have designed all these streets like the cross-section layouts or the the width of the paved surface or um stuff, is there anything that you would have done differently to kind of mitigate a lot of the traffic safety concerns or the speeding and

stuff that we're seeing across the city? Well, the most of most of the the cross-section configuration of the streets are mandated to us by public work standards. you don't we don't get to makeware. Um

and until recent times there was a lot of limitations on the types of traffic calming act um proposals that put forth. Now there's been more um more information generated about about how to how traffic calming designs can can help in their and and a lot of those play out in streets that don't have a lot of driveway access onto them. it. Driveway accesses again where you have activities present, you have cars parked along there. So, you're going to take a 30 foot wide street, you're going to have parking that's allowed on both sides. What you what you end up with generally is about an 18t travel area between. So, it forces people to slow down just in and of itself. it it's enough room for emergency vehicles to pass through, but it does does limit how fast cars can pass each other. And so it does take some courtesy um to to do that. And so I I think that you'll find that that that in that will change the character. It will feel calmer realistically and and traffic will function and act calmer.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? I'm going to let you have a seat. Then I believe we can close the hearing. Is that correct? Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. And deliberation. We need to start with a motion from the vice president. I move that we approve uh case number ANXC762 CPC ZCC25-01 as uh submitted and recommended by staff. All right. Thank you. Do we have a second so we could move on for a conversation? A second for Commissioner Le. Thank you very much.

All right. Any discussion among Yes. among us? Commissioner Heler. Well, I'm still concerned about the tra is it turned on? It's on.

Okay. Um I am concerned about the traffic and I think that uh Commissioner F's um uh recommendation of like a RM1 zone would be more appropriate, more more um like the neighborhood it is now. So I I don't I'm not going to vote. Yes, I'm vote. Other comments or questions? Your name was invoked, so go ahead.

Yeah. [laughter] Um I do want to just clarify that I wasn't specifically making a recommendation for the change. I just was curious what options were considered and how RM2 was landed on. Um uh I think for me you know this is the the evolution of development and as we know housing is a critical need. Um I think that the combination and and mix of housing that is likely going to be proposed at a future time um is an appropriate and expected transition for the neighborhoods. Um I'm I feel more confident knowing that the that Sunny View will be annexed in and that having an additional access point from that street will be um certainly a mitigating opportunity that I that I hope is taken at that time. Uh so generally I'm supportive of it uh or at least of the the annexation and look forward to discussing the development when it comes in front of us.

So let me ask Lisa would this know what kind of proposal it is, but let's just say it's a site review plan. This would not come before us. Is that correct? Um, no. Site plan review doesn't come before the planning commission currently. Um, a subdivision. Those are both staff decisions. Subdivisions are appealable to the planning commission. So, on appeal, you would hear that case.

Okay. Other comments and then Commissioner Frybeck. I believe that the conversation regarding uh the traffic concerns at this point in time are uh a step away from what uh is in front of us. That the the real issue as far as uh road street design, traffic uh calming, etc. is something that is uh taken up at a later date and that the city is well aware of our concerns. So, I'm I'm good. Thank you.

Sorry, brought back.

Yeah, I um I just want to say I normally tend to agree with uh Commissioner Levin. Um I I think you know for a lot of these land use cases, transportation has come up as the the like the number one thing that we hear from people about. And um I just might think it might be a good thing to share that we're supposedly starting our transportation system plan u phase 2 process soon. Um, in the last planning commission uh meeting, a representative from the West Salem Neighborhood Association came and uh provided a really uh well done uh PowerPoint presentation all about their neighborhood association's kind of plans and desires um for the next TSP. Um, I think it would be really cool if other neighborhood associations, um, maybe worked with West Salem Neighborhood Association or just maybe if all the neighborhood associations came together with a, um, kind of a wish list for the transportation system plan. I think that would be really good because that's something that'll come in front of the planning commission. Um but as far as this goes, um we really need housing really badly and um I know denser development um has a uh the the burden I think it's like per person impact on infrastructure. um you can serve more people with the same amount of infrastructure or I guess more people use less infrastructure if it's denser and it has a less of an impact on the city's general fund when we come to replace a lot of this stuff in 50 60 years. Um and so as far as that's concerned, um you know, it's to me it has a fiscal benefit um to go denser because the alternative is going even

further out and then we have more streets to repave and more water lines to replace and more stuff to redo later. So I will be a yes on this. T please. Yeah. Um so I will also be a yes. Um I don't love how car dependent this area seems to be. Um, so putting dense housing. It's on there. It's on.

Get closer. Um, yeah, I don't love how car dependent this area seems to be. Um, I love the idea of, um, density in general, and I know that our, um, city is certainly ramping that up. Um, our state is ramping that up, and there's a huge need. uh uh there aren't it doesn't seem like there's very many very many walkable jobs or services in that area which is disappointing but because of our zone changing um processes that are ongoing um there's more possibility for that coming online um all the time and I just wanted to acknowledge that the uh it always breaks my heart a little bit when we're turning something that is making food into something else that's irreversible. So, we're turning farmland into housing. Um, but given the location, I think it really does make sense if this was on the other side of Cordon Road, which wouldn't be in our city, but um I would be a no, but um yeah, given given how it looks right now, um yeah, I'm a yes.

Thanks, Commissioner. Um, I would second kind of what's been said and just the location to the school and services there I think has some benefit as was spoken with the multif family housing and apartment complex. So, I would be a yes for this.

Um, I will just say that I I I appreciate the neighborhood members coming here. I think that was very helpful testimony. I I too am going to vote yes. Um, and I'm primarily going to vote yes because I think the criteria has been clearly met and that is my obligation is to vote when the criteria is met. It's it's a little frustrating that we are not in a in a regulatory position to impose some conditions or make additional recommendations. I think you made a very good point. Um, I would encourage you as this moves forward in the process to stay engaged because that's going to be where you can be more effective than you can be here today with us. And I'd encourage you to bring the same concerns to the city council and continue to have conversations with the applicants. They seem very receptive to have a conversation. Um and so I will at this point call for a vote. Jennifer,

Commissioner F. Hi. Commissioner Fryback. Hi. Commissioner Heler. No. Commissioner Levin. Hi. Commissioner Rhodess. Hi. Commissioner Slater. Hi. Commissioner Tev. I.

Commissioner Vindo. I motion passes. Yeah, the criter All right. All right. If you would please read the criteria for the next item, please. This is a public hearing to consider case number ANXC CPC ZC2502 for property located at 5524 Skyline Road South. The criteria applicable to this hearing are listed in the Salem Revised Code under chapters 260.01 G2 annexation 64.0 025E2 minor comprehensive plan map amendment and 265.005E zone change. Failure to raise an issue prior to the close of the public hearing with statements or evidence sufficient to afford the planning commission and the parties an opportunity to respond to

the issue precludes appeal to the land use board of appeals on that issue. A similar failure to raise constitutional issues relating to proposed conditions of approval precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence or testimony. The planning commission will then either continue the public hearing or leave the record open for at least seven days. All right. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Again,

good evening. Thank you again, President Slater, members of the commission. This is a second annexation with comp plan zone change uh before you this evening. This one is for property at 5524 Skyline Road South. Uh again, it's an annexation with a comprehensive plan map amendment to multif family residential from what would be a developing residential comp comprehensive plan designation if it were to just follow the the normal uh designation that it currently has. And then a zone change to RM1 uh which is our lower density RM uh multif family zone in the city. Uh currently it's designated urban transition uh five in the county and single family or multi uh developing residential on our comp plan. So, uh, the property is shown here with the in orange. Uh, it is, uh, southwest South Salem and it's on Skyline Road. It has a a small amount of frontage on Skyline. Uh, you know, comparatively with the the property dimensions itself, it is a small area frontage and there is an existing uh, multif family development that is also zoned RM1 uh, to the to the west that was annexed not too long ago and then approved through the site plan review process. So uh and then around there you have uh predominantly again single family uh residential neighborhoods that are zoned RS and and then Skyline is again immediately abudding the property to the west and then Davis Road is shown in in yellow that's a collector street a little bit to the further further to the south from the property and Skyline Road is a minor arterial so it's very similar to the property on Walker that we just heard. It's again, you know, sky view was a minor arterial so is skyline. So a higher classification of street where the proposed multif family is would be located. And then also back on this slide, uh there is the nearest park to the site is core park off to the to the east there on the right uh hand side of the the image there relatively close not immediately as

maybe as close as it is area. So in terms of the existing comprehensive plan designation as they apply uh to the site and the surrounding areas um there is uh single family immediately to the east uh to the north along Skyline Road you see pockets of multif family uh for instance here and further to the north. So Skyline has seen areas of multif family development along it. And then uh to the southeast there is on Davis there are um multif family complexes and multif family designated L area does have a little bit more multif family than with the proposal they're looking to change the developing residential comp plan designation to a multifamily designation to match the one immediately buting to the to the to the east or the to the west rather. And then in terms of zoning, as I had mentioned, it's Marian County UT5 or Brent Transition and with the proposal, they're looking to change to RM1, which would be consistent with the RM1 zoning uh budding to the west. So the site is 1.94 acres in size. Uh the topography here in South Salem does on this side does slope gradually to the from the northeast to the southwest. So there is a little bit of topography there, but not a significant amount. Uh there are trees present on the site as can be seen on this slide uh you know in different areas of the site. Uh at this point we don't require you know a specific tree inventory because again we're just talking about the you know the annexation of the property. Any further future development would have to comply with the city's tree ordinance. And uh in terms of uh landslide hazards susceptibility there are there are no specific areas mapped directly on the property but there are you know some areas to the south which are shown by the green polygons on the on the slide there. But there is no are no slide hazards present on the on the site. And in terms of the annexation territory, because this is a property that is completely an enclave, so it is uh surrounded by city limits on all on all sides, including the right of way of Skyline Road, which is currently in. So

this annexation would just involve the property and no additional rightway annexation would be needed. Uh as uh as identified in the staff report, the proposal does meet the comp plan and zone change approval criteria. Uh uh this is a another multif family uh zone site. Uh proposed multif family zone site that is u would be next to another multif family designated uh zone property. Uh you know the proposed RM proposed RM2 zoning was not chosen by the applicants in this case but a lesser RM1. uh the RM1 zone matches the property to the west and based on the the narrow lawn configuration of the site a smaller density would be appropriate to that because there are limitations you know based on just the physical configuration of the property that may not be suitable for a higher density multif family residential zone uh again uh the site is located on a minor minor arterial street uh which is a uh requirement of or a policy in the comp plan that you know encourages multif family development being located next to the busier streets uh transit uh service is to the north northeast from the property uh on Skyline Road. Uh you know, so it's not immediately as close to the property as Walker Road, but it is, you know, less than a half mile away, you know, uh to the site. And uh the proposed RM1 zoning and our multif family comp plan is u matches with the the the designation to the west. And so, you know, we do feel it is compatible with the area and and with the policies of the comprehensive plan and therefore u approval is warranted in that respect. or recommendation of approval is warranted in that respect of that designation. Uh in terms of the neighborhood association, it's within the Southwest Association of Neighbors Neighborhood Association or the Swan Neighborhood Association. Uh we didn't receive any comments from the neighborhood association. We did receive a public comment that is included in the record concerning traffic uh safety on Skyline uh particularly related to the speed at which cars are traveling on Skyline Road. uh you know the 45 you know they're they're going very fast and

they think you know 35 mile per hour speed limit would be more appropriate. Uh you know uh development services and public works staff uh have responded to that comment in the in the report and uh speed zone can be initiated uh you know by individuals speaking to the neighborhood association and getting the kind of the collective buyout from the neighborhood association that yes speeding is an issue. the neighborhood association could then uh you know submit a recommendation to the traffic engineer and then the traffic engineer could then submit a recommendation to ODOT because it's ODOT it is ODOT that regulates speed zones and not the city individually. So uh by having an individual reach out to the neighborhood association and having the whole group ident the neighborhood association you know say hey it recognize that it's a potential concern then that could be forwarded to the traffic engineer and then you know study could be requested and if it and if it does turn out based on the the study that you know speeding is an issue then uh speed order would be ordered and uh issued and then you know signs would could be placed to reduce the speed. Uh so

you did a good job with that though based on the facts and findings of the report uh staff would recommend that it does meet the approval criteria for the comp plan and zone change and recommend that the commission recommend that the council approve a multif family designation and an RM1 zoning for the property. Thank you Bryce. Any questions for Bryce? Well, Commissioner Road, I see your hand. No, I'm overcompensating from the last hearing. All right, let's hear from the applicant.

Good evening, planning commission. My name is Britney Randall. I'm the owner and principal planner of Brand Land Use. Brand Brittney Brandy happens all the time. Not Brandy. Not Brandy, but I get it a lot. [laughter] Um,

good evening. Thanks for sticking out with me being second. I think I have less interest than the other application did, which is a bummer. But Bryce uh always spoils me and he did a wonderful job, so I didn't even prepare a presentation. I knew he would do it all. Thank you, Bryce. Um, so I just sort of wanted to like paint a picture for the future for you guys. um we can't submit for development with an annexation application. The only thing we can submit is a comprehensive plan amendment zone change. So I've sort of done this daydream with my client. We've been working on this project for two and a half years of no fault of the city. It's literally been my client sort of slow on this whole process. But um we went and had a meeting before the um neighborhood association traffic came up as an issue uh as it does. And so we thought, you know, we really shouldn't cram super high density here. But if you look at the property, it's like long and skinny and has this weird little tiny frontage onto skyline. Um and my firm represented the the property owner to the west that did the RM1. And it's this cute little development where there's like four homes attached and then there's a space and then there's four more homes attached and there's a space. They're single story. They really fit with the character of the neighborhood. And my client on this property would like to do something similar. So, um the minimum density uh for this site if you were to grant the or recommend approval of the zone change would be 15.52 units rounded to 16. um which is that's the minimum and then the max would be 33 which is that's insane. Um my client is looking to do 17 units retaining the existing farmhouse. It's very quaint. He's redone the whole thing. It's beautiful. Um it's our understanding, I'm not a

traffic engineer, but it's our understanding that this would generate less than 300 trips onto a minor arterial. So a traffic impact analysis likely wouldn't be triggered in the future. But this application, we did do the TPR analysis um twice. Once when the traffic engineer assumed what they should do and then second when they found out what they should do. So um I think Tony's accepted the terms of the second one that we submitted. Right, Laurel? Yes. Okay. Um and so so what we're envisioning uh for this site are two units attached. It' be like multiple duplexes. Each one would have its own garage and then a little driveway leading to the garage. Um almost like a little lane down the middle so that everybody would be facing out when they're leaving. Um which is a huge safety concern and a requirement of the code. Um we would place bicycle parking in individual garages so that um you know they stay dry and nice inside. Um you're welcome.

[laughter] Um, so, so that that's just sort of my like broad picture of what he's dreaming of. Uh, he has spent no real money on any of these plans until we know if we, you know, are able to pass this stage. Um, but since Bryce did such a great job, I thought maybe I would just future trip with you all about what to expect. So, I can answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions? Nope. Nope. All right. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak? And I did I have that sheet no the sheet. Ma'am, did you if you could give us your name and either your address or your award, that would be very helpful. Sandy Walker and I own two homes on Wong Creek Court, which is the east. The fence fences of all these homes are right against this property. So, um, we purchased Well, do you want to know any more about me before you start? Did I give you enough? [laughter]

Right. So we we just own two of the properties and we really when we were looking for rental properties, we we found those and we thought really nice because it's a quiet it's a fairly quiet neighborhood. It's a real attractive little neighborhood and we loved the fact that it's open in the at the back, you know. Um, we met the people that owned the property at that time and they had a little kind of their little farm in the city and and they really liked it and I thought they'd stay there for a really long time if they didn't quite live up to that. But um so we look at it like kind of green space, quiet and all the renters I think really love that too. I know that ours have and um so we understand, you know, watching all the progress in building and the growing of the city and South Salem in particular of that we thought eventually someone would want to do something more to that probably. Um, so we're not surprised at that, but we are really concerned about what might be built there because we don't want it to change the character of the property and the neighborhood. It's really um it's all single family homes in there until you get right up to Skyline and there's you saw that other development that's a little bit further to the west and the south. Um

so our preference if we had a choice would be single family residences back there because we know Salem needs more housing like that. So we would prefer that, you know, it would be just kind of a carrying on of what's there. But if that is not a option, we would really, really, really like to see groundstory apartment buildings or duplexes. um and not something that's going to like look over the really would not be happy with that. Um so that I guess those are the main concerns, the quiet, the how other places looking over the fence and just um you know the kind of the nice spacious feeling of being out there. Um, let's see. I think that's about all I really wanted to express. Um, we're thankful that our voices can be heard. You know, that is really great. And um so I know that I'm speaking for there's there are 12 I believe 12 homes that back up to that property. So that's quite a few and I know I'm speaking for most of the others that live in the neighborhood there. All right. Thank you. Before you step down, are there any questions? All right. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of staff? Please, let's let's reverse this. No, no, no. Mr. Frybeck, you go ahead. Yeah.

Uh Bryce, the first question that I have is what is the minimum square footage for a single family lot in the city of Salem? Uh 4,000 square feet. Okay. Thank you. Um I had a question uh just for staff. So say if this was just single family and each one of these homes was on a single lot each, they'd be able to build forplexes anyway. Uh is that correct?

Yeah. Yeah. So, in terms of uh in terms of uh the middle housing standards, you could have a duplex on a two on a 4,000t lot like a single family, three units on a 5,000 or uh four four units or even a cottage cluster of up to 12 potentially, you know, on a on a 7,000t lawn. But if you say wanted to put like three forplexes on one lot, it would need to be multif family. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Are there other questions? [sighs] What is the height limitation in this zone? Uh 35 ft.

35 ft. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. I will close the hearing and again look to Vice President Font for a motion. She will scroll through her document and find the very long string of letters. Okay. I move to approve uh case number ANXC763 CPZ CPC ZC25-02 U as recommended by staff. All right. Thank you. Is there a second? Second.

Commissioner Frybeck. Is there a second? All right. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Commissioner F, please. Uh I just wanted to comment on um you know I think broadly speaking I it thank you for offering a a a future glimpse as to what the development might be. Um it sounds like it will um land in a place that is appropriate for the adjacent properties and and be a a character characterful um place that will also contribute to our housing needs. Uh so I'm in support of this uh annexation and zone change.

Thank you. Other comments, Commissioner Leven,

I did a little calculation and um the 17 units on the 1.94 acres is uh almost 5,000 square ft uh per unit as far as allocation. And if that is in fact the potential uh development, that's u you could realistically have more single family homes on a on a simple single family development than you can with what's being proposed. So I am uh very um happy with the proposal and the potential development.

All right. Thank you. Other comments? Commissioner Frabeck. Uh seconded.

Okay. Seconding Commission Lemon's comments. All right. So yeah, I I guess I would say very much what I just said in the previous hearing, which is, you know, this is a compelling case. It follows the criteria. I don't think we have a lot of options to do anything but approve it. Um, and I'm glad that um, not Brandy, Britney gave us a little glimpse of what uh, of what it might be. Although I know from other experiences that's not an obligation. Um, so I'll put that out there as well. And again, I would say the same thing to encourage you to be involved in the next step of this process which will in which will allow you a greater voice in the decision-m. Uh, with that, Jennifer, if you want to call the role. Commissioner F. I Commissioner Fryback I. Commissioner Heler.

I. Commissioner Levin. Hi. Commissioner Rhodess. I. President Slater. I. Commissioner Tev. I. Commissioner Vendo. I. All right. Motion passes. So before we go on to the fun special orders of business, Lisa, can can we uh can we invite ODOT to have a conversation with us here about speed limits in Salem? Yeah. Okay. I know they don't have to come, but we could ask them. Is that right? This seems to be kind of a back and forth that we're having a lot here, so it' be good to hear ODOT's perspective. That'd be great.

All right. Special orders of business. Is that a presentation or how are we initiating, Miss? That's yours. Yep. Um I'm happy to introduce the memo and then for questions we have the city attorney here. Um and we also have online our uh assistant city attorney Kani. All right. Tom was able to join us

on Zoom as well. Yes. Um so we provided a memo and then we updated again today which we sent out kind of late in the day but there is a printed copy at your desk and it says updated at the top just to um if you want to reference that one. So, uh, this memo is talking about our subcommittees, uh, subcommittee. So, we have the wetlands subcommittee, we have a transportation subcommittee. Um, and it's come to light that those probably are very much maybe our public meetings and that we should be doing some things differently unless we're going to change how the subcommittees um, work or what their charge is. So, um, I won't get into the legal aspects. that's what our city attorney is here for. But um I will just say that in kind of analyzing the situation, we came up with three three options really um to comply with the state laws. The one would be to change who you're advising. So right now I think the idea is the subcommittees are meeting on a topic and then coming back and potentially bringing like a recommendation to the full planning commission to consider on that topic. Um so one thing we could do is to change the charge of the subcommittees and have them um advisory to me as planning administrator who staffs the planning commission. Um and then you know pros and cons. It wouldn't be public meetings but then I would have the discretion to act or not act on that recommendation. Um a different thing is we could staff them um based on our you know staffing woes. Um I will say uh all we can commit to staffing would be subcommittee meetings that would happen immediately after a planning commission meeting. That way we can consolidate a lot of the tasks. So the notice would be the same, you know, notice we'd put on the agenda. We'd be Zoom, you know, having on Zoom and and um YouTube at the same time and we'd already be taking minutes. So we would maybe do a little recess after the meeting and say, you know, five minute break and then the subcommittee is going to start and whoever's staying for that would would stay and and those meetings would take

place immediately after um the meeting. Or we could just dis disband the subcommittee and then just make the items that the subcommittees are talking about official agenda items and have those discussions just during an an official committee or I'm sorry an official meeting, you know, and just make them agenda items and and not have the subcommittees. So those those are the options we have. Um I'm sure you have questions about why why we need to follow the rules and that's why the city attorney is here and we'll turn it over to him. Hi, Dan Aches, city attorney. I know most of you, but if not, um I used to be the assistant city attorney for the planning commission for a number of years. Uh Commissioner Lavine and I back in the day were were compatriots there. Um this kind of seemed like a way back day for a minute there because there were a lot of folks who were here who were back who were on commission or coming to the commission back then. Anyway, so um I'm really uh apologetic and frustrated that uh the subcommittee meetings uh occurred the way they did. So essentially uh any governing body of a public body, so planning commission, city council, historic landmarks, all those are governing bodies of the city of Salem. They're required to comply with public meeting laws. If any of those governing bodies create subcommittees that re either make decisions or provide uh recommendations back to their parent body or to the city council, they are also governing bodies subject to public meetings law. There was a little confusion I think when the subcommittee started that the the assumption was that as long as a quorum of the entire planning commission wasn't meeting in that subcommittee format that public meetings law didn't apply. that is uh not correct at all. Um as Lisa noted, there's a I wouldn't call it an exception, but if the the subcommittee um provides advice solely to staff, it's not providing advice back to another

governing body, it's not subject to public meeting law. So on that option, I I get a little nervous because, you know, how would that work? If that subcommittee is meeting talking about issues that you know would could potentially come before the planning commission, they're going to report back to the planning administrator in what format? Are they going to send a memo and then the planning administrator would discuss it with the entire planning commission or are you going to be discussing it at a meeting like this? And it's real gray area on whether that subcommittee is reporting back to the planning administrator or reporting back to the entire planning commission. So, while that's certainly an option, I just need to be careful about how we were to administer that. Um, so going forward, I mean, Lisa has talked about the staffing issues, and believe me, Lisa and I have had discussions about the staffing issues with with the planning division as well as other aspects of the city, and I I'm frustrated along with you. Um, this is not intended to be a a gag order on what the planning commission can discuss and can bring to the table. I think uh for a lot of you the reason you joined the planning commission is because you want to have those discussions. You are interested in the topics that come before the planning commission, transportation, wetlands, whatever it might be. Um I I think you can have those discussions. It's just uh what we can do about it as a staff is limited based on our capacity and limited based on the direction that we get from the city council.

Well, good. Are we commenting on the options presented now? Whatever you'd like to comment on, but this topic, right? This this topic, not not another topic.

Yes. Um my initial Thank you for clarifying why it's coming before or you know why it's being brought forward. Um, I think my initial take is that shifting those discussion items back to a work session, you know, where we all are meeting in a regularly scheduled planning commission meeting probably makes the most sense since there are items that would ultimately have to be um discussed with the complete planning commission anyway. That would be my initial thought is that We're already planning on meeting. You know, if there are certain items we want to talk about, then let's have them as a work session.

Mr. Frybeck,

I was curious about say we haven't I guess when I say we, I mean the folks, I guess now it's just Marissa and I and the transportation subcommittee. Um, you know, we've discussed items and I've put together a presentation that I was hoping I would share, but um, it sounds like that might not be the best of ideas. Um, but say if that became a regular agenda item, but it was something that was created during a subcommittee meeting that I guess now should have or is considered a public meeting if we present to the commission as a whole. Would that present an issue itself? So, what to do about the the work that's um already been underway with the subcommittees is something we're trying to work through. Um I I think, you know, we can't we're not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. So, there's, you know, probably a lot of good work that's been done. Um we need to make sure that the public is aware of the work that's been done. So, we're going to try to figure out a way to to get that get those issues cured. But certainly if uh you know there's going to if there if a member of the planning commission wants to bring a presentation to the commission that summarizes that work and talks about it and that's perfectly appropriate. So if say I brought a presentation to the commission and spoke not as a member of a subcommittee um but as a planning commissioner who discussed a topic with a number of other commissioners that didn't cons constitute a quorum would that be allowed this is like a long George Carlin joke but I won't get into the details. Um so as you may be aware if you've read any local media for the past oh

9 10 11 months uh serial meetings are an issue um what constitutes a serial meeting is a moving target. So uh in my opinion which may not be uh gold in all quarters um you're welcome to talk to other members of this commission about commission business.

You need to avoid talking to them in a quorum. you need to avoid talking to them in a serial manner. So if uh um you know you talk to one commissioner and you guys talk about this idea and that's great. You you are not a designated assuming you are not a designated subcommittee that is itself a governing body. If it's just two commissioners talking about something and you come back to a public meeting at the planning commission and say hey I I talked to commissioner X about this subject and we think this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. That's not a violation. I believe OGC um has give given versions of advice and guidance on that. They have suggested that you shouldn't talk to each other outside of a public meeting that it can lead down the road to a serial meeting violation. So the idea is that it's like that pel commercial if you guys are that old. I am. Um so you know you talk to one commissioner, the next commissioner talks to another commissioner. all a sudden there's an email and three other commissioners are on that and all a sudden you got a quorum and you got a serial meeting violation. That's the fear. That's the concern.

Just talking to one or two other commissioners and leaving it at that is not a violation and I'm really certain of that. Um but you need to be careful that you guys know the rules and you're not spreading those communications throughout the commission and all a sudden you've got a an email chain that's problematic. Um, so you know, if uh you you want to suspend these subcommittees and say I'm going to go talk to another commissioner, this is not you're you're not being charged to do that by the commission. You were having a conversation with another member of the commission and at some point one or both of you come back to the commission and say, "Hey, you know, we've been talking about this issue and we'd like to talk to the commission about it and even give a presentation." I think that's fine. Um, if that's something that commissioners want to do, I highly recommend we submit something to OGC and make sure they bless it before we start doing that because they have a differing opinion uh even amongst their staff of what constitutes a violation. Um, I I I have a lot of sympathy for them. The rules are not real crystal clear. They're doing the best they can. their general counsel was our former deputy city attorney back in the day and he and I have had some pretty interesting conversations over the past several months. Um, but he's a super smart guy and he's helping them try to guide through this and there definitely is a need for legislation to clarify what public meeting rules are. Um, but I really if we're going to do something like that, we would should talk to OGC and make sure they're comfortable with it. I guess my thought is initially it might be the safest bet to disband the formal subcommittees and just talk to each other as commissioners um until we get further guidance and then say if somebody commissioner has a conversation with another commissioner and decides it's a topic worthy of a group discussion um they could bring that to the commission meeting and talk about

that as an individual commissioner. I think that would make sense. If I can respond to that, just to to clarify, I think we need to vet that through OGC first because I, you know, the the purpose and intent of Oregon public meetings laws is to make sure the deliberations of the governing body occur in public so the public knows what's going on. Having, you know, wink wink, having two commissioners go off to the side of a public meeting and have those discussions and bring them back is real close to having a subcommittee. So, I'd want them to say, "No, you know, if there's some, you know, random conversations that are happening between members of the commission and they come back and want to bring that topic to the commission." In my opinion, that's fine. I just want to make sure that they think it's fine.

Yeah, I think it would be good to verify that, but that's just my initial read. Can you clarify that when you're talking about if they want to talk, you know, assuming this is vetted and they talk to each other, we're not talking about quasi judicial land use cases. They still shouldn't be talking to each other about that, right? Thank you, Lisa. Absolutely. So, um, you know, there's additional rules that apply to the quasi judicial process. Um, you don't want to be discussing cases with each other, even regardless of a quorum. Um, you know, the the parties to that process have a right to know what facts you're relying on and making a decision. Um, go ahead.

A little concern with kind of what we're talking about with uh, Commissioner Firebeck. I think if two people meet and have a conversation and then bring it before planning commission to then kind of have a presentation, that would be kind of the stopping point where then it shouldn't be like private conversations to then come back to public because that's where we could end up having a sidebar conversation that could then create conflict. Correct. Like that could get tricky if like transportation were to have a presentation and then we all talk about it and then two weeks later transportation comes back with a different like not as a committee but as a topic with a different presentation like how did that happen? It just seems like it could turn into a web.

Yeah, I I agree that's that's the concern of having sort of quote informal subcommittees. You're the these are not informal subcommittees. this this would be a a conversation between a couple of commissioners. Uh it's not something that um the commission would be sanctioning or sponsoring. It's just conversations that happen. Um know the the idea of serial meetings is not a new concept. It's been prohibited for forever if you think of it in a certain way. It became an issue in the early 90s with Lane County Board of Commissioners who in intended to violate the rule. and that's what causes the problem. Um, you know, there's never been an outright prohibition on members of a governing body talking to each other about governing body business. The prohibition is on a quorum talking to each other outside of a public meeting. Um, but OGC has been very conservative and they've said, "Hey, you know, you you start those conversations and it leads to a potential public meeting violation, so we recommend you don't have them." you know, at at trainings, they've been asked the question about, you know, if two commissioners are going up in the elevator to the meeting and someone's one of the commissioners mentions, hey, what about this agenda item? Their recommended response is, I can't talk to you about that, which I don't think is the law, right? Because it's not a quorum, but you know, I understand where they're coming from with their advice. It just makes it really difficult for you to um develop uh you know thoughts on agenda items

to answer the question. I'm sorry. Yeah.

So I'll I'll share some of my concerns on this. Um, you know, so I've been on the planning commission maybe four years now and one of the things that I've noticed is that the planning commission, which was originally charged with providing very broad advice to the city council, I think if you look back at the charter, it's, you know, these, you know, eight or nine points that include everything from public morals, which we avoid, to sanitation, uh, and other things. and that that um that mandate over the years particularly because Orlando's policies have been have shrunk down. Um and in my view the planning commission is largely just a responsive vehicle when the city needs to process an application. Um, and so we come in and we listen to a presentation and we make a decision that's needed and then we disband and kind of the the commission's whole capacity or original mandate of providing advice to the council has kind of degraded over the years. Um, and so over the past couple years, we've started to change a little bit of that. Um before we used to cancel meetings if we didn't have an agenda and then we found out we couldn't do that because in fact we had to meet twice twice a year twice a twice a month and there was a motion to get rid of that requirement and meet just once a month but the commission did not chose not to do that because they wanted to have broader conversations than what was just brought in um for a land use application. So as part of that process, we also talked about the need to develop our thoughts in subcommittees, right? Because it's not useful and no one likes it when I simply throw out an idea, right? It needs to get refined and discussed and processed with other people so we can come back with a product that is more thoughtful, more deliberative, and more substantive and so people can take it seriously and it's not just a brainstorm idea. So we created two subcommittees. Um the wetlands uh and stream subcommittee has been meeting for over

two years now and we've done significant work together and by work together I mean the last meeting ahead was 60 maybe it's maybe 75 minutes there are three of us we sat down with laptops and we talked about the accuracy of GIS layers and how are we going to present them now I don't think any of my colleagues wants to sit for 90 minutes during a meeting and discuss the accuracy of GIS layers um I I was good for 60 minutes even 90 minutes was a little long. So my question is like how do we engage in substantive conversations and develop ideas that can kind of pass scrutiny if we can't sit together, collaborate and do that level of work?

I think Lisa might have some responses to that, but I I will give you my two cents. I think generally that level that level of detail is probably not appropriate for the planning commission. I mean, I think you are a policy body. You certainly are. And you can weigh in on policy. The the the drilling down to how to interpret GIS levels. I'm not sure that's within your rubric, but you know, I don't I don't know the specifics of it in this context. So maybe I'm wrong. Um, but you know, I I think in an ideal world, yeah, we have subcommittees that are staffed and at at public accessible forums that meet the requirements of public meetings law, but we've got to deal with the the reality of what our situation is. So, you know, we've laid out some different options that we think are feasible, and, you know, just going off on a a subcommittee that that doesn't meet those requirements isn't an option. So, I guess I would refer over to the the Oregon rules and I' I've already sent this over around the citizen involvement committee, which this this body is designated as a citizen involvement committee. I don't know if you had an opportunity to look at those um but those certainly provided um gave a lot of expansive opportunities for the citizen involvement committee to engage in the planning process, including drilling down and factf finding um quite extensively. that's in there as well as the ability to initiate policy. Right now there's kind of a and I think you you kind of nailed it is like there's a level and we operate at this level and our guidance goes to staff or it goes to the city council and then it stops. But our ability to develop things in detail um seems to be curtailed even though um as I said before that the having to stick at a at a surface level um prevents us from developing anything in detail and that just then limits what we

can discuss and I don't think there is a limit on what we can discuss related to our mandate. We have we have a broad mandate. We're empowered by the state to engage in a set of activities and what I'm hearing is you can engage in those activities only when we the staff had the resources which we decide on to support your activity and I don't think that's the intention of the statute.

I was just going to say that it's not staff that decide on the resources, it's the city council. They said our budget. So if they want us to have more staff, they that's within their purview. And then they determine generally the projects we're working on or state law, right? A lot of stuff we're doing right now is state law and state mandates. So it's not staff determining that we have staff or, you know, I don't get to decide that I want more planners and I just get them. But I just want to clarify that's city council.

I guess I'll say um there's no um technical requirements to be on planning commission. There are on some committees, right? Like historic landmarks commission, you have to have a certain degree, etc., etc. Um, and I think, you know, maybe before you, Michael, and a few of the other commissioners, we've not had necessarily commissioners that would feel that they want to or have the capability to even look at GIS layers or request those from the city like you did or to write a draft ordinance and that kind of stuff. I think it's I would agree with you and outside of the purview of what we would consider a planning commissioner role not to talk about the policy topic you know should we have string protections what should they be etc but to do the technical work to come up with a proposal

right and I think I think the issue is and we've talked about this a lot at the city council right is which we have the staff and the city council have limitations right they can only do so much we understand that but that doesn't necessarily mean that the city can't do more or that the population can't do more. I mean, part of the reasons that we have these committees is to expand the capacity of the city council to do work. And so, for someone to come in and then say, well, you can only do this kind of work because we've decided that this type of work can only be done by staff is just limiting us. And I think again is really contrary to the whole intent of the planning law. I haven't reviewed the specific sections the goal one that you sent me. So this is just I'm off the top of top of the cuff here. You know, planning commission is welcome to have any policy discussion within their rubric that they want. You can also to the extent that you're able to, you know, do additional work such as think about draft ordinances, draft language, proposing to the the the planning commission um and staff. Um but I I don't think that goal one requires us to fund planning staff at a level that requires us to staff subcommittee meetings. And that's the specific issue that we're talking about tonight. If there's other ways to facilitate the planning commission doing additional work beyond what would be typical, you know, there's there may be ways to get there as far as the subcommittee issue goes. It's just we can't do it.

Well, and I'm certainly not contesting that this is a government body, that the subcommittees are government bodies. So, I agree with you on that point. I think that's not not to debate. I mean the other thing that we haven't talked about is what are the constraints on subcommittees from doing their own announcements and minutes.

Um well for example the agenda has to be posted posted on the website. So that's something staff would have to do. Um then you would have to record your own meeting and then I believe we would need to listen to it and do the minutes. So there would be staff time for that. And then you'd also need an accessible location. And if that's a city facility, then the staff have to be there to like allow you to use the facility. So I think what Lisa is saying is the the impacts on staff would be pretty similar to us just staffing the meeting.

I'm still sorting through what the impacts are. Um, okay. But that's helpful information. Why would staff need to do the minutes? So, the the requirement on public meeting law is that that either has to have essentially verbatim minutes or you have to record it and then you have to uh do notice minutes from that. Um, they're not typ substantially hard to do, but they do require certain legal requirements, and I wouldn't be comfortable with commissioners drafting their own minutes without staff reviewing them. Are there other questions?

All right. I don't I don't I don't know if if the commission wants to like make a decision tonight. I don't think you have to make a decision tonight. It's a lot of information, but we we are saying no more subcommittee meetings until some decisions been made. Is that correct, Dan? Right. Um at this point, we need to suspend any subcommittee meetings. Um I think we will be back back in front of you with a plan to to get that information to the entire planning commission. So, I think we're ready to the wetlands committee is ready to have a public meeting and I think we're willing to do that at the next plan staff meeting so we can notice that and at least I'll get you an agenda.

I may not be up on the lingo, but what do you mean by a plan staff meeting? Sorry, a plan the next planning commission meeting. Oh, okay. the next planning commission, we can we can uh accommodate that and provide information and report and other materials that we've been working on to get the public notice and I can send an agenda out. So, I think we can take care of that one quickly. I think staff will probably be in touch with all the folks who've been working on the different subcommittees to try to collect up information as far as meeting dates, content, information, materials like that. Thank you. And our next meeting is uh November 25th. That's when you're talking about Y. So, you'll need an agenda this Monday before.

Yeah, we send it out a week. Sorry, I'm trying to think. We send it out Tuesday, the week before. So, if we need we can have it Yeah. a week and a week and a day ahead of time so we can get it put together. Thank you. As far as uh transportation is concerned, um I think the discussion could probably be better served with just a few special agenda items rather than a um you know a subcommittee meeting. I know right now it's just Marissa and I and you know I think we could have a lot better and more productive meeting if we could have everybody there for the discussion and um you know I can put something together or maybe staff can put something together and I can ask questions and you know the whole group can discuss this. Um but you know just as a concern for public meetings law I think I would just be comfortable disbanding the transportation subcommittee and then um just having a few special agenda items to talk about the issues that have come before us during um land use case hearings and um perhaps that discussion might happen during the DSP process. Um but you know to me it's a very important issue and I think some special conversation needs to be happened and needs to happen as a group. Um but just given this situation I think it might just be best to uh disband for now and uh move forward at a later time. I I think as we said, let's we're not going to have any more subcommittee meetings for the time being until we've got this issue figured out. Okay.

I think what we'd like to do is is collect that information that the committees have been working on and then that'll be an agenda topic at a future planning commission meeting just so I it wasn't I know it wasn't anyone's intent that we're going to do this work behind closed doors or anything like that. I think this information was going to come to the planning commission in one form or another, you know, eventually and we still want that to happen. In fact, we need that to happen. So folks who are interested in these topics from the public know that what work has been done and this is the product that resulted from it. All right. Thank you. Is there anything else on this before we move on? All right. Information reports. None. No.

I'm going to skip my ritual of asking questions. Any administrative report? Yes. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I didn't I didn't realize where we were at. Um, so that is our only item we have for November uh 25th. Just the the subcommittee so far. We might have something else. We won't cancel it. We're not No, we'll have a meeting. Um, uh, but Jennifer has an announcement, but just to be clear, so since this is a subcommittee meeting, would we cancel if there's no agenda items, would we cancel the full meeting? And P um, we could, but we I'm sorry. I may not have been tracking. Or is there is a subcommittee meeting? He's wanting us to uh he's wanting to have the sub so option two in the memo. He's wanting to have

I'm exercising option two. Yeah. Meaning immediately following a regular commission meeting and so we would send notice staff would be here and we would staff that and there would be and coincidentally we don't have anything else to do. Yes. On that particular meeting so I don't know if we need to drag the rest of the That's okay. Okay. I'm fine with that. Thank you. So we don't have any other items. We'll just have a subcommittee meeting. That could be your subcommittee. And then you would still plan in theory then on December 2nd to present the full commission. Right. And that provides enough notice, Dan. Is that correct? So the the requirement is it's 40 the motus is 48 hours in advance. 48 hours. So we Okay. So our week is fine.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. That'sation there. Okay. So Jen has an announcement. Um, yeah. I just wanted to let you guys know that I've put my notice in with the city. So, my last day is December 11th. Um, so I doing Oh, well, I'm Yeah, I'm going to um I'm moving to Asia to just travel around for a while. Um, the goal is like to travel for a year and then kind of reassess. Um, but I'm starting out in Nepal and then that's great. Yeah. Congratulations.

Thank you. I'm excited. I feel kind of bad that we're now having this conversation and then I'm like, "Oh, I'm leaving." Um, which doesn't help the staffing issue, but um I'll hire someone else. Great. So, and it's much more interesting what you'll be doing. Yes. Yeah, [laughter] that's all. Well, Bage and good health.

And I did note in the memo we are we have two staff assistants in planning. Um, so we have Zach who I think is filled in sometimes here. He staffs historic landworks commission and the hearings officer. He's also provided his notice. He's going to the state. Uh his last day is next week. So um we have zero staff assistance to do any of the things um including process the applications, send the notice and all the things besides taking the minutes. So it's a very um stressful time to be talking about this staffing. So wish us luck. I have a question. Um, so are we going to have a November 25th meeting or not?

Is there any real real reason for doing a November 25th meeting? No. Uh, the deadline for us to put any agenda items to send notice would be tomorrow. So, and and Jen doesn't have any from any of the planners. So I think we can confidently say we don't have any items for a regular meeting on November 25th. Okay. Then we can So then the next scheduled meeting will be December the 2nd. December 2nd. Yeah. Okay. So do we just need to formally cancel? We can formally cancel. So we will formally cancel. Yeah. I was just unclear if we had something to do. Okay. Yeah. So we'll just only have our subcommittee meeting that night in this room.

So the December 2nd agenda will include a conversation or an agenda item for subcommittee discussion. Yes. For the commission to kind of officially decide based on the information given tonight. Yes. Guess so. All right. Any comments for the good of the order? All right. Oh, I actually do have one more question that's kind of important related to Dan your work. So, we have eight members. What's a quorum? Lisa, it's in our bylaws. What's uh what's our quorum at?

I'm going to say five, but she'll check the bylaws.

Oh, yes, we Okay, I do remember now. So in our last amendments, we changed it to a majority which would be of appointed members. So we have eight right now. So it would be five. That right? Yeah. All right. We're journ [laughter] take the take what you get. Right.