Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chair Kraft? Vice Chair Mitchell?

Present.

Commissioner Hauptman? Here. Commissioner Klizek? Here. Commissioner Rose? Commissioner Whitlock?

Here.

Thank you. Are there any corrections, deletions, or additions to the draft minutes for July 7, 2026? Hearing none, the minutes are adopted as written. Welcome, everyone. This is the time and place duly advertised for the Seaside Planning Commission to hold its monthly meeting. Agenda items can be initiated by the general public, any legal property owner, city council, city staff, and the Seaside Planning Commission. Does anyone present feel the commission lacks the authority to hear any items on the agenda? All right. Hearing none. It is standard procedure for the members of the commission to visit the sites to be dealt with at these meetings. Do any commissioners wish to declare an ex parte contact or declare and explain any conflict of interest? Hearing none. The following public hearing requirements apply to the items on our agenda. The applicable criteria for the hearing items are listed in the staff reports prepared for this hearing. Testimony and evidence shall be directed towards the applicable criteria listed in the staff reports or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe applies to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. The applicant will testify first, followed by any others in favor of the request. Then any in opposition will testify. Then the applicant will be given time for rebuttal. For testimony, we will hear from in-person attendees, followed by electronic attendees. When the time comes to hear from the members of the public attending electronically, there's a feature in the attendee view that allows you to electronically raise your hand by clicking on the control panel at the bottom of your screen. Phone attendees can raise their hand by pressing star 9. You will then be placed into a queue, and when your time comes to speak, you will be unmuted and can address the commission. Our moderator of the comments, Debbie Kenyon, will monitor this area and let us know when citizens that virtually raised their hand are ready to make comments via Zoom or by phone. Background noise must be kept to a minimum while testifying or your testimony time will be ended early. Prior to testifying, please state your full name and your address for the record. All right, public hearing items. We have public hearing item 769-26-000030, PLNG, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. This is a continuation from our previous meeting. I will now call on Planning Director to provide the staff report.

Thank you chair craft. This is a continuation from the previous meetings for a public hearing Tonight we have Scott for I gonna say he's here from 3j who's helping us rewrite our comprehensive plan He's got a brief presentation to go through and then we've got some potential action items and discussion items for the commission over Scott It should be on

All right, okay, I'll hold it sort of close but not too close Thank You chair and commissioners for having me tonight Hopefully, you got a chance to see the new version of the comp plan. I actually had quite the presentation that I was going to give you tonight. This latest version, we went through a round of comments received from DLCD. So we made a bunch of different round of edits to the plan. So we made some changes. We added a few inventory maps, for example. We rearranged a few of the policies based on those recommendations. We added some policies and added some policies. So it's changed slightly. I'm not going to go through the PowerPoint of all the changes because I'll just tell you right now, this is my last slide, but I think we're going to recommend a continuation of the meeting so that we will be able to share all those items with you at the previous meeting. So again, we're here for the comprehensive plan adoption. I think this will be the third or fourth time we've been in front of you, so I won't go back through that entire presentation that I shared with you before. But the next slide, please. There is one thing that we can talk about today if you want to. This is something that we brought up at the last meeting. But again, if we're going to do a continuation, it's something that we don't have to talk about. But I did want to present some information, some additional information that we've done since the previous meeting because of some requested information. So if you remember, I brought up the whole conversation about whether the riparian setback should be 50 versus 25 feet. The current comp plan states 25 feet. There were some comments received during multiple meetings in this process that recommended, didn't say we had to, but recommended we extend that to 50 feet. So that's what's in the current draft plan. Went back and I did some research looking at, and I'll show you this, about some of the other cities and what they do for this. But one thing I wanted to point out is your current development standards for shoreland development 4.160 and specifically protection of riparian vegetation has a uniform distance of 25 feet. And when I found this, it made it really clear why the comp plan was 25 feet. It was trying to be consistent with... basically the comp plan. So your comp plan doesn't say a number and then your development, your zoning code says another. So that's why it was consistent. It also, I'll point out, allows for 15 feet for things like roads and parking lots and other things that would have a smaller impact. So the comp plan says 25, but the code actually says different. And that's actually not abnormal based on a lot of the cities. So the next slide, I just wanted to point out, did you have anything to add with that, Jeff? Just that...

no no the the current comprehensive plan makes that measurement from either the mean higher high water line or the line of non-aquatic vegetation so it's got two separate standards what we really want to do is create a clear and objective standard of where the measurement is taken from for number one, which we mean higher high water seems to be the most standard used. And two, what should that distance be? 25, 50, some number in between. That's something that the commission should look at and make a determination on.

Yeah. So this is the current policy. Oh, I do want to point out, I was going to say this. We did do the numbering, which I think really works well. So now it's chapter and policy and policy number. So I think that's a nice cleanup thing that we were able to do on this next one. But anyway, I just wanted to point out, this is the current policy as it sits in the draft plan now. It's specific to the estuary boundary. And the reason it has a star is below in the plan, we actually have a definition of what that boundary is. And that's exactly what Jeff is talking about in terms of the mean high water. So anyway, this is what it says now. And then if we go to the next slide, Essentially, most coastal jurisdictions enforce the standards from 25 to 50. So either way, we're right within line of all the other cities in Oregon that I've found. Just looking at a couple of examples, and City of Wheeler imposes 30-foot shoreline for non-water dependent and 15 to 20 depending on the specific creek or creek segment. So essentially, they have a map, and they say if you're on this creek, Um, it's 15. If you're on this Creek stretch, it's 25. Uh, so they do it a little differently. Now, y'all hots does it, um, um, minimum of 25 to 50, depending on the underlying zone. And I thought that was really interesting. And that's what most cities do is I think they allow for the zoning code to dictate the specific, um, setback. And then they have a maximum number, for example, in the, in the comp plan. So that was something that again, Clatsop County does the same. Um, 35 to 50, not 25 to 50, but it's also based on the specific zone district. So that's what that is. Again, Tillamook County non-water dependent physical structures must be beyond 50 feet. But if it's a water dependent use, it can be up to 15 feet. So again, there's quite a range. And I think that this is probably something when you explore your zoning code update that you really want to be very specific by zone. But having a number in your comp plan that matches your current zoning really makes sense. So if you want to discuss that, that would be great. If you want to move that to the next meeting, I think from my perspective, I would like to be consistent. If I was in Jeff's shoes and I was trying to administer code and I had a comp plan that said something different than my current zoning code, it puts you in a tough spot sometimes. So at this point, my professional recommendation would be to go to use the current 25 feet. And then if you get into that zoning code update and you've learned, you know, maybe we need to say something in our comp plan that says, depending on the underlying zone, that would be an update that you'd want to make later after you did the zoning code update so those are my uh essential thoughts on those so chair

So if the recommendation is 25 feet, but Clatsop County requires the setback of 35 or 50 feet, then don't we have to defer to the county or is it the city? Or is that just in county unincorporated?

Yeah, you nailed it. So that pertains to the county lands that are not within the city limits. Got it.

That we don't share management with.

Correct.

Right. And right now, per our agreement with Clatsop County from 1996, so it's very current, the urban growth boundary is what delineates county jurisdiction versus city jurisdiction when it comes to all codes, zoning codes, nuisance codes, and floodplain development.

So this would apply to our urban growth boundary, not the city limits, just to clarify. Okay.

Any other questions from other commissioners, discussion points?

I just have a clarification question. Your professional opinion, you said that you would do, wait to make any sort of changes here until we made zoning code changes, which then would require, then we'd come back and make comp plan changes. Wouldn't it also be possible to make the changes now and then say, dependent upon the underlying zone definitions? You could do that. And then when the zone is updated, it provides further clarification when that happens.

You could, if... What you could do is you could not even specify a number and you could say, you could refer specifically to the zoning code, but then essentially what you're doing is deferring to that 25 feet, which it is already. So that's what I'm saying is to make the comp plan consistent with what you currently have adopted in the zoning code, it would be 25 feet. And the reason that's my recommendation is it's just a lot cleaner. If the comp plan says 50 and your zoning code doesn't say anything about the underlying zones, then there can be some confusion there. But we could add some language that says depending on the underlying zone.

Which is, that gives us the freedom to be able to change the zoning code without having to come back and change the comp plan. Correct. If you were to say something along the lines of what Clatsop County says, requires structures to be set back between 25 and 50 feet.

Depending on the underlying zone. And we could do that. That might be a good way to do it, too.

I think the better language might be, though, to say a minimum of 25 feet. Don't put a maximum on it because there may be some zoning designations like some of our protected zones where we may want a 100-foot buffer, depending on circumstances, locations, and what the viability of development of those areas are. So I think just keeping it as a minimum standard and not put a maximum on it would be beneficial.

That's a good idea too. I mean, and it's interesting just so from what I've also found looking into this is that it's the water dependent uses are the ones where they allow you to get closer.

So if you're going to put a dock in, of course, it's really difficult to put a dock in if it has to be 50 feet from the edge of the shoreline.

So it allows you for some flexibility within specific uses, which really makes a lot of sense.

So I like that compromise. That's a good way to go, I think.

I think my concern when I saw this was that if setback has always been 25 feet and then you make it 50 feet, maybe there's not enough land left over to have a buildable lot. maybe you're taking a spot where someone had a plan for a shed or an outbuilding or whatever. And I think, you know, when I worked as an appraiser, I worked on cases that were similar to this and they were viewed in those cases as takings.

Yeah. That could be argued for sure if you're going to make that change. And, um, especially if you're doing that within the zoning. When you do your zoning code update and you're making changes to zoning, people could come argue, hey, you're making my lot, you know, essentially not buildable because maybe the lot's 40 feet deep and you got a front yard setback and then you got a 25, you know, setback or a 50 foot setback in the rear yard because it goes to a riparian area. Then that could do that. That could have that effect.

Speaking from experience, our company was looking at a piece of land to purchase, and that's exactly what it was. The land was great and billable, but all the setbacks required this little poster stamp, and you couldn't do anything with it. It shrunk it, yeah.

So anyway, so I guess what I'd like to hear from... Oh, you have more questions?

Not more questions. I was just going to... Also, I agree with Flory in that 25 minimum. I do understand that there are some land use setbacks that aren't going to work for what you want it to work for, and you'll get that posted stamp, but it'll also work for others. So it'll all be usable. The 25 feet makes sense to me. Okay.

What about depending on underlying zone? I agree with that. I kind of like that too. Okay.

Okay. All right.

Well, I don't think we need a motion or anything to do that. I mean, we're just receiving comments from everyone on the comp plan right now, but I appreciate that feedback.

It's helpful, too, when we write the next draft, we can incorporate that language. And as Scott will mention here in a minute, you guys will review it again for more discussion. For sure.

Okay, cool.

I just want to bring something up that, I mean, we just... I was just notified that we got extra comments from DLCD as I was walking in the door. So I've really just been able to skim over it. And I just want to make sure that in my skim, I thought I saw something about specifying and actually stating that we default to... whoever's rule, don't remember which, what, I just try to find it again, in shared management areas, especially with, I think it's the Mechanicum estuary. Exactly, the estuary management plan. We have to make sure that we're mentioning that in this case as well.

Full disclosure, Scott and I received those comments at 3 o'clock today, and I sent them to you 10 minutes later. So we haven't even gone through them yet. No, I appreciate that. That's a big driver as to why we're going to recommend continuing this for a couple of months so we can go back to the drawing board and and get yeah get dlcd involved again and make sure that we've got everything that they need before we we move forward unfortunately that's it's just the the way of the the way of these comp plans can take some time as you guys are seeing and we want to make sure we get it right before we push it through yeah

Actually, then that'll get us to unless we're done with this topic. I could just go through the rest of it, but okay I did want to mention that the Our survey is still open we have not had very many people comment at all It's actually no one, but it is still up, and I see no reason not to just leave it up because it's there You can skip the next slide. It's just another goes through the chapter. So we're going to continue leaving that survey open. Our recommendation is that we continue this meeting to October. What I'd like to do is we received those comments today at 3. I actually really like the comments that we received today because they're very specific in terms of exactly what we need to change. This is, I think, the third or fourth set of comments that we've received. This draft actually addressed quite a few of them, so I think we're narrowing down the number of comments. But it is really important that this plan is compliant with state law. I mean, that's, like, number one thing. So to get it right is going to be super important. So those... I think the next slide is just our recommendation to continue the hearing. But yeah, again, to recommend to continue the hearing. Those comments were recommended or asked to be put in the record, so we'll make sure that those are also put in the record. My next presentation will go through This last draft and what we updated based on the comments plus I think I'll I'll add everything new we change based on this next set of comments So what I'll do is I'll focus on the changes that we've made based on what on the competent comments We received from DL CD if you also remember we have a tracking sheet with all the policies kind of where they started in the plan and now I just keep adding columns as we change and that was the plan so that if we make changes to the plan as a planning commission The city council can see what those changes are. And then if the city council makes recommended changes as we move through that piece of adoption, we will keep tracking all those. Because I think it's really important to know why things were changed, where they came from, and where they started and ended up. So we will provide that as well.

So in that sense, I would really appreciate when we get the comp plan package included in a packet that it actually shows what dates there were changes made and what the changes are because it's a big document and it's huge burden to have to go through it line by line every time to see did the change that I you know highlighted on this draft go all the way through to this draft yeah that's exactly what that's intended for so it's kind of I hate to say the word cheat sheet but that's clearly kind of what it is it allows you to see why it was changed and which version and when it happened but when we see like we pulled up the the packet yeah the comp plan it doesn't tell you anything about which version it is okay So each time you look at the face, the title page of it, or anything in it, you can't tell which version you're working on.

OK. We can put a date on it. That's a good point. But I think the thing that's really going to help you is that spreadsheet.

Right. Because until it's final, it doesn't need to be clean. It can have the draft version updated on x date. I think that's fine.

I think just even a footnote at the bottom of each page with the draft date, that's not a problem to do. We can do that. Good recommendation. That's all I have. Any other questions or thoughts on this?

Well, real quick, since the public comment is still open, we do want to give the opportunity, if there's anybody here that would like to comment on the comprehensive plan? None? Do we have anybody online? I don't have anybody online, no. Okay. Just going through formalities. Excellent. All right. And we're keeping public comment open at this time.

I'd like to move to keep the public comment open and continue the public hearing until the October...

October 6th at 6 p.m. right here. Perfect.

That was going to be a mask at the commission. Thank you. Do I have a second? Mark, second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

All right. Be continued until October. Or to October, I should say. All right. Scott, thank you again for joining us. I appreciate that. All right. Okay, so we have public hearing item 769-26-000033-PLNG. The applicant, SP Seaside LLC, Sandeep Sandhu, sorry if I botched that, is seeking approval for a highway overlay zone to change the use of a property from a former restaurant to a gas station convenience store. The property is located at 470 South Roosevelt in Seaside, Oregon, and the zone has general commercial C3. I'll call on planning committee Planning director to provide the staff report

Thank you, Chair. As you said, this is an existing building, existing property, existing commercial use. The applicant is changing the use to a convenience store and fuel station. Convenience stores and fueling stations are outright permitted uses within the zone. The specifics for this hearing are a review of our highway overlay zone requirements. Just for the Commission's knowledge, the highway overlay zone is a... overlay that is delineated by a 200 foot line on either side of highway 101 that runs through town any property that touches that any development that's involved in there potentially triggers this hearing Again, as the chair said, this is a former Pizza Hut building. The applicant is proposing a pretty significant remodel and the installation of a fueling station to turn this into a convenience store. The existing building currently has a drive-through. The applicant's plan shows no intention of using that as a drive-through, rather using it as staff parking to add additional parking spaces for the proposal. Site plan shows the parking availability. They've also included some landscaping plans, a traffic impact analysis. documentation of compliance with the highway overlay zone, and they've been working with ODOT on a new highway ingress-seagrass access point as shown on the site plan. With that being said, staff's recommending approval of this application conditionally based on the, I believe, five conditions in the staff report. And from there, I'll turn it over to you. If you have questions, I can certainly try to answer them.

Thank you. At this time, will the applicants please come forward and have a seat. If you can make sure the little green light on your microphone is on.

That one doesn't work. OK. The light doesn't work. Sorry.

And then if you'll please state your name and address for the record.

Yes. My name is Mike Odren. I am a landscape architect and land use planner with McKay, 18405 Southeast Mill Plain Boulevard, Suite 100, Vancouver, Washington.

All right.

Thank you. Please tell us about this request. Certainly. I haven't prepared a presentation for you today. The record speaks for itself. I would like to thank the Commission though for hearing me today and thank Planning Director Flory for his coordination that we've been working on this for probably close to a year. And I really just want to say that we concur with the findings of fact, conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. However, I would like to address one of the or the only public comment that came through from Mr. Mansell concerning the turning movement of the fuel truck, as you can see on the plan here. He did point out correctly that that fuel truck, as it enters onto South Irvine Street, hopefully I'm pronouncing it correctly, Irvine, does encroach out of the right of way at that location. And so I would request an additional condition of approval that we revise the site plan to make sure that the turning movement for that fuel truck Stays wholly within the right-of-way of South Irvine Street. Probably widening that northern ingress-egress on South Irvine Street just a little bit more to make sure that that can make the turn to be reviewed and approved by either Mr. Flory himself or the city engineer. As Mr. Flory indicated, we have been coordinating with ODOT both on the transportation impact analysis. We got early scoping from them and the traffic study does reflect the findings as indicated by ODOT as far as their scoping is concerned. and that we do have approval for this particular access onto Highway 101 by ODOT at this moment in time, and the design that you see there meets their standard driveway approach right now. The one thing that we are going through with them is what is called an indenture process. It was new to me, I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but this site actually had three legal accesses onto Highway 101. historically going back to the parent parcels before this particular site was consolidated. And so what the process is with the indenture is to consolidate those three accesses, extinguish them, and combine them into the accesses you're seeing on here right now. We do plan on totally re-landscaping the site. We are going to keep the existing trees along South Roosevelt as much as possible, the existing mature maples. and have new landscaping all around the site, particularly along Highway 101 and bordering the Starbucks to the north so that we don't have headlight intrusion in the nighttime hours into the streets as well as along South Irvine Street, and then redo all of the landscaping around the building as well as it is remodeled. At that time, or at this time, I am open for any questions that you might have of myself.

OK. Thank you for that. We do have a little formality. You're welcome to stay seated if you'd like. Certainly. I do have to go through this. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in support of this application? Are there anybody online? Nobody else?

Let me see. Nope. We have nobody online.

OK. Is there anybody who would like to speak in opposition of this application present? Hearing none. OK. Then this is your opportunity to respond to any questions, which we obviously don't have. OK. We open the discussion for the commissioners. Commissioner Klesak.

A couple of questions. Something that you just said just spurred a new one. So I'm going to ask that one first. You said that you're dealing with headlight intrusion from the right turn only and the highway. What sort of landscaping are you thinking about to prevent that?

So the standard landscaping that we do in parking lots is to have a shrub hedge with evergreen plants three feet on center that get to be at least a three foot height, maybe even four feet. This site does set down below Highway 101 just slightly, so there Right now, it's already set lower so that the headlights aren't as big an issue as possible. Right now, there's just grass. But as we have people that are pulling into the property, we'll have a full hedge along the northern property line, the east property line, and the west property line so that we won't have headlight intrusion into the state highway or onto neighboring properties.

Okay. That leads to some of my concerns here are those two driveways right next to each other and one of them is required to right turn only. I can only imagine there's a reason for that requirement and that would be that because of the danger and the safety concerns with left turns going onto the highway. So I would have the same concerns with this driveway being able to turn left onto the highway and cross over a right turn only lane traffic pattern. Some of the illustrations of your traffic counts to me were a little confusing because they didn't take that into consideration that that was existing there and that that would create some interactions of traffic that would be unwanted. I do i mean i think that reusing and redeveloping this this um land and building without having to destroy it is commendable um but i do have concerns that the even though you said you have odot approval for that entrance and egress um it is concerning to me that that would be contrary to seaside's transportation system plan which says that we are supposed to be reducing the entrances and excess accesses to 101 especially in this area and to move those off of 101 and onto side streets and so their approval and us acting like that doesn't exist concerns me um because it specifically is in our transportation system plan that we would be reducing the amount of entrances and exits onto 101. And the fact that ODOT is saying that there's no crash concerns, I'm kind of consolidating my comments instead of going through page by page what I have marked up, is also concerning because the city council was just given a report and presentation by ODOT saying how concerned they are with Broadway and 101 intersection and the following intersections in the area because there is such a crash risk. And because this area is a high safety concern, they are funding redoing of Broadway and 101 intersection. And that's not just because of Broadway and 101, but that's because of this general area and the crash concerns. And so to say that they don't think that there's crash concerns, I think is disingenuous to what was just presented to Seaside City Council. And so if we're gonna make a decision on this, I think we have to take that whole picture into account. that this is going to have an impact. And the more we are encouraging crossovers of the entire highway, the more we are encouraging safety risks with our downtown, this intersection, this area in our downtown, which already has major pedestrian concerns and vehicular safety concerns. So, and then allowing another entrance and progress onto 101 being controlled Directly in conflict with our transportation system plan are my those are my highlights of concerns at the moment Thank you Sir Thanks

So the ingress to the building is from the highways on 101 is in and out, right?

Ingress and egress, yes.

And ODOT was fine with that? Yes. Okay. So you mentioned in your statement that you had taken into consideration a comment that you received about the length of trucks and how they would turn and exit the property. And you mentioned that you would make sure that the trucks weren't too big to go on to private property to egress and get back out onto Irvine Street?

The comment that I made was, and I should point out that the turning movement that you see on there is performed with an AutoCAD program called Auto Turn, and it's very conservative in its turning movements. Oftentimes, these truck drivers can make these turns much better than what the program shows. What I was suggesting was that Mr. Mansell's public comment rightfully shows that the egress of the fueling truck does encroach Outside of the right-of-way on South Irvine that it should stay with wholly within the right-of-way on South Irvine So what we would do is we would adjust the layout to make sure that the fueling truck and these are the small fueling trucks not the double Tank trucks these are single tank trucks. They also have tanker trucks that are fixed as well so we're looking at a kind of a worst case scenario in this instance here that we would revise the ingress egress on the northern ingress egress onto Irvine with north being to the right to make sure that that turning movement in auto turn can make the turn and stay wholly within the right-of-way so you're you're you're basically saying there's not going to not going to be any 60 foot semi trucks pulling in there with fuel no no what you see there is the single tank truck which would be more along the lines of i would say wb 40 semi truck and that truck obviously would go South on Irvine to Avenue G, I would imagine, because that's... We need to go down to Avenue G. Avenue E right there, there is a power pole right at the corner that's in the sidewalk. May I point it out to you?

Feel free to grab the microphone that's on the stand, too.

Test. This is an existing power pole right there. And I believe it was pointed out maybe even in the traffic study that it's recommended that the fuel trucks go down to Avenue G to make the eastbound turn to get back on the 101.

That's all I have for now.

Thank you chair. I agree that this is great. I want to see the pizza hut property get turned into something new and exciting. Is there do we know if there's ever any parking alongside that? I mean what happens if there's just one car in the way and then that fueling Truck can't get in there because it's a single lane on the back side there If I might the total width between the fueling island and the parking along this side is 32 feet and The single lane street by the Mariner Motel Irvine, I believe it is.

Oh, up there?

Yeah. Is that the only way the fueling trucks are going to come in, or are they going to come in off 101 as well?

They would be coming in off 101. And out the other way? And out the other way.

Gotcha. Okay.

I guess they could come in from Avenue G and reverse course in this instance, and then exit southbound that way. Okay.

There was two ways in and out, but we can certainly show that as well. The other thing I was looking at is. Just based on scale here, the parking spaces there should be employee parking. Behind it looks like.

Yes, right there. I don't have a dimension on there, but we typically figure 18 to 20 feet per vehicle, and that's well over 60 feet long.

So if one is parked in there, can another car get by it to get out?

Oh, no. No, no, no. It's a single lane. It was designed as a pickup window right there.

And that's going to be employee parking?

Employee parking, right. It'll be tandem parking.

Okay. Do we know if there is Starbucks, which is right next to it? Can you turn left out of Starbucks? Nope.

That I don't know, but according to the applicant's drawing, it's a right turn.

There is an arrow for a left out only, but there is no physical barrier preventing anybody from turning left. As I was driving up, I took a look at that.

I think Avenue B is the same way. If you wanted to take your chance, you could zip out there. I expressed the same concern if there was

I believe that was a contingency of them being allowed to turn off there, that it was a right turn only. So whether people are breaking requirements is...

So the northern Starbucks entrance, there is no required right turn only. I believe the right turn only is out of the drive-thru. Correct. The second one, correct.

Yep. So you could take a left turn out of the Starbucks? You could.

Yeah, on the north side. Not on the south single lane, the north double lane.

Got it. I don't have any further questions.

Mr. Mitchell, looks like you're looking up info.

Yeah, I think it's a well-put-together application. Just my gut about this tells me that if somebody needs to take a left-hand turn, a local is going to know to go to Holiday and head north that way. But someone who's visiting might have difficulty navigating that spot. Even without traffic from this parcel, that intersection with Safeway is very, very busy during certain times of our year. I don't know how you mitigate that.

Smelly comment. Thank you. Yeah, I'm not all up on the TSP, but Kathy, yes, I'm familiar with what you were talking, discussing about and the conflicts there. Creating additional ingress, egress off of 101. If anything, I would personally just, my personal opinion would be make it ingress only from 101 and not an egress. And on the other side, you can do the two, you can have the egress, on the, sorry, the northern, or the, my north, south, east, west is messed up today. On the west side.

Left is to the north, or to the right.

Yeah. So, I mean, I like that there's a proposed use for it. It is the traffic, obviously, is what we're, you know, is the big issue. You know, left, right turn only out of there if the in and out on 101, you know, is obviously approved by ODOT, which we have no say over. And after visiting the, or coming down and there was a presentation here about that 101 intersection at Broadway. And I did, you know, that was part of the discussion about that ingress egress. So, Something to consider. Nothing that we can really... And then you were saying in your response to the comment, the public comment that was made, you mentioned condition, you'd request a conditional approval for, can you rephrase that?

A condition of approval that we provide a redesign to show that the fueling truck can make the turn out of the site onto South Irvine Street wholly within the right of way. Right. Of South Irvine Street and not encroach onto the neighboring property. Thank you for that clarification.

Go ahead. So that being said, that would require the fueling truck to use the space that that row of parking is in, which is also something that is specifically said that you can't use... parking spaces as loading or requirements for the fueling truck. And so there's more concerns coming up here that I think that also the way that I read ODOT's response was, let's not move forward until you have the support of the city, which you're kind of putting cart before the horse saying they approve it they are asked waiting for what our comments are and what we say before they get behind it and actually analyze it and say from what you what was submitted that's what i could see them saying is that you know get their approval and their support before you we move forward and in depth looking at these things i i can i can clarify that

Um, we needed to, uh, work early on with ODOT to make sure that, I mean, as part of a feasibility and whether they would even allow this or not. Um, and we went through that process and they have kind of blessed the access there, what they are holding off on doing until they received the land use approval, uh, is the indenture process. The site currently has three legal accesses onto Highway 101 presently. And so once the land use has been approved, that is when they will proceed with that process. to consolidate, otherwise they will keep the three existing access points onto Highway 101 that was historically part of the three parent parcels on the site. So that's what they're holding off on proceeding with until they have the land use approval.

Could you show me where those access points would be?

Sure. Yeah, that's probably not, and I don't know if I sent that to you. I think I sent everything else to you, but it took a while to get that, and I'll briefly show you. But they had, this was three or four separate lots, historically, and they had accesses here, here, and here.

From Highway 101? Yes.

But none of those have actually been put in place. So some of them you're referring to back to the, if I read it correctly, the 50s. Right, the parent parts. And so those are no longer viable because this is all one property and those were never actually acted on. You have to go through this whole process to get actual permission to use them, so that's not, you know, it's two different things that we're talking about.

Sure. Just going off of Commissioner Klezak's earlier point, if these parking spots to the north, if you can't...

I wanted to address that as well. Okay, go for it. These parking spots would not be impacted by this truck. What we would probably look at doing, wish I had a pointer, potentially widening this out just a little bit more. so that there's sufficient room for the off-tracking of the trailer so that it doesn't run over the ADA ramp that's going to be rebuilt anyway to current standards, so that that off-tracking can do that as well. There also appears to be a little more room up here that it could swing out and then swing back down.

and coming in without crossing into the center lane and then not using up parking or your canopy?

Yeah, what we're going to do now, based on one of the comments here, is also show the turning movements coming in from the south on South Irvine Street and turning in and see if we could also make that work as well.

My question had to do with the required minimums. If you can't use those northern parking spots because of where that truck needs to come into, do you still have enough parking?

Sorry. Yes, I believe we do have enough parking. I believe the minimum parking is nine stalls.

And we exceed that.

And I think we have nine down here. Three, four, five, six, seven, eight. So we would be.

Does that include the employee parking? Is it nine plus employee?

Oh, yeah. I didn't think about that. So that would be three for an employee and then eight there for customers. Should this truck be in that location for the short time that it is built?

So... Change your question. The section that's next to the mock-up truck, that's not a structure, that is the... This? Yes. Those are the underground tanks. Okay, so that truck could really just drive over to where those parking spots on the north are, correct? If you don't need those parking spaces?

It could. Yeah, these are existing parking.

Okay.

Yeah, they're already there. In fact, people are parking in them right now.

So if the truck pulled in to where those parking spaces are, it would not have an issue with the turn radius encroaching on the egress, correct?

Presumably. We would want to run the auto turn on that, but that is the case, that we would have sufficient parking without this here, and that that would be an option.

So your auto turn program, what was the design length of that truck?

I think I can't tell you for sure, but the truck itself is a single tank fueling vehicle. They have different types of fire trucks, garbage trucks, buses, WB50 semis, WB67s, and this one is actually a fueling truck. This is what we use for all of our community store designs.

What's the height of the canopy in the center? What is the height of that? I don't remember.

I don't have the building elevations with me. I would probably say that it's at least 25 feet.

Okay, and that's going to be a two-sided island?

Yes. Four MPDs, multiple product dispensers, and there's a fueling position on either side. And then there's also enough room for a pass-by through the middle.

So people can walk through there?

No, no, no, vehicles. If there's a vehicle here and somebody comes in, they can come through here and then park at this one. So there would be another drive aisle in between where cars would be parked. Okay.

Is this a 24-hour convenience store, gas station?

24-hour?

Could fueling take place after hours?

Would you like to come up?

Is that okay? Yes, as long as you come up and state your name. And then introduce yourself.

Hi, I'm Devinder Singh. Address? 89236 Belmont, Warrington. Thank you.

You were asking about whether they could be, whether fueling could take place after hours. Is that correct?

Yes, would the tanks be filled after hours, during business hours?

As needed. Usually, in summertime, if it's business hours, So they can dump the fuel before even the store is open. They drive the best to work traffic.

Not at 4 PM on a summer afternoon. Friday.

Friday, right.

And the convenience store, you just said, would not be open 24-7. But would fueling availability be open 24-7?

As the in Oregon, yes.

Any other questions by the commission?

We haven't addressed the bike parking.

I believe that's a condition of approval, and we would agree with that, and we'll go ahead and add that in when we submit for a building permit, which is when we also provide our final site plan and final civil engineering plans.

So bike parking that would be enclosed bike parking.

Is that the condition or is that the code? It's just not a bike rack. It's an enclosed locker. There'll be long-term and short-term. Long-term. Yeah, I believe that we can.

Long-term spaces are required to be covered and secured.

Accommodate that as well. Probably near that front entrance.

That's condition three.

Thank you. Jeff, scrolling through this, I know I have it highlighted, but which page is the parking requirement on?

Parking requirement, the conditions or?

Yeah, where they stated they have this many and these many are required.

Let me scroll, see if I can find it.

Thanks.

You know, I will correct what I said earlier. The required parking for 2,945 square foot retail use is one stall per 200 square feet. This is on the site plan, which does require 15 stalls. So 9, 10, 11. So we would be four shy. without that northern parking. Thank you for clarifying that.

I wanted to make sure I saw it in writing. Did you measure customer accessible area or is that the square footage of the building? That's the total square footage of the building. So we would need to remeasure customer accessible area. The parking code is very specific that it is not total square footage. It's customer accessible area. So areas such as the Cooler space, storage, employee only areas behind the counter, the kitchen, that is taken away from the equation. It's strictly customer accessible area. But it does.

With the employee on top of that.

Plus employees at peak hours, yes.

And how are employees at peak hours determined?

It's supposed to be the busiest time of the year at the busiest time of day. How many employees would you have staffing that facility?

Can you answer that? How many employees you would have working busiest time of the day, busiest time of the year?

Depends on the business. Probably three maximum. Three maximum.

Yeah.

Anything else?

I'm sorry. In the conditions, did the conditions have anything in them regarding complying with the engineering plans and requirements that were in the engineering plan that you submitted?

The conditions of approval do not have that.

So there's nothing that is going to require seismic and all of the things that were listed out in the engineering plan that you submitted that would make sure that that was being built based on the findings of the borings and the sand structure and... That's all handled through building codes and building code review.

Yeah, because what we're focused on is the overlay portion.

Yeah. So I'll run through the conditions really quick. So condition one is the minor modifications, which we've talked about. It goes on everywhere. And we'll discuss that in the next portion of the meeting. Condition two is before any building permits can be issued, we need to see a detailed outdoor lighting plan. The applicant has provided some detail, but I'd like to see a little more detail as far as where that lighting extends to, specifically along property lines. Bicycle parking, condition three. Two long-term covered spaces and it's taken straight out of the TSP. Condition four, the TIA identified some vegetation that needed to be trimmed. In order to improve site distance, it sounds like the applicant's planning on a near complete landscape, re-landscape, keeping some of the more mature trees that are already existing, but getting those limbed up to the point they're not obstructing any kind of vision triangle. And condition five is to ensure that the ODOT access permits and the accesses are constructed to the ODOT standards per their permit are issued and approved by ODOT. The applicants also proposed a condition six, which is to ensure that that turning radius of the egress of the fueling truck does not cross outside of the public right-of-way to complete that maneuver. That's something the commission could add if they choose to approve tonight.

And then the discussion on the, that I feel that should be a right turn only back onto one-on-one. I don't think that you're going to get held up with someone who's very stubborn, who does not want to make the right turn to loop around, which is safer, but you're going to get somebody who holds up all the traffic inside and then plays Frogger to get across three lanes of traffic to, or two lanes of traffic to get into the northbound lane and, So I would say making sure that that's a right-hand turn would be another either condition or is that outlined for the ODOT?

No, it can be a condition, right turn only egress onto Highway 101.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT A CONDITION THEN. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT A CONDITION THEN.

SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST FROGGER, YOU'RE ALSO PLAYING JUST FROGGER, YOU'RE ALSO PLAYING DODGEBALL WITH THE STARBUCKS EXIT DODGEBALL WITH THE STARBUCKS EXIT THERE AND TRYING TO PREDICT WHEN THERE AND TRYING TO PREDICT WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO GO FOR IT. THEY'RE GOING TO GO FOR IT.

STARBUCKS IS TURNING RIGHT, STARBUCKS IS TURNING RIGHT, YOU'RE TRYING TO TURN LEFT AND YOU'VE YOU'RE TRYING TO TURN LEFT AND YOU'VE GOT YOURSELF ANOTHER ACCIDENT GOT YOURSELF ANOTHER ACCIDENT POINT. POINT.

I THINK I HAVE ENOUGH THERE all right so could you restate condition six uh the applicant would need to submit a plan for review by uh the city engineering community development to ensure that that turning maneuver of the fueling truck does not um does not cross onto private property and stays within the right-of-way to complete the maneuver exiting onto urban great thank you i'll wordsmith a little bit when i put it together but essentially that's what we'll say

Thank you. And then condition seven would be that the egress onto 101 is right turn only.

So I just want to go back to that for a second, because I think an important point was brought up that was not addressed, because Irving does allow on-street parking. And so if there's on-street parking on that street, there would be no turning onto that street. I mean, into... the lot or out of the lot. So that is not integrating into the existing transportation facilities as they are.

So I'm pulling it back up. I looked at the street view when you mentioned that, and I believe the west side of Irving is signed no parking. There is parking available on the east side. That could be remedied by the applicant. We could put no parking in that, I guess you'd call it an island between the two areas. from Urban Street, which would allow for no parking in the immediate vicinity of the egress and ingress into the fueling station. But I'm going to confirm that what I was looking at is correct, that Irving has signed no parking on the west side there. Right in front of the motel. Yeah Yep There are some parking spots on the east side It's public parking on Irving

PROPERTIES OVER HERE ON THE SIDE. SIDE.

SO HOW DO YOU MENABLE TO A SO HOW DO YOU MENABLE TO A CONDITION TO SIGN THE EAST SIDE CONDITION TO SIGN THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET? OF THE STREET? NO PARKING AS WELL? NO PARKING AS WELL?

THAT'S A CITY THING, RIGHT? THAT'S A CITY THING, RIGHT?

HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE REQUIRED PARKING THAT THOSE REQUIRED PARKING THAT THOSE OTHER BUSINESSES HAVE THAT OTHER BUSINESSES HAVE THAT INCLUDE THE ON STREET PARKING? INCLUDE THE ON STREET PARKING?

NO BUSINESS SHOULD HAVE ON NO BUSINESS SHOULD HAVE ON STREET PARKING AS PART OF THE STREET PARKING AS PART So those are public parking spaces used by the public. They cannot be counted or should not have ever been counted as part of an approval for parking liability. We didn't count the on-street parking.

And yet the city requires certain amounts of on-street parking availability in different areas of town. So how are we balancing that requirement? such as on street parking num the numbers of parking spots that are required in front of Sunset Empire Park and rec I'm not familiar with that regular library and I don't know with that regulation which regulation is that it was brought up by your predecessor at at times that there was a need to make sure that the parking counts remained the way they were that they couldn't take parking spots away and make the crosswalk bigger because they needed the parking spots there and

I would say needing parking spaces and requiring regulations for parking spaces.

They were stating it as a requirement and therefore the crosswalk couldn't be expanded.

Yeah, I'm not familiar with any regulation that has at least none that I've seen and I've read I think pretty much all the city regulations. But I would be happy to have somebody point that out to me if that does exist. I know there's always been a concern of removing parking spaces specifically close to our commercial downtown core because of the tourist impact that happens during the summer. We all know this is, well, we're here in volleyball week, right? This is one of the busiest weekends we're going to have. Is this location tourist heavy where it's close to the beach and needs those parking spaces? Likely no. And I have not seen, I've been down there probably half a dozen times in the last year since the applicant and I met for a pre-app meeting and I have not seen anybody parked on street there. Granted, I think people are using your lot right now for just general parking, but I have not seen anybody park on street. And I think I'd have to measure that island piece in the middle right there. But just eyeballing it, I think you're losing one parking space.

But even so, if there was no parking right there and the truck pulled out, is that street wide enough? If somebody was parked to the left of that island, would the truck be able to get by it?

I believe that right away is 30 feet.

Wide?

Yes. I believe that's one of our 30 foot streets, which a parallel parking spot, our standard parking spots are nine feet wide. So you would be left with 21 feet of right away.

Nice.

anything else on that point okay and then uh just to reiterate the seventh condition that i would like to see in there is that um egress on to 101 right turn only we've got that so uh is there any further discussion from the commission i have just one question the fire um i'm looking at the

of going through my head here there's a fire hydrant on the corner of irvine and e is that the only fire hydrant in that whole area and does that meet the fire flow that joey would require for so this was also reviewed as part of the pre-application meeting with the fire marshal and final plans for construction will be reviewed by the fire marshal too to ensure that it meets their fire life safety requirements you're talking about the fdc I'm talking about the FTC, but I'm also talking about the hydrant. And because you're also, I'm assuming, going to have to sprinkle that building. And that's a four-inch water main that runs down Avenue E, and I'm just not sure. Anyway.

You're talking about the west side of Irvine on E, that fire hydrant there? Yeah. Like I said, the final civil plans will be reviewed by the fire department to ensure that all their fire life safety requirements are met.

if we get a comment back from the fire marshal that says it does not meet our spacing requirement we will certainly install a new hydrant we don't get approved plans our marshals approval right anything else okay i will entertain a motion one way or the other

A motion to accept with the seven conditions being met.

All right. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Okay. There's four yeas, one nay, and it's approved.

Thank you very much for your time today. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Yeah. Yep. I'll send it to you tomorrow when I get them written. Yep.

All right. Ordinance administration conditions of approval discussion standard conditions minor modifications versus major modifications Director All right, I prepared a memo put it in your guys's packet to kind of highlight what

I think could be a little more clear and objective as to what that condition means and what those standards are. Again, here is what is currently being added to every condition of approval and what I would recommend the commission look at as a standard condition. This specifically outlines a process where these modifications can be applied for and documented, more or less, with findings that they meet these six administrative criteria. The criteria, I can go ahead and read them if you like. If you would, please. The proposed modification remains consistent with the applicable approval criteria findings and conditions of approval. It does not increase, so two, it does not increase the approved residential density or overall intensity of the approved use. Three, it does not create or increase adverse impacts on surrounding properties beyond those considered during the original land use review. Four, it does not reduce required setbacks, landscaping, parking, open space buffering, or other required site improvements below applicable ordinance standards. Five, does not substantially alter the approved site design, circulation pattern, building orientation, or access configuration. And six, does not require additional discretionary land use approval or amended findings or conditions of approval. This essentially allows for me to be able to document any change or modification and findings to support, make the applicant supply findings to support these six items, which I think will be a lot cleaner if it's ever called into question why a modification was made. We have a way to point back to now this is what was requested this is a condition that the planning commission discussed as a standard condition and now we have that documentation to show it looks good uh goes further to define what minor and major is without actually saying this is a definition okay commissioners anybody else

I do have a question. Number two, does not increase the approved residential density or overall intensity of approved use when it comes to either industrial or commercial, I should say. Why didn't you put commercial in there?

We don't have any commercial density requirements. Right, okay. So commercial can be as dense as it wants to be. There's no standards for that at this point. If that changes in the future, then of course we've got to revisit this.

Okay.

Mr. Mitchell?

Yeah, I think it answers our questions well.

Okay. Do we need a motion to adopt this or?

Clarification. I think there's consensus across the room here that this would be policy to replace our standard condition one with this language.

Okay. I think that we do have general consensus of everybody up here, so you can move forward with that. Thank you for bringing that to us with the options listed, conditions listed. Okay. Comments from city staff? Any updates on what the department's been working on? Projects approved since our last meeting? Anything we should be really, really excited about?

I'm still playing catch up from getting back from vacation. So we have nothing really significant in the pipeline and we don't have an agenda item for October at this point. September, sorry. October we'll reconvene with the comp plan and any other land use approvals there might be.

Okay, Debbie. All right. Are there any asks of the commission that you would like to have up for discussion? Anything you want us to keep in mind?

Just keep reviewing that comprehensive plan. Let's, you know, we want you to have what you want going to the city council, going into adoption phase. So... If it takes time, it takes time. It is what it is. And we'll keep trying to revise it. Our hope with this, extending this to October, is to give Scott's team time to make the revisions requested by DLC today, get it back to them, get another round of comments back, and try to resolve any state law and legal issues and have a clean draft for you guys. Middle...

Middle to I'm hoping earlier September to give you a little more time to digest prior to the actual October meeting Okay And then the my last really quick comment the The survey just so the Commission knows the survey that will be sent out with the or that The director was trying to send out with the agenda. Debbie is going to be taking that over. That way we're... Yeah, that way I don't keep forgetting. Well, yeah. So that'll be a little bit more consistent going forward. So thank you for that. Comments from the commission.

I appreciate the process that we're going through with the comp plan. In my brief perusal, I also noted that DLCD wasn't done making comments on it, so we can expect more comments from them. I just wanted to also mention that in September, the oregon association of planners is having their conference here in town and it would be a great opportunity to interact with a whole bunch of planners that do this work for pay so i don't know if there's an opportunity for us to request us to be able to it's here in town so it doesn't require lodging um and so just wondering what sort of plans to allow planning commissioners to go to the conference september 15 16 17 i think is the date i don't remember off the top of my head

I would say that if any commissioner would like to attend, you are welcome to. I will state for the record that this is not an organized thing, so there will not be, it would not constitute a quorum because it will not be, you know, if all of us end up going. Education. It's education. So you're allowed to. Yeah.

no i was there's there's a fee involved so it would be the planning commission requesting that the city consider sending or allowing planning commissioners to attend the conference okay so um how much is fee i don't know off the top of my head jeff do you remember i don't remember i can look it up really quick though

Is there any sort of budget for that type of thing for planning commission at all?

There is not.

There's not. Okay, so we would need to request from the city council.

Yeah. But if the commission would like, I can put in a request to the city manager to get his take on it.

Yeah, if you could. Is anybody interested in that? Kathy, I know I would probably be.

I'd get paid for it anyway.

yeah I'm covered so I wouldn't be an expense but I just want to make sure that other people know that it's an opportunity yeah non-members is $450 and the date I'm fairly certain it's the 15th through the 17th yes 15 to the 17th you're correct

The 16th and 17th are at the convention center, the mobile conference is on the 15th. So Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. Got it.

Yeah, if you could talk to the city manager to see if there's anything that would be available for that, that'd be great. Thank you.

This is the first time the conference is ever being held in Seaside, so it's just a great opportunity for...

And it can be like a hotel room. We do have hotel rooms. Conflict of interest. Right. Mr. Whitlock, any comments?

I have no comments. All right. Nothing from me. Okay.

Mr. Huffman?

No comment. Okay. No other comments from myself looking for... Yep. I am good to go. Okay. If there's no other comments, this meeting is adjourned.