Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. So, but I call this meeting of the seaside planning commission to order. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands for it. One nation under God, liberty and justice for all. For all. Debbie, would you like to take roll call, please? I would love to. Commissioner Gretchen Stalmer here. Commissioner Kevin Ryder. Haidider. Haidider here. Chair Montero here. Vice Chair Kathy Klesic. Commissioner Chris Rose, present. Commissioner Roger Mitchell,

present. Perfect. Um, and Chair Robin Montto. Well, you called me already, did I? Yeah. Oh, okay. But there's this guy. Oh, Brandon, you're not on my list. Sorry. All right. See you later. Were you here? I'm here present.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. 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, Seaside City Council, city staff, and the Seaside Planning Commission. Does anyone present feel the commission lacks the authority to hear any item on the agenda? Hearing none, we'll move on. Are there any corrections, deletions, or additions to the draft minutes for June 3rd? Hearing none, the minutes are adopted as written. It is standard procedure for the members of the commission to visit the sites to be dealt with at these meetings. Do any of the commissioners wish to declare an exparte contact or con conflict? Uh, at all? Not. Okay. 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 meeting. Testimony and evidence shall be directed toward 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 that issue precludes appeal to the land 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 and then the applicant will be given time for a rebuttal. for testimony. We will we will be hearing 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 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 star9. You will then be placed into a queue and when your time comes to speak, you will be unmuted and can address the com the commission. Our moderator for the comments, administrative assistant Debbie Kenyon, uh will monitor this area and let us know when citizens that have virtually raised their hand are ready to make comments via Zoom or by phone. Background noise must be kept to a minimum when testifying or your testimony time will be ended early. Prior to testifying, please state your name and your address for the record and please limit your comment. Limit your comments to three minutes. New glasses. Sorry, folks. The first public hearing item on the agenda is it will be 76925-000024-NG. Mr. Planning Director.

Thank you, Chair. Um, tonight we have a public hearing for a conditional use request to construct a 36 uh build 36 unit apartment complex near the intersection of Avenue P and Irvine Street. Uh, the map on the screen aerial photo shows the location of the proposed development. Uh, the developer is uh proposing access from both Avenue P and South Irvine Street. Um, as you can see, South Irvine runs uh north and south and it is uh fronting the Grocery Outlet building and the Grocery Outlet parking lot. Avenue P is an unimproved road that uh runs east and west on the bottom of the screen there. Uh the applicant is proposing to widen Avenue P to the extent that they possibly can near their development. Um, it's kind of tough to see on this screen, but it'll be easier to to decipher from another area I'll show you in a minute. That Avenue P coming off the highway is only a 20 foot wide rideway. It widens out to 40 feet when we get towards the applicant's development. Their proposal is to widen that to the extent that they can, keeping it graveled um and uh surfacing Irvine Street all the way down to where it would connect into Avenue P. The applicant site plan shows that um they've provided ample parking for this development. Uh however, it is also split by Irving Street. So, you have a parking lot with more parking than necessary for the proposed units and a parking lot that's deficient uh in the number of parking units. However, it's all part of the same same complex. the applicant is utilizing Senate Bill 1537, a mandatory uh land use adjustment for the parking requirements on the lot that's not uh that is deficient. So that uh essentially it would meet the state law requirements. The other option would

be would have been to apply for a variance to the parking requirements uh as this commission's granted in the past for dwelling units with parking on a separate lot. Senate Bill 1537 gets us there and gets us in compliance with state law. Uh but it it it should be noted that the parking spaces provided for the development as a whole does meet our ordinance requirements. The applicants provided uh site circulation via uh sidewalks and crosswalks to access uh both public rideways. Avenue uh off of Avenue O and Avenue P and a stairway accessing um uh the rear portion, the southern portion down to the graveled uh rightway. Um, it should be noted that there was a finding in the uh in the report that mentions that bike parking would need to be a uh a condition of approval. Uh that is not the case. The applicant has proposed uh more bike parking than than required utilizing the stairways inside the uh al coes for each building. Um so they they meet the the parking requirements. Other conditions that uh staff is uh proposing uh is that a detailed lighting plan will need to be uh reviewed and approved by city staff uh prior to development permits. Um there's a storm water pond that's going to need uh engineering to ensure that it meets the uh runoff requirements for the this development and any development that has easement rights to that pond to make sure it's of sufficient size and integrity to be able to handle that. that engineers report will be reviewed by our public works director. Um, and fencing around the storm water pond to protect the pond's integrity and the the public of of who might be living in this area. So, it keeps kids out of the water if it if it does become a an area that

fills. Um, we've received some public comments uh surrounding uh rideways and public streets. Uh the map that I've uh pro provided here shows that South Irvine Street is a public rideway. It does run north and south. Uh the highlighted red are the public rightaways that surround this development. So these are public roads, um public streets, and as such can be used for access to the properties that front on those public streets. Again, here's a ground level uh photo. Uh this is just a Google Street View highlighted in red. Those are both public rideways that go through um the parking area for Grocery Outlet. So, Grocery Outlet has a building on one lot and they have a parking lot on a completely separate lot. And as you'll recall in in some of our previous meetings, we've had discussions about um parking on a separate lot. Well, in a commercial zone for commercial use, parking is allowed to be within 200 feet of the building. Got was was approved for development with their parking on a separate lot from their actual building. Uh nevertheless, this is a public roadway that can be used to access um other properties that have frontages on it or as a through street for traffic. It's not a it's not a block street. It's not a um a street that's exclusively uh used for one particular entity. Um I've provided draft findings uh in the staff report. Um, one comment that came in today that I do want to address is the comment regarding a restricted use on the property through a CCNR that's recorded. Um, this body in the city does not enforce uh CCRs on properties. Um, I have reviewed that document and that document uh is unclear. Uh, it does not specifically state that multifamily use is prohibited

on this property. Nevertheless, it's the holders of that CCR's responsibility to enforce that through a civil matter through civil court. So, it's not something this body would get involved in enforcing. Um, and with the ambiguity of the the the information that was provided to me, that's something that they'll have to figure out if it is restricted or not. That's not something we're going to make a determination on. Um, the second comment that was sent to you guys was regarding a reszone of a property. This is not a reszone. Uh the zoning is C3. Uh we're in front of the panel or the commission tonight for a highway overlay zone review as well as a conditional use as apartments are conditionally permitted in the C3 zone. Um this property has been zoned C3. There's no zone change that's been attached to it. Um the commission can uh or hopefully has had a chance to review the draft findings and the proposed conditions. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have and uh if you have a discussion regarding those conditions, please feel free and uh and and ask away.

Wonderful. Thank you. And who here would is uh representing this project? Please come up, have a seat. You can have a seat. State your name and address and tell us all about it.

My name is Randy Stamper. I with RDA project management. I represent Seaside Multi LLC on this project. Um we're here tonight to answer any questions that may come up. I want to thank Jeff and his staff for a thorough review. Um we agree with Jeff's review and we can meet any of the conditions that he has proposed for you guys to in the findings if you so choose. So ask away the questions and I'll do the best I can. Before we do that, is there anything else you'd like to tell us about it or

No, I think it's pretty accurate what Jeff's gone through. The one thing that we've done with this project, um, we're just finishing up a project on North Wahana. The buildings on this project, we've redesigned and intent to have lower rents than some of the other new facilities that are being built in Seaside. And we're going to accomplish that by a lower overhead cost of construction. Wonderful. Thank you. If you would like to go back to your seat, I'm sure we'll be calling you back up in a minute or so. Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anybody else who is in favor of this project? Would you care to speak? No. Okay.

Chair Montter, let me check the Zoom meeting first. Oh, yes. Thank you. Uh, attendees via Zoom, if you would like to speak in favor of this project, please raise your hand. Hearing none. Hearing none. Is there anybody out there that is opposed to this project? Please uh stand up to the mic. Uh introduce yourself and your address, please.

Hi, my name is Tom Jensen. Uh, my address is 33704 West Shore Lane, Warrington, Oregon 97146. Go ahead. I'm the owner and operator of Jensen's Grocerers LLC, uh, the DBA, Seaside, Oregon Grocery Outlet, and I understand the importance of having additional apartments built in Seaside and the value to the community. However, I am very concerned with the entrance of the proposed apartment complex having driving access between grocery outlet store property and the apartment complex. The first proposed entrance would make a busy street directly in front of the store that would be very dangerous to the many customers walking into and out of the store. Many people walk directly out of the store never thinking they are walking into a street as it's part of the parking lot. I have seen them on their phones talking to their kids or frantically running to their cars for forgotten items like purses and wallets. Imagine pushing a cart from a grocery store across a busy street simply to access the parking lot. I'm very concerned that the proposed plan would be very dangerous to our customers and employees. The parking lot was designed to have another business on the vacant lot next door. The parking lot was set up for both sides to have similar docking bay areas and similar access for our customers on foot, vendors and employees. If this proposal goes through, I'm very concerned about semi-truckss backing into our truck bay access a known street and having to watch for cross traffic and people walking behind them as they try to back in. This would be extremely dangerous and impossible to accomplish safely. The proposed entrance in the back of the Grocery Outlet parking lot is also not a safe option. It will line up directly with the main entrance to the parking lot that is used the most. It is already a bottleneck when customers try to drive in and access the parking lot. We have already had at least one car accident at this entrance and proposing more traffic

to go through here would only aggravate this issue. The second entrance would also cut my parking lot in half, forcing the employees parking in the back to cross a busy thoroughfare just to get to work. Not to mention, if both entrances are allowed, they would have to cross two hightraic areas to get to work. My parking lot is not that big, and these entrances would drastically cut down unable safe spaces for customers, employees, and vendors. I understand the importance of having additional apartments in Seaside, but I request that the planning commission deny the proposal and have the apartment complex look at other avenues to use as their entrance that have no driving access with the grocery outlet property. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else opposed to this project who would like to speak?

No. Brian Zarder. I live in 33264 in Warrington, Oregon, but I also have the um my business here in Seaside. Um and I'm also a customer of Grocery Outlet, so I've been over there frequently. Just wanted to uh talk about uh I view the proposal here as Tom was saying as adding a lot of uh high traffic density into what's clearly been used as a a parking lot for a business. Uh the lots around it were supposed to be used for other businesses of similar type. Um, I agree that we do need uh housing here in uh Seaside, especially low-income, but it seems like there's viable options for addressing reaching that housing from other approaches uh than through the parking lot uh that Gary Outlet has. Um, and I would be clearly an advocate of trying to reroute that, that the planning commission should strongly um, approach the developers to reroute the main entrances into that um, from a different from Avenue P from off of uh, 101. I believe it would be uh inappropriate to really have a high volume traffic road running right through uh commercial business areas in terms of uh you know the the potential injury and stuff to customers and clients of those business and you know just the uh people in general for that parking lot. I mean for the apartment building. I think that you run a risk of encroachment of people from the apartment building starting to bring their cars and other things that they don't use so often out into the parking lot at grocery outlet and then just going to encroach on their available space. And so I'm a advocate of uh new apartment buildings for sure, but I

would uh clearly ask that the commission look at moving the uh developers to find a different main access into the apartment units. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else in opposition?

I'm Susan Desawn. and I live in 2009 Maple Street in Seaside. I'm not I have questions about the proposal. I know that you said that we have uh everything is according to um what our codes say. My question on this particular development is how many parking places are there going to be for 36 units? Uh 36 units is 60 plus parking places because most units most people have more than one car. So that is very concerning to me. The other thing is about I have seen kids in the parking lot just being kids and with the added traffic I think the proposal that maybe we find a separate entrance would be very very advantageous. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else please come up and speak? Uh my name is Satie Mercer. I live at 1658 Whispering Pines in Seaside. Uh and I think like most of us were um not in opposition of the build of the housing that's important for our community. Uh but again for the access. Um, I think that uh I'm uh representing the Chamber of Commerce and what I can say about that is that it doesn't just affect the transiting between the um parking lot and the front door for patrons, but it also affects Grocery Outlet as a business as uh the the having to manage the freight that comes in uh and the staffing uh impact that it could have with delays in parking um could be significant for his income. And I think it's important that um as a a a vital member of this community providing that food service for our uh community that uh we take that as um something that is in consideration as well. Uh again the economic impact of um for for Grocery Outlet um again having to um requiring more time for his employees uh and for his freight. Additionally, I do have one small concern for the access going all the way through through the properties in between the two buildings. Um, as Avenue S likes to back up from time to time and that would create a uh throughway from u Avenue S all the way to um even further. So, past past um the old hardware store and and beyond. So, I guess that would be a concern as well. I think that's it. Thanks. Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak in opposition? Come on up.

My name is Patrick Ansro. I live at 161 Hilltop Drive. Um I'm here to support Tom. He's a great member of the community. uh the grocery store that he operates is uh another great asset to this community. Having a road, let me just paint a picture for you. It's like having a road that has high access uh to the apartment buildings which are definitely needed. You know, we'll take that. But imagine if you are at Safeway and Safeway's parking lot is on the other side of 101 and you have to walk across 101 with your groceries, your kids, elderly people to get to your car and then deposit your groceries. You know, take that in a smaller scale. That's what I envision this three-way being. I think if you're going to build something, then you need to create also an access for those apartments. It's about safety and forethought and I think we need more of that. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anybody on Zoom? Yes, Chair. I'm gonna see if we can get Joe Tanner. Joe, can you hear us? Can you unmute yourself and go ahead and make your comment? Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Yes.

Great. Thank you so much. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight at the commission. Uh my name is Joe Tanner. I'm the entitlement and permit manager for Grocery Outlet corporate office. Uh Grocery Outlet number one supports new affordable safe housing in the city of Seaside. Uh housing definitely benefits our shoppers, employees, and of course the broader community. However, this proposed apartment complex places the community in danger. Our concern is not about the housing itself, but about how residents will access the site and the safety of everyone, shoppers, employees, and future apartment residents. Current proposal would route apartment residential traffic through what was designed to be a parking lot. uh as the uh I believe the director can tell you that that street does not meet uh current city standards as as it is right now. Uh it may be a public road but it just does not meet the uh safety standards. Uh this would also place our shoppers especially families with young children who are walking from their cars to the stores in danger of being hit by vehicles. Uh the de excuse me and uh groceries the developer's own application indicates across from indicates access from highway 101 Avenue P in Irvine. Uh this route avoids pedestrian conflict zones and seems far safer and more practical. Uh gross reality is committed to being a good neighbor and community partner. We want housing to succeed in the city of Seaside. We simply ask that the city commission require site designs that do not compromise customer, employee, and resident safety. Thank you uh very much for your time.

Thank you. Is there anybody else? I'm not seeing anybody else on Zoom with their hand raised. Okay, Mr. Stemper. Mr. Stemper, yes. you have an opportunity to rebut. Yes,

I understand the concerns that Grocery Outlet has, but it is a in fact a city right away that goes through there. I would have to confer with Jeff, but I believe the trip count to the apartment unit would be less daily than actual retail development being put on that property, such as a grocery store, something to that fact. We did a trip count based on the state highway department and the count is actually pretty low. The highway department did not require us to do any more traffic impact studies because of the low traffic count. And Jeeoff, you could probably I'm not sure. You'd have to look up the trip counts.

Yeah, I would have to review that. I don't have it numbers for but but it is a city street. The grocery outlet when it was developed knew that they chose to put a parking lot on one side, a business on the other side. Yes, I understand their concern, but the developer of that property knew that. And to penalize my client for something that was approved by them as developers and the city is unfair to my client.

Okay, then. Well, you may as well just seat where you're seated because excuse me, at this point, I'm going to just close public comment because nobody else is out there. Okay. And I'm going to turn it over to the commission. Mr. Mitchell, what have you say?

Roger, are you there? I am. Sorry about that. Uh, so this was a a city street at the time that Grocery Outlet built it, right, Jeff? Yes, that's correct. What? I'm sorry. What was the question? I couldn't couldn't catch him. He asked if this was a city street at this point. The question was Go ahead, Roger. Okay, that's I mean that's that's really the only question.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. So just just for clarity, you asked if this was a city street at time grocery outlet was was constructed and yes, this this was the city street at that time and still is at this time. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Roger. Roger. Sorry, Gretchen. Miss Stmer, I have two questions. Um are Avenue O and Irvine both um streets with no parking on them or will they be designated no parking zones? I don't believe there are no parking zones at this time. Um, but uh I believe the fire department was going to require some striping and and designations of fire lanes in that area.

Okay. And then my other question is since Irvine is a um a city street, um can we make a call to um to have a marked crosswalk put in front of Grocery Outlet to kind of help out with that problem of of having people cross the street? at least people be aware that there's people crossing.

Uh I'm going to see if it'll show it here. So, as Let me make the screen a little bigger. You might be able to see it better. Um as you can see from the aerial photos, there's two crosswalks there already uh coming out of Grocery Outlet. Now, unfortunately, Grocery Outlet has um you can see it in this photo here, they have blocked for outdoor merchandising one of their safe crosswalks right there. So, this is all fenced in. No access outside of except for through their entryway here. So, that uh that right there alone is is could potentially create an issue. Um, but there are currently two crosswalks going across Irvine Street that were installed by Grocery Out at the time of this development. And I believe the um developer for this project is proposing a crosswalk connecting uh from this sidewalk here to the sidewalk that goes on the west side of Urban Street.

Okay. Okay. Thank you for that clarification because I'd seen the other ones going the other direction but not that one. Anything more? No, that's it. Okay, Mr. Rose. Uh, no comment at this time. Okay, Mr. Haidider, I have no comment at this time. Mr. Craft. Uh, Jeff, could you pull up the previous slide, please? Uh, the one with all the red markings. Yes. Thank you. Um, I'm having a little hard time wrapping my head around how it's a street when there's nothing there through where the current lot is and it's still labeled as a street.

It's it's platted as a public right ofway. Okay. Um, so the street will get developed from Irvine where it ends to the south to connect into Avenue P and a and that'll be built as a standard city street with sidewalks on both sides per the developer's plan. And then Avenue P will be widened. Right now you can drive back there. It's fully drivable. I did it today. Um, but it's narrow. Uh, and you can see toward the west end where it says Avenue P, it the rideway itself narrows down to only 20 ft. So, it's not a a a proposed street size that we would allow in today's standards. Now, mind you, this was platted probably early 1900s, late 1800s. Sure.

So, streets and designs were different then. However, the developer property does front on Avenue P on a 40 foot wide rideway. So that will be widened and graveled and improved to where it can be used to drive down Avenue P, access Irvine Street and access the the developer parking lot for the apartment complex just like they'll be able to access uh Irvine Street from the north uh driving south through um into their own parking lot as well. Uh so while there's kind of a street there now, it's all unimproved, but it is platted plat right away. Okay. And then Jackson Street.

Jackson Street. So the unique part of this property that I did not map out for the commission is there is regulatory floodway that surrounds this on the south end in Avenue P. So the the developer is going to have some engineering work to do to to meet flood plane development requirements to be able to to complete this. But it also runs on the west side uh or east side on Jackson Street. and Jackson Street also falls into the wet wetlands and the salt flats that hit the the Nijana Creek right there.

Um, so that's all area that'll likely never be developed. Um, and the area to the south where Avenue P is can be developed, but it's still part of the regulatory floodway. So, it has to meet our flood plane ordinance requirements in order to to make that work. Okay. um to the south where the street south where it just says avenue. Yep. What is that?

That's Avenue P. And then there is a I believe it's a city-owned property that cuts through South to Avenue R that's been utilized as a street. However, it's not a platted right away. It's an actual I believe city-owned piece of property that has been used for a street. And I don't know the history of it. We have these all over town. Some of them are restricted by deed to only allow for through thoroughfare for traffic. Um we have a couple of them in our town that are just odd um anomalies in in our in our mapping.

Got it. Um thank you. I was I was referring to the one not the very bottom one that says avenue. I was referring to the one next just just south of the the building the actual against the building the grocery outlet. Yeah. So that is um also a platted ride ofway that goes through to South Jackson. So the grocery outlet is is surrounded on four sides by public rightway with a small parking lot to the north, but that is also a public ride ofway. Very interesting. Yeah. Okay, got it. I didn't see the O. I don't see the O there. Um,

so while they're storing they they're they have a dumpster and some other equipment being stored there. That's not legal. That's you're storing property on public rideway. Um, part of this development that'll have to be moved and addressed by Grocery Outlet. Um, they've they've built a dumpster facility on the north end. You can see it in the north

east part of their complex. That's where their trash storage is supposed to be. Um, their loading bay is directly adjacent to that I believe it is Avenue O right to the south there. So, the storage trailer they're using there, all that needs to be on their property. It's it's no different than a member of the public uh encroaching and storing their own personal property on a public rideway. That's a public rideway. It's open to the public. Okay. Thank you. Um my I don't I don't have a solution. I had a thought. um how Broadway comes down. Um Broadway here comes from 101 down. It is uh a oneway um you

west Thank you. west of of of Wana. It goes, you know, it's west of Waja, right? No, not sorry, not Wana. Getting my mind back over to the other side. West of Holiday. It's one way down and then um it splits into a two-way. Is it possible and just as a maybe a compromise the section that's undeveloped is a one-way one way either either way. Can it be designated as a one-way thorough fell? That cuts that cuts traffic literally in half. I don't know if if I can recommend that without traffic studies that show that that would make a difference and that that would be feasible and not create other unforeseen issues.

Sure. So, that would be something that we would need to bring public works in on to have them weigh in on the feasibility of that. Um, I have concerns with that as it's uh it Avenue P based on the way it's platted with that narrow narrow rideway right there. Increasing traffic on that um is significant to the folks that live along that and that is a two-way street with with only a one-way width. So, it it could potentially create other issues um and more traffic passing through Irvine Street to access Avenue P if it was a oneway out. Got it.

That would mean the RV park, the RVs, the houses, all would access through Irvine. Okay. Anything more? Mhm. Now, it seems that obviously we're, you know, we're all talking about the issue of the traffic and the potential safety hazards and such. Have there been any other ideas on the developers end that could help mitigate the concerns that have been brought?

We have spent five months working with city on this so far, exploring multiple options. Um, this is the site plan that was preferred and approved by the city, but This is not the first rendering of going through this process. Jeff has a lot of time into coming up with what he thinks is best for the city. And I figured that would be the answer. I just wanted to to see if there was any other spark or something that might have come up. So, uh, nothing right. That's it for now. For now.

Okay. I'm just going to make random comments and questions having no swing either way. Okie dokie. On the bike parking, um we realize it's no longer condition five or possibly condition five. Um and you're going to be having the bike parking underneath the stairs. Yes. It will that be uh open bike parking or will it be in like a hut, if you will, closeted?

Um they are they're covered stairways, so they're out of the weather, but in the past we have not put doors over those areas. Okay. So, they are open. All righty. Um Jeff, has the fire department reviewed these plans yet? Yes. And they walk the site with us along with public works. Okay. and uh they've approved turning radiuses and accesses and then they'll likely when we go to development permits um add additional striping requirements and and uh anything uh else but fire hydrant locations FDC connections turning radius has all been reviewed.

Okay. Okay. Wonderful. Mr. Mr. Sner, um in the uh in the initial part of your application, you mentioned that uh you're working with the state regarding uh parking. Oh, having the parking over two lots that um because of the way your plans are the apartment buildings. Yes. And you're waiting for approval from the state. Is that right? No, that is part of the um Senate bill. for that to Jeff. Yeah, it's the Senate Bill 1537 mandatory land use adjustments that was went into effect by the legislature on January 1 of this year. Okay.

Um essentially, uh when it comes to parking, if it's net new housing, which this is net new housing, um communities are required to give a total adjustment to parking requirements. Total meaning 39 units could be built or more with not a single parking space. and it's mandated if it meets the criteria and the criteria is net new housing it's very very minimal then we have to approve it at administrative level right okay I thought I read somewhere that you were waiting for something specific from the state and to answer's um question 51 spaces

okay there's that we understand the lighting it plan is is on its way it's coming it's TBD let me scratch that off. Um, let's see. So, what are you, uh, Mr. Stemper, what are you considering the main access road to these apartments? The main access will be Irvine. Will be Irvine off of Avenue P or Avenue N? Which one's the one over behind the other park? O's on the north side, P's on the south.

It'll come off of O. Right. But, um, how are you getting to Avenue O is what I'm asking. I mean, you've got Can you bring up Yeah, bring it back up. Is it We'll bring up the pictures because that always helps. Okay. So, Avenue O is down below where the the north, excuse me, it's the north street where it says avenue there on the far north. So, that's avenue N. Okay. Thank you. That's what I'm asking. Yes. And um

our our proposal is to use it the way that it was originally laid out in the original development. That was the access in the original development for the development of this property. So we have continued to follow the original. Okay. That I just wanted to to make make it clear which is the primary entrance. Avenue N is the primary entrance. And yes, the the turn lane and all that there. So, Avenue P is a secondary entrance, correct? Okay. Okay, there's that. Thank you. Um, [Music] just bear with me here. Okay,

so that's answered. That's great. So um to answer uh somebody's question regarding the trips even though the traffic impact study isn't required 244 is what was stated. So, um, yeah, that's a lot of trips going up and down, but at the time when this was when, uh, Grocery Outlet was developed and the way the parking lot is, I've heard testimony saying, uh, there are concerns with people walking across the parking lot, increased danger, if you will, of more cars traveling uh, north and south on Irvine. Well, you know, it's yes, there will be increas increased traffic, but if you're having to cross that street anyway to go to and from the grocery store, from the parking lot, it's still dangerous, right? So, that is just something I've noted. Um, so you know the whether it's apartments or another retail, I don't know that I can see how different the apartments and retail is as far as the traffic and the safety concerns.

Yeah. Um, go ahead. Go ahead. Come back. Jeff, what in this type of a situation, what type of additional um traffic uh well, not mitigation, speed bumps, signage. Um I I I you know, I I see both sides of the coin here. I too, you know, I'm pretty sure all of pretty pretty sure all of us have shopped there at some point. Um I didn't know it was a street. How can it be clearly demarcated that it is a street? I just thought, "Oh, hey, cool crosswalk." But I didn't know that was an actual city street. So, in in traffic control mitigation, speed bumps, signage, those flashy um the flashing stop signs for crosswalk, that type of thing. Um what what who's responsible? What can be done? Can anything be done? requirements from the city to be put on the developer for their section.

Well, which part as it stands right now, Grocery Outlet has already installed ballards uh to keep vehicles from driving into the main traffic area of people coming out the store. It does look like there is some space there. Um the speed bump idea becomes tricky because it slows and uh causes issues with fire department access. So that's not something the city has explored before.

Um I don't recall anywhere in town where speed bumps have been installed. Um uh signage can be placed uh to identify the speed limit going through there, but it is a city street. Uh our city streets are 25 miles per hour. And so, is that going to increase speeds that are already going through there or decrease speeds going through there? If you're standing on a street corner and someone drives by you at 25 miles an hour in a congested area, the appearance is they're speeding and it's fast when in reality they aren't.

Um, I can reach back into my prior uh life and testify to that that if it's crowded, Broadway, I believe, is signed 15 miles an hour. I challenge you to try to drive 15 miles an hour on Saturday on Broadway. Yeah. Um it it the appearance is is you're driving out of control and you're not. You're you're at the speed limit.

So traffic calming measures um you know the there are a multitude of of ways that traffic calming can be achieved. One of those is allowing cars to park on the street to make it more difficult to go fast through an open area. Um not saying that's a great idea here. Uh but anything that has to do with traffic calming, I would want to see some kind of uh traffic study done to show that the the mitigation that you're trying to do will be achieved and be achieved safely and not create unforeseen problems.

Um I'm not a traffic expert. I'm not a traffic engineer, but I could see putting a 25 mph sign there creating faster speeds. Um because right now people don't realize that you can't go 25 through there. So, are you saying not to post a speed limit sign might be better than to post? I I am just because the nature of this specific situation um but that's also something the city can explore is lowering lowering speed limits in certain areas and that could be something explored here um is making it a 15 mph road. But again, in a congested area such as Broadway, would that create further issues?

Sure. Um and then I have another question in this specific in in this for this specific case. What does the highway overlay zone review? Uh this is so we are reviewing the highway overlay zone. They're not asking for another one. Correct. That's correct. Yes. And the the criteria is in the staff report. Um highway overlay zone requires uh landscaping setbacks and items if they're adjacent to the highway. this project is not adjacent to the highway.

Um what it does trigger though is to ensure that traffic counts don't require a traffic impact analysis. Uh so if this was a higher intensity use say a convenience store gas station something like that that would generate a higher traffic count then there would be a traffic impact analysis that would be required to be performed to ODOT their specifications and standards as well as cities

um which would then bring suggestions on what they need to do um in order to uh achieve the goal of calming traffic. But 36 units is not a large development. This is this is fairly small. It does generate additional traffic counts. I believe it around 280ish per day. 18 trips per hour is is what the traffic engineers um study shows. So you're talking 18 additional trips per hour driving down Irvine Street in a 60-minute period. I mean, you got to put that kind of in perspective and and what that means. So while yes it will generate additional trips um you know the hope with everything in planning and what the city's been trying to do by lowering parking space requirements promoting walkability promoting bikeability you know the hope is that cars this is close enough to our downtown core and our core business area that uh at the peak times of year maybe cars stay parked and people take alternative transportation methods to get to where they're going.

Thank you. Any more? Okay. Um, so Mr. Ster, I have a question for you. Um, I didn't see any references to a fencing plan with the exception of the the pond. Uh, do you plan on what are your plans on fencing the uh the apartments? At this time, we have no plan for fencing. The fencing was to maintain the safety of that pond that's back there that quite frankly should have been fenced when it was built. It's unsafe as it sits and we're going to remedy that problem.

Okay. So, that's one thing and it's just my personal opinion and Roger, wherever you're at, um I would like to see fencing around the entire property. You're inviting uh families there. uh 36 apartments. Um Avenue P, even though it's uh it doesn't have sidewalks, it doesn't it's not even asphalted. Uh just for the the safety and the additional uh trip count of um cars going north and south to Irvine. uh you've got sidewalks, but to ensure those pedestrian safely safety, I would like to see perimeter fencing all the way around. That's my personal opinion. If anybody joins me on that, that's great. But, uh that's one thing I would like to see. Anybody have any other questions, comments?

I do have a question. Um, so I'm looking at the back side of the um the the the side of the buildings that go along Avenue P. And it says, "Is there any access what is going to be back there?" Because it I keep seeing steep bank area. Steep bank area. So, are these people able to come out the back of their are there little patios or are they is there no access to walk for people to walk out the back of those?

The city has proposed that we improve that. Um, one of Jeff's thoughts and that we've gone through and that's why there's stairways down to that area is he felt that overflow parking could wind up in that 40 foot if I that that that's part of the reason that that's happening. We would prefer not to go that direction. I mean, it's an added cost of the project. Um, we have to agree with Jeff. It's probably a greater benefit than a cost. It will relieve some issues, but yes, there are accesses down to that grade,

but there's no specific access out of each unit, right? There's correct there's no patio or door going out back. There is there there's no patio or doors out that there is a stairway on the east end uh east end parking lot that'll go down to Avenue P. And then splitting the two buildings on the west lot, there's a a walkway and stairway going down. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'm just trying to find that particular plan. There we go. There we go. Mr. Mitchell, do you have any other comment or question? Uh, nothing else. Thank you.

Okay. Um, Chris. Okay. No. Okay. Um, I don't know. I would, like I said, I'm back on that fencing thing. I don't know how many of you are, but I would like to see that as condition five saying how bike is no longer a condition. Where where would you propose the fencing? The units don't access uh the back side of the buildings. Um

correct. But um just I I like finding the fencing around apartment buildings just for security reasons if nothing else. And with uh particularly on the east and west side of Irving with that uh uh traffic access going north and south, we're going to have families there. I'd hate to I'd hate to see it's a safety issue. I'll just I'm just going to say that. I would just like to see perimeter fencing and uh gates were appropriate um around the uh entire project. I I Are you talking about like a chain link fence or a privacy fence?

Oh, chain link fence. Something something like that. I mean, I I could talk to I could see it on the west side to separate to separate where the seaside or RV park is, if it's still there. As of this map, it is uh that portion. Um, but in the parking lot portion, I don't see I personally do not see why that would be. What do you think of the southside? No, Southside like they said, there's no direct access down there. What's the elevation? If I'm looking at the building from Avenue P, I'm looking at it. What are we

Am I looking at concrete here? you know, up to a certain point and then because this falls in the flood plane, correct? Yeah. If you look at your if you look at the proposed site plan, you'll see the the uh floodway delineated on there. Um which fencing can be problematic in the floodway, right? Um but uh I'm trying to see if there's any elevation marks on here. Um, it looks like maybe an eight foot difference between the middle of the road. Mark might be able to answer that. Yeah. Am I right? About eight feet. Okay.

So, you'll notice on the east end on the southeast corner of that parking lot, uh there's a proposed uh concrete block wall that'll hold the parking lot, keep it flat. Sure. Um, how tall are you proposing that? Six. Two to four feet. two to four. Okay. Drops down. So, you gottal.

Okay. For those that couldn't hear, it said two to four feet uh about 8 feet on a steep bank that drops down to Avenue P. Again, I'm I'm not I'm not one personally that would push for an entire perimeter fence, but um I just I on the if anything on the west side separating the RV park, whatnot, I could see that that would be an idea, but I I'm not going to Okay. What do you think of uh east and west side of Irving? Irvine, excuse me. Um as it runs along the parking lot and the Yeah. Uh, that's a sidewalk. That is a sidewalk.

And so you can't really fence in a sidewalk. Well, no. The property line. See right here? Oh. Oh, and that's a sidewalk. I have no opinion on that. That's not something I would Okay. Yeah. Does anybody else have an opinion on that? Because I'm not going to force it down anybody. I'm just saying. I I don't think that it's necessary. Okay. Not you either.

Okay. Well, there we go. I was beat out. All righty. Are there any further comments or questions or uh concerns? Okay. If not, I will take a motion on one thing or another page. Just a minute. There's a lot of pages to go through.

Mhm. There it is. Um, and you said, you mentioned Jeff earlier that this general uh, it's a general commercial C3. And so the only motion that really isn't on the table would be to motion that we accept the or we approve the conditional use. Correct. Conditional use approve the highway overlay zone. And um I need to make sure that they're I think there's

the parking percentage of uh of uh compact spaces go over 30. It does. So you'll need to approve that as well. Um and I believe that is on their site plan. I think he and I believe the they've got 35% uh parking compact. So, anything over 30 has to be approved by the planning commission and it can go up to 60. Okay. [Music] Okay. I'm just reviewing a little bit.

Okay. I'll I'll give you a moment to review. He making the motion. I don't know. Oh. Oh. Okay. Well, I I'll make the motion that we accept the applicant application as presented. Uh 769-25-0000. I get four of them. 24-PL. I'll second it. And that was Roger. And just for confirmation and clarification, that's approving the highway overlay zone, approving the conditional use, and approving the 35% compact and and all the conditions. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. That was uh Mr. Rose and Mr. Mitchell. Any further discussion, folks? No. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Roger said I too. The application's been approved. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

No, she was not. Okay, on that note, back to page one. Okay. Gosh, where's my first page? Oh, there we are. Thank you. There we are. Yeah, I know. It's just a matter of getting to that page. I'm a paper person. Alrighty. We are now on to ordinance administration. I have nothing. Nothing. Okay. And comments from city staff? I have nothing.

You have nothing. Okay. Comments from the commission, Mr. Craft, if you'd like to. Well, we we have to adjourn to do that portion of it. Okay, that's true. Okay. Um, I will not be present for uh o I Jeff, can you confirm October 7th is our next meeting?

Yes, I think it is because I just wanted to it will be October 7th. Yes. And we do have an agenda item or two for that meeting. So, we will convene. Uh, I will be at a I can't speak. I had a convention in um Seattle, so I will not be present for that one. And you will not be zooming? I nope, I won't be able to because all of our evening events start that night. So Okay. No problem. Mr. Rose, any comments? Nope. Miss Stmer, my last meeting will be the October meeting as I'm can't thank you enough for being here. Yes. Thank you.

Yes. And I for was totally remiss, sorry world, to welcome Commissioner Haidider to the planning commission. And so now I'm going to put him on the spot for any comments. I have no further comments. Did you have a good time? Oh, sure. And I have nothing to say. So, um, when that Roger Oh, Roger. Oh my goodness. I'm just seeing your smiling face. I don't have I don't have anything for you. Sorry about that. Okay. And with that being said, we are adjourned. Now we can go to

Yes. And now we go to the planning commission work session. Thank you. You can't go anywhere.

Um and on the topic of the of the design review board discussion, um I have had an absolute doozy of a summer. I talked a little bit about it before it started. I won't go into it. Um I have done no research, no work, no nothing. I'm pretty sure um that might be the case for a lot here. Um after talking with uh Chair Montero like to go ahead and table that discussion until the January meeting v um with me not being here next month, we will have we have a brand new commissioner. We will have another brand new commissioner. So, I think a a refresh of um of the discussion should be had once we've stabled out, got through the holidays and such. So, anybody have any

I thank you for your cander about not being able to get it? Yeah, with what I've gone through, absolutely not. So, Jeff, is that okay? Yeah, that's perfectly fine. Great. So, we'll take it off the agenda going forward. And that's all I had for it. Okay. Great. And that work session was probably the fastest we've ever had. Okay. Gav gave it out. Gavl it. Okay.