Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

There he is.

What? Great, man. How are doing? Good. I'm alright. YouTube. How are doing, We're going live. We're live. We're fine.

Not having a club.

That's a surprise. Just a. Yeah. Might wanna turn your mic turn your mic off then. Are you ready to speak to the public?

Can I need to take my meeting in here?

I need

to do my meeting in here.

Because I got three copies of the book.

I see. I see. It's right here. We got it. We go.

Yeah. It's fast

enough.

Okay. And we're already recording everybody that needs to be recording this?

Yes. Yes.

Yep. Yes. Okay. We're gonna call to order the city of Sherwood Planning Commission meeting for 02/24/2026. Roll call? Joe Simpson?

Here. Commissioner Talatson? Here. Commissioner Vance? Here. Commissioner Kai? Here. Commissioner Barnes? Here. Commissioner Waidola?

Present.

Alright. Thank you very much. This evening, we do not have a consent agenda, so we'll roll right into council liaison announcements. Councilor Giles?

Yes. Thank you for having me here. I'm just getting over a cold or else I would be there in person with you. I'm mindful of of your health here. So the big thing that is a partnership here between the planning commission and city council is as we are getting or as we're looking to the old town plan adoption that we I think you guys have had a first look at already at least, if not more than one look.

We're looking at some recommendations. We'd like some specifics, and I know that the staff is working on it. But, we wanna be creative. We wanna open it up to, you know, what is going to have the biggest bang for the buck. Our bucks are very limited. And so we're looking at some things that we can do that are nonfinancial, some things that are a little bit financial or maybe a little bit each year, you know, as the facade grant, some of these different things that you, have have looked into. And there's generally a broad feeling for, let's, let's see what we can do. And part of

it might be, hey. We're gonna do the facade grants to make it so that

we have more of a unified look in Old Town, or we we, you know, we we we go, and there there might be some code things in there, etcetera. So just know we're looking for feedback and advice on that from the planning commission on on trying to and from staff as well. Right? This is one of those things where we're we're opening it up to all the and the community as well. The good ideas, we're we're trying to figure out what can we do with our limited amount of money and budget to to build a kind of old town that is vibrant and and alive.

So, as you see that and as it keeps coming before you, try not to self censor and try to, you know, speak up if you have ideas that are gonna help, that thing go forward. We had a great planning session. I I I can't remember the last time we've met together, but I we we have our our goals. And one of the things that we wanna do is make sure that we're meeting more with the the different boards and commissions and having joint meetings and making sure that you have real work. And it's less so with the planning commission because you're a little bit different envy than some of the other boards and commissions, but that was a big thing on our agenda was to make sure that all of the boards and commissions feel empowered and they feel that they have stuff to work on that is meaningful in a meaningful way.

We also have, we're gonna adopt the the goals that we've set. There's a, you know, obviously, a big part of that is is trying to figure out, Sherwood West, and and we're a little bit of a holding pattern on some of that due to some of the laws that are being passed in Salem, but also some lawsuits that are ongoing. But just know that we'd like, you know, that's a that's a big part of our planning for this this next year is to make sure that we can have that move forward. I think that is all I have unless there's something else that, you guys have questions about or, have any questions for me as a city councilor.

I don't see. Does anybody have any questions for councilor Charles?

I do. The charter amendment's passed, I believe. Is that correct? And then and yeah. And what what are the council's next steps with that, if any?

So we're going to approve the amendments, I think, at this next meeting, or or maybe we did the last meeting. I can't remember, but I've seen a lot of agendas. And that that essentially just puts it on, you know, some stuff that we've always kind of assumed that we have home rule and a few other things. We're just codifying it. So it doesn't actually change, how we how we do things.

We just wanted it in our charter so it gives us standing if, we have to take it to court, you know, if for you know, the community standards are gonna be ignored or, you know, design standards or or different things like that. We wanted to have local control over that. And so so part of it was just making sure that that that was a part of the of the charter. We have not decided anything beyond accepting the amendment as, the voters approved.

Thank you.

Alright. I think that's all the questions we have. Commissioner Kai, did you have anything before we move on?

No. I'm good. Thank you.

Alright. We'll go on to staff announcements, and thank thank you, counselor, for attending this evening, virtually, especially.

My pleasure.

The only staff announcement I have is just really following councilor Giles. The Old Town strategic action plan will come before you. We're looking at the March 10 planning commission meeting, so just about two weeks from today. And, really, last week, we had work session with council, and, like, councilor Giles said, we had a good work session on the investment funding aspect of that plan. So I encourage you, to take a look at that and, obviously, provide any guidance to the to the council. But, that is the only thing on the horizon right now on your docket for next month.

Alright. Thank you very much. Mhmm.

I do I do have one announcement. I don't think we've told the whole commission or maybe anybody. Commissioner Wamsley, unfortunately, had to step down from planning commission for some personal reasons. So we do we do have a vacancy. Well, first of all, thank you, commissioner Wamsley. He can't be here tonight, but for his service. And, yeah, we have an opening. So, you know, anyone who's interested in serving, send them our way. We'll be doing an open recruitment, but we can add them to the list as well. So thanks.

I have a question regarding the ruling and rejection of the application, is that something that will be brought before us or more information about

The SB. Exemptions. Yeah. SB fifteen thirty seven? Yeah. Yeah. We can answer questions. Yeah. I mean, we can answer questions quickly now and happy to chat more offline or or during a work session.

Okay. So it was not approved.

Correct.

Our application was not approved. Are we going to revise and resubmit, or is it under consideration?

At this point, in order to resubmit, we probably wanna get the blessing from counsel to re to resubmit it. We you know, getting the exemption approved would would likely be in in alignment with council goals, but but, truly, there are some, nuances and some, in terms of, like, what the exemption actually gets you. And I'll just say, as an example, if we if we get the exemption in place, it's not completely clear to staff at the city if we would then be required to approve all variances even under 17 units per acre. So the the ex exemption is around mandatory variances over 17 units per acre. So, basically, if if an applicant comes to us and we don't have the exemption in place and the development is for 17 units per acre or more, we would without the exemption, we have to approve those if it results in more units, lowers the cost, and or meets the third criteria.

What's not clear to me and the nuance here is if we have that exemption in place, there's a requirement that we approve 90% of variances while we have the exemption. Otherwise, we lose it. And I think an open question, which we haven't really had answered from the state, is is that only 17 units per acre or more of that 90%? Or if we get a very if you guys get a variance request, for example, at five units per acre and they wanna do four stories instead of three stories, are those types of applications also subject to that 90% approval rate? So I think there 's just a lot of nuances that as when we got into it, it's like, well, it might not actually be smart to have the exemption, actually.

And that's where I think a work session with city council would be good to kinda chat through those pros and cons and then see if they actually wanna resubmit. But just to be clear, like, where things stand now, we don't have the exemption in place. So if we get an application for more for housing that's over 17 units per acre and it meets one of the three criteria like this housing development did here, then we have to approve it. Without the exemption in place, however, if we get a variance request f had anything under 17 units per acre, it's very clear that you have no obligation to approve it. And that's where we are right now.

And that's why I say I don't know that it actually benefits us to have that exemption in place. So it's complicated, with all of these state laws. They're new. We're figuring things out with the state as they figure it out, frankly. So that's kinda where things are at.

Alright. Thank you for the update. Appreciate that. Alright. Any other questions of staffing before we move on to community comments? Alright. Community comments are limited to those items not already on the agenda. If you wish to testify either under community comments or during the public hearing tonight, we ask you to fill out one of the blue testimony cards in the back and turn it into one of the staff members so we can have it for the record. And I have no blue cards for community comments. Alright.

And no one signed up to testify for public community comments over the Wi Fi, the the YouTube, however that works. Alright. The old interweb situation. Over the Wi Fi screen.

Next item.

Next item. Moving on. Alright. Public hearings. Okay.

The planning commission will hold a public hearing on l u twenty twenty five dash 018 p a. The purpose of this hearing is to provide the public with an opportunity to testify and provide to the Planning Commission concerning l u twenty twenty five zero one eight p a amendment to the Sherwood Zoning and Development Code to allow food card pots in pods in the light industrial zone as a conditional use permit. The commission will conduct tonight's hearing in the following order. Staff will present the staff report followed by questions, if any, by the planning commission. We will then open the hearing for public testimony, and each person's time will be limited as follows.

The applicant will have thirty minutes split between presentation and rebuttal. Persons in favor of the application will get four minutes each. Persons opposed to the application will get four minutes each, and then rebuttal from the applicant, which is the remainder of thirty minutes. We will then close the public hearing. There'll be final comments by staff, questions of staff, if any, by the commission, discussion and deliberation by the commission.

A recommendation to city council may be made at the close of this hearing or the matter may be continued to a time and date certain. If the matter is continued to a date certain, this will be the only notice of that date you receive. Staff will recognize people who have signed up to speak twenty four hours in advance, and we have none. Correct? When it is your time to provide testimony, please state your name and address for the record, and any questions should be addressed through the chair.

The role of the planning commission this evening is to make a recommendation to city council for final decision on the pending manner. Planning department will now present the staff report.

And, Dan, if you can put up the presentation. Sorry. Not commissioner Bantz there. We got IT Dan in the back. Thank you.

Yeah.

Evening, commissioners. Tonight, you'll be hearing a proposed plan amendment under l u twenty twenty five dash zero one eight p a to allow food cart pods within the light industrial zone as a conditional use and subject to the provisions outlined under the recently adopted chapter sixteen thirty nine food cart pods. This amendment is applicant proposed by ORWA Sherwood LLC and would be applicable to only light industrial zoned properties within 500 feet of Twalton Sherwood Road. Here, you can see a brief description of the information just iterated. Application materials were made available to the public on the link below.

Here, you can view the applicable criteria associated with the proposed amendment ranging from title 16 Sherwood zoning and community development code, Sherwood's comprehensive plan, the metro urban growth management functional plan, statewide planning goals, and general consistency with the transportation planning rule. Firstly, staff are gonna share with the commission the proposed amendments as adjusted by staff in effort to better align the proposal with existing code. Please note there are no substantive changes between what the applicant proposes and the adjustments provided by staff. As illustrated above, food cart pods would fall under the umbrella of eating and drinking establishments and have three associated footnotes, limitations on size as mandated by title four under the urban growth management functional plan, be subjected to the criteria under chapter sixteen thirty nine food cart pods, and be required to be entirely sited within 500 feet of Twalton Sherwood Road. Under Chapter sixteen-thirty nine, the only adjustment, proposed by staff is the alteration of language within Section sixteen point three nine point zero three zero point c as to be inclusive of the industrial zone district and to minimize repetition.

Here, you can see the affected parcels in blue. Please note the area highlighted in blue is within 500 feet of Tualatin Sherwood Road, and therefore, submittals, would be required to be entirely sited within that area. Please note that the distance, begins as measured at the right of way line. But in general, in terms of general processes, nothing is expected to change. An application for a food cart pod will still be required to be processed under a type four site plan review process and a type three conditional use process as a consolidated application with the Planning Commission making the final decision.

This would lead into a final site plan review from staff to ensure all conditions of approval are met and the appropriate building permits are obtained, ultimately leading to the leasing of each food cart with each property owner being required to actively manage and regulate their respective pods. Again, for context, existing under sixteen thirty nine are listed on this slide. This is just kind of a high level view of of the things outlined in that chapter since you guys have already kind of went through the process of reviewing it. But there are no changes to how the development or management standards are implemented within that chapter. This would only be for use to allow the use within the Light Industrial Zone district.

Here, you can see a conceptual drawing of the proposed food cart pod provided by the applicant, offers the commission of visual representation of how this food cart pod development could ultimately take shape or form. And here's a list of updated revised information since the release of the staff report dated 02/17/2026. Again, there were there there were some changes to the tentative, city council hearings, from March 17 to April 7 and April 7 to April 21. And then there was correction to the date listed on the engineering memorandum. Here you can see, public notices and agency comments.

These were routed to each respective agency, within the time frame required by code and state. Public notice was issued in the Tiger Times publication and general wide city, wide posting was honored before January 20. At this time, no testimony or public comments were received prior to the public hearing. Therefore, recommends that the planning commission approve the findings in the staff report under l u twenty twenty five dash zero one eight plan amendment dated 02/17/2026 and recommend approval to city council. Planning commission can choose other alternatives.

They can continue the public hearing to a date certain if more information is needed, recommend approval of the application based on the findings in the staff report, recommend approval of the application with the revised findings and or conditions, or recommend denial of the application with revised findings. That that is it for staff. Thank you.

Is the engineering report date. I was looking for Oh

oh gosh. Sorry. Got too too crazy. There we go.

Revision of staff report under section three stating an engineering memorandum, February 9. Okay. Okay. I'm just looking for the engineering department memorandum, so I'll look for it later.

So did you see it?

Okay. Alright. I'll make a note and look for it because I don't I don't I don't see the engineering Letter. The memo.

All the all the appendices are labeled on page 16. That's right. None of them are.

The end? Engineering. Oh, it says engineering memo e. Okay. I must've oh, there it is. Sorry. It's a one pager. That's me. I didn't flag it. Sorry. Copy that. Alright. Thank you. Are there any questions to staff before we call the applicant up to provide testimony? Alright. Then I don't have any blue cards. So if the applicant will come up and provide your name and address for the record.

Good evening. My name is Brian Veracchione. I'm a planner at Mackenzie. We are in Portland. Our address is 1515 Southeast Water Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97214.

First off, I just wanted to say thank you, planning commissioners, chair Simpson, for being here tonight and, hearing this request. And, also, I wanna say thank you to staff. Hugo, Sean, and Eric have, coached us, off and on over probably a year now, as we batted around this idea. And, I really think that's the collaborative process that staff has had with the applicant team has really helped to refine the proposal and and get it in a a shape where staff was comfortable with it. So first off, I wanna clarify that Mackenzie has been retained by one of the property owners in the mapped area.

So, the the applicant, ORWA Sherwood LLC, owns a couple of properties that would be affected by it. Currently, one of those sites is vacant, and, that's on the West Side Of Century Drive. Then on the East side, they own a very large parcel. It's got four industrial buildings on it, and the north end is currently undeveloped. So, you know, the genesis of this idea it looks like Hugo's may be looking for the map.

Yeah. The genesis of that this idea was the property owner approaching us and and hearing about this new rules for food cart pods that the city had rolled out and said, boy, this this would be kinda interesting. But as you know, as currently written, the rules apply only to sites that are zoned commercial. And so geographically, the RC Zone and the GC Zone, there's a little bit in Old Town, but most of it's out by Highway 99 on the West side of town. Whereas the eastern portion of the city is where much of the employment industrial zoned land is cited.

So based on that sort of, you know, owner interest, but a mismatch in what's allowed, we all put our thinking caps on and met with staff and and talked about this and tried to figure out what's the way that we could, make some amendments that would benefit not only our client, but, other property owners as well and, even bigger picture, hopefully, the city as a whole. That's that's the goal here is how can we allow for a variety of locations for food cart pods. So we bounced around a few ideas. One of them was, well, what if what if we did a zone change? Can you see those maps on your computers?

Alright. Great. So, just to be more specific, the the two sites that our client owns are labeled with the the circle d and the circle d. So we thought about possibly doing a zone change to a commercial zone, but, that didn't seem ideal partly from, you know, public policy standpoint. Now you're doing spot zoning to drop a commercial zone in the middle of industrial.

Metro has designated this as industrial land, so I didn't really wanna go against that. And, also, it's it really opens up what a property owner could do. I mean, sometimes that's good. Sometimes it's not. In this case, there were a lot of concerns about traffic, particularly with the, improvements that Washington County was performing on to Walton Sherwood Road.

And so anytime there's a zone change, even if a property owner has a specific use in mind, the transportation planning rule says, well, you have to look at the worst case. So the owner wasn't interested in that, and it also didn't seem like quite the right fix. Cause all they really wanna do is everything that's allowed now, plus have the possibility of food cart pods. So, anyway, that's that's all the the genesis, the backstory. What we settled on for a method of how can we do this is, basically, a text amendment that's before you today.

We're trying to make it pretty narrowly crafted, so it doesn't affect all the light industrial land throughout the city. And, the rationale behind that was, well, Twalton Sherwood Road, it gets a fair amount of traffic, and it would be reasonable for some of that traffic to wanna stop off and have a place to eat. So that's why the 500 foot, offset from the road you know, honestly, it was kind of an arbitrary number. But, clearly, you'll notice graphically, it does encompass our client site, coincidentally. So we wanted also to make sure that we were really analyzing, well, what other property owners could make use of this.

So everything in the shaded blue is within the 500 feet, and it's about 50 acres. But then we tried to pick out, well, where are some areas where you actually might fit one of these? And so those are the lettered areas with the yellow dash line. And we came up with half a dozen different sites totaling about eight acres. The point of this exercise was how do we, you know, graphically and numerically show that if you were to adopt this code amendment, suddenly all your land wouldn't get used up by all your light industrial land wouldn't get used up by, food cart pods.

So, anyway, we're trying to narrowly craft something that benefits multiple property owners, but it's still fairly focused. So we think, overall, this will have multiple benefits. It benefits the employers on the East part of the city because now, you know, their employees can come here and eat lunch. Hopefully, that also reduces vehicle miles traveled because there's could be another opportunity for that's closer to where those employment sites are. And there's some homes not too far away, so, you know, the residents could have other options as well.

And, obviously, it would benefit the property owners by giving them one more potential use for their site. And, you know, big picture, looking at the local economy, we also think it would benefit small business owners because while there's a overall operator, the food cart pods themselves are typically small business owners and entrepreneurs who wanna try something new. So, Hugo mentioned on this, but, you know, there are some procedural protections built in to make sure that suddenly all this area wouldn't turn into food card pods because there's, the conditional use review process. So planning commission can look at, is it appropriate in the location that is proposed? Are there compatibility concerns?

You know, is all the would this use up the last remaining light industrial parcel? Or any of those considerations would be part of that site plan review, which would ensure that all the food cart pod standards are met. And and then as Hugo pointed out, there's some little footnotes about, limitations on size and, based on, metro limitations. So all of those would continue to apply. And then also at that time, there'd have to be a full transportation impact analysis.

So that's all to say that, we think there's lots of procedures and protections in place, so that you can fully evaluate any specific proposals that come in front of you in the future. It's all a little bit hypothetical at the moment because, we're just asking for asking for permission to allow us to ask for permission to do something. Anyway, The renderings that you saw, if you wouldn't mind flipping to that, those are also conceptual in nature. The, property owner asked us to sketch some things up. And so we reviewed the food car pod standards and tried to factor in the size limitations and so forth.

And so what's pictured there is probably about the biggest thing that you could ever get, by which I mean, the area is about 20,000 square feet for, you know, the combined area of the building, the food cart pods, the circulation, for pedestrians, and outdoor seating, and so forth. So that's like a, you know, maximum intensity, but could be pretty exciting. There's what we sketched up was 16 different food carts with a central building that would have shared seating, and there'd be some outdoor seating as well. And if this were placed on the larger of our two client sites, the it would face out towards Rock Creek, which would be neat. But, again, it's conceptual.

So no no guarantees that anything would look exactly like that. And if one of the other owners pro proposed something, then they could have a very different look. We think this was consistent with the comprehensive plan policies, and we gave you a pretty thick packet of stuff to back that up, as well as the state rules, the land use goals that apply statewide, and the transportation planning rule, and then metro rules and the city's code and and all that. So trying to make sure we're checking all the boxes on the transportation planning role. I I do wanna point out that the transportation engineers looked at it and concluded that it did not have a significant effect, which is the the keywords.

And so that all seemed fine, and Oda had no objections as well. And then finally, as Hugo noted, the the wording that we proposed for the amendment is slightly different than what staff proposed. So we had some things in paragraphs, and they moved just to footnotes. We don't have any objection to what staff has done. It's it's the same words, different places, so it's great. With all that, we'd like to request that the planning commission make a positive recommendation to city council, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have for me.

So just for clarification, you you're accepting the conditions and changes that staff has recommended.

I don't believe there are any conditions.

No conditions. Just the The

the change? Yes. Absolutely fine.

Okay. Mhmm. Just make sure. And then when we're looking at this, I just jump at a question before this picture moves away. Yeah. Your statement was this is 20,000 square foot for building, carts, seating, circulation.

But But that's true as circulation.

But not inclusive of the parking lot.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah. So Metro's limitations are really about the building size, for retail commercial type uses, and they don't regulate how much parking or any of that stuff.

And with the new state laws on a bus route, the parking is not can't and answer a question. The parking's not required. Is that a true is that oh, but that's industrial. Is is it in the is it required? How do we address parking?

So food cart pods have their own parking standard that's separate from the others. So I I believe it's two spaces per pod, I remember right.

Oh, okay.

It's a

new code section that I don't have memorized.

Or

Yeah. Right? You haven't seen it yet. So, I mean

But we just approved it.

But that's a relevant question because it means this is light industrial, but the conditional use would basically bring in all the food cart. Like, if we allowed one of these, then all the food cart pod code would then apply, not the general not the light industrial. Correct. Right? So parking standards of that section would apply, not light industrial standards.

Yeah. It's a stand alone chapter. So, basically, we're just asking, can light industrial can some light industrial sites use that chapter? Because right now, they're not eligible to.

In lieu of other requirements. Since we're I know we're not evaluating this application, but he presented it so we can conceptualize. So in the interest of conceptualizing, in your opinion, does this rendering reflect our current code? Like, would it meet our current so so that we can visualize appropriately?

That that is the intent. Yes. We we think it meets the code. Obviously, staff hasn't fully weighed in on that since it is just a picture. Yeah.

But You you made efforts to

Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. And we met with staff once or twice and showed them some earlier, you know, layouts and such and talked through some of the stuff. So they've been guiding us along the way.

To just add to that very briefly, what I believe I heard you say was this is a conceptual a a conceptualization of those food cart, that language at its theoretical maximum. So when a human looks at this, that is this should be a pretty reasonable approximation of the largest Right. Chart

or Yeah. At least our interpretation of

it.

Gotcha.

Yep. Absolutely. Yeah. And, you know, that was the property owner wanted to know before they go out to all this effort, like, would this actually work? Wouldn't wanna amend the code and then realize that they didn't have room on their side or something like that.

So quick question. So 16 total pods, so 32 spots at a minute parking spots as a minimum?

If I remember the code correctly, yes. But you can't see the, the rest of the site, but it's got more than that.

And is this subject to, like, our parking shared parking review? So if if Light Industrial could show shared parking, we could not have a whole sea of parking lot. Presuming that Light Industrial operates during work hours and community members going there for dinner or something would have shared parking. I'm just thinking both sides of it. So okay. I don't know if you want more or less parking, but Adequate. Adequate. That's that's the

Right.

Caveat there.

Yeah.

So I have I have some questions and then just some process questions. So at this point, I think it's appropriate as a commission to ask the applicant questions, and then we'll open the floor for anybody else that wants to testify. But before I close the hearing, I wanna kinda ask questions of staff. So does anybody have any questions for the applicant?

I have one question for the applicant. If we can go back to the map with the parcels. And so thanks again for the presentation. Great information. Looking at parcel d and comparing it to the table above, the asterisk the first asterisk, which excludes buildings, paved areas, and areas under high voltage, natural areas near Rock Creek.

I assume the 2.8 acres is set up to avoid a setback, or and and maybe staff can weigh in here on the setback requirements from Rock Creek because it it does look like the entirety of that Rock Creek parcel is illustrated as usable space. But for the 2.8 that's carved out, which is where the pod could be, I'm just trying to figure out if that blue is just overestimating the area or if it's just like, hey. This is just our general map that shows 500 feet, and I think that's all it is.

Yeah. The blue is just the 500 feet. The the dashed yellow with the the letters on it, those were the areas where we figured you could probably squeeze in a food cart pod. So that parcel on the it's got d, but that parcel actually extends all the way east across Rock Creek and goes to you know, all the way over, and then it goes down even off the page. It's a very large parcel. What do we have here? Mhmm. Yeah. So the blue part's 10 acres, but then there's another 10 or 15 to the south of that. So it's a big parcel.

But we were just trying to estimate what would sort of be the the usable area if someone wanted to do the food cart pod. So it's not super precise. Right? We're squinting at aerial maps, and we're Yeah. Clicking around, but it's somewhere around 2.8.

Thanks. I'll reserve the rest of questions for staff. Thanks.

Yeah. Why I'm just I'm just kinda curious. I'm just thinking about just the area kinda you picked. This is the area and you you outlined it some, but then I think of, like, okay. Well, why the specifics? Like, why 500 feet, not a thousand feet or less? Or you know? And why not more general or in light industrial, maybe up 99 or if you're talking about places just close to just close to major arterials? Like, why this why draw the lines here and say 500 feet's the one?

Sure. Reasonable question. I I did tell you it was somewhat arbitrary, but not entirely. So, it had to do with sort of balancing, providing opportunities where we thought it made sense along Twalton Sherwood Road, but not totally encumbering or not leading to too much land being used up for this. And so it was a bit of a mapping exercise, and we had some other scenarios and that we met with staff and chewed on a few ideas.

And, ultimately, this felt appropriate. A thousand feet maybe would be too big because then you could have more land devoted to this and, you know, three or 400 feet felt a little too small because then, like, traffic circulation getting in and out near intersections was more challenging. And it wouldn't include your client's whole property Yeah. Right. Yeah. Exactly. Mhmm.

Well and clearly, staff agrees that they wouldn't have recommended this.

Yeah. Okay.

And I think there's the only other light in am I I'm reading looking at the map right now. The only really, the only other light industrial is down on Sunset. Correct? You want me to do?

Here. Oh.

No. I thank you.

But

Yeah. And I honestly couldn't remember where all the zones were, but no one asked that question. I was just curious.

Yeah. I think

a there's a little bit off Highway 99 to the north roughly to

the north of it. I see that. Yep. So okay. Thank you. Thank you. Great. I was Look at that. I grabbed the wrong binder to have that

Yeah.

And my script. So thank you.

And when when we start talking about Highway 99, we get a little bit spooked by ODOT too, so this avoids having to, think about access onto the highway or anything like that.

Okay. I don't have questions for staff, I mean, for applicant. I have questions of staff and process questions. And if anybody does anybody commissioner Kai, do you have any questions for the applicant before we call for proponents and opponents?

Not not at this time.

Alright. Thank you. Oh, our screens just went dark. Thank you very much. Keeping that picture up was super helpful. Thank you. Good visual. Alright. So I'll ask. I do not have any other blue cards, so I'll just call.

Does anyone wish to speak in favor of the application? And then I'll call if anybody which wishes to speak in opposition of the application and then ask if anybody would like to provide neutral testimony. The next is having staff respond to any questions. There were no questions from anybody else testifying. And I don't wanna close the public hearing because I have questions of staff that may lead to either getting more information or or some other actions.

So, my first question that comes up is 500 feet from Twalton Sherwood Road. I'm just thinking about roads facing standards from an arterial. If we are sighting them within 500 feet, we've just put in Twalton Sherwood Road so that we have better traffic flow. So I'm going to presume that all access is going to be from the next smaller street, which will be whatever that tiny little word says, Century Drive. So what's the spacing standards to a regular street since I would presume a food card pot is going to have, hopefully, lots of traffic in and out.

What would be considered street spacing standards there? I I Can

I add to that? I mean, this parcel's had an application before, if I remember, and there were street requirements for turn lanes and things like that that ended up there. I'm just so just piggybacking on her comment that.

Yeah. So, staff would have to get that information for you. I do not recall the spacing standards. It's it's more tied to the engineering side of things. I will say a similar site. You're you're right on the money that it would probably be off of a side street and not directly on to Walton Sherwood Road. Most recent case study example we can kind of look at is, there was a restaurant here, recently approved, Mazatlan, and they took access right there at the very edge of the parcel. That was the minimum. So, essentially, they had to put they couldn't put the driveway towards, and they had to push it basically there. So that would be give a rough indication of of what those standards would look like.

25 feet or so. Okay. And that begs the question because you got one restaurant versus 16 type restaurants. I I I'm just the other two questions I have are kinda curveball y. So and I'm putting them out there to see if there's any other concerns or questions or support.

The first is when we've done applicant initiated code amendments versus, you know, counsel directed. The only I've only been experienced one other one, and we put a sunset clause on it that allowed, like, a six month trial to see how it worked and then put a note on the if the code were to stay in place, council would take a second action to make it a permanent, or it would sunset after six months or some period of time so that if it worked, great, but it wouldn't provide a proliferation of things without having to go through a whole new code amendment. So that was my first consideration to say, is that a good idea or a bad idea to have a sunset clause on the code so that it would expire and be removed? And then staff doesn't have to answer right now. I'm just saying, you know, it's because it goes to the second part, which is I don't want to see there's five opportunities, six opportunities.

And if we had three food cart pod food cart pods onto Walton Sherwood Road because that became a food cart row. I don't I don't know how I'd feel about that. And I know that, you know, distance from other dispensaries was in our code. That's probably state law too, but is a distance from another food cart pod a good idea or a bad idea? And I'm just throwing them out as I don't know. You know, I get concerned if I see two across from each other. Is it going to to be a lot of weird cross traffic? So

One thing the applicant stated that maybe I will ask staff a way to get more information out of that is there's a kind of a laundry list of things he said about us being able to kinda as as part of conditional use, being able to just deny applications based on various criteria through conditional use. It doesn't fit or some something I don't mean to put too many words in your mouth. I just don't remember exactly. But with conditional use, it gives us the ability to really review each case by case, and it it's not necessarily, just a just a shoe in, I guess, so to speak. Is that I guess the question could be was what the applicant stated true about that, and what is your how does that work with conditional use?

With denying a conditional use permit.

And can I can I add ten seconds onto that? It seems like the question would be with regard to how many food cart pots there can be in a given polygon. Does is there any language in the current food cart code that addresses that?

It it's probably gonna be capitalism driven. You know? Yeah. Gonna be market driven. Market driven. Thank you for the word. You know, it's probably gonna be market driven more than anything, but I I don't know. I'm nervous.

Yeah. Like, oh, go ahead. No.

No. There's a lot to deliver that.

Let's let's let's cover all those before we get more questions. Yeah.

Yeah. So, just kind of just breaking this apart a little bit. There was the first mention regarding kind of, like, the sunset clause. So, from my understanding of the time that that was previously used, that could likely be incorporated again into the language if if the commission felt that that was appropriate to recommend to counsel. Same with the distance requirement, but I think you guys kinda hit it on the head with, with with a couple things, market driven.

Right? So two food cart pods together potentially might not make, kind of a great market mixture. But also under the CUP process, there's specific criteria that talks about sub c subsection three, granting of the proposal will provide for a facility or use that meets the overall needs of the community and achieves the goals of the comprehensive plan. So if that need is already met in that aspect, right, with the establishment of a food cart pod, then if somebody hypothetically came in to put it right next to the site, they would have to essentially display that there's a community need for that additional food cart pod. Because it gets processed as a type four and a type three consolidated application, it comes to the planning commission, and the planning commission, can make that determination if that criteria is satisfied.

Does that answer the sorry. I kind of spitballed that really quickly.

Yeah. It it basically answers the question, but the the actual effectiveness of denying an application because there's two cart food cart pods side by side would be onerous, I think.

That opened the city to litigation?

No. No. No?

No. I think, just to be direct with you guys, I wouldn't recommend a sunset clause. You you can absolutely do it. It's it's in your purview. You can do it.

And we've done it on other in other cases. Mainly, we do it on a on in in very specific situations. The Great Recession, for example, we were kinda given a lot of allowances, if you will, to kinda help development move forward or or grant extensions, things like that, and then we would sunset it, for example. Or if you guys don't like a state a state law and there's a chance that it's gonna get repealed, we might say, and upon this, you know, action by the state, then this gets repealed. So it's kind of used in very specific situations.

It's a fairly uncommon approach if, generally, you agree with the legislative update. So I think the question would be, do you do you agree with this, proposal or not? I think, and staff is happy to weigh in a little bit more explicitly if you'd like on our thoughts from a from a policy standpoint. At the end of the day, you're you're giving a recommendation to city council who's gonna decide on this. But it's it's uncommon planning practice to put sunset clauses in in ordinances or code like this.

The question about conditional uses, I think Hugo's right. I don't have a lot of concern about about what's proposed here. I think the I think the market comment is is right. Basically, the way I see this, you you have an applicant, for a zone change right now. They are not they have not submitted for a conditional use permit or site plan review for a food cart pod.

It seems likely that they will, but that application is not in yet. So in theory, any one of these property owners if if this gets passed by city council, anyone any one of these property owners could come forward. And I certainly wouldn't be in a position just to be open to the applicant as well to deny that because I think theirs is is coming forward. So, you know, part of what we do is provide the opportunity through zoning and and let applicants come if they'd like. It seems like because we don't see a lot of we haven't had pre ops or anything else.

It seems like this would likely be the first applicant. It'd be up to you it'd be up to you to determine whether or not to approve that. If that got approved and developed, any new applicant could come forward on any of these properties. And, frankly, you could approve that as well if you wanted to, or it would be up to you actually when you go to city council. I have a a hunch that there might be some pause, especially in this specific area, about another food cart pod based on the size of this.

But that to me is the market. Right? You get one shop here, and then, I mean, it's it's no I wouldn't see it any differently than any other use. Right? Grocery store, gas station, whatever it is. You're allowing it based on the zone. Someone gets in, it's up to the market then to decide based on, you know, if if it if another one should go. I wouldn't see this any different. Like, it's a little unique because it's a it's a specific text amendment request in front of you right now, so all the attention is on this use. But it's the same thing for all the other uses, and it's just whether or not the code should allow it.

And, I mean, just to finish that thought, like, if you thought it wasn't a good idea for some reason because they were right next to each other, There was too much demand. Let's say we get another one not in this area, but two more in the next five years and we get another one. The code would allow you to deny it without any issues. Basically, a conditional use permit is conditional use permit. It's pretty open based on the comprehensive plan.

You guys can look at the comprehensive plan and say, hey. It doesn't meet the needs of the community for many different reasons, and there wouldn't be any there wouldn't be any issues with that. I think when when when the code says conditional use permit, most seasoned, you know, developers, applicants know what that means is that is that there needs to be a a clear path forward under by the policymakers or the policy board. So happy to answer questions on that. And then just I think the only other thing we didn't answer was on the access.

So the access to a really, what we're looking at, if I'm understanding your question, Jean, is the roads off of Twalight And Sherwood Road because we're not it's unlikely that new access is gonna be granted to Twalight And Sherwood Road for any of the properties shown there. I mean, they already have it, or there's gonna be another street. So in this case, Century Drive is a collector, and the collector spacing is a 100 100 feet from the intersection. So as long as they were a 100 feet from the intersection, that would be permitted access. The other streets are Langer Farms Parkway.

That's an arterial, but it already has access. And then Arrow Street, existing street, that one's a local. And so it'd just be that 13 Tax Lot 300 on Olds Place, if you can see that one. And that that would be essentially as far away from the intersection as you can get, but that's a local street. And so they would just get access from from the most feasible location on that site.

But does the infrastructure need change with this use, I think, as part of it, or is that something that gets considered with each application, essentially? Like, Like, is the street wide enough, or is it gonna accommodate the amount of traffic, that kind of thing?

Yeah. The so this could be kinda two step process. Right now, you're in a zone in a text amendment process, and so that's looking really big picture at basically, you're adding a use to all of these properties and allowed use to these properties. And so that's the the applicant mentioned no significant impact, if you remember that comment. Basically, they had a traffic traffic engineer look at this.

ODOT has reviewed it. City Sherwood has has reviewed it. Basically, we're looking for if we allow this use, let's say no retail was ever allowed in these zones, and now we're allowing retail, and we have a major concern that now as we allow retail, the traffic, in theory, could go way up because of that. That's kinda what we would be looking at at this stage. But because this is a a food cart pod that already conforms to the zone, basically, if you caught the 20,000 maximum, that's, like, that's kinda what they're already allowed.

So there are already a lot of 20,000 square foot retail building in this zone. And I I think the theory was I didn't read the traffic analysis in detail, but in theory, it's 20,000 square feet of food cart pod is no different than 20,000 square feet of retail. Therefore, there's no significant impact. But to answer your question, so big picture, no impact with this particular text amendment. And then there would be a traffic study for each of the individual, food cart pods as they came in if the engineering department had a concern. And there would be mitigation if if there is a traffic concern.

Yeah.

And just to add to that, ensuring that all public facilities and services can be satisfied with the proposed use, that's under the criterion listed under the CUP approval criteria, and it includes transportation facilities.

I have another question too when when if you wanna go first, Joe. No.

Okay. If I can get my Yep.

So this is I'm definitely working hard to not beat a dead horse here because I think you've given very good information on on all the questions we've asked. So the I'm kind of inverting a little bit. The the one thing that I can imagine happening in the future is a landowner outside of or more than 500 feet from 12th And Sherwood saying, why didn't you include me? So my logical brain says, well, if that happens in the future, any landowner can come and say, I want another text I want another amendment to widen it. Is that problematic in anyone's eyes?

I mean, again, to me, the the key term that I was looking for tonight because I couldn't find was arbitrary. It is art an arbitrary amount. It just seems to make good general sense. So it does anybody have a problem with it was too restrictive, or do we not worry about that because that can

be addressed in the future?

That's a good question. We, the applicant did a neighborhood meeting for this, and we actually they they and we, sent notice within a thousand feet of the outer boundary of that blue area, actually. So it's would really be, like, 1,500 feet from Twalton Sherwood Road. And those property owners, applicants would have the opportunity to show up here, and provide testimony if they felt their properties should be included. And then, let's say you'd let's say this gets adopted, absolutely.

Like, a city of Sherwood is a jurisdiction where anybody can propose a a text amendment and, have have it be considered. So, you know, it's a fair playing game as this applicant to make their case in front of planning commission and city council.

So I like everything that I've heard tonight. I'm just trying to figure out, just to put it on the record, that what we're saying here is that there is no first and right. You know, first and nine, first and right. That's not a thing. It's gonna be market driven.

We get that One concern, which is, again, based on the market, what would be preventing a, a landlord or a property owner here within the 500 feet that is basically has a lot of lessees, and they say, you know what? Your leases are are now gonna be void because I wanna convert this existing facility or this existing parcel within 500 feet into a pod. And, you know, if we're losing out on on the other employers and whatnot and businesses because they wanna convert something within this area.

Like, buildings? Yeah. Hugo jump in after it. Like, they would need they would still if they were doing a food cart pod, right, and food carts are very specifically defined. It's it's mobile, all that sort of thing. So if they were doing a food cart pod, they would need approval from the city of Sherwood. So if they wanted to demo their building, for example, they would it would be smart for them before they, you know, terminate the leases and went in that direction to come Chad to a pre application

Oh, yeah. For sure.

City. So

It's a market driven then, basically.

The yeah. The they would need approval. And I don't see like, you know, there's existing commercial around there, the the Langer basically, the Langer Farms development is what I call it. Those are such new buildings. I don't see it. I I would see I would see it potentially on the vacant site there on the corner. A Voldt's Place would probably be the only other viable place I would see it, and they would have to really show that they could, you know, hit all the hit all the marks of the code. Yes. Makes sense. Yeah. Excellent.

The only thing I would also like to add to that is that, a lot of those retail spaces that that would that are existing, right, they have a certain amount of square footage that would probably exceed a a food cart pod. Right? And so they essentially kind of have those tenants that need that specific square footage. Right? And they supply that opportunity. So I I you know, everything's market driven. Right? But they they most likely have kind of tailored their development to meet those needs of those particular clients intentionally. And then, additionally, everything would have to get approval. Right?

So you guys would review it, and and it would come through planning commission. So there's really no guarantee to for anything if if if in that case that transpired to be anything.

Regarding the number of the users expected, this is just a comment. I I think, my gosh. I I didn't write down the page number, but I'm pretty sure there was something the applicant commented on somewhere in their application about the market for these and how many we could expect. Like, they're probably not gonna get built on every one of these. There's just the market can't bear with think was, like, two or three or something is what they do you guys remember since the applicant kept talking for?

This was Oh, we haven't closed the hearing, so we can break it up and ask a question.

That would seem like a concern of yours. I just read that.

But

Yeah. So I I guess the question would be I get so it goes back to, conditionally, we already allow restaurants in this area without drive through. And so what we're saying is that we are going to allow restaurants, little tiny ones with two parking spots on it. And I guess I was always I'm surprised that there weren't other comments from our agency partners about protection of light industrial land, but we're limiting the space that we're using to the 20,000 square feet. I don't know.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I was Very anxious about about food cart pods food cart pods in light industrial. And I'm just looking to the other commission members. What is your

general Just opinion?

Yeah. General. Because it's legislative? Legislative.

My experience with the

food part

food part pods.

I know I'm struggling now. But So I've been mumbling over it.

Everyone been in the Trap Hill. I've been to the Hillsborough. I've been to Beaverton ones. I've the old school downtown one that was on Washington. You I it's if one pops up here, yeah, I don't think you're gonna see people clamoring the building anymore. I mean, they sort of take down their territory. It's very much a first comer advantage. Mhmm. So I think the and the one thing I do notice is there's the lot across from on the Northeast corner of Falton Sherwood and Lanier Farms that split in half at a diagonal, that's that's zoned retail. So that would if someone could do a food cart there

Mhmm.

If they want to. But I think it's an absolute first mover advantage if someone wants to do that. And my only concern is it being sort of, you know, property owner driven and the the arbitrary of the 500, which we've already we've already discussed. And so, you know, it's I don't have too many worries about this. I would love to see food carts here in Sherwood. Definitely, I'm a proponent of it. And but I I don't think you'll see multiple ones popping up.

Yeah. I agree. Ask where that analysis was in the packet. I cannot find it of the demand.

I think it was two is what

Yeah. Do know you where it is?

Was it two? Is that what you said? Two. Yeah. Two. Okay.

Yeah. So I think I I wanna just add to that. I think what was said is is spot on. I think the market will hold based on everywhere I've been and to the food carts I've been. It's one large establishment. You have rotating, food carts that come in. That changes up the the the feel. You have more permanent ones than than others, and some make it, some don't. But at this location here, I think the first in time, first in right kind of approach where he's got the the card is way up out there. Got an advantage and has a good kind of look through on this.

And I think the text amendment, what we're talking about here is appropriate for for this area. And if anybody else brings it up again, it's another look. But, ultimately, I I don't the level of anxiety for this is while it's 2.8 acres here, and that's likely the one that's gonna be moved forward with the proposal, we still have another body the apple to review the conditions and all the other stuff that goes along with that site approval. Personally, I'm concerned about Rock Creek, and, you know, there are opportunities there that can be added too. Like, hey.

We can do some restoration of invasive species, set up some bird blinds, and you can have a whole thing set up. And you can have, you know, a little walkway along the back part there along Rock Creek and make it functional.

Yeah. And and my angst on the orientation was not having back doors along to Alton Sherwood Road or the entrance to our community. So I know that that is you know, that's my big deal is that we drive past Walton Sherwood Road. We come up to Century Drive. What we don't wanna see are a bunch of propane tanks and and everybody's back doors. Mhmm. So

think our code covered that pretty good with the fencing and screening and whatnot.

And and that's the other angst is we haven't seen what our code looks like in our city.

This one's never been built.

Right. Right. So so it's just so I I had come tonight with questions wondering if I would be able to get answers enough tonight or if we would continue it to the next meeting. So I would ask the commission, do you want to continue this this evening or make a, to have more questions answered and deliberation, or do you feel that you can make a recommendation one way or the other this evening?

Are we still is the testimony still open right now?

Yeah. It is. Because I haven't closed

the question then?

No. I I don't have yet.

Yeah. Were you asking Well,

if we're if we're prepared to make a decision tonight or if we're gonna walk the staff walk away with questions for staff Because if we're con if we're complete and we're just going to be deliberating, then I would ask the applicant to come up for a rebuttal and then close the public hearings officially. But if we're gonna keep it open because we're gonna send staff away with questions, I want to make a request for a date certain continuance. So

I have no more questions.

None for me.

I'm ready. I don't I don't think I have any more.

Ready to make a decision this evening one or four against.

We discuss after the closing. Right?

Yes. Yeah. We'll discuss afterwards. But the questions that would be compelling to staff to have to bring us back information or or the applicant or there's no more? Okay. So before I close the public hearing, I'll ask the applicant if he has any rebuttal from the testimony or from our deliberation before we because before we close the official public hearing, I want you you do have time left under thirty minutes, so you have a rebuttal opportunity.

It's a generous time clock. I don't have any rebuttals since, nobody spoke. What, Eric, he mentioned the thousand foot radius plus the 500 feet. So everyone within 1,500 feet of 12 and Sherwood Road did get noticed. When we had our neighborhood meeting, nobody showed up.

It's sad.

It was not too controversial, apparently. So, anyway, we hung out for a half hour and decided that was probably enough. So, anyway, happy to answer any more questions you have. I think this is a good robust discussion, and I like to see planning commissions, dig in. I used to work for another city, so I'm I don't know.

I'm kind of a nerd. I like watching planning commissions. So I I did wanna echo, some of the statements that staff has said. The sunset clause, I think, would be problematic for, purely the willingness of a property owner to invest in paying consultant like McKinsey to do design work or paying a contractor cons to construct something. That all takes time.

It takes certainty. And so if there is the possibility that it might go away, I think a lot of owners would just hesitate and said, I don't wanna make that commitment. And, certainly, there's nothing to stop the city from amending the code again, whether it's to add more properties or to say, you know what? We've decided maybe we don't wanna allow this. So there there there's always always ways to get through this.

But, hopefully, you'll get at least one application and and like it. And, you know, we also recognize that it's been a year and a half, maybe not quite that long, year and a quarter at least since the food cart pod rules were put in place, and staff still hasn't had any inquiries other than our clients. So, you know, being first to market is sometimes a good thing. With respect to, driveway spacing and stuff, yes, that's a a good consideration. We think most of these sites would utilize the side streets, which are collectors, arterials, local streets.

And there's two that we drew that front right on 12th And Sherwood Road. As Eric said, Washington County is unlikely to grant a new driveway application, but those are, potential that they could share with an existing driveway. Or, you know, in some cases, what we sketched out was a small portion of an existing larger property, so they would presumably just use their existing driveways. With respect to the number of pods, we made an assumption that two probably was about right given market conditions. And so where I mean, somewhat theoretical, but where that comes into play is, the transportation analysis that we did.

We assumed two. So we looked at, and by we, I actually mean the traffic engineer. It wasn't me, although I commented on it. So looked at all six of the lettered sites on there, figured out what would be the worst traffic that could come out of this on each of these six sites and then picture the two that were the highest traffic levels, added those up, and analyzed what effect would it have. Overall, my recollection is it would increase the PM peak hour traffic by 40 trips, and increase the daily traffic by 300 some trips or something.

And ODOT sort of has a rule of thumb, spelled out in the Oregon Highway Plan that if you are fewer than 400 additional trips, you're considered a small increase, and ODOT doesn't really worry about it. I don't think that, Greg and the engineering department was too worried either, and neither was Washington County. So, those all seemed positive. But, of course, if there were only one cart, food cart pod site, then the traffic levels would be lower than that. And it could be kind of a wash based on the restaurants that are allowed in the zone already.

And, again, any specific proposal that came in front of you would quite likely need a full transportation impact analysis for that site, for those driveway, for that number of food carts, etcetera. So it would be somewhat more descriptive than the sort of theoretical exercise that was done for the transportation planning role. I know I'm getting way ahead of myself, but Rock Creek enhancement, some of that will be happening. Yeah. Clean water services, you know, they've got their vegetated corridor that goes along the creek.

And, when applications come in for specific developments, they either require the applicant to enhance the plantings, or in some cases, there's an opportunity for the applicant to write them a check, and then CWS does the work. So, that sort of thing, is expected to happen sooner rather than later. I don't know about trails. I know that there's a new sewer line going in.

But that that's more application specific versus Yes.

Yeah. That's why I'm speaking somewhat in generalities. Yeah. So, anyway, there there are I guess my point is there's mechanisms to do that, and and that's that's a good thing.

Do you have a question? One more question for you. It has to do with the analysis you made of the of the benefits of this of this application, and this might actually Sacha, some of your concerns about the general use of light industrial becoming this.

Mhmm.

One of the bullet points in the benefits is making employment areas more desirable and marketable for current and prospective employees, helping employers attract and retain workers. That to me reads like having food carts around improves the viability and use of adjacent light industrial. It's more I write if reading into it, it sounds like that's it makes them more attractive to build better industrial buildings around here because you can get better employees because there's a food cart space.

It's nice

Am I interpreting that correctly?

Absolutely. It's nice to have a place to get lunch. Our office is in the Central East Side Of Portland, and there's not a whole lot of

So that's

options for getting your lunch. It'd be nice to have some more. So anyway, was kind of along that that line. And then I I think one of the other bullet points we put in there was sometimes there are sites that are sort of underutilized. Like, they're too small to fit in a a big light industrial user or manufacturer or anything like that, but you could probably squeeze in a food cart pod. So you you know, if you can put the land to good use, that's a a benefit rather than just having it robot clearance.

And so have you seen this effect in other developments in

your village? Yeah. No. I mean, I don't I don't track that,

I'll be honest.

I was I was actually thinking on the trip where you got light industrial within walking distance of a food cart pod instead of having to drive to another area of town.

But Yeah.

That's it for me.

Okay. Alright. Any other questions before we close the public hearing? Alright. Then we're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and move into deliberation. Thank you very much for entertaining all of our questions. Yes. Alright. Does staff have anything to add that specifically addresses a question waste? Just just I'm just reading the script, not that there's necessarily anything.

Does any member of the commission have any questions regarding clarification of the testimony? Any further questions? Alright. Then we'll go into deliberation, and I would entertain

I've my only questions. Yeah. From a deliberation standpoint is making sure we're not setting up ex civil exceptions to current zoning.

Uh-huh.

I wanna make sure we're doing this so, you know, we don't have one of these every two weeks saying, hey. We want to do this here. It's not zoned that way. So I wanna make sure that I trust staff that we've crafted this in a way that this isn't gonna be a continual issue, continuing issue with other landowners saying, oh, I want my exception to be zoned for this use instead of this use. So, yes, that's my only that's my only concern.

And I think the the reason it's easier for me to accommodate this now listening to all the testimony that was provided, was this food cart pod code is new. So, it's it's not like we're adding something that was already existing someplace else in the code. It's a brand new code section, and so now we're just trying to find out where it would fit appropriately. I guess I would think we wouldn't add other uses as a conditional use to light industrial that didn't fit you know, that that's already existing someplace else, I would hope.

Mhmm.

And then I I I wanna do two things. One is ask commissioner Kai if he had any questions because I I know he's remote, and I can't see if he's raising his hand or not. So

No, Gene. I'm I'm good at this time. Thank you.

Alright. And then my other kind of weird because it's 500 feet is arbitrary, but items the lot c, it's lines drawn as if they could develop it, but it doesn't look like the road would allow it based on where their lot line is. And I just would say, you know, would 505 feet allow I mean That's

a GIS exercise. That might just be a that might just be a mapping thing at this point between Arrow Street and C.

Is that

what you're saying? Yes. If Arrow Street continues to linger? Yes.

Does anybody else have any it seems like we're telling someone they could do it, but then we're telling them you don't have a road to connect to. You're outside the your access point is outside of it. Does that matter? Or when it comes if it if that second application came in on c, staff would be able to accommodate within the 500 feet. Right?

I I think if we're being safe, you we should give it, we should bring it up to that roadway. What I'll say is that that property is owned by PGE, so it's in I think they have plans for it. It's it's very unlikely that c would ever develop as a food cart pod, but, it's a good it's a good catch. I think we wouldn't wanna run into issues just in case there is a proposal there and, you know, you guys pay a lot of attention and have a problem, I guess, proving something because the language very clearly says entirely located within, you know, 500 feet. So, what we can do is I would to address that, what I'd recommend is have the motion recommend that we include all of site c in in the recommendation to city council, and we could do a really quick just analysis in GIS and then have city council adopt to make sure that c gets included.

Yeah. Thank you. I not to be yeah. Just it's cleaner, and we don't wanna make a mess for future staff or commission.

Yep. Wouldn't wouldn't that property would naturally be bordered, though, by the street? I mean, it yeah. Otherwise, there's a third tax lot there that's between the court curb and the north end of that lot.

Well, the 500 feet's arbitrary from from the edge of Sherwood.

So access to see would come from the extension of Arrow, which is currently in. If you guys are you have seen driven by there, that that street is now in. So, yeah, I mean, it should it should touch that northern area so that the the drive aisle and the parking stalls and landscaping are all within the 500 feet.

Okay. Long as it if we're gonna do it, we might as well do it right.

My only concern for deliberation purposes is pedestrian and bicycle traffic to these locations given to Alton Sherwood Road. So if there's anything that's north of to Alton Sherwood, they're gonna have to cross at Langer's then come down. Right? Because Century, there's no crossing there. You're basically crossing the whole thing.

So from a from a real perspective or in reality, this is gonna be driving only more or less on the North Side Of Twalden Sherwood for safety purposes, or they're gonna have to go, like I said, to Langer's and then down and around and and back over. But on the South Side, and E, it does look like that would be quite a bit more accessible to individuals, both riding along Century Boulevard. And I know we're gonna have some discussions. I don't recall whether there's a bike lane on Century Boulevard at that location, but that is one concern that I had about the areas to the north and and trying to access them.

You also have another crossing at, Gerda Lane where the DMV is. Mhmm. It's not shown in the snap,

but it's almost in between the two.

Yeah.

Yeah. That's a concern.

Is that site specific versus legislative?

I mean, at that point, it's the developer will decide whether it's viable for them or not Exactly. Based on that. Yeah. I mean, developers are naturally incented to develop the properties the highest and best use the property allows. You know? And I think

we already we have a good understanding of what's gonna be developed out of this, and then

Yeah.

That'll hit the market.

And then there's the offset to that the counter to that is, I mean, cities, you know, planning commissions, you know, and especially city councils and first represent the city and its interest, and there's a purpose for zoning. I think that this approaches approaches the the question with, well, there could be a higher and best use than what the current zoning allows, but we wanna recognize that that the zoning is there for a reason, and we think that this is a good kind of joining of the two purposes. We're gonna try to bring a little commercial into as on a conditional basis, light industrial in a way that that we think makes sense, helps the city,

and helps us as developers. Mhmm.

And I I think it strikes a a decent balance. I think it's especially since we have the conditional use considerations as they come before us.

Yeah. That's

in the interest of discussion, that's kinda where where I land. I I don't think I see a problem with this.

I I see food cart pods as not being an item that was in front of the people putting the code together ten years ago. That wasn't an item, but they entertained restaurants that didn't have drive throughs. And now we have this car food cart pod is not a drive through, but kind of has a blend between the two, but it seems to be a new a new it's a new product to the market. And to accommodate a new product to the market that allows what our community has been asking for, we're providing an opportunity that's reasonable and appropriate in the scope that we're allowing. If we open it up to all light industrial, I would see that being problematic because trip generation far away from Twalton Sherwood Road was my concern and or using some of our prime line light industrial larger lots and starting to carve it away.

If we're limiting it to the scope and to where the transportation makes the most sense, it's, it seems like a good partnership between adding a new product but not destroying what Light Industrial's purpose is.

And here's the other thing that strikes me is these are not giant buildings with tons of foundational infrastructure. Developer, you know, it's it's their risk to take. Right? This stuff if it fails, okay. Well, it's not as hard to tear it down and build something else. Right. If if needed. So if it but if it's a win, then it's a win for the city in that sense as well and the surrounding area.

And I think we did best we could with the food cart pod language when it came through the first time so that we're gonna get a good product. So that

was controls around. I like your comments about visibility and not looking at propane tanks. Yes. And and the applicant has heard that as well.

And that's that's what we were trying to do is make something that fits within our community that is desirable and that that is appealing to people to want to come to it. So I it it my hope is that it is a destination, that people do drive to it. They do see it, that it makes the person either that's working here or living here or just coming through have another eye eye a piece of eye candy on the corner that says, hey. Sherwood's got another cool feature to it. So see what comes

in for applications.

Alright. Does anybody want to, make a motion?

I can make a motion

Alright.

If you guys are ready for that. Ready?

Ready.

K. Alright. Let me get my right language here. Registered application motions. Here we go. Okay. I move the city excuse me. Start over. I move the Sherwood Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for l u twenty twenty five dash zero one eight p a. That is an amendment to the Sherwood zoning and community development code to allow food cart pods and light industrial zone district as a conditional use permit provided the use is entirely sited at 500 B Of 12 Sherwood Road.

Based on the applicant testimony, public testimony received and the analysis findings and conditions in the staff report.

With with one minor amendment to capture the entirety of site c?

Yes.

I think we I think that's good enough. We got it. It'll probably be 505, 510 feet, something like that.

Thing backwards, but it's all in there.

K. I'll second. Alright. It's been moved and seconded that we, forward a recommendation of approval to the city council on l u twenty twenty five zero one eight PA amendment to Sherwood zoning and development code. Any further discussion on the motion?

Alright. All in favor of the motion, say

aye. Aye. Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Alright. Thank you to the applicant for assisting and providing testimony this evening. Next is new business. Nothing on the agenda. Any surprises? Alright. Commissioner, comments. Does anybody have any comments, update on subcommittees, transportation plan, anything?

I got question for staff, relate sort sort sort of related to code changes, things like that. So, recently in the news, DHS has been buying a lot of empty warehouses and and using them for or setting them up for detention and correctional facilities with all the stuff that's going on. Is there anything in our code that either allows or disallows that use for all the new warehouses we built in the industrial area?

Yeah. It's a great question. Detention centers are not a very clearly not a permitted or conditionally permitted use in any of our zones. They'd have to be a very a very there would have to be an interpretation essentially that those would be allowed. And I I can't I can't see that being the case. So because they're not explicitly allowed, I I I can't see it. I can't see them coming. And just so just to be clear, we have not fielded any questions or comments or inquiries about any type of uses like that.

Okay. Thanks. Alright.

Any other commissioner comments or questions?

Just forward looking real quick. So we have sounds like we have a commission meeting on the tenth. Right? But that's the only thing on the agenda for March. Anything else on the horizon we should be looking forward to that you're aware of at this time?

No. Just the old town strategic action plan. Is there anything else scheduled from planning commission on your docket? I I can't think of anything other than build down plan. Oh.

Eric, are we looking at the tree code again or is that later in the Yeah.

Yeah. There's a number

of them.

We're gonna

do a work session with city council in April to scope the tree code, and then it'll come through planning commission for kind of review and refinement and and then go back to city council. So April to you, councilor Giles.

And then to us later. Okay.

Yep. And then back to planning commission.

Thank you. Alright. Excellent. Harry, no other questions, comments, or answers. I will adjourn the meeting. So adjourned. Thank you. Alright. Well, thank you. I was needy.